Throughout the nation’s more than 15,000 school districts, widely

differing approaches to teaching science and math have emerged.

Though there can be strength in diversity, a new international analysis

suggests that this variability has instead contributed to lackluster

achievement scores by US children related to their peers in other 【M1】__________

developed countries.

Indeed, concludes William H. Schmidt of Michigan State

University, who led the new analysis, “no single intellectual coherent 【M2】__________

vision dominates US educational practice in math or science. “The

reason, he said, “is because the system is deeply and fundamentally flawed.”

The new analysis, which released this week by the National Science 【M3】__________

Foundation in Arlington, Va. , is based on data collecting from about 50 【M4】__________

nations as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.

Not only approaches to teaching science and math vary among 【M5】__________

individual US communities, the report finds, but there appears to be a 【M6】__________

little strategic focus within a school district’s curricula, its textbooks, or

its teachers’ activities. This contrasts sharply with the coordinated

national programs of most other countries.

In average, US students study more topics within science and math 【M7】__________

than their international counterparts do. This creates an educational

environment where “is a mile wide and an inch deep,” Schmidt notes. 【M8】__________

For instance, eighth graders in the US cover about 33 topics in math

versus just 19 in Japan. Among science courses, the international gap is

even wide. US curricula for this age level resemble those of a small 【M9】__________

group of countries including Australia, Thailand, Iceland, and Bulgaria.

Schmidt asks whether the US wants to be classed with these nations,

whose educational systems “share our pattern of splintered visions” and 【M10】_________

which are not economic leaders.

【M1】