Early Math Curricula Study – Making it All Add Up

Educators are paying more attention to early math these days, in part spurred by NCLB math assessments beginning in grade 3. Researchers have been paying more attention to early math skills too, and the results of their work have shown us that young children (even preschoolers) can learn and use more math skills than we previously thought possible.

But a big question remains in many teachers’ minds: What is the best way to teach math to young children?

Last week, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) released the first of a three-part study that helps to answer these questions. IES evaluated four popular curricula in first-grade classrooms at 39 Title I schools across the country, examining test scores from more than 1,300 students. The report presents data on the impact of the curricula after one year and, importantly, highlights the role of teachers in implementing those curricula.

Each of the four curricula presents different methods of teaching math. Of the four, Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics (SFAW) places the greatest emphasis of the four curricula on explicit instruction, with teachers giving children concrete information about what they should learn and known. Investigations in Number, Data and Space sits nearer the other end of the spectrum, offering a student-centered approach that draws upon constructivist learning theory, encouraging children to develop an understanding of how numbers work by doing their own manipulations, instead of having to supply “correct answers.”

The biggest one-year achievement gains, however, came with the two curricula in the middle of the spectrum, Saxon Math and Math Expressions. The average student who spent a year learning by these curricula, which offer a blend of direct instruction and student-initiated learning, had a percentile rank that was 9 to 12 points higher than students who were using the other two curricula.

There are limits to how much this study can tell us about the individual curricula, since teachers use the material with varying intensity and have different levels of training in how to use it. (And these aren’t the only studies out there; check out recent meta-analyses of these curricula by the What Works Clearinghouse, which also rates Saxon to be more effective than Investigations and SFAW.)

This study does tell us, however, that there is another important ingredient in early math instruction: teachers. Students whose teachers had more experience (at least five years in the classroom) and had a master’s degree scored higher on tests than those with newer teachers and those with only a B.A. degree. One significant caveat to the results was that teachers who taught the lowest-performing curriculum, Investigations, had the least amount of time with a professional math teaching coach.

This is the second high-profile study in recent months to call attention to the central role teachers play in teaching young kids developmental math skills. Last March, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel recommended using “math specialists” in elementary schools for professional development and to help coordinate curricula across grades. An illuminating policy brief published last year by the Society for Research in Child Development described how some preschool and elementary school teachers are “afraid” of teaching math, in part because they are ill-trained to do so. For example, while 80 percent of PreK-Third teacher preparation programs at four-year colleges in New Jersey offer courses on how to teach reading, only 16 percent offer courses on teaching mathematics.

A growing number of schools are hiring math coaches or are giving their teachers more training in math instruction. Some pay for this themselves; others can use Title I dollars or a grant from the $179 million federal Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program. Policymakers should support these efforts and also encourage universities to boost math content in teacher preparation programs.

Three components add up to quality early math instruction: research, resources and teaching. All of them still need work, but we are getting there. The second report of this study is expected to include 71 more schools, as well as second-grade performance data from the first cohort presented here. As the research and teaching quality continue to improve, the sum may, in fact, be greater than its parts.