Two recent nationwide studies have examined curriculum and teaching practices in K-12 English and math, and find that even the best states often come up short. The companion studies, “The State of State Math Standards” and “The State of State English Standards,” were both sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The new studies should give educators, parents, and policymakers an idea about whether and how well the federal No Child Left Behind law is pushing states in the direction of more effective practices and higher student achievement. An earlier Fordham Foundation report from 2000 provides the basis for comparison.
These new English and math studies were conducted by independent scholars in each field. They tried to identify what is different, as well as what is the same, about schools and teaching since the introduction of the No Child Left Behind law.
Each state in the study earns an overall grade based on criteria that mark improvement or stagnation in educational progress. Iowa, which has no statewide standards, did not participate in either study. Idaho had no year 2000 data for English. Rankings and grades, then, reflect information gathered from 49 states plus the District of Columbia.
For North Carolina, the reports are generally positive, but less encouraging when we consider that the national rankings of 12th in English and 13th in math are relative to many states with truly dismal reports. David Klein’s “Math Standards” summarizes state reports under the subhead “Glum Results.” According to Klein, who is a professor of mathematics at California State University, Northridge, “the essential finding of this study is that the overwhelming majority of states today have sorely inadequate math standards. Their average grade is a high D-” English was better, with a national average grade of C.
Even where there is significant progress, most states are nowhere near the standard of excellence that federal education officials hope to achieve. Only 10 percent of states earned A’s in English; six percent earned A’s from Fordham in math.
North Carolina earned a B in English teaching practices and curriculum, but earned only a C in math teaching and practice, according to Fordham.
The North Carolina B in English placed it on a Fordham Foundation “honor roll” of only 20 states that earned an A or a B in that subject. The C in math for North Carolina is well above the national average grade of D, but a “big decline” compared to 2000. North Carolina scores were higher than the national scores in both subjects.
Reformers now know that efforts to improve math and English have been far more successful in English than in math. “Overall, they do a far better job of addressing listening, reading, and writing skills and strategies than five years earlier,” the authors state.
The progress in English does not extend all the way through the K-12 years, however. High school curriculum and texts in English are seriously lacking in first-rate literary content, and students may never be exposed to examples of good literature, especially dramatic literature, in their high school years, the authors report. “More than half of states do not even acknowledge American literature in their standards…” they note. And only four have identified enough specific content to constitute a “good high-school literature curriculum.” The reason: NCLB has focused predominantly on grades three to eight until this point.
“Strong on skills, weak on content,” was the theme of The Fordham report on English. In addition, researchers complained of “unteachable standards,” such as this one from Connecticut: “discuss, analyze, and evaluate how characters deal with the diversity of human experience and conflict.”
“Unteachable standards let everyone off the hook, especially university faculty involved with teacher preparation, ” the authors conclude.
North Carolina suffered a “big decline” in its math grade, dropping from an A in 2000 and 1998 to a C in 2005. Duke University President Richard Broadhead, himself an English professor, lamented the effects of an inadequate K-12 preparation in math and science among American college students. In a recent News & Observer of Raleigh interview, Broadhead said, “American students don’t measure up in those fields to students in some Asian countries — largely because they aren’t interested.”
The new Fordham Foundation report suggests that students simply aren’t prepared to succeed in higher math and science. The biggest fault in mathematics teaching, said Klein and the research team, is far too little emphasis on learning fractions, paper-and-pencil calculations, functions, division, quadratics, and derivation of formulas.
By contrast, students use calculators too early, and rely far too much on patterns, “manipulatives,” estimation, and probability. The authors note, “the attention given to patterns in state standards verges on the obsessive.”
The antidote must start early. Students must memorize basic number facts early, spend more time with fractions, multistep problem solving, and mathematical reasoning before they attempt calculus.
Although the recommended antidotes do not include specific changes for math teachers, “State of State Math” suggests replacing the authors of low-quality math standards with mathematics professionals, “people who thoroughly understand the subject of mathematics.” These suggestions emphasize the importance of subject-area mastery for teachers.
Karen Palasek is assistant editor of Carolina Journal.