Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Richard Hake
Posts:
1,251
From:
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered:
12/4/04


[mathlearn] Why Minnesotans Excel at Math and Other Mysteries of the Nation's Report Card
Posted:
Dec 12, 2011 11:34 AM



Some subscribers to MathLearn might be interested in "Why Minnesotans Excel at Math and Other Mysteries of the Nation's Report Card" in a Scientific American Blog "Budding Scientist: by Anna Kuchment (2011)], online at <http://bit.ly/vLJbvt>. Kuchment wrote [my insert at ". . . .[[insert]]. . . .":
"Every two years, the Nation's Report Card test results come out and remind us how much better most American students should be doing in math (and reading, but I'm going to focus just on math here). . . .[[see NCES (2011)]. . . . The press release accompanying this year's results, announced just a few hours ago by the Department of Education, emphasizes that 'the nation's fourth and eight graders continued their steady upward trend in mathematics achievement in 2011.' Students in each grade scored one point higher than in 2009. Break out the champagne!"
Anna Kuchment includes an exchange between herself (AK) and William Schmidt (WS) <http://bit.ly/tMA3oL> of Michigan State. Here's an excerpt [My CAPS, my insert at ". . . .[[insert]]. . . . ..":
**************************************** AK: It jumped out at me this year that Massachusetts and Minnesota do strikingly well on these tests. Massachusetts students earned the highest overall scores, and more than half were at or above proficiency. In Minnesotta, 53 percent of fourth graders and 48 percent of 8th graders scored at or above proficiency. In 2007, both these states were measured against foreign countries in math and science, and they did well: Massachusetts's fourth graders scored behind only two jurisdictions in math (Hong Kong and Singapore) and behind only Singapore in science. Minnesota's scores were only slightly lower. What are these states doing right?
WS: I can speak most directly to the Minnesota story, but in both cases I really believe it's the curriculum. That's not the only factor, of course, but Minnesota worked hard at its state standards. They have very coherent, focused and rigorous standards. Those are things we worked with them on. Those came into place in 2003. Their teachers then changed what they were covering as a result. They began to teach to more rigorous and coherent standards. It got to be a major aspect of why they improved. Massachusetts, too.
K: How do Minnesota's and Massachusetts's standards compare with the Common Core Standards. . . . .[[ <http://www.corestandards.org/>]]. . . . . . that most states have now adopted and plan to implement by 2014?
WS: They are as demanding as Minnesota's and Massachusetts's, if not better and more so. The most crucial aspect of all right now is to make sure these new Common Core Standards are implemented. I mean we really have the chance to do this in these states. That's the good news in my mind. If we deal with this correctly, we can give our kids the best chance they've had in the last 50 or 100 years at a world class education in mathematics. ****************************************
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII) <rrhake@earthlink.net> Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0> Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M> Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh> Academia: <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
REFERENCES Kuchment, A. 2011. "Why Minnesotans Excel at Math, and Other Mysteries of the Nation's Report Card," Scientific American Blog "Budding Scientist: Everything you always wanted to know about raising scienceliterate kids," online at <http://bit.ly/vLJbvt>
NCES. 2011. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation's Report Card, "Findings in Brief: Reading and Mathematics 2011," online as a 11.2 MB pdf at <http://1.usa.gov/st4EBZ>.
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]



