Implementing The K–4 Mathematics Standards in Kentucky

1993 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 166-169
Author(s):  
William S. Bush
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
School Administrators ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
University Faculty ◽  
Classroom Teachers ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Mathematics Standards ◽  
The Past ◽  
Education Of Students

The state motto of Kentucky is “United We Stand—Divided We Fall.” Never has this creed been so evident than through the recent statewide mathematics education reform efforts in grades K–4. Over the past two years, university faculty, classroom teachers, school administrators, public policymakers, the Kentucky Department of Education, and corporations have developed partnerships to initiate systemic changes in the mathematics education of students in grades K–4. These groups banded together to enact for Kentucky the vision set forth by the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989).

Research Advisory Committee Report: NCTM Standards Research Catalyst Conference

1991 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-296
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Education Community ◽  
New Research ◽  
New Phase

The Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics initiated a new phase in mathematics education reform. The Standards document presents both a vision and a plan for change in mathematics instruction and assessment. The principles on which the Standards document is based establish a new research agenda (Commission on Standards for School Mathematics, 1989) that offers the potential not only to contribute to the growing base of scientific knowledge about mathematics teaching and learning, bur also to complement and inform the efforts of mathematics educators to reform current curricular, pedagogical, and assessment practices. It is both the hope and the expectation of the mathematics education community that major changes will occur in the teaching and learning of mathematics. At this juncture, we need some form of documentation of the anticipated change.

Promoting Algebraic Reasoning Using Students' Thinking

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 508-514
Author(s):  
Joyce W. Bishop ◽  
Albert D. Otto ◽  
Cheryl A. Lubinski
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
Research Council ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Mathematical Understanding ◽  
Algebraic Reasoning ◽  
Mathematical Notation ◽  
Mathematical Concepts ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Geometric Patterns

The changing applications of mathematics have contributed to a shift from the perception that mathematics is a fixed body of arbitrary rules to the realization that the discipline is “a vigorous active science of patterns” (National Research Council 1989, p. 13). NCTM's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) recommends using patterns to promote mathematical understanding and, in particular, algebraic reasoning. A number of other mathematics education reform documents make similar recommendations (e.g., AAAS [1989]; National Research Council [1990]; Steen [1990]; NCTM [2000]). Researchers have begun to identify different approaches that students use to reason about patterns (Bishop 1997; MacGregor and Stacey 1993; Orton and Orton 1996; Stacey 1989). Research also shows that using students' thinking about patterns can help them develop a better understanding of mathematical concepts and the representations that reflect those concepts (Carey 1992; Fennema, Carpenter, and Peterson 1989). This article illustrates how students' thinking about geometric patterns can be used to help them develop algebraic reasoning and to make sense of mathematical notation and symbols.

Implementing The Standards: The Vision of Problem Solving in the Standards

1990 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 14-17
Author(s):  
Patricia F. Campbell ◽  
Honi J. Bamberger
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Mathematical Knowledge ◽  
Curriculum And Instruction ◽  
Mathematics Curriculum ◽  
Focused Attention ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Mathematics Standards ◽  
Widespread Acceptance

Problem solving has been espoused as a goal in mathematics education since the late 1970s, with focused attention ansmg from NCTM's An Agenda for Action (1980). But problem solving should be more than a slogan offered for its appeal and widespread acceptance. It should be a cornerstone of mathematics curriculum and instruction, fostering the development of mathematical knowledge and a chance to apply and connect previously constructed mathematical understandings. This perception of problem solving is presented in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Standards) (NCTM 1989, 23, 75). See table 1. Indeed, as noted in the Standards, “students need to work on problems that may take hours, days, and even weeks to solve. Although some may be relatively simple exercises to be accompplished independently, others should involve small groups or an entire class working cooperatively” (NCTM 1989, 6).

President's Choice: President's Report: Better Teaching, Better Mathematics: Are They Enough?

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (5) ◽  
pp. 312-319
Author(s):  
F. Joe Crosswhite
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
The Past ◽  
What Works ◽  
The Us

The favorite article of a past NCTM president chosen for reprise as part of the celebration of the journal's 100th volume year. This article reports on the health of school mathematics education in the mid-1980's, right after the US Department of Education published What Works. SIMS reported our very best student did not compare well with their counterparts in other countries. Have we made any strides forward in the past 20 years to meeting the challenge laid out in the article?

Soundoff: Are Teachers Prepared to Implement The Standards?

1990 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 248-251
Author(s):  
Michael B. Fiske
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
National Commission ◽  
National Council ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Mathematics Standards ◽  
Nation At Risk ◽  
Excellence In Education ◽  
Societal Expectations

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Standards) (1989) presents a view of precollege mathematics t hat stresses the development of mathematical power. Framed within the context of students' needs, societal expectations, and engaging teaching, the Standards proposes to define the mathematical content of school mathematics. It responds to the crisis in mathematics education described in Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education (National Research Council 1989), A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983), and Educating Americans for the 21st Century (National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology 1983). Although representing a consensus of mathematics educators, the Standards does not present a research basis for its recommendations (NCTM 1988) and thus at times stands at odds with the descriptive accounts of current mathematics teaching practices found in The Underachieving Curriculum (McKnight et al. 1987) and The Mathematics Report Card (Dossey, Mullis, Lindquist, and Chambers 1988). This article examines implications for teaching of explicit and implicit assumptions in the Standards and compares them with other views in the literature.

Distributed Leadership and the Culture of Schools: Teacher Leaders’ Strategies for Gaining Access to Classrooms

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda M. Mangin
Keyword(s):  
Education Reform ◽  
Teacher Leadership ◽  
Teacher Leaders ◽  
School Administrators ◽  
Instructional Improvement ◽  
Instructional Change ◽  
Classroom Teachers ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
Peer Leadership ◽  
Teacher Resistance

Formal teacher leadership roles—such as coach and coordinator—have become a standard component of education reform efforts intended to support teachers’ instructional improvement efforts. Yet the culture of schools is widely understood to favor autonomy and egalitarianism, suggesting that classroom teachers may be resistant to peer leadership. This study examines how 12 elementary-level teacher leaders negotiate access to classrooms and encourage instructional change in light of teacher resistance. Findings suggest that teacher leaders make concessions that may ultimately limit their impact on instructional improvement. Also for these positions to contribute to instructional change, teacher leaders require the support of school administrators who offer guidance to teacher leaders and set expectations for teachers with regard to the enactment of teacher leadership roles.

One Point of View: Calculators in the Classroom

1991 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Elementary School ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
Elementary Classrooms ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Classroom Teachers ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
The Past

As we adopt the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989), we can expect to make more use of calculators in elementary school classrooms. This technology allows students to think about and solve problems without the burden of tedious written computations. Teachers will realize the importance of using calculators in elementary classrooms as they see students of all abilities regularly attempt higher levels of problem solving with increasing confidence. Students deserve the opportunity to learn to use calculators in their classroom and real-life situations. My experience with calculators in my classroom during the past three years has convinced me not only that such progress is important but that classroom teachers can and must take a leadership role in this area.

Research Commentary: Analysis of Curriculum Standards: An Important Research Area

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dung Tran ◽  
Barbara J. Reys ◽  
Dawn Teuscher ◽  
Shannon Dingman ◽  
Lisa Kasmer
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Research Area ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Content Standards ◽  
Curriculum Standards ◽  
Education Professionals ◽  
Important Research Area ◽  
Improving Student Learning

This commentary highlights the contribution that careful and systematic analyses of curriculum or content standards can make to questions and issues important in the mathematics education field. We note the increased role that curriculum standards have played as part of a standards-based education reform strategy. We also review different methods used by researchers to compare and analyze the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, each method designed for a particular purpose. Finally, we call upon mathematics education researchers to engage in careful analysis of curriculum standards and to share their findings in ways that can inform public debate as well as support education professionals in improving student learning opportunities.

Design Philanthropy: Challenges and Opportunities in the Evolution of Philanthropic Giving

2021 ◽  
pp. 089590482110494
Author(s):  
Melissa Arnold Lyon ◽  
Shani S. Bretas ◽  
Douglas D. Ready
Keyword(s):  
Education Reform ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Educational Innovation ◽  
Venture Philanthropy ◽  
Policy Borrowing ◽  
The Past ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Instructional Core ◽  
Democratic Engagement

Over the past several decades large philanthropies have adopted aggressive approaches to education reform that scholars have labeled venture philanthropy. These efforts focused on broad changes to schooling and education policy, borrowing techniques from the venture capital world. But many foundations have recently become convinced that market forces and macro-level policymaking alone cannot drive educational improvement, particularly in areas related to classroom teaching and learning. In response, foundations have begun to design their own instructional innovations and identify providers to implement them. This paper interprets these recent efforts as early evidence of a distinct adaptation in the evolving role of philanthropies, which we dub design philanthropy. Although this approach represents an attempt by foundations to simultaneously increase democratic engagement, directly influence the instructional core, and spur educational innovation, it poses new risks for coherence, scalability, and sustainability in education policymaking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document