by Glenda Lappan, NCTM President 1998-2000
NCTM News Bulletin, July/August 1999

In part I of this column, I made the case that we must come together to address the fact that mathematics education needs improvement--and has needed improvement for more than 30 years. In part II, I want to look at the complex interaction of responsibilities and ways we can move forward from here.

States and provinces have a large area of responsibility because each state or province develops its own specific academic standards. Even though the NCTMCurriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics has had an influence on state and provincial standards and frameworks, states and provinces vary in their interpretation. That sometimes leads to significant variations from entity to entity, which can make it difficult to match courses with nationally developed and distributed textbook materials.

Looking at different state and provincial frameworks, we can see, for example, that proportional reasoning is covered at several grade levels. Textbook developers creating books for use in numerous regions get stuck with producing materials that teach all things at all grade levels--not the direction in which we want to go. The Curriculum and Evaluation Standards was meant to bring focus and coherence to our programs without taking away local control. To help states and localities focus the curriculum, the Standards 2000 draft, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, has given more specific guidance over four grade bands instead of three.

Focusing the curriculum is possible. Take, for instance, the western provinces of Canada. These provinces, using the earlier NCTM Standards documents, have worked together to create and implement the "western protocol" for mathematics. A more consistent curriculum across a large geographic area reduces the challenges facing students who move to another school district within the geographic area. It also strengthens teaching because teachers in this area can support and share more specific ideas with one another at provincial and regional professional meetings.

In addition to responsibilities of states or provinces in improving mathematics programs, mathematics educators, mathematicians, and others involved in the debate over reform have a responsibility to ask hard questions about mathematics text material--all text material. Evidence of how materials are working for students should be the bottom line. Questions like the following should guide the consideration of any textbook materials:

• What is the guiding philosophy of the materials and how is it reflected in the mathematical goals set for students?
  
   
• How and by whom was the material developed? What level of expertise in mathematics and in grades K–12 mathematics teaching and learning do the writers possess?
  
   
• Were the materials piloted in representative classrooms? In how many classrooms and with how many students were the materials piloted? What data were gathered to help produce the published version of the material?
  
   
• What performance data have been gathered on students studying the materials? Were there multiple sources of data, for example, standardized tests as well as instruments that focus on problem solving and application? Were there multiple-choice items as well as open-response items? What do these data say about the effectiveness of the materials?
  
   
• What continued research and development will be conducted to improve the effectiveness of the materials?

Parents and teachers also have a responsibility. Teachers need to be able to articulate clearly their mathematical goals and expectations for students both to the students themselves and to the parents in the community. When change in curriculum or instruction occurs, teachers and the administration need to provide both information and help for parents in how to help their students reach higher expectations. Parents need to know what homework is expected and how they can help their children with homework in ways that support the teacher's expectations.

In the final analysis, teachers have the responsibility to carry out the mathematics program in the schools. Thus, the effectiveness of the mathematics program rests on the shoulders of teachers. But they cannot improve the teaching and learning of mathematics without support. Unless change is accompanied by local support mechanisms for teachers, efforts flounder. High-quality, long-term professional development that focuses on the specific mathematics program being implemented is essential. Teachers, parents, and others have to recognize this need and insist that the school district provide such opportunities for mathematics teachers.

We all have a stake--and a responsibility--in ensuring that the curriculum and textbooks adhere to high standards and challenge each and every student. Many of us in mathematics education are passionate about our views on mathematics and its teaching. That's fine. But we need to put aside extreme rhetoric and name-calling. Terms such as "fuzzy" mathematics and "new, new" mathematics, used by critics to denigrate theStandards and Standards-inspired textbooks, are easy accusations to hurl. However, they provide no constructive details on how to improve programs.

The time for listening with mutual respect is long overdue. Let's take the heat out of our rhetoric and instead speak clearly about the issues. Let's find the best of the past and infuse it with the needs, opportunities, and promise of the future. We have to work together to build excellent programs and materials, support teachers, and serve our students. Our children deserve no less.

Part I was published in the May/June News Bulletin.