Son of Senate Bill 1

This from Bluegrass Politics:

Williams considers changing state’s math curriculum

and ending CATS

Kentucky should consider changing how math is taught in its public schools and ending its student testing system, Senate President David Williams said Monday...

Williams reference the CATS assessment is fairly well understood. Sen Dan Kelly advised KSN&C that some revised version of Senate Bill 1 from the last session is to be expected.

But what about Williams' math comment?

Given his history since about 1991, I tend to be skeptical of anything Williams suggests. Expect the worst - is how I've been conditioned to respond. But is it possible he has co-opted a useful and not-too-costly reform idea, here?

True, we don't know what Williams really means, but it's likely he is referring to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's report: Foundations for Success. If so, he will find those ideas widely supported by math teachers.

One hopes Williams will do us all a favor and present his ideas in two separate bills - so that one can support the math changes while rejecting his attempt to waste money changing CATS, without improving student assessment.

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel was created by President George W. Bush to advise the nation on the best use of scientifically based research to advance the teaching and learning of mathematics. The panel was charged with making recommendations on improving mathematics achievement for all students, with a focus on preparing students to take and succeed in algebra.

Much of the report was embraced by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The following are recommendations made in the report, and NCTM's response to those suggestions.

• Streamlining the Curriculum
• Factors That Boost Mathematical Achievement
• The Importance of Effective Teachers
• Research and Teachers' Judgment Should Influence Instruction
• Improving NAEP and State Assessments
• Building Research Capacity

Extensive reports of the panel’s task groups on Conceptual Knowledge and Skills; Learning Processes; Instructional Practices; Teachers; and Assessment are also available at the panel's website.

This from Steven Leinwand in Education Week:

Moving Mathematics Out of Mediocrity

The logic for the importance of improving school mathematics programs is reasonably unassailable. The country’s long-term economic security and social well-being are clearly linked to sustained innovation and workplace productivity. This innovation and productivity rely, just as clearly, on the quality of human capital and equity of opportunity that, in turn, emerge from high-quality education, particularly in the areas of literacy, mathematics, and science. Applying the if-then deductive logic of classical geometry puts a strong K-12 mathematics program at the heart of America’s long-term economic viability.

But the problems with mathematics in the United States are just as clear. A depressingly comprehensive, yet honest, appraisal must conclude that our typical math curriculum is generally incoherent, skill-oriented, and accurately characterized as “a mile wide and an inch deep.” It is dispensed via ruthless tracking practices and focused mainly on the “one right way to get the one right answer” approach to solving problems that few normal human beings have any real need to consider. Moreover, it is assessed by 51 high-stakes tests of marginal quality, and overwhelmingly implemented by undersupported and professionally isolated teachers who too often rely on “show-tell-practice” modes of instruction that ignore powerful research findings about better ways to convey mathematical knowledge.

For 20 years, we have tinkered at the margins, merely adjusting parts of the system while ignoring the fact that the basic structure has remained largely intact and underperforming. During those 20 years, we’ve raised achievement a little and narrowed gaps a bit. But even as the need for broader and deeper mathematical literacy has grown, our traditional approach still rarely works for more than a third of our students, and it fails even more when it comes to critical-reasoning and problem-solving skills. It shouldn’t be all that surprising that on the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, 15-year-old U.S. students placed an unacceptable 25th out of 30 countries tested.

Fortunately, the solutions are as clear as the problems. The answers do not revolve around costly new initiatives. Moving beyond mediocrity does not have to mean new textbooks and supplemental programs, or a slew of new calculators and computers, or jumping on the latest bandwagon of benchmark assessments. Instead, our attention needs to focus on how effectively existing programs are implemented, how available technology is integrated and used to enhance the learning of skills and concepts, and why assessments that steal valuable instructional time must provide relevant information that is actually put to use to inform revisions and reteaching.
In short, it’s time to turn to the real basics of what we expect students to learn, how we convey that, how we measure student learning, and how we support teachers and reduce their isolation...