Do we have wrong answer to math woes?

Maybe it’s not Common Core, but lack of training.

Gov. Brian Kemp is making good on his pledge “to dismantle Common Core,” holding a kickoff meeting of a citizen review committee this month to give feedback on math standards. That group of 21 will not rewrite the standards; that task

will fall to teachers in 2020. Lost in this anti-Common Core fervor is the fact that Common Core math drew on Georgia’s own education standards. I am not sure whether the Georgia GOP used Photoshop or Vulcan mind meld to erase former Gov. Sonny Perdue’s highly visible role in creating the standards, which provide a framework for what students should be able to do in each grade.

Common Core never mandated how Georgia taught or assessed students, which is why the state was able to create and give its own homegrown Milestones test. When Common Core State Standards became the political equivalent to smallpox, Georgia rebranded them in 2015 as Georgia Standards of Excellence. But the Georgia-centric standards are still under suspicion by the GOP’s deeply conservative base.

Georgia keeps fiddling with standards when it should be looking at instruction. Georgia is among the states that surveyed teachers and found many in elementary and middle school don’t feel prepared to teach the more rigorous foundation necessary for advanced math in high school. A lot of that has to do

with insufficient training in math in colleges of education, and, in the case of attempted reforms, insufficient retraining to learn new approaches.

In the PISA test results released this month from 79 countries and economies, Chinese students were almost four full grade levels ahead of U.S. students in mathematics. In China, even very young students are taught by a dedicated math teacher.

According to a 2016 National Science Board report, 75% of middle school mathematics teachers in low-poverty schools had math degrees, compared with 63% of teachers at high-poverty schools. At the high school level, 95% of mathematics teachers at low-poverty schools had in-field degrees, compared with 87% at high-poverty schools.

If you look at the history of American education, you will find campaigns to revolutionize math instruction going back to the 19th century. But despite innovative forays, we haven’t substantively improved math instruction. That’s because there is often a wide gap between introduction of innovative ideas and implementation in the classroom, where teachers often get scant training or guidance.

That lack of adequate preparation partially explains Georgia’s failed attempt at rolling out integrated math. In 2003, alarmed over Georgia’s continued poor showing on the SAT and in every other national measure of math skills, newly elected Republican school Superintendent Kathy Cox vowed to improve performance. She introduced “integrated math” to Georgia, citing its success in Japan, where students were years ahead of American peers. “This is probably the single most important thing I believe we are doing for the future of Georgia,” said Cox at the time.

In 2005, the state Board of Education approved the new high school math standards, which required teachers to weave elements of algebra, geometry, statistics and other topics into their classes, instead of teaching them as separate branches of math. The University System of Georgia endorsed the standards, which teachers, college professors and curriculum specialists vetted in a yearlong review.

But integrated math exasperated teachers, who said the rollout was underfunded and the training inadequate to the breadth of the changes. In a 2014 survey of Georgia teachers, 84% said they were not in favor of the integrated model. They wanted to return to the more “traditional” approach, which focuses primarily on one kind of math in each course. Most districts now have abandoned the integrated approach.

Parents were also not fans of Georgia’s math, saying they couldn’t help their kids any more with their homework. Some parents advocated going back to how they learned math 30 years ago.

But did students learn math more effectively a generation ago?

When the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies evaluated the numeracy skills of adults in 30 countries, 22 far outperformed the United States. Numeracy does not signify high-level math, but reflects an ability to understand and use mathematical information in daily life. Examples of numeracy skills include reading the temperature on a thermometer, figuring out from a chart of votes cast which four candidates received the least number and deciphering the sales price of a box of cereal after a percentage discount.

Looking back to classrooms of old will not likely enhance the math attainment of Georgia kids. Nor will changing course to placate a political base.

AJC FILE If you look at the history of American education, you will find campaigns to revolutionize math instruction going back to the 19th century. But despite innovative forays, we haven’t substantively altered math instruction.