STATEMENT Contact

William Schmidt, College of Education

(517) 353-7755

Website: http://ustimss.msu.edu

or Tom Oswald, University Relations

(517) 355-2281

By William H. Schmidt

Michigan State University, Distinguished Professor

National Research Coordinator for Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

After the 1995 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), there have been vigorous debates about the middle school curriculum in the U.S. but no resulting widespread substantive change. Now the 1999 results are available and we find evidence of "no change, no gain".

The 1995 TIMSS report found U.S. eighth grade students were above the international average in science but below it in mathematics. Other data revealed that the middle school curriculum in both mathematics and science covered elementary topics such as arithmetic, descriptive biology and earth science to the exclusion of the more advanced topics covered internationally such as algebra, geometry, chemistry and physics.

The 1999 report (dubbed TIMSS-R, for repeat) reveals the same patterns. Considering only the 23 countries that were in both the 1995 TIMSS and 1999 TIMSS-R (meeting the sampling guidelines in both), the 1999 results indicate the U.S. to be below the international average in mathematics but not different from it in science. Even when estimating the missing country means from the 1995 study, these conclusions do not change. So in many ways we still are where we were in 1995.

In terms of the mathematics curriculum, the 1999 results show that 28 percent of U.S. students are in classrooms that mostly emphasize number (arithmetic). This is more than three times the international average for the 23 countries. Also, 83 per cent of U.S. eighth-grade students attended classes whose teachers reported that they taught more than five periods of fractions and other arithmetic topics, which is over one and one-half (1.5) times the international average.

For science a large percentage of U.S. students (28 per cent) attend classes that mostly emphasize earth science (descriptive features of the earth) which is more than twice the international average of the 23 countries participating in both studies. On the other hand, only five percent of U.S. students are in classes whose teachers report that physics or chemistry is the most emphasized topic in their grade eight science class. The average of the 23 countries is almost five times larger. This implies that internationally one-quarter of the students in a typical country attend a class in which chemistry or physics is the main subject matter for their eighth grade science class.

In 1995 some suggested the hope that the above average performance of U.S. fourth graders might foreshadow improvement as they progressed to eighth grade. The scenario followed the argument that these students had benefited from the reform that had taken place in the early grades and that this would follow them into the middle grades. The above data show the middle school curriculum has changed little. Perhaps related to this, the 1995 cohort of fourth grade students, now as eighth graders in 1999, have similarly fallen in the international rankings. Thus, they resemble the 1995 cohort of eighth graders more than the hoped-for new cohort of high-performing students. This confirms the point made relative to the 1995 results that our students don’t start out behind those of other countries but fall behind during the middle school years.

Sometimes in the past, national efforts to address the needed curricular changes have failed. However, new efforts to bring about substantive and widespread change at the national level in mathematics for the middle grades are under way by ACHIEVE – a non-profit organization of governors and CEO’s.

One final caution, the set of countries involved in 1999 TIMSS-R is different from those that participated in the original 1995 study. Some 10 new countries are involved but they are, for the most part, lower performing countries (seven out of 10 for both mathematics and science). This makes the interpretation of statements about the international mean perilous if such statements are based only on the 1999 results. Not only are there new countries involved but also 16 of the original TIMSS countries in 1995 did not participate in 1999. This is why we focus on the 23 countries who participated in both studies.

For further information contact William H. Schmidt at the U.S. TIMSS National Research Center at Michigan State University (517-353-7755), bschmidt@msu.edu or for more details including tables visit our web site at http://ustimss.msu.edu.