Two decades after the U.S. was deemed "a nation at risk," academic standards for our primary and secondary schools are more important than ever - and their quality matters enormously.
In 1998, we at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation took it upon ourselves to find out whether those standards were any good. Early that year, we published State Math Standards, written by the distinguished mathematician Ralph Raimi and veteran math teacher Lawrence Braden. Two years later, with many states having augmented or revised their academic standards, we published The State of State Standards 2000, whose math review was again conducted by Messrs. Raimi and Braden. It appraised the math standards of 49 states, conferring upon them an average grade of "C."
Since that review, standards-based reform received a major boost from NCLB. Due mostly to that law, more than 40 states have replaced, substantially revised, or augmented their K-12 math standards since our 2000 review. NCLB also raised the stakes attached to those standards, with billions of dollars in federal aid now hinging on whether states conscientiously hold their schools and districts to account for student learning.
Mindful of this enormous burden on state standards, and aware that most of them had changed substantially, in 2004 we initiated fresh appraisals in mathematics and English, the two subjects at NCLB's heart. To lead the math review, we turned to Dr. David Klein, a professor of mathematics at California State University, Northridge, who has long experience in K-12 math issues. We encouraged him to recruit an expert panel of fellow mathematicians to collaborate in this ambitious venture, both to expose states' standards to more eyes, thus improving the reliability and consistency of the ratings, and to share the work burden.
When reviewers change, reviews will, too, if only because reviewing entails judgment, which is inevitably the result of one's values and priorities as well as expert knowledge and experience. In all respects but one, however, Klein and his colleagues strove to replicate the protocols and criteria developed by Raimi and Braden in the two earlier Fordham studies. Where they intentionally deviated from the 1998 and 2000 reviews - and did so with the encouragement and assent of Raimi and Braden - was in weighting the four major criteria against which state standards are evaluated.
Though the rationale for changing the emphasis was not to punish states, the shift in criteria contributed to an overall lowering of state grades. Indeed, 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" - and just six earn "honors" grades of A or B, three of each. Fifteen states receive Cs, 18 receive Ds, and 11 receive Fs. (The District of Columbia is included in this review but Iowa is not because it has no statewide academic standards.)
Tucked away in these bleak findings is a ray of hope. Three states - California, Indiana, and Massachusetts - have first-rate math standards, worthy of emulation. If they successfully align their other key policies (e.g., assessments, accountability, teacher preparation, textbooks, graduation requirements) with those fine standards, and if their schools and teachers succeed in instructing pupils in the skills and content specified in those standards, they can look forward to a top-notch K-12 math program and likely success in achieving the lofty goals of NCLB.
Yes, it's true. Central as standards are, getting them right is just the first element of a multi-part education reform strategy. Sound statewide academic standards are necessary but insufficient for the task at hand.
The new Fordham report appraises that necessary element. Besides applying the criteria and rendering judgments on the standards, Klein and his team identified nine widespread shortcomings. They also trace the source of much of this weakness to states' unfortunate embrace of the advice of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Klein also offers four recommendations for strengthening math standards. Most obviously, states should desist from the misguided things that got them in trouble in the first place (such as excessive emphasis on calculators and manipulatives, too little attention to fractions and basic arithmetic algorithms). They suggest that states not be afraid to follow the lead of the District of Columbia, whose new superintendent recently announced that he would simply jettison D.C.'s woeful standards and adopt the excellent schema already in use in Massachusetts. That some states already have fine standards proves that states can develop them if they try. But if, as I think, there's no meaningful difference between good math education in North Carolina and Oregon or between Vermont and Colorado, why shouldn't states avoid a lot of heavy lifting, swallow a wee bit of pride, and duplicate the standards of places that have already got it right?
Klein and his colleagues insist that states take arithmetic instruction seriously in the elementary grades and ensure that it is mastered before a student proceeds into high school. The recent results of two more international studies (PISA and TIMSS) make painfully clear that a vast swath of U.S. students still cannot perform even simple arithmetic calculations. This ignorance has disastrous implications for any effort to train American students in the higher-level math skills needed to succeed in today's jobs. No wonder we're now outsourcing many of those jobs to lands with greater math prowess - or importing foreign students to fill them on U.S. shores.
Klein makes one final recommendation that shouldn't need to be voiced but does: Make sure that future math standards are developed by people who know lots of math. One might suppose states would figure this out for themselves, but it seems that many turned over the writing of their math standards to people with a shaky grip of the discipline itself.
One hopes that state leaders will heed this advice. One hopes, especially, that many more states will fix their math standards before placing upon them the added weight of new high school reforms tightly joined to statewide academic standards, as President Bush is urging. Even now, one wonders whether the praiseworthy goals of NCLB can be attained if tests and yearly-progress gauges and accountability systems are aligned with today's woeful math standards - and whether the frailties that were exposed yet again by 2004's international studies can be rectified unless the standards that drive our K-12 instructional system become world-class.
This editorial is adapted from the foreword of The State of State Math Standards 2005, published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. The State of State English Standards 2005, is also available online.
