Are State Math Standards Designed for Failure? What Parents and Teachers Should Know
The fluorescent lights hummed over my conference table last month, the third one after school, and I pushed Mia’s crumpled benchmark test across the desk between me and her mom. “She does every single homework problem with me every night,” her mom said, leaning forward, her coffee going cold in a disposable cup. “She can explain equivalent fractions to me. How did she get a 32% on this?”
My stack of ungraded exit tickets leaned against my pencil cup, a scratch from a kid’s compass marking the desk between us. I pulled the test closer and we went through each question one by one. Question 2 asked to convert 1400 meters to kilometers, a 5th grade standard we don’t cover until the last month of the semester, which was still two months away. Question 5, the 4-point multi-step word problem, wrapped the fraction addition Mia aces in a confusing story about picnic supplies that asked for the remaining weight in pounds after three people took different amounts in ounces. Mia got the fractions right, she just mixed up what the question was asking for because there was so much extra text to sort through. Out of 10 test questions, only three aligned to the 4th grade math we’d actually covered so far that year. Mia got two of those three right. The 32% wasn’t Mia failing math. It was the standards and the tests built around them failing Mia.
I’ve been teaching 4th grade math for eight years, and I get asked this question all the time, from parents and from new teachers: are state math standards designed for failure? I don’t think anyone sits in a room and plans to set kids up to fail, on purpose. But the way most current standards are structured, that’s the end result. Five years ago, when our state adopted the new standards, the district told us it would be better: more rigorous, more focused on real problem solving, better prep for high school and college. What it actually meant was we went from covering 22 standards a semester to 34. My pacing guide tells me exactly how many days I can spend on each topic: three days for equivalent fractions, two days for comparing, four days for adding mixed numbers, then move on. If half your class still needs more practice? Too bad, you’re off pace, and that shows up on your yearly evaluation.
The problem is, standards writers keep adding more content to show they’re raising expectations, and no one stops to ask if a 9 or 10 year old can actually master that much material in one school year. Kids don’t learn math by checking boxes on a list. They learn it by repeating skills, messing up, trying again, connecting new concepts to what they already know. When we rush from one standard to the next, kids only get surface level understanding. They memorize a rule for a test next week, then forget it a month later, and end up thinking they’re just bad at math. That’s the failure part: we’re not letting kids actually learn, we’re just exposing them to more stuff, then penalizing them for not remembering it all.
It’s not all doom, though. There are small, low-effort things that work, for parents and for teachers, that don’t require waiting for the state to rewrite the entire rulebook. For parents, the first thing I tell them is don’t take a low benchmark or state test score at face value. Pull the test (or the score report that breaks down questions by skill) and go through it with your kid. Ask them which questions felt like stuff they’d never talked about in class. Count how many of those there are. If it’s more than one or two, that’s not your kid’s fault. That’s a test that’s testing content before it’s taught, which is way more common than most people think.
Second, skip the 30 minutes of extra test prep worksheets after school. They just make kids hate math, and they don’t build the actual understanding they’re missing. Instead, fit 5 to 10 minutes of real math into your regular routine. When you’re driving to soccer practice, ask them “if a soda is $2.15 and a bag of chips is $1.80, how much do they cost together?” When you’re cutting a pizza for the family, ask “if we have five people, how do we split this into even slices?” Small, daily practice builds the number sense that the rushed curriculum doesn’t have time for, and it doesn’t feel like extra homework.
Third, instead of asking “how can my kid catch up on all 10 standards they missed,” ask their teacher what one skill is the most important to focus on right now. Mastering one skill well gives kids confidence, and it makes learning the next skill easier. Skimming 10 just leaves them more confused.
For teachers, I started doing 10 minutes of skill review at the start of every class, no matter what new topic we’re covering that day. One week we’ll do equivalent fractions, the next adding two-digit numbers, whatever the majority of the class is still shaky on. It doesn’t push me that far off pace, because kids stop needing re-teaching of old concepts halfway through new units. I also stopped stressing about being two days off the pacing guide if half the class doesn’t get a new concept. Most admins care more about learning than sticking to an arbitrary schedule, as long as you’re transparent about what you’re doing.
After Mia’s conference, she and her mom decided to spend 10 minutes a night practicing unit conversion, that was the only extra work she did. She got a 78% on the next benchmark, and more importantly, last week she raised her hand to walk the whole class through how she solved a tricky fraction problem. That’s something she never did before the first test made her think she was bad at math.
We still have a long way to go. The standards are still too packed, the tests are still unfair, and too many kids still leave elementary school convinced they can’t do math. But right now, these small changes are working. We don’t have to wait for the state to fix the system to help our kids feel like they’re succeeding.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Are State Math Standards Designed for Failure