International Study Shows US Science Curriculum Fragmented

House Science Committee Vice Chairman Vern Ehlers (R-MI) continued his review of the nation’s science research and education programs with an October 8 hearing. Three experts in the field of science education were invited to discuss the lessons learned from TIMMS, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (see FYIs #159 , 1996 and #84 , 1997), which analyzed international achievement in math and science at several grade levels. In addition to testing students in over 25 countries, the TIMMS program also gathered information on textbooks, curricula, and classroom instruction (via videotape) in several participating countries.

The TIMMS results showed that US fourth-graders performed above the international average in math and were second only to South Korea in science. But by eighth grade, US students performed only slightly above the international average in science and below the average in math. This drop in achievement from fourth to eighth grade, said TIMMS National Research Coordinator William Schmidt, demonstrated that “US students don’t start out behind the rest of the world, but fall behind during the middle school years.”

All three witnesses attributed this failing of US math and science education to the lack of a national consensus on what should be taught at each grade. Because different areas of the country have different requirements, Schmidt explained, textbook publishers try to include all possible topics, resulting in books of 700-800 pages, compared to 200 pages or less in other countries. “We’ve achieved number one in the world in math and science in how big our textbooks are,” he declared. Schmidt said the content of the texts becomes the de facto curriculum, resulting, the witnesses agreed, in students being taught a fragmented, repetitive, and incoherent “laundry list of topics.” All three experts advocated the adoption of national (not federally-mandated) standards for each grade level. The idea of local school board control is a myth, Schmidt scoffed -- what students are taught is mainly determined by the textbooks the school board purchases.

James Heibert, who contributed to the videotaping portion of TIMMS, discussed the differences seen in classroom instruction of various countries. Although the study showed that teachers in Japan, for example, placed more emphasis on deductive reasoning, taught fewer topics, and more effectively demonstrated the connections between topics, Heibert cautioned against simply adopting another nation’s teaching strategy. What the US lacks, he said, is a mechanism to continually improve methods of teaching. Without data collection and research, he noted, it is “difficult to create informed policies; we can’t even evaluate the effects of current policies.” Schmidt also pointed out that a national consensus on what was to be taught at each grade would enable teaching colleges to better prepare teachers. Roger Bybee of the National Academy of Sciences added that adequate preparation and continuing professional development of teachers were crucial to improving classroom instruction. He, too, urged adoption of national standards and greater funding for education research (remarking that the US currently invests less than 0.1 percent of education funding on research.) Asked by one of the committee members what was preventing the adoption of such standards, Schmidt said it was political will, and commented that involving politics “is just hurting our children.”