Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Policy and News » mathed-news

Topic: NCTM Standards - Education Week Article
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Jerry P. Becker

Posts: 13,489
Registered: 12/3/04
NCTM Standards - Education Week Article
Posted: Nov 4, 1998 3:42 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Note: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has released a draft
of it's updated standards, entitled "Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics." The document is available for review at
www.nctm.org/standards2000. The "Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics: Discussion" is available for $7.50 (free to members) from the
NCTM by calling (888) 220-7952. It can be downloaded from the web.
*****************************************************

Educaton Week on the Web, Wednesday, November 4, 1998 [Vol.18, No. 10,
pages 1, 16]
[see http://www.edweek.org/ew/current/10nctm.h18]

Math Council Again Mulling Its Standards

By David J. Hoff

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is proposing changes to its
groundbreaking 1989 academic standards that would place a greater emphasis
on teaching basic skills while reaffirming the group's belief that students
need hands-on experience to help them understand mathematical facts.

Draft revisions released last week will be the subject of extended debate
over the next 18 months. The goal of the 110,000-member group is to adopt
the revisions formally at its annual meeting in April 2000.

As laid out in the proposal, changes in format and content address some of
the criticisms from mathematicians and parents that the NCTM has focused on
teaching mathematical concepts at the expense of basic skills and content.

"Kids have to understand addition and subtraction. They have to have
automatic recall," Glenda T. Lappan, the council's president and a
professor of mathematics at Michigan State University in East Lansing, said
last week, after the group started distributing its draft on the World Wide
Web.

"While they are accumulating those facts, there have to be problems on the
table that lead to deeper understanding," she added.

The new document, "Standards and Principles for School Mathematics:
Discussion Draft," partially addresses criticisms leveled at the current
standards, but it appears unlikely to appease the severest critics.

"It's not significantly different. It's still the same philosophy,"
asserted William G. Quirk computer-software developer in New Haven, Conn.,
and a former college math professor. "They emphasize process skills and
continue to be vague about content. NCTM just doesn't want to get specific
about content."

Leaders of the math teachers' council were hailed as innovators in 1989
when the NCTM became the first subject-area group to publish, at its own
initiative and expense, national content standards. When other disciplines
followed, with the federal government underwriting a good portion of the
ventures, those later efforts were often found wanting. The math standards
generally continued to steer clear of controversy.

Then, in just the past few years, the NCTM standards, too, became a target
of criticism, particularly from those who favor a more traditional approach
to teaching the core curricula.

"The math wars" is how some have dubbed the debate over how to teach what
most people consider to be the second-most fundamental subject behind
reading. In California, for example, NCTM backers are at odds with
advocates of a traditional curriculum over standards that the state school
board has adopted. ("Calif. Education Officials Approve Back-to-Basics
Standards in Math," Jan. 14, 1998.)

The California standards differ greatly from the NCTM's existing standards
and its strategy to modify them. The state standards mention specific
skills students should master, such as memorizing multiplication tables,
and they emphasize repetitive problem-solving.

The NCTM, by contrast, encourages teachers to help students understand the
concepts behind mathematics tasks such as multiplication by using
real-world experiences to illustrate them.

A Merger of Content

The math council's proposed new standards have been in development for
almost two years. The draft was written by a committee of 32 professors,
curriculum directors, and teachers. Panels from professional
groups--including the Mathematical Association of America and the American
Statistical Association--advised the writing committees by critiquing the
1989 standards and responding to questions posed by the standards writers.

The comment period moves to a new phase now that the NCTM has published a
draft of the changes it proposes. Throughout the 342-page document, also
released in printed form last week, the writing committee poses specific
questions of readers to gauge reaction. The comments will be used to inform
the final proposal.

Nine and a half years ago, the NCTM released its standards to explain what
students should learn from kindergarten through the end of high school. Two
years later, the group released recommendations on how to teach those
standards. In 1995, it explained how to assess student progress toward the
standards.

The discussion draft merges content from each of those documents. "What
we're trying to do is give teachers one document that covers the whole act
of [mathematics] teaching," Ms. Lappan said.

The draft introduces six new principles that should guide teachers and
reorganizes the general standards into 10 topics.

The principles call for all students to have access to high-quality math
instruction which should be given by "competent and caring teachers."

The standards address geometry, statistics, reasoning, communication, and
problem-solving.

They also realign the benchmarks: The new grade breakdowns are preschool-2,
3-5, 6-9, and 9-12 instead of K-4, 5-8, and 9-12.

The proposed standards are consistent throughout the four new grade spans,
with content increasing in difficulty as students move through school. In
the 1989 version, the standards differed across the grade spans.

In another change, the discussion draft lists standards dealing with
content--such as geometry and algebra--before those covering process, such
as reasoning and communication.

'Correct Answers Matter'

Throughout the document, the standards writers add specific issues teachers
need to address. For example, it suggests that by the end of 5th grade,
students should be able to graph fractions such as one-fourth, one-half,
and five-eighths on a number line. And the section on high school geometry
includes an extended discussion of the Pythagorean theorem.

"A lot of our input suggested that our document needed to be a lot more
specific," said Joan Ferrini-Mundy, the chairwoman of the group that wrote
the draft and the associate executive director of the center for science,
math, and engineering education at the National Research Council in
Washington. "There were people who wanted to provide as much food for
thought as possible."

At the same time, the draft maintains its focus on teaching children how to
learn through solving real-life problems and to communicate their reasoning
through pictures, graphs, and prose.

"There can be no doubt that both conceptual understanding and procedural
proficiency are important," the draft says. "It is not the primacy of
either that we should be considering. Instead, it is the connections
between them that are important."

Such statements try to clarify an earlier emphasis on conceptual
understanding that many teachers misinterpreted, Ms. Lappan and Ms.
Ferrini-Mundy said.

Some went overboard in interpreting the 1989 standards to mean that the
communication of problem-solving took precedence over finding the correct
answer.

"Teachers shouldn't say the correct answer doesn't matter," Ms. Lappan
said. "In our zeal to make sure we're focusing on understanding, we cannot
forget correct answers matter."

Critics Unsatisfied

While few had read the weighty document that became available just last
week, some mathematicians suggested that the changes were necessary and
welcome.

"They shouldn't go too far afield from what they started in '89," said
Thomas L. Moore, an associate professor of mathematics at Grinnell College
in Iowa and the chairman of the group from the American Statistical
Association that advised the NCTM committee. "The message people got out of
the '89 standards means there's some rewriting that needs to be done."

Mr. Quirk and some other mathematicians, however, say that the council is
still placing too much weight on process and not enough on basic skills.
Children need to learn how to perform basic functions before they can apply
them to real-world problems, these critics say.

"Doing precedes understanding," said Frank Y. Wang, the president of Saxon
Publishers, a Norman, Okla., company that has bucked the trend of revising
textbooks to match the NCTM standards. "You have to do, do, do before you
understand."

The proposed standards also don't go far enough to appease those who object
to letting young children use electronic calculators. "Students at all
levels should have access to calculators and other technology to use as
they solve problems," the draft says.

"There's a place for calculators," said David Klein, a professor of
mathematics at California State
University-Northridge. "They're very good in science labs, but to put them
in an arithmetic class is obscene."

**************************************************************
Jerry P. Becker
Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610 USA
Fax: (618)453-4244
Phone: (618)453-4241 (office)
E-mail: JBECKER@SIU.EDU





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.