We've grown so accustomed to Massachusetts' trailblazer stature in education that perhaps we were a little blasé over its decision to participate in the TIMSS, international assessments of 4th and 8th grade mathematics performance. Nor were we all that surprised to learn that the state's students performed relatively well compared to students from other nations.

Less blasé are we about Minnesota, which for years has demonstrated little more than smug satisfaction over its high standing among American states, but which decided to finally prove its mettle by competing against the world and doing fairly well (as is illustrated here).

A good share of the credit for Minnesota's very impressive showing on the TIMSS goes to Michigan State University professor William Schmidt. His position as co-director of the Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education (PROM/SE) project has made him the "go to" guy whenever issues of international mathematics performance arise. NCTQ spoke to Professor Schmidt recently about his work with Minnesota. (We've paraphrased a bit with his approval.)

Question: Only a handful of states have ever participated in TIMSS. What inspired Minnesota to take part in the 2007 TIMSS and why did its students do so well?

Schmidt: I'm not sure why, but Minnesota decided to participate in the original 1995 TIMSS. Results showed that performance of Minnesota students was about on the level of U.S. students as a whole--mediocre. That comparative information apparently inspired the years of reform efforts that have followed. Minnesota turned to us for help both in 1997 and 2003 when it was developing state mathematics standards. We helped them "benchmark" their standards to international standards. By 2003 Minnesota standards had the international hallmarks of effectiveness: focus, coherence and rigor. Now, 12 years after that original TIMSS experience, despite changes in leadership at the state Department of Education, stakeholders in the state are still on the same page.

Question: What was done to make sure that teachers knew how to meet state standards in their instruction?

Schmidt: An organization called "SciMathMN", a public-private partnership funded by the state, business groups and foundations, became the bridge from these improved standards to actual classroom practices. Changes in instruction supported by SciMathMN have been dramatic: between 1995 and 2007 4th grade teachers doubled the time they spent on the most important mathematics topics while reducing the time spent on "other" topics (which I call "clutter") from 50 percent to only 4 percent. Likewise, 8th grade mathematics teachers quadrupled the time spent on algebra, while reducing the time spent on clutter from 33 percent to only 1 percent.

Question: There's increasing focus in discussions of education reform on the importance of improving teacher quality. How do you weight the importance of teacher quality relative to curriculum issues when you think about education reform?

Schmidt: I don't want to discount the importance of teacher quality, but the Minnesota example may illustrate how much difference any given group of teachers can make using a focused, coherent and rigorous curriculum, provided efforts are made to bring them on board. I'm known to get pretty impassioned about this topic, sermonizing with the enthusiasm of a Baptist preacher. There is nothing stopping other states from doing exactly as Minnesota has done to improve student performance in mathematics. I don't want to steal anything from President Obama, but my message to states is "yes you can!"