Math's BIG problem

Raise bar of Grade 4 Numeracy Mastery from paltry 50%Use incentives to woo top teachers to inner-city, rural schoolsTamika Benjamin, Guest ColumnistGovernments worldwide, in recognition of the new mathematics- and science-driven age in which we all live and must compete, have taken critical steps to review their mathematics education programmes to ensure that their citizens are able to participate in, and contribute to, national growth and development.The decision of the previous minister of education, Andrew Holness, to make the Grade Four Numeracy Test a nationally administered test and publish the results is one which must be applauded, as it has played a significant role in putting mathematics education at the primary level back in focus in Jamaica. The level of attention the subject matter has received as a result of the publication of the 2011 Grade Four Numeracy Test results is, therefore, not surprising.The data show that while we have seen some improvement in the performance of our students, the average Jamaican primary-school student continues to struggle with critical but basic mathematics ideas.The Grade Four Numeracy Test is administered in the last term of each school year to students registered in private and public primary educational institutions across the island. According to the Ministry of Education (MOE), in 2011, 45,654 students sat the test with 49.2 per cent (22,469) attaining overall mastery - i.e., being able to master all three of the combined curriculum strands. These are:Number (number representation and operation)Geometry and measurementAlgebra and statisticsStudents deemed to have attained 'almost mastery' (29 per cent) would have mastered one or two of these strands, and students attaining 'non-mastery' (21.8 per cent) would have failed to master any of the strands. To attain mastery of any of the strands, students would need to attain at least 50 per cent of the available marks for items relevant to the strand.A closer look at the data presents several grounds for concern:78.9 per cent of private-school students were able to attain mastery, compared with only 45.2 per cent of public-school students.23.3 per cent of public-school students were classified as 'non- mastery', compared with only 4.6 per cent of private-school students.74 (nine per cent) of the 790 public schools had less than 20 per cent of their students attaining mastery, with 19 of these schools attaining 0 per cent mastery.Only 33 (four per cent) primary schools were able to attain levels of mastery exceeding 80 per cent of their grade-four cohort.poor most vulnerableA review of the data suggests that our inner-city and deep-rural schools are most vulnerable to significantly low levels of performance. Consider the data in Region 1, for example: 47 schools were placed in Tiers 1 or 2 (see Table 1). Of this number, 64 per cent (30) are located in inner-city communities and 23 per cent (11) are located in deep-rural communities. This trend has serious implications for our nation, on the social, educational and economic fronts.Having closely examined the data generated by the Ministry of Education (MOE), I believe that issues relating to the manner in which student performance is evaluated and reported require some consideration, interrogation and action. From a professional standpoint, it is my opinion that the 50 per cent mark established for mastery is a very low standard (a viewpoint shared by other mathematics educators, curriculum and assessment specialists who were consulted).However, having examined such instruments and systems in other educational jurisdictions, this approach is not particularly unique. It must be noted that in some of these instances, policy decisions were eventually taken to raise the bar as one of the measures implemented to improve student-attainment levels, as it was found that students deemed to have mastered at the stated levels were not able to compete in other jurisdictions.Raising the bar was one step taken to stem complacency and ensure that students were not only able to pass the test, but had indeed acquired the level of knowledge needed to successfully apply mathematical ideas to the solution of problems.In our context, the reality is that students whose mastery levels are between 50 and 65 per cent - maybe even as high as 70 per cent - will face challenges learning more complex concepts if the gaps in their learning are not identified and addressed at the earliest time. This raises valid concerns about classifying their performance as at the mastery level.If the MOE chooses to keep its cut score/pass mark at the current level, I would recommend that serious consideration be given to taking two critical steps to adjust the reporting format - particularly if the primary purpose for administering the test is to be satisfied - '... to provide a profile of individual students for targeted interventions ... .' (MOE, 2012)redefine mastery bandsThe first recommendation in this regard is that the mastery band be divided into smaller bands, qualifying the level of mastery attained and outlining the level of additional support or remediation that the student will require so that he/she is able to progress to the next educational level successfully.A proposal for consideration is outlined in Table 2. Here, the actual level of mastery is outlined, and the actions of the school are proposed. In addition to making these adjustments, it is also being recommended that critical steps be taken to ensure that schools receive the data in a timely manner so that intervention can be implemented in the shortest possible time, improving the chances of its impact being meaningful and successful.Taking this reporting approach will also lead to the elimination of the need to categorise student performance as overall mastery, an approach which is unreliable. Currently, overall mastery is attained when a student is able to master all three of the combined bands. This approach is not a reliable one, since to master a combined band, a student must just attain 50 per cent of the available marks for the combined band. Therefore, a student could master one of the strands in the combination but still be determined to have mastered the combined band.Consider the data presented in Table 3 and outlined for the number strands here. While 58.2 per cent of students attained mastery in number representation and 45.3 per cent for number operation, significantly more students - 68.5 per cent - were deemed to have mastered the combined number strand. In future, individual strands should be considered on their own merit and the overall score used to determine the level of mastery. This will give a more accurate national picture of the performance of our children.In addition to making these necessary adjustments to the reporting system for the Grade Four Numeracy Test, I am also recommending that serious consideration be given to implementing some additional strategic activities aimed at producing sustained improvements in student performance in the medium and long terms.training where necessaryIdentify and provide additional training for primary-level teachers who can function with mathematics specialists at the local primary-school level - taking responsibility for the management and delivery of the primary mathematics curriculum. This is not a proposal that, if properly implemented, should see an increase in the number of teachers employed, but redeployment may be necessary. In this instance, priority should be given to those performing at Tiers 1 and 2. To qualify, these teachers should display a sound understanding of mathematics content (as assessed through a specially designed test) before they are allowed to participate in professional development activities designed to develop their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and equip them with the knowledge, skills and competences that they will need to take on the task.Training of these individuals should be outsourced to established teacher-education institutions across the island and should be guided by a standardised curriculum designed to equip the specialists according to international standards. Serious consideration should be given to compensating these individuals through a special allowance - particularly those who will be employed in inner-city and rural schools.Bodies such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators have recognised the significant role that persons trained to function as mathematics specialists have played, and can play, in improving student performance in mathematics at the primary level of education systems worldwide.Establish a National Comprehensive Numeracy Policy which would outline standards for teacher education and the teaching and learning of mathematics at the primary and secondary levels. Standards should:Address minimum mathematics contact hours;Describe the methodology to be employed in teaching mathematics;Address quality of intake (designed to increase minimum requirement for entry to primary programmes over time);Mandate the administration of diagnostic testing on entry and the use of results to address content gaps and misconceptions;Outline the philosophy and structure of the programme design with particular focus on the knowledge base for teaching, which should be developed during the programme - PCK - knowledge of content, pedagogy appropriate to content and context and knowledge of the curriculum;Provide opportunities for student teachers to identify and confront their beliefs about, and attitudes towards, the teaching and learning of mathematics.By addressing teacher education through accountability-driven policy, we have the potential to break the current cycle of underperformance which is being fuelled by the fact that our teacher-education institutions receive student teachers with significant content gaps and misconceptions. With more effective teachers entering the classroom equipped to contribute to the sound mathematics education of future generations, certainly within the next five to 10 years we should begin to see incremental improvements in student performance.Review the primary curriculum, and in so doing rationalise the objectives and eliminate those developed at grade seven and eight. Our primary mathematics curriculum contains several concepts and ideas that are often deemed too advanced for students in the age group and which, as a result, require more time for students to master.In rationalising these anomalies, teachers should have additional time to effectively explore and develop critical foundation concepts by engaging students in discussions and activities which are aimed at facilitating the development of their problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.These strategies must be implemented and supported with adequate accountability systems.We must work with a great sense of urgency. We have lost too much time. Our children and our future are depending on the actions we take today.Dr Tamika Benjamin is director of the Caribbean Centre of Excellence in Mathematics Teaching. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tamikabenjamin@hotmail.com.Table 1 - School Performance Bands by TierTier     % of Students Attaining Masterry1     0-192     20-393     40-594     60-795     80-100National math programme not adding up ...Click here to view original article.