Earlier this year, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) released the much-anticipated final report of initial findings from its detailed examination of worldwide achievement. For the United States, the numbers were sobering: American 12th graders fared poorly in mathematics and science compared to most of the 22 other nations who participated in the study. In mathematics, American students could outperform only two nations: Cyprus and South Africa. The findings rounded out results that TIMSS researchers have been releasing since November 1996, when scores for students in seventh and eighth grade were issued. In 1997 TIMSS reported assessment of fourth graders throughout the world. So what does TIMSS reveal about mathematics and science education in America? For William Schmidt, professor in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education and executive director of the U.S. national research center for TIMSS, there are two important elements that have profound implications for American education as well as public policy as it relates to competitiveness and other issues. The first is the precipitous decline in U.S. student performance between the fourth and eighth grades. TIMSS has found that American students do not start behind their counterparts throughout the world. Indeed, American fourth-graders score above the international average in math, and in science they are in the top tier, outperformed only by South Korea. However, by the time they reach the eighth grade, the study finds that American students are only average in science and have fallen below the average in mathematics. "That is possibly the most important policy implication of TIMSS--the decline that occurs over grades four to eight," Schmidt said. "I think that is important because this is, first of all, not about U.S. children and their abilities. They don't start out behind. They are not inherently dumb or incapable of achieving. In fact, we teach them pretty much what the rest of the world is being taught around fourth grade and our kids are competitive in that context. Then come the middle school years where we simply no longer teach them rigorous math and science as is taught in the rest of the world. "Those middle school years are in many ways intellectually much less rigorous and much less challenging than is the case for children throughout the world." So critical is this period to Schmidt that he likens K-12 education to a developing fetus and the middle school years to the second trimester. "If that fetus was deprived of nutrients during the second trimester, what would be the consequences?" he asks. "Intellectually, that appears to be what we are doing with our children. We start them out alright and then right in that middle third of their pre-university training, we drop the ball and stop challenging them intellectually." The reason driving the lack of performance, Schmidt said, is the curriculum. It is central to understanding the differences between nations, as well as American students' lackluster performance. And what is clear to Schmidt about U.S. math and science education is that the curriculum, especially in the middle school years, is unfocused, highly repetitive, and lacking any serious coherence and intellectual rigor. Achievement Results of 12th Graders from 21 Countries   Mathematics Advanced Math Physics Above average Netherlands Sweden Denmark Switzerland Iceland Norway France Russia Switzerland Denmark Cyprus Lithuania Norway Sweden Russia Denmark Close to average Italy Russia Lithuania Czech Republic United States Australia Greece Sweden Canada Slovenia Italy Slovenia Germany Australia Cyprus Latvia Greece Below average Cyprus South Africa Czech Republic Germany United States Austria Switzerland Canada France CzechRepublic Austria United States

Editor's Note: The College of Education at Michigan State University maintains a vigorous research agenda in mathematics and science education. The research is of national and international prominence and is focused on the needs of teachers and the K-12 classroom. In this issue of Educational Briefings, we profile three of our projects that in their own ways have shed new light on the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. When TIMSS researchers poured through the data of students in their last year of high school, they were particularly interested to see if American students could overcome the fallow middle school years. In the end, Schmidt was not surprised by the poor performance. "What else could we expect? They start out with a weak foundation and, frankly, U.S. students just don't take much math and science in high school." The other important aspect of the TIMSS findings is the realization that America's best students are not competitive worldwide. For Schmidt, this issue is as important as is the decline in the middle school years. Most Americans, he said, have tended to take comfort in the thought that our best and brightest can outdo those from other countries even when our aggregate performance may be mediocre or worse. "TIMSS," Schmidt said, "really shoots that myth.  "TIMSS found that students taking advanced courses in high school scored below the international average. American students taking advanced mathematics could only outperform one nation, Austria. In physics, the U.S. finished at the bottom, outperformed by all the other countries that participated in that portion of the study. "I think that is really an important policy point because we cannot assume everything is alright with our best students," he said. "The problem permeates the entire system." Again, Schmidt finds fault with the system. The problem is not the intellectual capabilities of American students, but the way we have structured the curriculum. It is failing everyone, from poor performing students to the most advanced, Schmidt said. "This is probably the most difficult for the American public to accept." Over the past two years, TIMSS (http://ustimss.msu.edu)has drawn widespread attention and prompted much discussion and debate. President Clinton, who was personally briefed on the results by Schmidt, has referenced the study in some of his speeches, and press coverage has been lengthy and ranged throughout the world. Schmidt has used that platform to outline his belief that in order to reform math and science education, its goals and objectives must be altered to reflect a more focused vision, a national standard. He is careful to point out that he is not calling for a national curriculum, or some federally mandated method of teaching mathematics and science. Furthermore, he is clear that national standards are not a magic bullet that will solve all of the problems afflicting math and science education in America. But he describes national standards as a necessary first step in order to yield a more coherent curriculum that that would in turn help make the rest of the system more focused. "I have spoken to the president, the House and the Senate, to a very large proportion of the country's governors, state legislators, state boards of education, business leaders and business round tables, and people in the educational establishment," Schmidt said. "I think, quite amazingly, there is little resistance in all of those circles to the notion that what we need to do is try to address this through some attempt to develop a national consensus, or national standards. And as long as calling for national standards is not tantamount to saying 'Make a federal bureaucracy to do this,' I think there is a lot openness to it. It's not going to be easy, but I see a lot of receptivity to these ideas and a real chance we might be able to make a difference." TOP

< back to policy & research briefings