The National Math Panel and beyond

topics: Math and Science Education

by Camilla Persson Benbow

"The delivery system is mathematics education…is broken and must be fixed.” This was the conclusion reached by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in its final report, Foundations for Success, released in March. I had the honor of serving as the panel’s vice chair.

More than two years, we held 11 public meetings where we received testimony from stakeholders; we conducted a national survey of algebra teachers; and we divided ourselves into several task groups that reviewed more than 16,000 published articles along the way to preparing our advice to the president and the U.S. Department of Education.

Of course, we did not come together merely to condemn U.S. mathematics education but to suggest the means by which it can be improved. This was our charge from the president, whose Executive Order also urged us to make use of the “best available scientific evidence.” Our final report contains 45 recommendations, covering content, learning processes, teacher preparation, instructional practices and materials, assessment, and future research directions.

Most critically, we sought to suggest a focused and coherent mathematics curriculum aligned across grades, schools, and districts and connected to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state assessments. The goal of this curriculum is to prepare students to study algebra by eighth grade. The panel urged that we “streamline” the mathematics curriculum in grades PreK-8, building it around a “well-defined set of the most critical topics.” We sought to delineate these in our Major Topics of School Algebra, the Critical Foundations of Algebra (proficiency with whole numbers, fractions, and particular aspects of measurement and geometry), and a set of Benchmarks for the Critical Foundations. The benchmarks should be used to guide curricula, instruction, textbook content, and state assessments in grades PreK-8.

The Importance of Effort

We also sought to dismantle one of the greatest impediments to mathematics success: the widespread belief that students either have mathematical talent or they do not. There is one critical ingredient for success in mathematics study and that is effort. We observed studies that have shown improved performance when children’s beliefs are changed from a focus on ability to a focus on effort. With African-American or Hispanic students, who start with a lower sense of efficacy, the gains can be even greater. Students, teachers and parents all need to understand that effort is crucial when it comes to mathematics achievement.

Teacher Preparation

With regard to teachers and teacher education, the panel encountered a dearth of high-quality research. We know, for example, that we can identify teachers who produce gains in student mathematics achievement, and that achievement is compounded when students are taught by a series of effective teachers. We cannot say with certainty, however, what it is these teachers do to generate achievement. We do know that teacher content knowledge is related to student achievement, but to date this knowledge has mostly been measured using proxies. More direct measurement of specific content knowledge, instructional skills, and student learning is required. A lack of rigorous research on teacher preparation also precluded our drawing conclusions about effective professional training. We need to learn so much more if we are to increase student achievement, and this need loomed large in our recommendations for future research funding.

Beyond the National Math Panel

Of course, the National Math Panel is not alone in its concern about the current state of mathematics education. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Science Board have separately reached similar conclusions. NCTM released its “curriculum focal points” in 2006, and these were influential in our recommendations. The NSB’s National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System (2007) called for “national STEM content guidelines that would outline the essential knowledge and skills needed at each grade level” and for “metrics to assess student performance that are aligned with national content guidelines.”

As we move forward, it will become increasingly important to build consensus about the content of math curricula and its alignment from grade to grade, district to district, and state to state. NAEP, if revised in accord with the panel’s recommendations, can provide the yardstick by which we measure our improvement. Should we fail to develop a set of national guidelines, we risk further degrading U.S. competitiveness and the future well-being of our nation’s children. My hope is that the National Math Panel has offered a direction that is sound, scientific, and straightforward.

Camilla P. Benbow is Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development. She served as vice chair of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and is a member of the National Science Board.

Principle messages of the National Math Panel

The mathematics curriculum in Grades PreK-8 should be streamlined and should emphasize a well-defined set of the most critical topics in the early grades.

Use should be made of what is clearly known from rigorous research about how children learn, especially by recognizing
a) the advantages for children in having a strong start;
b) the mutually reinforcing benefits of conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and automatic (i.e., quick and effortless) recall of facts
c) that effort, not just inherent talent, counts in mathematical achievement.

Our citizens and their educational leadership should recognize mathematically knowledgeable classroom teachers as having a central role in mathematics education and should encourage rigorously evaluated initiatives for attracting and appropriately preparing prospective teachers, and for evaluating and retaining effective teachers.

Instructional practice should be informed by high-quality research, when available, and by the best professional judgment and experience of accomplished classroom teachers. High-quality research does not support the contention that instruction should be either entirely "student centered" or "teacher directed."

NAEP and state assessments should be improved in quality and should carry increased emphasis on the most critical knowledge and skills leading to Algebra.

The nation must continue to build capacity for more rigorous research in education so that it can inform policy and practice more effectively.

Source: National Mathematics Advisory Panel, Foundations for Success (2008)