Mathematics content coverage and student learning in kindergarten

Engel, M., Claessens, A., Watts, T., & Farkas, G. (2016). Mathematics content coverage and student learning in kindergarten. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 293-300.


This article provided insights for me in two areas: 1) reasons why U.S. students may not be achieving as well in basic math skills as we need them to achieve to prepare for STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Math) occupations, and 2) the critical importance of what and how we teach in the very first years of schooling, and how educators’ instructional decisions can have far-reaching impacts on later learning and later readiness for careers (in this case, STEM careers).

These researchers looked at kindergarteners' achievement test scores in mathematics gathered for national studies in 1999 and in 2011. They also looked at the mathematics content that the kindergarten teachers reported covering in surveys that were part of the same national data sets. One research question addressed differences between 1999 and 2011, and a second question addressed changes in the relationship between what teachers reported they covered and how the children did on the math achievement tests.

The researchers show evidence that math may be under-emphasized in kindergarten classrooms in the U.S. Reading is reportedly heavily emphasized, but teachers reported they felt “uncomfortable and unsure teaching mathematics” (p. 293). The data showed that the topics they did report teaching in kindergarten were often topics the children had already mastered. There was less exposure to the more advanced, challenging kindergarten math topics, even though the researchers cite research showing that exposure to challenging areas not already mastered helps children learn. The researchers point to a “mismatch between content coverage and student knowledge” (p. 297) in mathematics.

It seems obvious that children would learn more from instruction that covers content that they don’t already know than they would learn from instruction that only reviews content they already know. Yes, some review is good, but if children don’t get exposed to new content, it will be no surprise if their achievement and their math engagement suffer. We know that experiences in the early grades set patterns for learning in the later grades and beyond. If we want children to someday be ready for STEM careers, the pattern these researchers show us must be changed.
Kindergarten is not too early. Yes, it is important that instruction and assessment always be developmentally appropriate. It also is important to emphasize reading; the researchers are not suggesting de-emphasizing reading or teaching math in ways not appropriate for kindergarten. However, we cannot fail to provide the best education possible in mathematics just because teachers feel “uncomfortable and unsure” doing so! Teaching children things they have already mastered just because doing more challenging teaching makes a teacher uncomfortable sounds malfeasant to me, and I began to feel a bit angry as I read this report.

Rather than condemnation, though, teachers need support so they can overcome their negative feelings about math and can feel more confident teaching math in ways that will be most beneficial for kindergarteners and that will lay good patterns for future math learning. It is entirely possible that these teachers’ discomfort with math has its roots in the teachers’ own early school experiences with mathematics. To end the cycle of math discomfort and resulting low math achievement, those of us in teacher education need to find ways to help teachers overcome their fears and discomforts. We need to do that, even though many teacher educators have their own math discomforts!