Data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) show US eighth graders performance in mathematics and science to be mediocre and disappointing. We are slightly above the international mean in science and below it in mathematics - but in both cases we are in the middle. Performance in mathematics is the most disappointing as our students significantly outperform the children in only 7 countries. These countries are not our major trading partners. They are Iran, Kuwait, Colombia, South Africa, Cyprus, Portugal and Lithuania.

In today's global economy these results suggest our eighth graders are at risk. As they become adults, they will compete not only with each other in the labor market they also will compete with the children of the rest of the world.

However, results from the fourth grade TIMSS assessment suggest that we do not begin behind the children of the rest of the world, but we fall behind them during the middle school years. At fourth grade we are above the international mean in both mathematics and science. In science, we come close to the goals set by the nations governors to be number 1 in mathematics and science by the year 2000. Our fourth graders are outperformed in science only by the Koreans. Yet in eighth grade our students are only mediocre.

The key policy implications that follow from these results center on understanding the relatively weak US performance at eighth grade compared to other countries and understanding the precipitous drop in performance from the fourth grade to the eighth grade.

Differences in achievement across nations appears to be related to the specific topics different countries choose to emphasize in their curriculum. Emphasizing different topics amounts to different visions of what is important in mathematics and science. The key to understanding US performance is related to our nation's lack of an intellectually coherent vision of what we want our children to know in mathematics and science. No such vision dominates practice in the United States. In this respect we differ from all of the top achieving countries and from most of the nations that participated in TIMSS.

Not having such a coherent vision at its core, the US educational system exhibits several distinctive features which are related to educational achievement. These features include:

• Curricula that are a mile wide and an inch deep - lacking any real focus
• State frameworks that are like long laundry lists lacking coherence across the topics
• A static view of what is basic that keeps repeating the same topics from grade to grade
• A middle school curriculum that is not intellectually challenging or world class in standard
• A system of tracking students in mathematics that gives a different curriculum to different groups of students
• Classroom instruction that mirrors the lack of focus and coherence in the curriculum

Curriculum Policy Issues 

• The US needs to develop focus in its curriculum. Covering many topics each year leads to a lack of depth in any one area. This lack of focus is seen in state frameworks, textbooks and in what teachers actually teach.
• US 8^th grade textbooks (700 pages and encyclopedic) stand in stark contrast with the 200 page paperbacks in other countries and play a major role in the unfocused nature of the curriculum. The decision to include all topics in the book so that it sells in all states might be good marketing but bad educational policy.
• State Frameworks need to reflect the coherence of mathematics and science and not just be long lists of topics.
• The US curriculum needs a dynamic view of what is basic at each grade level, one that changes over the grades and provides an intellectually challenging middle school curriculum that includes worldwide basics such as algebra, geometry, chemistry and physics.

• The lack of a focused coherent vision results in local, regional, and state differences in what children study. This results in differences in what children learn. A literate citizenry and a well prepared work force in a technologically oriented economy are state and national goals that are difficult to realize when schooling is thought to be only a local issue.
• Such differences are further exacerbated by the practice of tracking - a practice not tolerated in most other countries before the high school years. This practice in mathematics further exacerbates serious deficiencies in work force preparedness in today's economy.
• Our European and Asian trading partners use the middle school years to teach all students fundamental topics necessary in a technologically oriented economy (such as algebra, geometry, physics and chemistry). Our practice of tracking yields a sizeable proportion of our high school graduates who never study these areas. This result has profound implications for our work force preparedness and economic competitiveness.

• There is no one way to solve the problems of mathematics and science education. The issues are systemically interrelated and reform must be addressed as a total system.
• In that vein a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving mathematics and science teaching is the development of a focused, coherent vision of the curriculum. Attempts to improve teaching without addressing the curriculum, for example, will certainly fail.
• A key to addressing the problems of mathematics and science education in a systemic way is the development of a national consensus of what we should expect all students to learn at each grade level.
• In the absence of such a national consensus we cede control of the curriculum not to local entities, but to the writers of the textbooks and the item writers who develop standardized tests. Such individuals are not accountable to the American public.