NEPC Resources on Math Education
NEPC Review: Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners (Bellwether Education Partners, October 2020)
A study from Bellwether Education Partners establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). It presents lessons from research and practice on engaging families of DLLs in early mathematics learning. Unfortunately, the report omits major studies that are key to advancing our understanding of the capacity of young DLLs to engage in rigorous mathematical concepts when given opportunities to do so. Also, in its recommendations for teacher education/professional development, the report misses the opportunity to address what early childhood educators need to know about how young DLLs develop languages. Nonetheless, this report can inform policymakers and other stakeholders as they build asset-based programs that can support families and communities in engaging young DLLs in mathematics learning.
Reviews Worth Sharing: The Effectiveness of Secondary Math Teachers from Teach for America and the Teaching Fellows Programs (Institute of Education Sciences, September 2013)
This review offers a critique of a teacher effectiveness experiment conducted by investigators from the Mathematica Policy Group and published by the Institute of Education Sciences. The Mathematica experiment was designed to provide evidence about the effectiveness of teachers who were themselves high-achieving students and trained by either Teach for America (TFA) or the Teaching Fellows programs.
NEPC Review: SchoolGrades.org (Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September 2015)
The Manhattan Institute's SchoolGrades.org evaluates and assigns grades, using reading and math test scores, to U.S. schools and compares schools across their respective states and to other countries. They apparently use a four-step process: (1) average two state test scores; (2) “norm” these results to the NAEP exam; (3) make an adjustment to this national “normed” measure using free and reduced price lunch data to account for SES; and (4) “norm” these results to the international PISA exam. The claim is that this process allows a parent to compare a local school to schools in their state and to other countries like South Korea and Lithuania. But the unsubstantiated norming chain is too tenuous and the results are overly extrapolated to be of any useful value. The website does not explain how international scores are “normed” (equated) to the national standard they developed or how letter grades were determined, nor does it explain how free and reduced price lunch counts are used to make socioeconomic adjustments. While there is considerable equating research available, none is cited. Further, the reliance on aggregated test scores is far too narrow a base to serve as a useful evaluation of schools. Thus, the website’s approach to evaluating schools fails on technical grounds and, just as importantly, it fails to understand and consider the broader purposes of education in a democratic society.
NEPC Review: Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions 2015 (Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), March 2015)
Following up on a previous study, researchers sought to investigate whether the effect on reading and math scores of being in a charter school was different in urban areas compared with other areas and to explore what might contribute to such differences. Overall, the study finds a small positive effect of being in a charter school on both math and reading scores and finds that this effect is slightly stronger in urban environments. There are significant reasons to exercise caution, however. The study’s “virtual twin” technique is insufficiently documented, and it remains unclear and puzzling why the researchers use this approach rather than the more accepted approach of propensity score matching. Consequently, the study may not adequately control for the possibility that families selecting a charter school may be very different from those who do not. Other choices in the analysis and reporting, such as the apparent systematic exclusion of many lower-scoring students from the analyses, the estimation of growth, and the use of “days of learning” as a metric, are also insufficiently justified. Even setting aside such concerns over analytic methods, the actual effect sizes reported are very small, explaining well under a tenth of one percent of the variance in test scores. To call such an effect “substantial” strains credulity.
Review of Middle Class or Middle of the Pack
In Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What Can We Learn When Benchmarking U.S. Schools Against the World’s Best?, America Achieves draws attention to what the group describes as the relatively low achievement of U.S. middle class students on the mathematics and science portions of the 2009 Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) test and, based on this “wake up call to America’s middle class,” urges U.S. high schools to participate in a new OECD test so schools can compare their 15 year-old students’ performance with the average performance of 15 year-old students in other countries. The message American Achieves promotes is that such comparisons are valid and can help improve high school performance. The report does not provide evidence supporting this message; nor do PISA reports nor the broader literature on school reform. Overall, the report is not grounded in research but rather is an assertion that measurement, by itself, is an effective reform tool. The report makes no attempt to reveal how this particular test would be connected to specific curricula, strategies for teaching mathematics and science, or teacher professional development strategies. Thus, the report is of no utility to policymakers.
NEPC Review: U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving Students? (November 2010)
A report from Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance and the journal Education Next finds that only 6% of U.S. students in the high school graduating class of 2009 achieved at an advanced level in mathematics compared with 28% of Taiwanese students and more than 20% of students in Hong Kong, Korea, and Finland. Overall, the United States ranked behind most of its industrialized competitors. The report compares the mathematics performance of high achievers not only across countries but also across the 50 U.S. states and 10 urban districts. Most states and cities ranked closer to developing countries than to developed countries. However, the study has three noteworthy limitations: (a) internationally, students were sampled by age and not by grade, and countries varied greatly on the proportion of the student cohort included in the compared grades; in fact, only about 70% of the U.S. sample would have been in the graduating class of 2009, which makes the comparisons unreliable; (b) the misleading practice of reporting rankings of groups of high-achieving students hides the clustering of scores, inaccurately exaggerates small differences, and increases the possibility of error in measuring differences; and (c) the different tests used in the study measured different domains of mathematics proficiency, and the international measure was limited because of relatively few test items. The study’s deceptive comparison of high achievers on one test with high achievers on another says nothing useful about the class of 2009 and offers essentially no assistance to U.S. educators seeking to improve students’ performance in mathematics.
Suggested Citation: Kilpatrick, J. (2011). Review of “U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving Students?” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-us-math
Update: Paul Peterson, one of the report's authors, has posted a response to the review. The response can be found at: http://educationnext.org/no-matter-how-hard-you-try-you-cannot-deny-u-s…
Please also download and read Jeremy Kilpatrick's reply to that response, which is posted at the bottom of this page.
NEPC Review: A Complete Education (May 2010)
The research summary, A Complete Education, presents the Obama administration’s proposal for ensuring that all students have a comprehensive education. The key areas include: strengthening instruction in literacy and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); increasing access to instruction in a broader range of subject matter; and providing new opportunities for accelerated learning, particularly for low-income students in high-need schools. The report emphasizes literacy and STEM education, and its recommendations are based on several well-regarded and thoughtful reports from private foundations, professional associations, and national science groups. At the same time, however, the report’s literature review is overly selective and superficial, neglecting significant research. The administration’s research summary would have benefited from broader definitions of literacy directly relevant to its aims and from findings from innovative and successful instructional designs in literacy and STEM for low-income students of color. Other significant weaknesses in the report include: (a) the subordination of liberal arts education to literacy and STEM, even though the report asserts the importance of broad-based education; (b) the reliance on competitive grants without explaining either the research rationale or how the non-funded groups would be served; (c) the emphasis on state-level reforms without research support for this strategy; and (d) the use of test score results as the unquestioned measure of learning and achievement.
Suggested Citation: Warren, B. (2010). Review of "A Complete Education." Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/complete-education
NEPC Review: The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra (September 2008)
Review of The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra: The Brookings Institution report questions the efficacy of increasing the number of students who take algebra in eighth grade. Although this policy has resulted in more equitable access to advanced math study, the report argues that a subgroup of students enrolled lack the basic mathematical skills needed to succeed. The report further argues that the presence of lower achievers may weaken the instructional opportunities of highly proficient students. The report recommends that algebra placement be based on student readiness, not grade level. Although the report presents a sound case for better mathematical preparation for all students, the suggested remedy—-delaying algebra for most until “readiness” is achieved and allowing fewer students to take algebra in eighth grade—-is a flawed solution to address the problem of low achievement. A brief overview of the experience with eighth-grade algebra for all in the district where the reviewer works yields findings consistent with the report’s call for better math preparation but inconsistent with its call for fewer to take algebra in eighth grade.
Suggested Citation: Burris, Carol C. (2008). Review of “The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-misplaced-math-student