Ever since I moved out of my parents’ house 10 years ago, and got my own apartment for the first time, I made a conscious effort to avoid clutter. I think I’ve actually developed a physical allergy to it, and suffer from extreme agita whenever clutter threatens to encroach upon any corner of my home. I’m definitely a “less is more” sort of a person, which is why I’m not a big fan of typical math curricula which seem filled with way too many concepts that take up precious space in the minds of our youth. Space that could be used for deeper understanding of fewer core concepts that would prove much more useful. So I’m pretty excited to report on what seems to be a new trend in math education.

It started in March when I wrote a post about the Russian School of Mathematics. It’s an afterschool program that currently offers supplementary math instruction to students in Massachusetts, California, and New Hampshire. Why I think the program works so well (other than the fact that students are free to puzzle through problems at their own pace instead of memorizing formulas or being fed answers) is because as far as the curriculum goes, depth is the name of the game – not breadth. Students focus on 4-5 major concepts per year, and when they learn something, they truly understand it and can then build upon and apply that knowledge.

This “less is more” trend is something that I hoped would transfer into the public school realm, but had my doubts because of the pressure teachers face to skim over shallow but extensive curriculum and prepare students for standardized tests.

Then earlier this week I read an article about math teachers in Westport, CT who were frustrated by the 1,000-page text books that they had to rush their students through each year. (For instance, students forgot so much of what they learned in Algebra I that teachers had to spend the first few months of Algebra II re-teaching concepts that were never fully grasped the first time.) So district teachers rewrote the curriculum and designed their own online math program to use instead. They boiled the curriculum down to the essentials (reducing the number of concepts by about half), and sent the program to an organization in India to be enhanced with sound and animation. Students can now move through the curriculum at a slower pace, develop a deeper understanding of key concepts, and even log in to review lessons at home. The results so far have been (not surprisingly) promising. Higher standardized test scores, less time spent reviewing, and higher enrollment in Advanced Placement calculus and statistics classes. And the good news doesn’t stop in Westport. There are signs that the trend may be going national.

On May 31, the Washington Post reported that 46 states and the District of Columbia agreed to participate in an effort to define a single set of internationally competitive national K-12 standards. (See previous post here.) And, according to Gene Wilhoit,  executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the new standards will be “higher, clearer and fewer.” Hmmm… Sounds like change in focus from breadth to depth to me! We won’t be able to get a look at the proposed math standards until July at the earliest (much to the dismay of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, who want to be in on the process), but if what Wilhoit says is true, and a majority of states sign on to these fewer clearer standards (and that’s a big “if”), then companies that create textbooks used across the country will certainly incorporate this new philosophy into the design of their products.

Most recently, (thanks to Eduwonk.com for pointing me here), a new report by the Carnegie corporation called “The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy” makes the following recommendations:

Establish common standards for the nation in mathematics and science—standards that are fewer, clearer, and higher—along with high-quality assessments.

Improve math and science teaching—and our methods for recruiting and preparing teachers and for managing the nation’s teaching talent.

Redesign schools and systems to deliver excellent, equitable math and science learning.

So there you have it. All roads seem to lead to “fewer, clearer, higher” as far as math standards are concerned. I know it won’t be easy to realize this goal nationwide, but I think it moving in this direction will be in the best interest of both students and teachers.

(Photo: d3 Dan’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons)