by Glenda Lappan, NCTM President 1998-2000
NCTM News Bulletin, October 1998

As we engage in a year of dialogue about the Standards 2000 project, it seems fitting to ask what we have learned from a decade of efforts to improve a crucial component of mathematics schooling--the curriculum.

The following are some of my observations:

• Teachers are the key to improving mathematics education. Few would disagree. Regardless of the curriculum or the assessment process in a school district, the person in charge of adapting materials for a particular classroom and student is the teacher. It is through teachers’ efforts that students have opportunities to learn mathematics. If students are to have better programs in mathematics, teachers need access to high-quality materials, the support of parents, and on-going, focused professional development.
• The goals of new curriculum materials have to be reachable by caring teachers.When teachers examine new curricula, they need to be able to see how to move from their current practice to where the new materials are heading. The change must be manageable, not overwhelming.
• The development of basic skills in innovative curricula must be clearly spelled out. Change is in peril when parents and administrators are not satisfied that basic skills are a part of the curriculum. The NCTM Standards documents have been greatly misinterpreted in this area. By trying to move toward balance among conceptual development, problem solving, and skill development, the documents open themselves up to the interpretation that students do not need to learn their “facts.” The real message is that the basics are still essential, but the basics have to encompass so much more to prepare students with the mathematics skills, concepts, procedures, and ways of thinking, reasoning, solving problems, and communicating needed for their future.
• Public support for the direction of change is essential for success. Parents care deeply about education and want the best for their children. Sometimes it seems as if parents are demanding that their children suffer mathematics in the same way that they did. But we should be hearing the genuine desire to help their children that is underneath their words. When parents cannot understand the problems that their students are being asked to do at home, they immediately assume that something is wrong. We need to reach out to parents and help them understand the goals of new instructional materials and help them help their children.
• Professional development that is curriculum-based has a greater chance of success in helping teachers improve teaching and learning. Teachers who take courses or engage in other professional development activities that are not specifically focused on what they teach and how still face the daunting task of figuring out how to implement specific curricula in their own classrooms.
• We must develop leadership in mathematics education adequate to the job of supporting teachers as they work to improve teaching and learning. We have a better understanding of the type and the depth of support teachers need and of how long it takes a school community to understand and support change. Helping teachers on the scale needed requires ongoing development of personnel who provide support for teachers: lead teachers and mathematics supervisors.
• Systems that are aligned—curriculum, teaching, and assessment—have a greater chance of success for students. Changes in any one of these three essential aspects of mathematics education reform without corresponding and supportive changes in the others will surely lead to a failure to reach the goal of a powerful mathematics education for all students. Tinkering with components of the system rather than coordinated change is not likely to work, and it might work to the disadvantage of students.
• It takes a long time to improve teaching and learning. “Success” is very fragile. We have to take the lessons we have learned to heart and work to make clear (1) what is to be gained from reforming curricula, teaching, and assessment, (2) why it is important that we continually work to improve mathematics programs, and (3) why a national vision articulated in the form of standards can guide the work. Those who advocate change must make sure that their rhetoric is reasoned, based on the best practice and research, and open to continued civil discourse in which a wide variety of views can be considered and common ground sought.

With the Standards 2000 project, we have a chance to incorporate what we have learned and to strengthen our message. We must keep moving forward while we remain steadfast to our goal—to give all students a high-quality, challenging mathematics program. We invite you to be a part of the process—the Standards 2000 project’s draft will be available for review this month. Return the postcard enclosed in the October 1998 News Bulletin to receive a copy