澳门跑狗论坛

Includes updates and/or revisions.

The influence of a federal report calling for a more orderly approach to teaching mathematics in the early grades will hinge largely on whether its message is accepted by the nation鈥檚 diverse and often fiercely divided math community, members of the panel that crafted it acknowledge.

Released this week, recommends that schools present elementary and middle school math in a better-defined manner, in contrast to the jumble of strategies now used in states and school districts.

鈥淭he delivery system in mathematics education鈥攖he system that translates mathematical knowledge into value and ability for the next generation鈥攊s broken and must be fixed,鈥� it says. 鈥淭his is not a conclusion about any single element of the system. It is about how the many parts do not now work together to achieve a result worthy of this country鈥檚 values and ambitions.鈥�

Initial reaction to the report, 鈥淔oundations for Success,鈥� was mixed.

Andy Isaacs, the director of the most recent edition of Everyday Mathematics, one of the nation鈥檚 most widely used elementary school textbook series, said there was a 鈥渢remendous amount鈥� of the report that made sense to him.

But Mr. Isaacs also said he was worried that the document鈥檚 call for a strong refocusing on arithmetic and math procedures would discourage the use of other effective classroom methods.

鈥淵ou could read it as really wanting to narrow the school curriculum down to core arithmetic,鈥� said Mr. Isaacs, who is based at the University of Chicago. 鈥淚n education, we鈥檙e always overcorrecting鈥攇oing from one extreme to another.鈥�

鈥楩irst Things First鈥�

Nearly two years in the making, the report went through 90 drafts, with its members wrestling over major recommendations and individual words and phrases. It was approved unanimously at the panel鈥檚 final meeting, held March 13 at Longfellow Middle School here in a suburb of the nation鈥檚 capital.

The 90-page document calls for the math curriculum to be streamlined in pre-K-8, a strategy it calls putting 鈥渇irst things first.鈥� Students need to be grounded in both the effortless, automatic recall of simple procedures and in the acquisition of broader problem-solving skills. Too often, those skills are wrongly presented as incompatible, the report says.

At various points, the authors also allude to the enduring philosophical battles over how to teach the subject鈥攃ommonly referred to as 鈥渢he math wars.鈥� Those disputes tend to pit those who argue that students should be grounded more firmly in simple math procedures against others who advocate a more conceptual approach to teaching and learning.

The arguments, the panelists believe, miss the point.

鈥淒ebates regarding the relative importance of these aspects of mathematical knowledge are misguided,鈥� the report says. 鈥淭hese capabilities are mutually supportive, each facilitating the learning of the other.鈥�

But the authors also identify a clear path to prepare students for introductory algebra and advanced math鈥攖he central charge given to the panel. Students should become proficient with whole numbers, fractions, and aspects of geometry and measurement in order to steel themselves for algebra, typically taught in the 8th or 9th grade, the report says. State tests, teacher education programs, and textbooks should be tailored to promote those skills; so should the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as 鈥渢he nation鈥檚 report card,鈥� it says.

Identifying Skills

At their final meeting, a number of panelists urged math teachers and academic scholars, as well as influential professional associations, to help them promote the report鈥檚 findings鈥攅ven if some recommendations disappoint them.

Organizations such as the 100,000-member National Council of Teachers of Mathematics鈥攚hose president, Francis M. 鈥淪kip Fennell, served on the panel鈥攚ill play a strong role in determining whether its ideas are translated for K-12 teachers, panel Chairman Larry R. Faulkner said after the meeting.

鈥淩esponsibility for education in this country is so decentralized,鈥� said Mr. Faulkner, a former president of the University of Texas at Austin. Math organizations and associations are often 鈥渢he best way to connect鈥� to teachers and policymakers, he said.

President Bush signed an executive order creating the panel in April 2006. The group, which has 19 voting and five nonvoting members, was charged with identifying the math skills students need to ready themselves for introductory algebra and higher-level math, based on the 鈥渂est available scientific evidence.鈥� Educators generally regard algebra as a crucial first step in preparing students for advanced math.

The panel鈥檚 report repeatedly calls for students to be able to recall math procedures, such as basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, quickly and effortlessly. It also says that students鈥� difficulty with fractions is 鈥減ervasive鈥� and a 鈥渕ajor obstacle鈥� to learning algebra.

Emphasis Debated

Being able to recall basic number facts automatically reduces the strain on students when they encounter more-demanding tasks in algebra, said panelist Vern Williams, who teaches that subject at Longfellow Middle School.

鈥淚f your mental energy is consumed figuring out what six times nine is, when that should have been covered three or four years ago, how are you going to conceptualize about math?鈥� Mr. Williams said after the meeting.

But Steven Rasmussen, the publisher of Key Curriculum Press, a producer of math textbooks and software based in Emeryville, Calif., said the report鈥檚 heavy emphasis on basic arithmetic and fractions鈥攚hich he regards as important鈥攍eft out other topics that help prepare students for high school math.

Exposure to basic elements of data analysis, statistics, and applied math, engage students and allow them to relate math to workforce skills, he said.

鈥淭his report is biased in favor of teaching arithmetic and not [modern] mathematics,鈥� Mr. Rasmussen said, 鈥渁nd it鈥檚 biased in favor of procedures and not applied skill.鈥�

In seeking to base its recommendations on the kind of evidence specified by the White House order, the panel ranked studies of math programs and strategies in categories ranging from 鈥渟trong evidence鈥� to 鈥渋nconsistent鈥� to 鈥渨eak,鈥� depending on the methodology the studies used.

Mr. Rasmussen and Jere Confrey, a professor of math education at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, said the panel鈥檚 criteria were too restrictive, however.

Case studies and other research that do not meet the 鈥渟cientific evidence鈥� standards used by the panel could provide valuable information on the true impact of math programs and interventions in the classroom, Ms. Confrey argued. The panel gives 鈥渟hort shrift to the need for multiple methods of research,鈥� she wrote.

But panel members also discovered that some areas related to math education, such as cognitive studies of how children learn, have produced much more high-quality research than others, such as how to prepare math educators and give them ongoing professional development, said Mr. Faulkner, the chairman.

鈥淲e鈥檙e going to have to learn more about what makes a good teacher and how to instill鈥� those abilities, said Mr. Faulkner. 鈥淰ery little is known about these things,鈥� he added, 鈥渟urprisingly little, given [their] importance.鈥�

Bush administration officials have compared the math advisory group to the National Reading Panel, which in 2000 produced a report that influenced instruction in that subject. The reading panel, originally authorized by Congress in 1997, during the Clinton administration, recommended that explicit phonics and the direct teaching of other basic skills be a core part of elementary reading instruction. Phonics connects sounds to the letters of the alphabet.

Some researchers and educators complained that the reading panel focused on a small body of research and a narrow range of topics for its report. Consequently, they say, policies and commercial products have underemphasized several components they view as important for students鈥� reading achievement, such as writing instruction and background knowledge.

The reading panel鈥檚 recommendations shaped the grant requirements under the $1 billion-a-year Reading First program. Congress recently slashed the program鈥檚 budget to $393 million for fiscal 2008, amid complaints about favoritism and conflicts of interest in its implementation.

NCTM Reaction

The impact of the math panel鈥檚 report is unclear at this point. No single federal program in math compares to Reading First in influence or level of funding. A federal report released last year identified 105 separate programs, which spend a total of $3 billion on education in the so-called STEM subjects鈥攕cience, technology, engineering, and math鈥攁cross several agencies, about $570 million at the K-12 level.

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings told reporters after the meeting that she would ask other agencies to consider using the panel鈥檚 recommendations to shape grant awards and other policies. While Mr. Bush, who commissioned the report, will leave office in less than a year, the report will shape education policy long after that, she predicted.

鈥淭his really transcends politics or administrations,鈥� Ms. Spellings said.

The math panel included a number of cognitive psychologists, researchers, and college faculty members who have studied math issues. Mr. Fennell, the NCTM president and panel member, said he hoped the document would encourage a nationwide push for 鈥済reater coherence鈥� in math instruction.

The math teachers鈥� council, based in Reston, Va., has angered some parents and mathematicians who believe it has pushed a style of math focused too much on conceptual learning and not enough on automatic recall of number facts. But the organization also won praise from its critics more recently, with its publication in 2006 of a document aimed at streamlining the list of key math topics in prekindergarten through 8th grade, which NCTM has been promoting nationwide.

James M. Rubillo, the NCTM鈥檚 executive director, who attended the national math panel鈥檚 final meeting, said early drafts of the report had drawn mixed reactions from his organization鈥檚 members. He said he was pleased with the report鈥檚 use of 鈥淔ocal Points鈥� as a reference guide for how math should be taught at early grades.

The report brings 鈥渦nprecedented focus鈥� to math instruction, the NCTM said in a statement, and 鈥渁ddresses many of the actions needed鈥� to improve math education.

But Mr. Rubillo said the report鈥檚 language about calculators was not firmly grounded in research. The report, citing a limited number of studies, found that those devices have 鈥渓imited or no impact鈥� on certain math skills. The NCTM has been generally supportive of calculators鈥� role in the classroom.

While many panel recommendations 鈥渁re supported by high-quality research, others extend beyond the report鈥檚 reach,鈥� the NCTM said in a statement. Many of the issues raised in the report, it said, still 鈥渞equire extensive and ongoing research in order to identify approaches that can be broadly applied.鈥�