Updated: This story has been updated to include comment from the Illinois State Board of Education.
What does it take to change teaching practices across a whole state, shifting the way teachers work in dozens, or even hundreds, of districts?
That question has been at the heart of the “science of reading” movement, as states have tried an array of mandates, incentives, and suggestions to prompt schools to adopt evidence-based materials and methods, with mixed results.
Now, it’s driving discussions about math, too, as more states are launching initiatives to raise student scores in the subject.
The situation in Illinois, which is among the states now targeting math, represents a major question that states engaged in this work must address: What is the appropriate amount of focus and pressure a state should apply to get results? It is a thorny question in America’s famously decentralized K-12 system, were local control is frequently prized.
Illinois’ state board is developing math guidance aimed at raising student achievement, a strategy formally titled the Illinois Comprehensive Numeracy Plan. In a virtual meeting hosted by the board on Feb. 25, some educators and parents giving feedback on the plan raised concerns that the document doesn’t go far enough in supporting districts tasked with bringing about the changes it outlined.
“I really wish we collectively could have the courage to do a little bit more there,” said Michael Lach, the superintendent of Hinsdale Township High School District 86 outside of Chicago.
“There are other places that do identify high-quality instructional materials,” said Lach, who was also an advisor on STEM education policy at the U.S. Department of Education during President Barack Obama’s first term. “There are states and regions who are able to coordinate and organize professional learning and leadership development around those materials. I don’t think there’s any real reason that Illinois couldn’t do that.”
Participants in the listening session this week discussed the second draft version of the plan, released this month.
In Illinois, educators ask for more specific guidance
In revamping its approach to math, Illinois joins a growing group of states that are passing legislation, unveiling new requirements, or issuing revised guidance designed to counteract yearslong declines in student achievement that accelerated in the wake of the pandemic.
So far Illinois, like a handful of other states, is mainly focused on giving schools and teachers a roadmap. New York state’s Numeracy Initiative similarly plans to provide “information and resources” that guide instruction.
Other states have taken a much more expansive role. Alabama, an early leader in this recent flurry of math legislation, mandated early screening and intervention for students who are struggling and assigned math coaches to every K-5 public school.
Lach, the Hinsdale superintendent, referenced Louisiana, where former Superintendent of Education John White led the creation of state systems to identify high-quality curricula in English/language arts and math and incentivized districts to use them.
Other teachers and district leaders in Illinois asked for more concrete recommendations on curriculum programs and materials and universal screening tools for math difficulties, or suggestions about how to support teachers’ professional learning—especially in small districts that don’t already employ math coaches or specialists.
In an emailed statement, Illinois State Board of Education Press Secretary Lindsay Record said the board does “does not endorse any specific curriculum program or instruction method.”
“Illinois is a locally controlled state whereby each individual school district has the responsibility of determining curriculum and instruction that best suits the needs of its student population,” she said.
Commenters also debated how prescriptive the plan should be in recommending, or discouraging, specific instructional practices.
States push for ‘evidence-based’ instruction, but the definition is amorphous
Many states that have recently passed math-related legislation have required that instruction and materials be “evidence-based.” But exactly what “evidence-based” means in math instruction is the subject of ongoing debate. Much of that debate is centered on two practices that are often positioned as in tension: explicit instruction and inquiry-based learning.
Decades of research in cognitive psychology and special education have shown that explicit instruction—modeling problem-solving methods and giving students lots of practice with them—can help struggling students learn math concepts.
But the math education field tends to promote a more inquiry-oriented approach, arguing that giving students regular opportunities to wrestle with complex problems builds math skills and dispositions that will serve children throughout their lives.
The board should ensure that the Illinois plan features a mix of both approaches, some commenters said.
“I would caution you to make sure that the language isn’t pejorative to one or the other,” said Emmie Pawlak, the director of math and science in Cicero School District 99. “We want to make sure that it doesn’t look like, ‘This one is good, and this one is bad.’”
Others said the document didn’t place a strong enough emphasis on the importance of explicit instruction, repeated practice, and fact fluency.
The plan should offer more detail on explicit instruction and what it looks like in practice, said Louise Dechovitz, a parent advocate and the founder of the Illinois Coalition for Evidence-Based Math Instruction.
“I’m not really seeing a lot about automaticity,” said Megan Wilhelm, the curriculum coordinator in Mascoutah School District 19, referencing the ability for students to recall math facts quickly and without having to perform extensive calculations. Math teaching practice has shifted away from emphasizing this skill, and many students struggle as a result, Wilhem said.
Fact fluency is “almost like the phonics piece for math,” she said. “If you don’t have your facts quickly, you’re going to really start to fall apart.”
The board plans to review all feedback received and “refine the plan accordingly,” said Record, of ISBE.
“This includes considering where additional clarity or emphasis may be needed around evidence‑based instructional practices, including explicit instruction and fact-fluency development.”
