Five Hard Challenges
for Today’s Math
Leadership
NCTM
April 23, 2010
Uri Treisman
Executive Director
Charles A. Dana Center
1
Other Countries’ Average Scale Score Math
Performance on 8th Grade TIMSS
Compared with the U.S.
Number of Countries
60
50
9
40
30
14
20
7
10
17
5
6
11
37
25
Higher than the
U.S.
Same as the U.S.
Lower than the
U.S.
0
1999
2003
2007
Source: Data taken from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), accessed Dec. 16,
2008 at http://nces.ed.gov/timss/index.asp. Computations of categories by the Charles A. Dana Center.
2
3
4
1996 NAEP Grade 4 Math
by Race/Ethnicity, Nation
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
5
2007 NAEP Grade 4 Math
by Race/Ethnicity, Nation
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
6
NAEP Grade 4 Math
Low-Income Students, Nation
1996 compared to 2007
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
7
8
PISA 2006 Mathematics
U.S.A. Ranked 25th out of 30 OECD Countries
U.S.A.
Higher than U.S. average
Not measurably different from U.S. average
Source: NCES, PISA 2006 Results, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
Lower than U.S. average
U.S.A. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math
Achievement of Highest-Performing* Students
PISA 2003 Mathematics
U.S.A.
*Students at the 95th Percentile
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, http://www.oecd.org/
Average achievement in advanced
mathematics content areas for students
having taken advanced mathematics
Average Scale Score
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
AP
Ca
lc
ul
us
St
ud
e
Cy nts
pr
Ru
Fr us
ss
an
ia
n
G ce
Fe re
de ec
ra e
Au tio
st n
ra
lia
Sw
itz Ita
In
e ly
te
D rla
en nd
rn
at
m
io
a
na Ca rk
n
lA a
ve da
Li ra
th ge
ua
Sw ni
a
e
Sl de
ov n
e
G
U
ni erm nia
Cz te
ec d S any
h ta
Re te
pu s
b
Au lic
st
ria
0
Country
Calculus (15 Items)
Numbers and Equations (17 Items)
Source: How Well Do Advanced Placement Students Perform on the TIMSS Advanced Mathematics and Physics Tests, by
The International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, June 2001
Chart 4
Charles A. Dana Center
UT Austin
Fall Enrollments in Calculus I
versus
AP Calculus Exams (thousands)
300
250
200
4-year colleges
2-year colleges
AP exams (AB & BC)
150
100
50
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
0
CBMS and College Board data Fall Math Enrollments as % of
Total College Enrollment
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
Calculus and above
Precalculus level
Precollege
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1980
1985
1990
Year
Precollege
1980
5.9%
1985
6.0%
1990
7.1%
1995
7.2%
2000
6.4%
2005
6.7%
1995
2000
2005
Precalculus Calculus
level
& above
8.2%
6.8%
7.2%
7.2%
6.9%
6.5%
7.2%
5.4%
7.2%
5.3%
6.8%
4.9%
Total
21.0%
20.4%
20.6%
19.8%
18.9%
18.5%
CBMS and NCES data 8th Grade White
287
290
300
305
14
8th Grade Black
253
259
264
271
15
8th Grade Hispanic
256
264
267
270
277
16
8th Grade Eligible for National School Lunch Program
257
271
275
275
17
2007 NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment
Mathematics 4th Grade Average Scale Score
White
Atlanta
Austin
Houston
District of Columbia
Charlotte
San Diego
Boston
New York City
Nation
Los Angeles
Chicago
Cleveland
266
263
263
262
261
252
250
249
248
247
244
233
Black
Charlotte
New York City
Boston
Austin
Houston
Nation
San Diego
Atlanta
Los Angeles
Chicago
Cleveland
District of Columbia
230
227
226
226
225
222
222
217
216
213
210
209
Hispanic
Houston
Charlotte
Austin
Boston
New York City
Nation
San Diego
Atlanta
District of Columbia
Chicago
Los Angeles
Cleveland
234
234
233
230
230
227
223
223
220
219
217
215
18
2007 NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment
Mathematics 8th Grade Average Scale Score
White
District of Columbia
Austin
Charlotte
Boston
Houston
San Diego
Nation
Large Central City
New York City
Chicago
Los Angeles
Cleveland
Atlanta
Black
317
305
304
299
294
292
288
288
286
281
280
265
‡
Charlotte
Austin
Houston
New York City
Boston
Nation
San Diego
Large Central City
Chicago
Cleveland
Atlanta
District of Columbia
Los Angeles
Hispanic
264
262
257
257
256
254
253
250
245
244
242
241
239
Austin
Houston
Chicago
Charlotte
Boston
Nation
New York City
San Diego
Large Central City
District of Columbia
Cleveland
Los Angeles
Atlanta
267
265
263
262
261
261
259
258
258
252
251
245
‡
19
20
20
Community College Performance
Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 4) = -0.061(0.013)
Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 4) = -0.021(0.011)
0
0
.2
.2
.4
.4
.6
.6
.8
.8
1
Outcome: Fall-to-Fall Retention
1
Outcome: Completion of First College-Level Course
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50
-40
CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 4) = -0.009(0.008)
-50
0
0
.2
.2
.4
.4
.6
.6
.8
.8
1
1
Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 4) = -0.068(0.008)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff
20
30
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff
21
22
22