Why Doesn’t a New Textbook “Fix” Student Achievement Problems? (Especially in Mathematics)

Here’s a common scenario within schools: Math standardized test results come in and they fall far short of expectations. School leadership decides the quality of the content in the math curriculum may be the issue. They adopt a new textbook series and two years down the road the results are the same. Why did the textbook, touted to raise test scores, fall short of promised results? When a new textbook is adopted, particularly for elementary mathematics, many factors affect how successful the program is, including how the adoption is received by educators and parents.

Staff Support

The extent to which teachers and administrators support the adoption of a new textbook series is crucial for its success. Do they think there is a need for a new program, and do they believe the program will be effective? Districts vary in how often they will adopt a new textbook series; some will do it every seven years and some whenever they have funding—or as a reaction to poor test scores. How was the decision reached to adopt a new textbook? Was it a school board directive, or did a committee decide? Was the teachers union involved? Did an administrator push one textbook series through, or did teachers pilot the program along with other programs? If so, for how long? All these questions affect teachers’ buy-in.

When teachers believe in the resources provided, like textbooks, their enthusiasm increases and they are more likely to follow the program as written. Also, student attitudes toward classroom content tend to mirror their teachers’ attitudes; when students pick up on discontent or disapproval, their motivation to meaningfully engage with the content can dip, making successful implementation of a new textbook series, or any educational directive, much harder.

Community Support

Districts, schools, and teachers are judged by mathematics test scores. New textbooks are an expensive investment of public funds; thus public involvement can help or hinder the process. New textbook adoptions need the approval of school boards that answer to the public. Does the community support the need for a new program? Do they support what was chosen? Mathematics instruction today is often very different from how parents were taught as children, so people tend to have widely differing opinions about what mathematics even is—a page of calculating numbers? Word problems? Or a combination thereof?—let alone the best way to teach it.

If children hear parents say, “This isn’t math! Where are the equations?” or “This is ridiculous—they should show them how to solve the problems!” then they are more likely to blow it off, or not try as hard. Yet if parents support the program and say things like, “I wish I had learned math this way,” or “Let’s work through this together; it’s important that you get it,” then success is more likely.

Effective Rollout

Successful implementation of a textbook series takes a lot of behind-the-scenes work. Teachers and other staff have to be trained in the language, concepts, and methods of the program, and the style of these trainings, as well as the availability of follow-up support, dictate teachers’ ability to effectively use the new materials in their classrooms: What kind of staff development was provided for teachers to become familiar with the new texts? Was it one week in August, with follow-up throughout the year? Or just a few days of training over the summer, with teachers left to their own devices to work through any potential questions or issues? Who provided the staff development? Were the trainers experienced in adult education as well as the material? I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum: from professional trainers leading well-planned, appropriate activities to inexperienced, disorganized trainers with no clue how to teach teachers. Even with good buy-in from community and staff, if preparations before the first day of school are not adequately made, then the new program will often fail to meet expectations.

Implementation

Most textbook publishers have research to support their claims that rates of student achievement increase after using their textbooks. However, if teachers start modifying the program because they aren’t comfortable with the lesson structure or because the students do not have the prerequisite knowledge necessary, then the program loses effectiveness. Modification of lessons is often done with good intentions, yet it can derail the trajectory of the mathematics program because most programs require teaching a certain number of lessons in a year, with little wiggle room for supplementation. If students don’t get through those lessons, then they won’t be prepared for the lessons at the next grade level, which can result in poor or mediocre performance on standardized tests.

Sometimes problems with basic logistics can also impede successful implementation of a textbook series—and thus its effect on student achievement. In my experience, the number of materials available did not always match the actual number of students in a classroom. For example, when I was teaching, there were often 27-35 students in my classes. Yet a typical class set of textbooks was for 20-25 students. In these situations, students often had to share books or we skipped some activities due to lack of materials, which at times affected their learning. Also, some textbooks require the use of technology that may or may not be consistently available. Not all classrooms have laptops for students or Smartboards for instruction. If photocopies are needed for many lessons, there can be long lines at the copy machine, the inevitable breakdown of said machine, and then the necessity to improvise the way a lesson is taught. All this can sway how effective a program is and how it is judged.

Results

There are many points of view about how to assess the effectiveness of a new textbook series. Teachers may focus on grades from chapter tests along with daily work, while administration may focus on the annual standardized spring test results to determine whether a program is successful. Most mathematics programs tout alignment with Common Core State Standards (what students should know and be able to do for each grade), which in turn, ideally, align with what’s evaluated on the spring test.

Sometimes, however, the text will cover skills not necessary for the test or the test will pose a math problem the students are not familiar with. The class may have just started to learn about measurement with rulers, but the test might have several problems requiring familiarity with measuring a variety of objects for length, area, volume, and mass. Looking at multiple sources of data to determine how successful a program is makes sense—as well as not overreacting to one year’s test results.

Patience Required

Wholesale change, like a new mathematics program, takes anywhere from three to seven years to take hold and become effective. One reason is that each program’s progression from grade to grade is unique. Routines, skills, and especially vocabulary necessary for understanding mathematics gradually build on each other from year to year, starting in kindergarten. Since most districts adopt elementary programs for all grades at once (mostly for budgetary reasons), teachers are often trying to fill in years of background knowledge required before they can start a day’s lesson, particularly the first couple of years of implementation. A fifth-grade teacher has to wait six years for a group of students who have been through all the prerequisite experiences for the program to achieve the goals boasted by the publisher. Patience, an endangered quality, is necessary.

There are many influences, besides the quality of a textbook, on student achievement. The text is only as good as the instruction from teachers, who may or may not have received adequate staff development or ongoing support. In an ideal world, there is alignment between the content in the textbook and what’s evaluated on the spring test, but that is not always the case. And as with any new directive, there are varying levels of support from teachers, administration, parents, students, and community members, which can all determine success. Patience for a new textbook to start yielding results in the way of improved standardized test scores may be in short supply; a new textbook series could be abandoned before it’s even had a chance to work.

It would behoove us all to remember that there is more to determining the success of a mathematics program than the results of a once-a-year test. Are children enjoying mathematics, for example? Do they feel confident in their ability to learn math? Do they see how mathematical concepts apply to their lives? If the answers to these questions are yes, they have a better chance of not only experiencing academic success but also growing into adults who can use math to solve some of our most pressing global challenges.