1998 Journals
1998 NCSM JOURNALS
The following NCSM Journals are available in their entirety because one
year has passed since their original publication date. Only the contents
and President's Message from more recent
Journals are available.
APRIL 1998 NCSM JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
LEADERSHIP
Journal Contents
- President's Message
- Helping Teachers Implement Algebra for All in Milwaukee Public Schools
By Mark Driscoll, John (Jack) Moyer, and Judith S. Zawojewski
- Recurring Themes in Real Life Mathematics
By Charles Mitchell and Elisabeth Riggs
President's Message
By Bonnie Hanson Walker
Dear Colleagues,
I hope you enjoyed the 30th annual conference as much as I did. My congratulations
to Jerry Cummins and the Program Committee for a useful, informative and
enjoyable opportunity for professional growth. During my years as a member
of NCSM I have enjoyed many excellent programs but I believe this one was
the best. Isn't it a source of pride that we keep on improving even if it
is expected!
To those of you who attended the conference please accept my thanks for
the warm and friendly reception given to my parents. They participated in
every meeting in which I was involved listening and asking many questions
afterward. They thanked me and you for having learned so much. I understand
they caught their pastor in the grocery store and told him all about their
experience. Word is probably out that Lou and David have a story to tell.
Thank you all so much for your kind attention.
I want to thank Joanne Lobato and Randy Charles for the Future Basics
monograph. How exciting and helpful to have this valuable document made
available to us. I hope you will let Randy and Joanne know how valuable
the monograph is to you.
As I think back to the 30th anniversary events I want to again thank
Dr. Mary Ann Norton for updating and completely reformatting the commemorative
booklet. You did a super job, as I knew you would, and I appreciate it very
much. I also want to thank Mo Nelson for the "best ever" printed
program and for registration and pre-registration and for taking care of
a myriad of details. Mo, you are NCSM's secret weapon!
Thank you to the NCSM board for your work at the conference and all year.
NCSM members, do you know who unpacks, stuffs and prepares those bags for
you? Your board does! Get to know your board, so you can inform them and
they can serve you. Hold us all responsible for serving you and supporting
you in your work so that we all ultimately improve education for students.
It is our desire to do our best for you. Please help us do so by letting
us know what you need.
Let me close by giving you some important dates to keep in mind:
Standards 2000 Project Schedule
- July 1997, Writing groups meet
- 1997-98, Discussion, input, ongoing work
- Summer 1998, Draft prepared
- Fall 1998, Draft released in print and electronic formats
- 1998-1999, Year of Dialogue
- Summer 1999, Writing groups meet for final revisions
- Spring 2000, Standards 2000 released
National, State, Local Standards:
Harmony or Cacophony?
Editorial: A statement of opinion from the editorial team
Some of the discourse surrounding higher standards for public schools
has focused on opinions about the degree to which the standards are specific
enough to really ensure quality for all. In particular, there is a good
deal of political discussion going on in Wisconsin, comparing standards
prepared by the Department of Publication with standards purchased by the
governor, largely adapted from Virginia standards.
JANUARY 1998 NCSM JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
LEADERSHIP
Journal Contents
- President's Message: The National Education Goals and Professional
Development
- Fulfilling the Call for Mathematics Education Reform
By Laura R. VanZoest and Beth E. Ritsema
- Enhancing the Field Experience Component in a Mathematics Teacher Preparation
Program
By Regina M. Panasuk, Joyce Cutler, and Mary M. Sullivan
President's Message: The National Education Goals and Professional Development
By Bonnie Hanson Walker
Like many of you I have just received a copy of the 1997 National Education
Goals Report. This report is the seventh in a series designed to measure
the amount of progress made by the nation and the states toward the eight
National Education goals. We have included the National goals in this newsletter
to help us keep them in the forefront of our minds. I will quote from the
summary in this article, The National Education Goals Panel (NEGP), is a
unique body of federal and state officials created in 1990 to assess and
report state and national progress toward achieving the goals. In 1994 the
Goals Panel became a fully independent federal agency charged with monitoring
and speeding progress toward the eight goals. The Panel is charged with
a variety of responsibilities to support system-wide reform, including:
- Reporting on national and state progress toward the Goals over a 10-year
period;
- Working to establish a system of high academic standards and assessments;
- Identifying actions for federal, state, and local governments to take;
and
- Building a nationwide, bipartisan consensus to achieve the Goals.
The report is available on-line <http://www.negp.gov>. Copies of
the report are available at no charge from:
National Education Goals Panel
1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 502
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 724-0015
Fax: (202) 632-0957
According to the Goals Report Summary we can draw three important conclusions
from the recent TIMSS findings:
1. While our performance in 4th grade science shows that the Goals of
being first in the world in mathematics and science is attainable, other
areas show that we are far from being a world leader.
2. We will not reach the Goal if we do not expect more from our students.
3. We will not reach the Goal if we do not create the conditions that
will enable our teachers to teach well.
The NEGP suggests that policy makers, educators, business leaders, parents
and the public must work together to do three things if we want to raise
mathematics and science achievement to world-class levels.
1. Set tougher standards for students in mathematics and science that
are comparable to the best in the world.
2. Align other components of the education system with the standards,
including curricula, instruction, textbooks, assessments, and school policies.
3. Strengthen teachers' subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills
in mathematics and science, and move state teacher policies more in line
with instructional goals embedded in state standards.
This third suggestion is the one I will dwell on in the rest of my article.
It is of special interest to me at this time in light of our professional
development initiative. According to the Summary one of the most extensive
analyses of data on teachers found that differences in expertise accounted
for nearly 40% of the differences in student test scores. This was found
to have a greater impact than any other factor including parent education,
family income, and other socioeconomic characteristics. We know that unless
we also strengthen the preparation and continuing professional development
of our teachers all other efforts will still fail to raise our students'
achievement to world-class levels. Research consistently shows that teacher
expertise is the most important factor in raising student achievement. Research
also consistently shows that the quality of teacher training matters enormously.
It comes as no surprise that teachers who are trained in both their subject
area and in teacher skills and who are fully certified are rated more highly
and are more successful at raising student achievement than teachers with
inadequate preparation.
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future has proposed
five recommendations to improve and professionalize teaching:
1. Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers.
2. Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development.
3. Fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom.
4. Encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill.
5. Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.
Some states have already implemented these kinds of education reforms
as part of their efforts to raise student achievement. Connecticut and North
Carolina have developed some of the most comprehensive approaches. Connecticut
raised minimum salaries for beginning teachers, set tougher standards for
teacher licensing, created new performance-based examinations, implemented
a mentoring program for beginning teachers, invested in training for the
mentor teachers, and required teachers to earn a master's degree in education
to obtain a continuing license. Connecticut also provided grants to universities
to redesign teacher education programs and eliminated permanent teacher
licenses, requiring instead that teachers continue to earn credits for course
work or other forms of professional development for relicensure.
North Carolina's approach included raising minimum salaries, requiring
all schools of education to be accredited, implementing a mentoring program
for beginning teachers, recruiting prospective teachers to enter teacher
preparation programs by offering financial support for their training, creating
professional development academies, and offering veteran teachers an array
of incentives to encourage them to seek advanced certification from the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Did these investments yield tangible results? The evidence suggests that
they did. There are more teachers in North Carolina who are Board-certified
than in any other state. And North Carolina students have made some of the
largest gains in the nation in reading and mathematics since teacher reforms
were implemented. Connecticut students also made substantial gains and continue
to score among the top states in the U.S. in reading and mathematics, despite
an increase in poverty in the state. And Connecticut now has teacher surpluses
instead of teacher shortages.
As leaders in mathematics education it is our responsibility to support
and carry forward the effort to improve and professionalize teaching. Recommendation
2 is in part about reinventing teacher professional development. I have
had the opportunity to work with the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative
on a professional development initiative for the last year. I have read
a great deal of literature on effective professional development and would
like to share some of it with you. One of the most interesting articles
I read was the May, 1996 National Institute for Science Education (NISE)
Brief. The article was written by Susan Loucks-Horsley, Katherine Stiles,
and Peter Hewson and describes the findings when the Professional Development
Project of the NISE explored whether science, mathematics, and professional
development communities share a common understanding of what effective professional
learning experiences look like, and how teacher development should be nurtured.
They found that there is a shared vision and according to the shared vision,
the best professional development experiences include the following seven
principles:
1. They are driven by a clear, well-define image of effective classroom
learning and teaching.
2. They provide teachers with opportunities to develop knowledge and
skills and broaden their teaching approaches, so they can create better
learning opportunities for students.
3. They use instructional methods to promote learning for adults which
mirror the methods to be used with students.
4. They build or strengthen the learning community of science and mathematics
teachers.
5. They prepare and support teachers to serve in leadership roles if
they are inclined to do so. As teachers master the skills of their profession,
they need to be encouraged to step beyond their classrooms and play roles
in the development of the whole school and beyond.
6. They consciously provide links to other parts of the educational
system.
7. They include continuous assessment.
The article expands on each of the principles offering specific examples
that give the reader a clear, useful understanding of the information. This
article and other works by Susan Loucks-Horsley and colleagues support the
information I found as I studied the literature on effective professional
development. I am in the process of seeking funding to provide NCSM members
with useful information and training on designing and implementing effective
professional development experiences for teachers of mathematics. Stay tuned
and watch your mailbox.
The STEM Experience: Some Things We've Learned and Their Implication
for Teacher Preparation and Inservice
by Dr. Rick Billstein
Director, STEM Project University of Montana
The Six Through Eight Mathematics (STEM) Project is one of the five National
Science Foundation (NSF) funded projects created to develop comprehensive
mathematics curricula for the middle grades. The STEM curriculum reflects
the content and teaching methods suggested by the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
(1989) and Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (1991).
|