Listen to the article
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
- Low and stagnant achievement and persistent racial and socioeconomic gaps in U.S. math performance have built momentum for curricular approaches similar to science of reading on the literacy front — but not all students are adequately provided an evidence-based, developmental progression toward improving their math proficiency, according to a report from Bellwether.
- Bellwether’s “Solving for X” report notes that the U.S. ranks lower than most peer countries on international assessments and finds consistent racial and socioeconomic gaps, and falling scores for lower performing students. The data also shows only 39% of 4th graders, 27% of 8th graders and 21% of high school seniors achieved proficiency on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
- While research shows students need explicit instruction to learn new or complicated skills — and learning math requires understanding both concepts and procedures — instructional methodology remains inconsistent across districts and states due to both pedagogical differences and inequitable access, the report says.
Dive Insight:
The U.S. has experienced a decline in math achievement particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, and even more so among those from underprivileged backgrounds, said Anson Jackson, a co-author of the report and senior partner at the Bellwether Institute.
He noted that debates around math instruction tend to involve what he believes is a false choice between rote memorization and a more conceptual understanding of big ideas.
“Research is telling us there should be a balanced approach,” he said.
Given how strongly research underscores the fact that math achievement leads to a better life for individuals and communities as a whole, school leaders need to ensure they do everything they can to help students succeed, Jackson said.
He suggested several key steps:
- Promoting a clear, unified vision for teaching mathematics, grounded in research into effective instruction based on a balance between conceptual understanding and procedural fluency.
- Ensuring that a district or school has the resources, curriculum and assessments aligned both to that vision and to state standards. “Not just on paper, but having deep brain science built into the curriculum,” he said.
- Investing deeply in year-round professional development opportunities, “not PD in the summertime that stops,” Jackson said. “Then you get feedback on what is going well and what adjustments need to be made.”
- Building a “culture of positive math identity” where students and teachers are willing to try new things and make mistakes. “Too many teachers are afraid of mathematics,” he said. “Elementary teachers say, ‘I’m not a math person,’ but they’re teaching mathematics. … No one says, ‘I’m not a good reader.’”
- Using strong data to measure implementation and outcomes — and then adjusting pathways based on that data. “Without strong data systems, it’s hard to measure if things are working or not working,” Jackson said. “And you often make adjustments based on a few anecdotes.”
- Scaffolding a cohesive alignment from grade to grade, providing a clear, logical progression of concepts and standards, which guards against gaps in learning.
Ashley Jochim, a senior fellow at the Center for Reinventing Public Education, said she believes strongly, based both on her research and her experience as a parent of a middle-school student, that procedural fluency needs to be taught first and foremost.
Jochim draws an analogy to the debate over literacy and argues that while balanced literacy has helped some children learn to read, “what virtually guarantees that children will learn to read is explicit instruction in phonics,” she said.
“The thing that best builds kids’ confidence in mathematics is skill-building,” Jochim said. “When we throw kids into the deep end and tell them to swim, that doesn’t help them. It reinforces the idea that, ‘I can’t do this.’”
Traditionalists don’t oppose inquiry-based instruction, they just think students need foundational skills first, Jochim said.
“The question of what practices improve outcomes is ultimately empirical,” she said. “We have to make sure we’re keeping our eyes on the ball and not confusing how a pedagogical practice feels or sounds with its actual results.”
Jochim appreciated that the Bellwether report elaborated on the cognitive science underlying different instructional practices. “This is the type of conversation we need to be having,” she said. “What are the instructional practices most likely to produce the outcomes we want?”
