The problem is that people of various ages have different educational experiences, different jobs and different circumstances, affecting how they develop and retain their skills.

In , my colleagues and I find that skills typically rise until the 40s, after which reading skills gently fall and math skills more steeply. Even here, however, the story is not so simple. These averages mask the fact that any decline is closely tied to how much the skills are used. 

Simply put, people who read and do math on a regular basis hold on to those skills at least into their 60s.

Economists are interested in understanding this  because reading and math skills are closely related to economic outcomes. More highly skilled individuals tend to earn more, and countries with more skilled populations grow faster. Here is the big issue: Most developed countries of the world have aging populations. Does this then imply worse economic outcomes as we go forward?

The research challenge in answering this question has been a lack of appropriate data. For the most part, existing data on age and skills do not come from observing a representative sample of people as they age. Instead, they come from comparing the skills of different people of different ages, say one at 30 and one at 40, and assuming that after aging for 10 years, the 30-year-old will look like the 40-year-old.

But these two people grew up in different circumstances, with differing quality schooling and other factors that might affect their skills. Thus, any effects of aging are mixed up with other societal factors.

We overcome this problem by using unique German data that follow a representative sample of 3,263 adults over a three- to four-year period. At the initial survey and again at the later survey, the individuals are given the same reading and math test. Thus, it is possible to observe directly the impact of age on skills. 

What we found was that skills, on average, continue to increase into the 40s, and they never dip below the levels the individuals enjoyed in their 20s.

Perhaps the more important finding is that even this later decline is not inevitable. These average patterns hide the dramatic differences in aging between those who use literacy and numeracy skills consistently at home or work and those who do not. The survey data asked about the frequency of doing separate items such as “calculating prices, costs, or budgets” for math or “reading letters, memos, or e-mails” for reading. 

Those with above-average usage never showed declining skills at least until age 65, when our data ended. Those who weren’t much using math or reading skills peaked in their early 30s.

Interestingly, based on assumed high-skill usage, some previous analyses followed the skill patterns for white-collar and highly educated workers. When we look at these factors, we find the same answers: Among professionals or highly educated individuals, those who use the skills never show declines with age, but those who do not use the skills do, in fact, start to decline. Women show a sharper drop in numeracy skills as they grow older than men, perhaps based on educational background or career choices.

While our results, in principle, offer some consolation for countries with aging populations, they also highlight the importance of policy attention toward not only the accumulation of skills in schools, but also their retention through using those skills and pursuing lifelong learning.

Fostering expanded learning opportunities takes on increased importance with such societal changes as the broad introduction of various forms of artificial intelligence, which could force a large number of people to change what and how they are doing their work. Unfortunately, while the idea of lifelong learning is frequently discussed in policy contexts, little has been done to make it a reality. 

The Hoover Institution provides financial support to The 74.

Schools won’t change the schedule, they redeploy would-be tutors as aides making copies, etc. It’s troubling. And headlines like  and  and  also aren’t helping.   

So what happens next?  

In a March column in The 74, Kevin Huffman warned: “I worry that policymakers will pretend high-dosage tutoring is happening at scale and then, when student outcomes do not measurably improve, declare that it hasn’t worked.” 

So what’s the answer for scaling up at quality? Proven good models need to become great, so when they scale and inevitably dilute, they “merely” retreat back to: good. We must make it easier to be a good or great tutor.  And that requires unusual “within program” research and development. In an essay published , the Overdeck Foundation’s Pete Lavorini made that very case, noting there are “a number of exciting innovations underway to lessen the implementation burden without sacrificing effectiveness, by adjusting the high-impact tutoring ‘formula.’ ”

Let me describe what tutor innovation looks like in real life. First, you need decent scale. When I started Match Tutoring in 2004, we had 45 tutors (living literally inside the school, on our ). My friend, economist Matt Kraft, wrote in The74 how measuring that program’s impact launched his career studying tutoring. But 45 people is just not enough educators to easily A/B test “what works for individual tutors.”  

Last year, I met a math educator, Manan Khurma, who founded a math tutoring company in India called Cuemath, with 3,300 tutors. I asked whether I could, with a few colleagues, (carefully) try new ideas, to see what works for his thousands students across the world? Manan said yes, he was interested in anything empirically valid that made tutoring better.  

Scale, check.  

Second, you need a “problem of practice.” We zoomed in on a common problem, familiar to many educators: student talk!  Some kids, especially if confused, are reluctant to speak up, to share what they’re thinking. Common Core and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics both emphasize the need for math discourse, but teacher training in this area hasn’t led to kids speaking up more.  

How to change this?  

My colleague Carol Yu wondered if a Fitbit type device — a “Talk Meter” — might help, or would it annoy kids, or teachers?

We started small, enlisting a few kids and tutors to try a prototype. An AI bot would patrol a tutorial, and then, roughly 20 minutes into a tutorial, a little box would pop up on the screen. It told teacher and student what the talk ratio was, just like a Fitbit offers your step count when you glance at it. If either party was talking too much, they’d adjust.  

The early signals were promising! So we ran a rigorous randomized control trial with 742 Cuemath teachers, and enlisted some research help, from Stanford’s Dora Demszky. This is often a third step: Enlist a scholar to bolster your measurement efforts.  

The results were strong. In a forthcoming journal article, Dr. Demszky will describe the full experiment, but the punchline is student reasoning increased by 24%, and the talk ratio converged on 50-50 between kid and tutor — exactly what we wanted. Tutors asked better questions, and “built” on what kids said.  Both students and tutors liked the Talk Meter (it led to lighthearted, warm interactions as well). Introverts particularly improved.    

Fourth, you can layer experiments on top of one another. One we’re trying now is whether one-on-one coaching would build on TalkMeter success.  

Should other programs build their own TalkMeters or tutor coaching efforts? That’s not our claim (though when I shared the TalkMeter result with friends leading other prominent tutoring organizations, several said “OMG — we should do this.”) There’s a key distinction that matters for scale. A technology intervention like TalkMeter is context specific. And a human intervention like coaching is talent specific.

I learned that lesson 14 years ago. We launched a teacher coaching program in New Orleans, with a wonderful educator named Erica. I enlisted Matt Kraft to measure it. He found large gains for teachers. Then we added coaches. The impact was diluted — a finding he wrote about .  

The point here is that high quality experiments, often in partnership with scholars, can help specific program models vault to greatness, as a way to counteract inevitable dilution at scale.   

While we co-sign on the Guryan/Ludwig desire to “push” schools to do hard things, we also should make hard things easier, to have “good” impact by combining “great programs” with “merely solid” execution. (Of course, nothing can overcome shoddy execution).  

That’s the only way this high-dosage tutoring movement will survive and expand. 

When President Ronald Reagan in April 1986, one of the problems he cited was that too few students were devoted to the study of math.

“Despite the increasing importance of mathematics to the progress of our economy and society, enrollment in mathematics programs has been declining at all levels of the American educational system,” Reagan wrote in his proclamation.

Nearly 40 years later, the problem that Reagan lamented during the first National Math Awareness Week – which has since evolved to become “” – not only remains but has gotten worse.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Whereas 1.63%, or about , of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in the U.S. in the 1985-1986 school year went to math majors, in 2020, just 1.4%, or about , of the bachelor’s degrees were awarded in the field of math – a small but significant decrease in the proportion.

Post-pandemic data suggests the number of students majoring in math in the U.S. is likely to decrease in the future.

A key factor is the that took place during the lockdown. For instance, whereas 34% of eighth graders were proficient in math in 2019, test data shows the percentage .

These declines will undoubtedly affect how much math U.S. students can do at the college level. For instance, in 2022, only – down from 39% in 2019.

These declines will also affect how many U.S. students are able to take advantage of the growing number of , such as and . Employment in math occupations is projected to in the period from 2021 to 2031.

About are expected to open up per year from growth and replacement needs. That exceeds the 27,000 or so math graduates being produced each year – and go into math fields. Shortages will also arise in several other areas, since math is a gateway to many STEM fields.

For all of these reasons and more, as a who thinks deeply about the and what it means to our world – and even to – I believe this year, and probably for the foreseeable future, educators, policymakers and employers need to take Mathematics and Statistics Awareness Month more seriously than ever before.

Struggles with mastery

Subpar math achievement has been endemic in the U.S. for a long time.

Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that have been rated proficient in math since 2005.

The pandemic racially and economically disadvantaged groups. During the lockdown, these groups had than their peers. So securing Wi-Fi and places to study are key parts of the battle to improve math learning.

Some people believe math teaching techniques need to be revamped, as they were through the , a new set of educational standards that stressed alternative ways to solve math problems. Others want a return to more traditional methods. Advocates also argue there is a need for colleges to .

Other observers believe the problem lies with the “” many students have – where failure leads to the conviction that they can’t do math – and say the solution is to foster a – by which failure spurs students to try harder.

Although all these factors are relevant, none address what in my opinion is a root cause of math underachievement: our nation’s ambivalent relationship with mathematics.

Low visibility

Many observers worry about how U.S. children fare in , even though math anxiety makes steer clear of the subject themselves.

Mathematics is not like art or music, which people regularly enjoy all over the country by visiting museums or attending concerts. It’s true that there is a National Museum of Mathematics in New York, and some science centers in the U.S. devote exhibit space to mathematics, but these can be geographically inaccessible for many.

A 2020 study on media portrayals of math ” in popular culture. Other findings were that math is presented as being irrelevant to the real world and of little interest to most people, while mathematicians are stereotyped to be singular geniuses or socially inept nerds, and white and male.

Math is tough and typically takes much discipline and perseverance to succeed in. It also calls for a – you need to master lessons at each level because you’re going to need them later.

While research in neuroscience shows almost everyone’s brain is , many students balk at putting in the effort when they don’t score well on tests. The can make it easier for students to give up. So can about math ability conveyed by peers and parents, such as declarations of not being “.”

A positive experience

Here’s the good news. A 2017 Pew poll found that despite the bad rap the subject gets, . It’s members of this legion who would make excellent recruits to help promote April’s math awareness. The initial charge is simple: Think of something you liked about math – a topic, a , a fun fact – and go over it with someone. It could be a child, a student, or just one of the many adults who have left school with a negative view of math.

Can something that sounds so simplistic make a difference? Based on my years of experience as a mathematician, I believe it can – if nothing else, for the person you talk to. The goal is to stimulate curiosity and convey that mathematics is much more about than it is about the school homework-type calculations so many dread.

Raising math awareness is a first step toward making sure people possess the basic math skills required not only for employment, but also to understand math-related issues – such as gerrymandering or climate change – well enough to be an informed and participating citizen. However, it’s not something that can be done in one month.

Given the decline in both math scores and the percentage of students studying math, it may take many years before America realizes the stronger relationship with math that President Reagan’s proclamation called for during the first National Math Awareness Week in 1986.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

But if you ask Patrick Jones, Senior VP of the Mind Trust in Indianapolis, about how to overcome learning gaps in math, you will hear a clear call for full steam ahead. 

“As we move into this space where students are struggling with exams,” Jones said, “we have to, one, stay on task with the current grade level that they’re in and spend more time teaching where they are, and we have to, two, embrace the idea of curiosity and creativity as they are problem solving.”

In a , Jones noted the unique challenge of teaching math and how the process is more complex than simply adding layers of learning atop a foundation of knowledge.

If the video is not playing, go here to see it.

“Math was discovered, created over the course of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years,” he said, “and we expect kids to understand that whole body of knowledge within a 12-year span.”

“A lot of people call math ‘foundational’, where you have this foundation to move into the next foundation. I believe that’s problematic because when you really understand mathematics, it’s compounding foundational, meaning the skills that are taught to understand the next skill, in some ways, can only just help you just fractionally with the next skill because the next skill is actually represented differently in the next stage.”

As Jones sees it, there’s a danger in trying to “go back” to teach foundational skills. “When you hold on to this, kids never gain access to the compounding foundation principle where this new idea will actually be represented in a different way.”

There’s also a practical concern, Jones said. “If I need this student to be proficient at the end of the day, there’s no way I can take the amount of time to go back to teach them how to solve fractions.”

Lagra Newman, the founder of Purpose Prep Academy, a charter school in Nashville, saw first-hand the impact that the pandemic and remote instruction had on math learning. “The pandemic hit us very hard,” she said. “While we were proud of the virtual work our teachers did, of their dedication, of their transferring so many things to the virtual space…, the reality is, there were lots of gaps that developed.”

To overcome some of those gaps, she said, the school is “using the value of time.”

“Our math block is 75 minutes and we’ve added additional interventions for students based on their levels,” she said. The goal is to “intervene very strategically based on what we’re seeing — the gaps that students are demonstrating and understanding that there’s going to be a lot more intervention taking place this year.”

For students, Newman said, “it’s exciting because they’re going to class; they’re moving forward with the lesson per our scope and sequence of making sure that we’re moving through and exposing students to those grade-level skills. But they are also excited about going into their intervention blocks to make sure that they’re getting the additional conceptual understanding that they need.”

Newman also described a technique of “aggressive monitoring” in which teachers circulate a classroom looking to determine which students are accomplishing specific steps in math, and those who aren’t. 

“We see what students are doing at every step,” she said. “We want to see that step: ‘OK, that’s great, you move on to the next step. Oh, there’s a gap here, fix that before you move on to the next step.”

Jo Napolitano, a senior reporter for The 74, noted that some of the most significant impacts of the pandemic and remote learning have fallen on students in the later elementary school grades and in middle school. “That’s when they get into a bit of more complex learning and principles that are difficult for some students to master,” she said. 

“I think this definitely shows that not only are we not at pre-pandemic levels [of achievement}, but we’ve got a very, very long road to get to a better place,” she said.

Napolitano also pointed out that recent studies about pandemic-related learning gaps could easily be understating the problem. Some assessments have failed to include data from some of the poorest students, she said. “They either were unavailable to take them, whether it was in person or online, they just could not access that. So I would say in my reporting…, these statistics may not include the children who would be performing at the lower levels.”

“In reality, this picture could be worse on the ground because it doesn’t include the most vulnerable children.”

Shennell McCloud, CEO of Project Ready in Newark, N.J., discussed the unique pressures that fell upon many parents and grandparents who had to step in as teachers during remote learning — pressures that were particularly acute for Black and Brown families.

For many parents, she said, the question was: “How do I show up for my child as now the teacher, engaging with a teacher who is providing me the resources and tools from a digital world? But the next question becomes how do I even get that access when either A) I don’t have access to the technology, B) I don’t understand how to work the technology, or C) maybe I have all of those things, but I don’t even have the access to the high-quality internet that is needed to get that access?”

One challenge with math learning that has remained constant before and during the pandemic is getting students excited about it. “At Purpose Prep we’re constantly thinking about how we center our students at the learning, because we know that’s when they see themselves in what they’re learning and they’re so excited about it.” 

She wants her students to know the history of math, and its origins in Africa. “The oldest mathematical object was found in Africa,” she said. “That level of information empowers our children to understand that math is you!”

Likewise, Michelle Stie, VP of the National Math and Science Initiative, called for the education funds being distributed as part of President Biden’s American Rescue Plan to go to programs that stimulate students to enjoy math and use it as a problem-solving tool.

“I would just encourage schools to be thinking out of the box,” Stie said, suggesting that new funds be spent on “direct-to-student supports especially for those curricular activities like Mathcounts or like others that are really thinking about making math engaging, fun, relevant, focused on problem-solving and just a really relevant language for all students to help them thrive.”

These are the questions that guided a recent webinar organized by The 74 and the Progressive Policy Institute: “STEM Education and Math Recovery in a Post-COVID World.” Panelists included Lagra Newman, founder of Purpose Prep Charter School in Nashville; Shenell McCloud, CEO of Project Ready in New Jersey; Michelle Stie, vice president of the National Math & Science Initiative; Jo Napolitano, senior reporter at The 74; and Patrick Jones, senior vice president at The Mind Trust in Indianapolis. Curtis Valentine, co-director of the Reinventing America’s Schools project at PPI, served as moderator. Watch .