A former student writes - with Thank You

Some 49 years ago, teachers had a lot more latitude than is permitted today. Now administrators call teachers "Professionals" but treat them more like young children. Here is a note I just received from one of "my kids" I began teaching in fall of 1968 in grade 7.
------------
I recently retired and during my career I became a story teller. I used stories to create emotion in listeners as a leadership tool. I had lots of stories about being raised in a small town and about lessons from my parents. I was also known for being a lifelong learner. I took classes every year I worked (picked up three masters degrees along the way).

When asked about my quest for learning, I shared a story about my seventh grade teacher. After having been taught by nuns for six years, a young teacher moved into this small town and lit a fire in me. He cared about all of us and taught me how to learn through his passion for mathematics. Using a high school math text, he challenged our ability to absorb new topics. The mathematical concepts served me well though high school and college. I wasn't really challenged again until college. Your gift for teaching became the basis for my BS and MS in Engineering which provided a path to leadership at Avista. I pointed to your math and teaching skills as the platform for all of my professional success.

I was very blessed to have you as my teacher at a pivotal time in my life. In case I never told you before, thank you for caring about me and for your guidance.
------------
In that remote town, I fantasized about how great it could be to teach in a larger setting with all the support one might receive from administration. Well that is exactly what it was a fantasy. Today there are many intrusions from upper decision-makers that hinder teachers from being more effective and make the teaching job more difficult. I with the help of other teachers could create an enormous list.

If it had not been for the fabulous time I had teaching initially, I would have dumped this teaching gig long ago. It is extremely difficult to find a math teaching job in Western Washington in which suitable instructional materials are available for use. Way too many districts are using the Danielson Evaluation model because it is one-size fits-all, while being largely useless to math teachers. Some places are moving to "Standards based grading" what a waste of energy. The focus should be on great instruction not grading. Leadership today is defective it resembles "bullying" not "cooperative guidance". PLCs, Professional Learning Communities are now a cover for more top-down edicts and indoctrination.

I am flying to Albuquerque today to interview tomorrow for a School Year 2017-18 math position at Ramah Middle/High School in Ramah, NM. The school is grades 6-12 with 195 students, 80% American Indian, 10% Anglo, 10% Hispanic. I've heard good things about the principal ... Hopefully Ramah is not required by the district to use "no books EngageNY" the latest round of instructional lunacy, so popular in the Olympia, WA area.

Singapore’s Math Results, How Do They Do It?

the link  http://www.educationviews.org/singapores-math-results-it/

NCTM Fooled Me Twice, but No More

http://www.educationviews.org/nctm-fooled-twice/

My article appears in Education News.

Add, Subtract, and more ... a plan for competence. [unlikely]

I am continually amazed at the relatively poor performance of USA math students relative to the East Asian countries of Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc. While legislators discuss how to change various aspects of college to deal with apparent inadequacies of incoming students a couple of things are clear:
(1) There is little if any real interest in analyzing Singapore's instructional approach.
TIMSS 2015 -- grade 8 USA 518 Singapore 621 gap 103 pts.
(2) Basing grade level promotion on skill acquired is not likely to happen. [Florida's requirement to read well to enter grade 4 is a remarkable exception.] It is well past time that the National Council of the Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) figured out that 60 years of trying to create better results their way has been remarkably inefficient. Today NCTM still pushes that Understanding should precede Procedural Fluency.... yet the high performing nations see conceptual understanding arising from Procedural Fluency. In short knowing how to accurately add and subtract is a skill that will make it easier to understand what addition is all about. It is possible to teach the four historic algorithms of arithmetic before "understanding" them. This is done in East Asia all the time. While East Asia leaves us in their mathematical dust the NCTM plods along with a failed ideology. 8th grade TIMSS math results with percent of students able to achieve benchmarks country - advanced -- high --- intermediate -- low Korea -------43% -- 75% -- 93% -- 99% Singapore- 54% -- 81% -- 94% -- 99% Japan ----- 34% -- 67% -- 89% -- 98% USA -------- 10% -- 37% -- 70% -- 91%
Instead of figuring out how to cut corners, we should learn from others how to improve instruction. Tell me about the Common Core, the big emphasis on (STEM) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math careers and talk about what a great job we are going to do, after you explain the difference between Advanced 54% and 10%.

NO Links version- Singapore Crushes USA - who cares?

To: Executive Director 

The Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession

Dear Nasue Nashida,

I initially listened to the Jana Dean webinar of 4/13/17 because among other things it was advertised as dealing with Singapore's math program. I am deeply disappointed.

As a "math person" who was a member of the State Board of Education's Math Advisory Panel, which was involved in the formulation of the 2008 Math Standards, I am particularly disappointed in WA State's current NAEP performance and the direction math instruction has been headed.

Advertising Ms. Jana Dean's presentation as having anything to do with Singapore's math practices was incredibly misleading.  I think your organization needs to do more to improve instructional practice.

I’ve been puzzled by the lackluster performance in math of USA 8th graders on the TIMSS testing for two decades and recently a drop on NAEP 2015. It seems inexplicable to me that the Math Ed gurus at the state and school district level have very little interest in how Singapore consistently scores so far above the USA. Does saying USA ranks in top 10 suffice?

I’ve reached the conclusion that the current USA math education gurus believe so strongly in their current  ideologically-based pedagogical superiority that there is no reason to consider anything else.  It is downright anti-science.

Singapore vs USA compared from grade 4 2011 to grade 8 2015

------------grade 4 :: grade 8 :: change over 4 years for the cohort

USA  -------   541 :: 518 :: change -23 lower

Singapore -- 606 :: 621 :: change +15 higher

USA Gap : :  -65 :: -103 ::

July 29, 2016 at the 13th International Conference of Mathematical Education in Hamburg, Germany,  Berinderjeet Kaur, PhD of Singapore, presented the in depth pertinent information about teaching practices in Singapore.  Ms. Dean was in attendance at this presentation. I've watched Dr. Kaur's presentation online and downloaded her slides. Unfortunately USA persons of authority in math leadership positions take at best a passing interest in Singapore's consistently outstanding performance.   (Reminds me of Lilly Tomlin’s We don’t care, we don’t have to. We’re the phone company.)

Dr. Kaur's Findings from Singapore: close-up lens

Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that students deemed a mathematics lesson as a good one when some of the following characteristics were present.

Teacher

(1) explained clearly the concepts and steps of the procedure

(2) made complex knowledge easily assimilate through  demonstrations, the use of manipulatives, and real life examples.

(3) reviewed past knowledge

(4) introduced new knowledge

(5) used student work/group presentations to give feedback to individuals or the whole class

(6) gave clear instructions related to mathematical activities for in class and after class work.

(7) provided interesting activities for students to work on individually or in small groups

(8) provided sufficient practice tasks for preparations towards examinations

-----------------------

In a lesson there may be more than one instructional

objective but the structural patterns of the lesson

are done in sequence.

Instructional approaches may involve:

D - Whole class demonstration (aimed to develop students' understanding mathematical skills and concepts)

S - Seatwork

R - whole class review of student work

M - Miscellaneous -  managerial and administrative

Q - Group Quiz

T - Test

[D] [S] [R] were present in all 3 classrooms observed

----------------------------

Singapore bases its instructional program not on “inquiry” or “student-centered design” but on a combination of teacher-centered Traditional Instruction with Direct Instruction and then builds from this to Teaching for Understanding.   Why is the USA not doing the same?

The evidence is all there, if anyone wants to read it and believe it.  But THEY DON’T!  Evidence of this claim is seen in Jana Dean’s presentation at the 4/13/17 webinar.  She simply IGNORED the information presented in the well detailed Singapore talk by Berindarjeet Kaur.  It didn’t compute in her ideologically bound frame of reference. Ms. Dean reduced Dr. Kaur’s presentation to “Singapore focuses on testing”.  Apparently Ms. Dean  is representative of the entire US K-8 ed corps, with a few exceptions.  Why are agents like OSPI, school districts, and The Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession not intelligently applying the relevant data to greatly improve USA math practices and performance?  

Isn’t a 123 point gap enough to elicit some interest in change?

Sincerely,

Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.

Olympia, WA

8th grade Math - Singapore Crushes USA - who cares?

To: Executive Director 

The Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession

Dear Nasue Nashida,

I initially listened to the Jana Dean webinar of 4/13/17 because among other things it was advertised as dealing with Singapore's math program. I am deeply disappointed.

As a "math person" who was a member of the State Board of Education's Math Advisory Panel, which was involved in the formulation of the 2008 Math Standards, I am particularly disappointed in WA State's current NAEP performance and the direction math instruction has been headed.

Advertising Ms. Jana Dean's presentation as having anything to do with Singapore's math practices was incredibly misleading.  I think your organization needs to do more to improve instructional practice.

I’ve been puzzled by the lackluster performance in math of USA 8th graders on the TIMSS testing for two decades and recently a drop on NAEP 2015. It seems inexplicable to me that the Math Ed gurus at the state and school district level have very little interest in how Singapore consistently scores so far above the USA. Does saying USA ranks in top 10 suffice?

I’ve reached the conclusion that the current USA math education gurus believe so strongly in their current  ideologically-based pedagogical superiority that there is no reason to consider anything else.  It is downright anti-science.

Singapore vs USA compared from grade 4 2011 to grade 8 2015

------------grade 4 :: grade 8 :: change over 4 years for the cohort

USA  -------   541 :: 518 :: change -23 lower

Singapore -- 606 :: 621 :: change +15 higher

USA Gap : :  -65 :: -103 ::

July 29, 2016 at the 13th International Conference of Mathematical Education in Hamburg, Germany,  Berinderjeet Kaur, PhD of Singapore, presented the in depth pertinent information about teaching practices in Singapore.  Ms. Dean was in attendance at this presentation. I've watched Dr. Kaur's presentation online and downloaded her slides. Unfortunately USA persons of authority in math leadership positions take at best a passing interest in Singapore's consistently outstanding performance.   (Reminds me of Lilly Tomlin’s We don’t care, we don’t have to. We’re the phone company.)

Dr. Kaur's Findings from Singapore: close-up lens

Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that students deemed a mathematics lesson as a good one when some of the following characteristics were present.

Teacher

(1) explained clearly the concepts and steps of the procedure

(2) made complex knowledge easily assimilate through  demonstrations, the use of manipulatives, and real life examples.

(3) reviewed past knowledge

(4) introduced new knowledge

(5) used student work/group presentations to give feedback to individuals or the whole class

(6) gave clear instructions related to mathematical activities for in class and after class work.

(7) provided interesting activities for students to work on individually or in small groups

(8) provided sufficient practice tasks for preparations towards examinations

-----------------------

In a lesson there may be more than one instructional

objective but the structural patterns of the lesson

are done in sequence.

Instructional approaches may involve:

D - Whole class demonstration (aimed to develop students' understanding mathematical skills and concepts)

S - Seatwork

R - whole class review of student work

M - Miscellaneous -  managerial and administrative

Q - Group Quiz

T - Test

[D] [S] [R] were present in all 3 classrooms observed

----------------------------

Singapore bases its instructional program not on “inquiry” or “student-centered design” but on a combination of teacher-centered Traditional Instruction with Direct Instruction and then builds from this to Teaching for Understanding.   Why is the USA not doing the same?

The evidence is all there, if anyone wants to read it and believe it.  But THEY DON’T!  Evidence of this claim is seen in Jana Dean’s presentation at the 4/13/17 webinar.  She simply IGNORED the information presented in the well detailed Singapore talk by Berindarjeet Kaur.  It didn’t compute in her ideologically bound frame of reference. Ms. Dean reduced Dr. Kaur’s presentation to “Singapore focuses on testing”.  Apparently Ms. Dean  is representative of the entire US K-8 ed corps, with a few exceptions.  Why are agents like OSPI, school districts, and The Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession not intelligently applying the relevant data to greatly improve USA math practices and performance?  

Isn’t a 123 point gap enough to elicit some interest in change?

Sincerely,

Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.

Olympia, WA

8 thoughts from Singapore

At the International Conference on Mathematics Education held in Hamburg, Germany in July 2016, Berinderjeet Kaur gave a presentation on mathematics classrooms studies.   She is the foremost authority in Singapore on mathematics education.    At minute 38:45 came this observation from data:
about the student perspective on good lessons.

Findings: close-up lens

Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed
that students deemed a mathematics lesson as a
good one when some of the following
characteristics were present.

Teacher

(1) explained clearly the concepts and steps
    of the procedure

(2) made complex knowledge easily assimilated
    through  demonstrations, the use of
    manipulatives, and real life examples.

(3) reviewed past knowledge

(4) introduced new knowledge

(5) used student work/group presentations
    to give feedback to individuals or
    the whole class

(6) gave clear instructions related to
    mathematical activities for in class
    and after class work.

(7) provided interesting activities for
    students to work on individually
    or in small groups

(8) provided sufficient practice tasks for
    preparations towards examinations

-----------------------

In a lesson there may be more than one instructional 
objective but the structural patterns of the lesson 
are done in sequence.
[[at minute 29 of video]] Instructional approaches may involve
D - Whole class demonstration (aimed to develop 
    students' understanding of mathematical skills
    and concepts)
S - Seatwork
R - whole class review of student work
M - Miscellaneous -  managerial and administrative 
Q - Group Quiz
T - Test
[D] [S] [R] were present in all 3 classrooms observed

----------------------------

Singapore bases their program on a combination of Traditional
Instruction with Direct Instruction and then builds from this 
to Teaching for Understanding.   

Math in Singapore - Where is the data?

Recently I attended a 60 minute webinar, originally attracted by the inference that information about Singapore's techniques and methods that contributed to its great TIMSS math results would be revealed. The only thing that was revealed is that students in Singapore consider their teacher good if the teacher teaches them so that they do well on tests.  Whereas in the USA students consider their teacher great if they have a good relationship with their teacher.

It was also mentioned that the USA ranks in the top ten of TIMSS countries and that apparently is good enough.

====================================
I maintain that Singapore ranks far above USA on grade 8 TIMSS, that Singapore has teachers that are much more prepared to teach math, that Singapore requires much greater competence at each grade level so that promoted students know their stuff.  Traditionally Singapore has developed books that are very effective whereas the USA has not.  Now in some districts there is a move away from books to computers, yet there is no pilot data indicating this is a good idea.  Once again some locations in Education USA are going to the leading bleeding edge without relevant data.

Singapore vs USA compared from grade 4 2011 to grade 8 2015
---------grade 4 :: grade 8 :: change over 4 years for the cohort
USA  ------   541 :: 518 :: -23 lower
Singapore -- 606 :: 621 :: +15 higher
USA Gap : :  -65 :: -103 :: -38 worse

This performance collapse of the cohort in grade 8 USA TIMSS Math testing should be of great concern, yet is hardly noticed by so many current leaders.    For a long time this fall from higher grade 4 scores to much lower grade 8 scores has been evident.   --(What me Worry? - A.E. Newman)

USA and Singapore teacher academic math background at grade 4

2015  grade 4 Math  country name
 then percent of teachers in Category 1 and their student scores
then percent of teachers in Category 2 and their students' scores
then percent of teachers in Category 3 and their students scores

CAT 1           -------- ||   --- Cat 2  -------------- ||  --- Cat 3 || Cat 4

Major in Primary Ed || Majored in Primary Ed || Majored in   || Other
 and specialized or    ||  no Math specialization || Math but no|| Major
Majored in Math       ||                                       ||  primary Ed

Singapore  --- 59 (621)  :: 14 (629) :: 14 (611) :: 11 (598)

Taipei -------- 37 (599)  ::  44 (594)  ::   3 (602)  ::  15 (599)

Japan  -------- 17 (593) ::  73 (595)  ::    2 (??)  ::   7 (594)

Florida  -------11  (566) ::  68 (549)  ::   4 (536)  ::  16 (535)

England  ----- 12 (548)  ::   57 (543) ::  4 (582)  ::  27 (552)

Ireland  ------ 12 (547)  ::  78 (545)  ::  3 (556)  ::  6 (560)

USA   -------- 13 (537)   ::  73 (540) ::   2 (??)    :: 12 (541)

Finland  ----- 10  (535)  ::  82 (536)  ::    0 (??)   ::   7 (521)

Denmark ---- 38 (534)  ::  12 (527)  :: 30 (536) :: 13 (548)

Quebec  ------- 6 (519)  ::  86 (537)  ::  5 (531)  ::  3 (530)

Canada   ------ 6 (495)  ::   79 (513)  ::  3 (518)  ::  12 (501)

It should be noted that Singapore with 59% of its 4th grade teachers being specialized in both Elementary Ed and Mathematics is the highest scoring country.

Florida had for many years been a low performing state until it required students to be able to proficiently read to advance to grade 4.  With a large focus on reading to get to grade 4 things changed a lot in Florida. Notice FL out scores USA.

For most countries there is not much variation across the four categories.    Scores of more than 10 points variation from countries average of four scores are highlighted.
=====================================

USA and Singapore teacher academic math background at grade 8

2015  grade 8 Math  country name
 then percent of teachers in Category 1 and their student scores
then percent of teachers in Category 2 and their students' scores
then percent of teachers in Category 3 and their students scores

CAT 1    -------- ||   --- Cat 2  ----------||  --- Cat 3 ------|| Cat 4

Major in             || Major in                 || Majored in         || Other
Mathematics and||Mathematics but no|| Math ED but no|| Major
Math  Education ||  Math Education    ||  Math Major

Singapore  --- 53 (625)  :: 31 (614)    ::    6 (645) ::    10 (595)

Taipei --------   31 (610)  ::  50 (600)  ::   4 (599)   ::   15 (577)

Korea ----        18 (610)   ::  30 (606)  ::   49 (603) ::  3 (618)

Japan  ---------- 41 (582)  ::  40 (593)  ::    6 (562)  ::   13 (592)

Hong Kong --- 42 (574)  ::  25 (610)   ::   9 (597)  ::   23 (610)

Russian Fed --  58 (544)  ::  41 (530)   ::    0 (??)  ::     1 (??)

Florida  -------   26  (498) ::  24 (506)  ::   14 (532)  ::  35 (489)

England  -------  44 (520)  ::   37 (526) ::    4 (475)  ::  15 (504)

Ireland  --------   33 (519)  ::  36 (532)  ::  8 (534)  ::  22 (510)

USA   ----------  35 (521)   ::  12 (512)  ::   22 (513)    :: 31 (522)

Sweden  -----      50  (506)  ::  17 (495)  ::    21 (497)   ::   11 (489)

Quebec  -------    43 (557) ::  16 (543)   ::   25 (561)  ::  15 (522)

Canada   ------    19 (545)   ::   8 (537)   ::  15 (546)    ::  59 (521)

====================================================
8th grade Teachers with
NO "strong academic" Math background  Cat 3 + Cat 4 (nation's 8th grade 2015 score)

Singapore  --- 16% (621)
Korea ---------  52% (606)
Taipei --------   19% (599)
Hong Kong --  32% (594)
Japan  ---------- 19% (586)

Quebec  -------    40% (543)
Russian Federation 1% (538)
Canada   ------    74%  (527)

Ireland  --------   30% (523)

England  -------  19% (518)

USA   ----------  53% (518)

Sweden  -----      32% (501)

Florida  -------   49% (493)

===========================

TIMSS grade 8 Math 2015

The five East Asian countries Singapore, Taipei, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan increased the gap above #6 to 48 points in 2011 the gap was 31 points.

It is way past time to start emulating the curriculum and practices used in these five countries.

While citizens of Singapore and Hong Kong are very wealthy, the citizens of the other three East Asian countries are not any where near as wealthy.

It is time to put an end to the obsession for unguided inquiry and develop effective efficient programs of instruction, which emphasize greater procedural fluency in elementary school.  It is time to learn from the highest performing countries.

CCSS-M It fails in its design because the authors went home instead of remaining on the job

CCSS-M It fails in its design because the authors went home instead of remaining on the job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9P-l4y6FqI

Richard Innes of the Bluegrass Institute explains the defective nature of the Common Core State Standards.  

Master in Teaching Year 1 - training to teach effectively or ??

I've been wondering why the performance of the math students in the USA in TIMSS at grade 8, NAEP at grades 4, 8, and 12, and PISA (15 year-olds) is not impressive in comparison to high performing  nations.  I may have stumbled onto a partial answer: teacher training, in some places is more about allegiance to an ideology of social change than about training teachers to construct and deliver efficient effective lessons.

Consider the Masters in Teaching Year 1 program at the Evergreen State College.  Evergreen offers no undergraduate route to teacher certification preferring to offer a two year Masters program leading to a Masters of Education and a teaching credential.

Masters in Teaching Year 1:

More than two decades ago, educator Marilyn Cochrane-Smith asked, "Can prospective teachers learn to be both educators and activists, to regard themselves as agents for change, and to regard reform as an integral part of the social, intellectual, ethical and political activity of teaching?”  In the MiT 2015-17 program, we take up this challenge as we prepare teachers who recognize teaching as a political activity and knowingly take on the role of activist based on a commitment to eliminate the inequities that exist in classrooms and the broader community.

 If we are to be effective advocates for our students and to empower our students to transform their own lives, we must deepen, and perhaps challenge, our current beliefs about teaching and learning.  As teachers we must develop within ourselves the emotional and intellectual attributes needed to understand, support, and teach our future students, and to meet their diverse needs.

 Future teachers can expect to see a more diverse population of students. The MiT program prepares teachers who can draw on the strengths of students from a wide range of ethnic origins, languages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds. Further, these students will live in a society requiring people to engage diverse cultures through effective collaboration and creative problem-solving grounded in integrated technological skills and active use of a wide range of information resources. Thus, the MiT program will support candidates to develop as critical, reflective educators who not only care deeply about issues of race, class, poverty, and justice but are prepared to act on these issues to support student achievement.

Experiences in classrooms serve as vital parts of the MiT program. Field experiences in urban, rural, and suburban communities enable teacher candidates to mediate their understanding of theoretical ideas and concepts presentedin program coursework. Likewise, our academic investigations inform teacher candidates’ experiences in the field. These two sites for learning are bridged through meaningful activities that require teacher candidates to integrate what they learn across classrooms and coursework.

 Among the questions that will engage our study and practice are:

• What effective teaching practices encourage students' curiosity and lead them to shape their own questions and pursue their own answers using critical and reflective thinking?
• How does teachers’ knowledge of learning theory, research-based pedagogy and neurobiology contribute to children's and adolescents' learning and development?
• How are questions of democracy, equity and excellence related to success or failure in our public schools and civic engagement in a democratic society?
• How are the more traditional literacies of reading, writing, and quantitative reasoning related to personal, economic, and political oppression and power?
• How can teachers respond to and work with family and cultural belief systems that shape children's lives? How can teachers draw on community resources to connect content knowledge to students' lived experiences?

Apparently students who desire to learn how to best deliver effective efficient lessons to students may be in the wrong place at the Evergreen State College, as this program emphasizes political and social change.  

Is this program strengthening the teaching profession?
Is this program contributing to instruction that reduces the achievement gap for educationally disadvantaged learners?

===================


The Masters in Teaching Program Year 1 at Evergreen has 9 instructors and apparently none of them has as much as a B.A. in Mathematics.  Are we to believe that the training of teachers will have a focus to produce better teachers of Math, Science, Engineering, or Mathematics?  

====================
Masters in Teaching Year 2 

Taught by Terry Ford -
B.A., English, Whitman College, 1983; Ed.M., Secondary Education, Washington State University, 1988; Ph.D., Literacy Education, Washington State University, 1993.

Erica Hernandez-Scott
B.A., Elementary Education, Rockhurst University, KCMO, 200; M.A., Curriculum and Instruction (Emphases: Multicultural and Urban Education), University of Missouri at Kansas City, KCMO, 2008; Ph.D., Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies and Educational __

=======================

Apparently none of these 11 instructors in the Masters in Teaching program could be certified to teach high school math in Washington State, yet they are training teachers.   The state has supposedly increased the emphasis on producing better prepared students to eventually pursue jobs in STEM fields.


===============

Will new elementary teachers be prepared to offer instruction equivalent to that provided by k-6 teachers in Singapore?



Math preparation of USA and Singapore Teachers
Grade 4 teachers:
Major in primary education and major (or specialization) in mathematics.

59% Singapore / about 4.5 times US
13% USA
International Average 27%
===============

Grade 8 teachers:
Major in Mathematics Education and Mathematics
53% - Singapore / about 1.5 times US
35% - USA
international avg 36%
------
Major in Math but no major in Math Education
31% - Singapore
12% - USA
international avg 36%
------
Major in Math Ed but no major in Mathematics
6% - Singapore / less than 1/3 of US
22% - USA
international avg 13%
=============

My observation is that:
Most current leaders in USA school districts and state offices of education directing math decisions are holders of degrees in Math education but very often no degree in Mathematics.