William H. Schmidt, U.S. National Research Coordinator for TIMSS at Michigan State University, delivered a scathing attack on American middle and high school math and science curricula at the New York Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1998. Giving the Willard Jacobson Lecture on "Policy Implications from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)," Schmidt played much the same role in the Third International Study as the namesake of the lecture played in the Second International Study. It was from his involvement in this study and his analysis of its results that Schmidt based his arguments. Schmidt blasts American math and science education
He began by summarizing the TIMSS results: American third and fourth graders placed above average in both math and science -- only Korea placed higher in science. But seventh and eighth graders were only slightly above average in science and slightly below average in math; from third and fourth grade to seventh and eighth, the United States dropped more than any other country. American secondary graduates fared even worse: on general math and science literacy issues, they were higher than only Cyprus and South Africa; and American seniors in physics outperformed students in the most advanced science course in absolutely no other country.
Schmidt emphasized that the disastrous results were not limited to those taking the most advanced courses: only one third of all American students tested could correctly determine the amount of ribbon needed to wrap a package 8 cm x 3 cm x 12 cm if 25 cm were needed for a bow (the correct answer is 77 cm), while 45% of the students tested internationally could do so. On the other hand, the even worse performance of students in the most advanced course (12th grade physics) indicated that the poor American showing could not be attributed to inner city schools pulling down the average.
"The longer you go to school in America, the worse you do internationally," Schmidt observed. "But we don't start out behind," he cautioned, "we fall behind."
The standard response, he stated, is to find out what the top country does and replicate it. He termed it "naive" and "borderline stupid" that we could replicate the culture of Singapore (the top country). But what we need to do, he said, is to challenge our cultural assumptions about schooling. His own analysis of what other cultures do show that there are lots of other ways to educate children.
One of the analyses Schmidt did was to divide the performance of all the countries participating in the TIMSS into 20 categories of science and 20 categories of math. The inconsistency of American performance in these different categories made it clear to him that curriculum matters. "Science is not the same everywhere in the world," he said. American eighth graders did their best in earth science, poorest in physical science topics (which Schmidt felt presaged the poor performance of physics students at the 12th grade level). In math they did poorest in measurement and geometry.
Schmidt's analysis of frameworks and 1500 texts in other countries found American curricula very unfocused -- "a mile wide and an inch deep" -- trying to cover everything but covering nothing very much. The number of topics in American math texts far exceeds the 75th %tile mark worldwide, while the number of topics in Japanese math texts is far below the 25th %tile mark. The difference is even more staggering in science texts. While American students are carrying around heavy 700 page tomes, their counterparts in other countries are carrying around 200 page paperbacks.
Schmidt laid a large part of the blame to the "splintered vision" America has for science and math education -- a different vision from each school district. Feeding on this splintered vision are American textbook publishers, who put everything in their books so they can sell them everywhere. And teachers, under compulsion to cover everything, fail to impart to their students how all these topics are related.
Moreover, American science books beginning in the fifth grade contain not only everything but the same things every year. While the rest of the world builds up algebraic concepts in the four middle school years, the U.S. waits to plop students into ninth grade algebra after eight years of arithmetic. Ditto for science: while the rest of the world is building up physical science courses, the U.S. keeps on with repetitive general science. Schmidt called the American middle school curriculum a "wasteland in math and science."
For this he faulted the American tendency to try to teach too much, because it meant that nothing is learned well and has to be repeated the following year. If enough time were spent to teach something in depth, he said, it would be learned and wouldn't have to be repeated. This needs to be followed up by standards to which both students and teachers are held accountable: if the fourth grade curriculum isn't mastered in the fourth grade, it won't be retaught in the fifth grade.
This needs to be reinforced by truly national standards, Schmidt maintained, such as those that exist in other countries -- not standards that are just "voluntary" like those of the National Council for the Teaching of Mathematics (NCTM) or the National Science Education Standards (NSES). This was not, he added, to advocate a national curriculum dictated by the federal government. Rather, Schmidt had in mind a consensus of the states acting together (considering the NCTM standards and NSES as a good starting point, though they, too, he felt, still had too many topics), and a national board comprised of educators and other stakeholders in education, possibly not too different from the National Academy of Education suggested by Paul DeHart Hurd (see our Spring 1998 issue). In fact, Schmidt is buoyed from speaking with President Clinton and governors of forty states; and he reported that over twenty states are now working together to develop a set of consistent standards. To illustrate the value of such standards, Schmidt cited the case of Minnesota, whose standards mandate teaching earth science to all eighth graders by fully-certified teachers. Minnesota students placed first in the world in earth science; but, not having any math standards, they placed only average in math.
Schmidt was similarly critical of American high school science curricula, particularly their "layer cake" approach, in contrast to integrated science programs in other countries. He called this the "plop fizz" approach, in which students are plopped into a course and expected to fizz up and learn all there is to know about a topic.
Schmidt felt that the shallowness of American middle and high school curricula derived from a shortage of knowledgeable teachers, and he advocated professional development that would enhance teachers' content knowledge rather than generic teaching skills. Here he called upon research and industrial scientists to play a role -- but not to plug their favorite topics.
A final fault found by Schmidt was American tracking of students by content (as distinguished from ability). In every other country they teach the same thing to everybody. Each child has the fundamental right to get the same material.
The TIMSS-R will retest the fourth graders who participated in 1995 next year when they are eighth graders. Given the problems he found with the American middle school curricula in math and science, he expects that they will fare no better than the eighth graders tested as part of TIMSS. But he was optimistic, having hopes that adoption of some of his advice might allow the fourth graders tested in the Fourth International Math and Science Study to do better as eighth graders on the Fifth.
(Editor's Note: The minutes of the Physics Club of New York show that on 5 May 1905 "Mr. F. H. Gilley, Chairman of the Sylabus [sic] Committee of the N. E. A. spoke on . . . the value of preparing a sylabus [sic] in Physics that would be acceptable to the schools throughout the couintry." Indeed, Schmidt's ideas have a long history. Schmidt's textbook analyses are available in printed form: William H. Schmidt, Curtis C. McKnight, and Senta A. Raizen, A Splintered Vision: an Analysis of U.S. Mathematics and Science Curricula (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), 176 pp. hardback ISBN 0-7923-4440-5, $87; paperback ISBN 0-7923-4441-3, $49. The Executive Summary of A Splintered Vision notes that the textbook data were gathered in 1992-1993, "when the mathematics standards had only existed for three years and the science standards were not finalized." However, our Spring 1992 issue reports recent publication of three new middle level texts geared to curricular reforms: a series from Prentice-Hall geared to Project 2061 themes, a series from Glencoe developed by NSTA's Scope, Sequence, and Coordination, and a series from Holt, Rinehart, and Winston focused on an STS approach. See also Resource #6, this issue.)
Home Winter 99 Full Screen
The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION