Boosting Math Achievement: A Letter to NSF

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and U.S. Department of Education (ED) are gathering input to shape a $60 million math R&D initiative. "This initiative will support researchers, practitioners, and institutions with greatest potential for transformational impact, and provide opportunities for state, local and institutional decision-makers to infuse proven practices into mathematics education."

The weak math achievement distribution in America is a complex phenomenon. Four of the root causes are culture, preparation, standards, and practices:

• A cultural bias against math. It's perfectly acceptable in America to say, "I just wasn't good at math."

• Weak preparation of math teachers. A small percentage of teachers have math degrees (in part because career options are more attractive outside education).

• States standards that are often low, broad, and incoherent. (The Common Core will go a long way to fixing that, as William Schmidt reported recently.)

• The limitations of batch processing kids by birthday through a print curriculum. Most schools rely on a string of individual practitioners doing their best rather than an instructional system.

Each of these are big hairy problems that $60 million won't come close to fixing. So, let's come at this a different way. What are the emerging opportunities in math instruction?

1.Competency tracking and achievement recognition systems that make it easier to manage competency-based environments. A system of Common Core micro-standards and some agreement about a portable student record would help.

2. Adaptive engines smart enough to take advantage of comprehensive learning profiles and to incorporate proprietary as well as open content.

3. More examples of high-performing blended learning environments that personalize learning, extend the day/year, and leverage teaching talent with technology.

4. Motivation sciences: evidence about which learning experiences produce persistence and performance for which kids. The potential to completely customize a learning pathway for every student requires a much deeper understanding of learning and the role persistence plays (as we've learned from casual games).

The first two opportunities will be most efficiently attacked by venture-backed enterprises. Grants for data standards will help.

Number 3, development of new blended schools and programs (see 10 Reasons Every District Should Open a Flex School) is most efficiently sponsored by grants to intermediaries like Educate Texas, KnowledgeWorks, New Visions and EdVisions.

The last one -- advances in motivation sciences -- involves a mixture of fundamental neuroscience research and dynamic trials of new tools. NSF is better suited to the first than the second.
My suggestion is that NSF/ED invests half the money in a series of math motivation research grants that study questions like:

• Is the ability to apply concepts improved by learning concepts in multiple ways/modalities?
• What learning modalities work best for which kids?
• What role does automaticity play in deeper learning?
• What leads to persistence and how important is that to achievement?
• What data elements best predict math success?

They should invest the other half with a partner like League of Innovative Schools that is well positioned to manage dynamic trials with multiple districts. This could be structured as a combination of prizes and dynamic research trials.

It's not much money, so they should focus and pick an opportunity and a couple of capable partners. They should avoid the political pressure to spread the money like peanut butter.

 

Follow Tom Vander Ark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tvanderark

Comments

[Erik Syring]

01:50 AM on 06/06/2012

Decades of experience in Eastern Europe and East Asia has proven that what students need is
1) theory in a careful sequence and
2) content which includes a heavy dose of math problems, not just math exercises as in the US and most of Western Europe - worked on with a live, expert teacher at hand (the process can be automated only to a limited degree).
Improving K-12 math ed doesn't require $60M, it requires people with deep knowledge of K-12 math ed in the countries with the strongest math culture.

[James B Hixson]

11:29 AM on 06/05/2012

I endorse mathematics and like to use it. However, it seems that the main reason the education world wants to get EVERY student performing Calculus equations, is to make us look good in a competitive environment, "The U.S. leads the World in Math". We need to stop competing with the rest of the World, and actually teach math that people in the U.S. needs to do their jobs and live a quality life. Most jobs do not need the Calculus level of math. Scientists, Engineers, and Medicine have need for Calculus. Most of the other careers do not. I took college math courses and I have never had any use for math beyond high school algebra and geometry. I also took business math which helps me with my business. So, unless your job requires the math levels of Calculus, I would encourage educators to be more practical when it comes to teaching math. If a student is going into the areas where Calculus level math is needed, then by all means give it to them. But, don't force students to take math they will never use in their daily lives or jobs. We shouldn't be competing with other countries to make the U.S. look good.

[Tom Vander Ark]

11:46 PM on 06/05/2012

Thanks for your comment James. College entrance exams require algebra not calculus. I think there is sound evidence for at least requiring evidence of algebraic thinking (multivariable problem solving). I appreciate the increased emphasis on Stats/Probability in the Common Core--good examples of everyday math--and expect to see alignment of college entrance exams to reflect this shift.

[Jeanne Bernish]

09:28 AM on 06/04/2012

I would add an opportunity for students who have mastered the curriculum to move ahead at their own pace in a totally student-driven blended learning approach rather than being held back as other students gain mastery.

[Tom Vander Ark]

11:49 PM on 06/05/2012

Thanks Jeanne, completely agree. See CompetencyWorks.org, a new site from iNACOL (the online learning assoc) sponsored by Nellie Mae Foundation

[J R M]

12:28 AM on 06/03/2012

The cultural bias is probably the biggest problem. It is not only a bias against math, but a bias against academic work of all kinds. There is also too much time-based lockstep thinking in classes, instead of a mastery-based approach.

[Tom Vander Ark]

11:51 PM on 06/05/2012

Agree, the anti-intellectual, just-want-my-kids-to-be-happy mentality is bad news for US. When I visit India & China, I see more uniform academic press and more extend family support bottom to top of the pyramid.

[LaToniya A Jones]

02:43 PM on 06/01/2012

Great tips/suggestions Tom. I just launched the "I Love My Kids WITH MATH" Campaign to create the necessary cultural shift you mentioned. Additionally, I agree that more research should be devoted to experiences that motivate/attract learners to think deeply and apply concepts fluently.

[foresure]

11:48 AM on 06/01/2012

Why only $60 million? Surely for $600 million you could generate much more useless research.

Or are they planning to ask for a few extentions?