"Statements of mathematics or science ‘standards’ are more than pieces of paper," according to Dr. William H. Schmidt, discussing Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a Closer Look at US Mathematics and Science Education, a report he recently co-authored.

Mathematics and science standards recently have been a source of debate in many states. The recent contentious adoption of new, controversial mathematics standards in California is a clear example. This debate about standards comes in the middle of current interest in developing regional and national consensus about what each American child should be expected to learn in mathematics and science at each grade level.

If standards were simply bureaucratic or political documents, they might be only pieces of paper. Facing the Consequences suggests that shaping mathematics and science curricula is far from mere bureaucratic paper-shuffling, arguments about words, or simply another arena in which to air political differences.

"Such decisions do matter," Schmidt said. "Our report uses the TIMSS [the Third International Mathematics and Science Study] data to show that standards and the curricula behind them matter to what children learn and know."

For example, the report concludes that the TIMSS data make it clear that US students’ achievement at third, fourth, seventh and eighth grade varied for different areas of mathematics and science curricula. The US was average (or even above average for some grades) compared to the other TIMSS countries in the "basics of arithmetic" at all four grade levels. US mathematics textbooks and teachers spent a large part of their time on these "basics" -- although these topics were not "basic" or central in other TIMSS countries by the seventh and eighth grades.

In contrast, the results were more mixed in other areas. US third and fourth graders scored above the TIMSS average in several areas of geometry -- such as the basics of plane, two-dimensional geometry. However, US seventh and eighth graders scored near the bottom. Why were there such differences, differences also seen in parts of algebra, physical science and other topics? The report suggests that these achievement patterns likely reflect curriculum differences.

Which countries were among the highest achievers varied for different areas of science and mathematics. With the exception of fourth grade science, US students did not compare well with students in the other TIMSS countries. However, even countries such as Singapore or Japan that were at or near the top in many areas scored below the US in some areas. The mathematics and science curriculum area mattered to how well students from each country achieved compared to the others. These content areas appeared to matter because more emphasis was given to some areas by the country’s standards.

The report also concludes that the US practice of providing different content in science and, especially, mathematics to different kinds of students exaggerated differences in US students’ achievement. Such differences are often introduced because many believe that it allows all children to be challenged and to learn more. This practice, called "tracking," is common by eighth grade in US mathematics classrooms.

One result is that different eighth graders in the same school often take different mathematics courses -- regular or "general" mathematics, remedial mathematics, enriched mathematics, pre-algebra and algebra. This is true for over 75 percent of the schools US eighth grade mathematics students attend. Tracking before high school is not practiced in most TIMSS countries. The report shows that this practice was related to differences in what US children had a chance to learn and to what they ultimately did learn. Tracking created differences among mathematics classrooms so great that no child could overcome those differences through their own hard work and study. What they could learn was limited by the classes in which they were placed.

A third conclusion of Facing the Consequences is that, on average, US children learned little -- or at least differed very little in achievement -- between third and fourth grades and between seventh and eighth grades. This was true in both science and mathematics. The report is the first TIMSS report to examine these differences closely.

TIMSS is the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind. Over 40 countries participated by testing over a half million students altogether. Almost 40 mathematics and science areas were tested. US students’ gains never placed them in the top 25 percent of TIMSS countries in any area. In fact, the US was the only country that never placed among the top performing countries in achievement differences for any of the mathematics or science content areas for either third to fourth or seventh to eighth grade differences.

Why were the gains so consistently small in all areas tested? These achievement differences were consistent with mathematics and science curricula that tried to cover all areas but emphasized none. Schmidt said, "This is what we have been calling ‘mile wide, inch deep curricula."

What do all these conclusions -- small gains, achievement that differs by content area, differences between US fourth and eighth graders’ achievements, exaggerated differences among US students related to tracking -- have in common? They all relate to one of the report’s general conclusions, which states, "Curriculum does matter." Differences in what is planned for students to study, what their textbooks provide for them to study, and how their teachers respond to the goals set for them affect what and how much science and mathematics US students learn.

One clear implication of this conclusion is that debates about standards -- state, local, or national -- are not just about words or political agendas. Official standards specify what children are to study in school. They affect what children in states covered by those standards are likely to have a chance to learn. The decisions behind such standards must be carefully, thoughtfully made if US children are to participate in a technologically-oriented, globally competitive American economy and to become truly literate and informed American citizens. Standards do matter -- to Americans, to their children, and to all our futures.