This article utilizes the 1999 TIMSS-R data from U.S. states and districts to explore the consequences of variation in opportunities to learn specific mathematics content. Analyses explore the relationship between classroom mathematics content coverage and student achievement as measured by the TIMSS-R international mathematics scaled score. District/state-level socioeconomic status indicators demonstrated significant relationships with the dependent variable, mathematics achievement, and the classroom-level measure of content coverage. A three-level hierarchical linear model demonstrated a significant effect of classroom content coverage on achievement while controlling for student background at the student level and SES at all three levels documenting significant differences in mathematics learning opportunities as a function of the U.S. education system structure.

To explore whether equality of educational opportunities is a reality in US eighth grade mathematics classrooms, this paper utilizes data from US states and districts that participated in the 1999 TIMSS-R study. Analyses explore the relationship between classroom coverage of specific mathematics content and student achievement as measured by the TIMSS-R international mathematics scaled score. District/state level SES indicators demonstrated significant relationships with both the dependent variable of interest, mathematics achievement, and the classroom level measure of content coverage. A 3-level model demonstrated a significant effect of classroom content coverage on student achievement while controlling for student background at the student level and SES at all three levels, documenting significant differences in mathematics learning opportunities among US eighth grade classrooms. Equality of Educational Opportunity ii u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides data that seems clearly important to science and mathematics education in the U.S. TIMSS gathered extensive data on curriculum, textbooks, teachers, and instructional practices in science and mathematics education and some of these data are presented and discussed. Eighth grade achievement data show the U.S. to be somewhat above average in science achievement but consistently average or below in mathematics. U.S. official curricula cover comparatively many topics and are relatively unfocused. U.S. science and mathematics textbooks typically take a cautious, inclusive approach keeping traditional content while adding new reform topics. They thus lack. Teachers, without guidance to help them focus, typically divide their attention among many topics. Empirically, there is little agreement in the U.S. on what is truly “basic” judging by common topics among curricula and textbooks. U.S. teaching, at least in mathematics, is teacher and moves among many different activities, failing to tell a coherent story. We must face these as we seek to find ways to become what we want to be in providing science and mathematics education.

This chapter explores the use of rankings and total test scores in large-scale international comparative studies and some of the issues related to them. It examines their value as a basis for policy decisions and educational research. Country ranks on total test scores have been seen to be relatively robust to changes in test content, even changes directed at greater curriculum relevance. Unfortunately, other analyses suggest this robustness is likely a consequence of high levels of aggregation and broad, shallow domain sampling. Student achievement in mathematics and science is inherently multi dimensional. Highly aggregated scores of broadly sampled domains are inherently misleading and mask fundamental, educationally relevant diversities at more specific levels of the curriculum.

Important policy implications regarding American mathematics and science education are available through the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). This is especially true if the results from all parts of the study including those pertaining to curriculum and instructional practices are combined with those related to the achievement testing in grades three, four, seven, eight and the end of secondary school. The decline in relative standing for the U.S. from grade four to grade 12 in both mathematics and science achievement is clear as are the corresponding differences in intellectual rigor in the U.S. curriculum as compared to that of the top achieving countries, especially during the middle and high school years.