Search News


Browse Archives

News

Report Critical of Math Teachers' Preparation

June 30, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At a time when many are bemoaning the lack of preparation of Americans in science and mathematics, a new study places at least some of the blame on math teachers left unequipped by college and university teacher education programs.

A report released Friday by the National Council on Teacher Quality looked at 77 elementary education programs from all states but Alaska, examining the math courses elementary teacher candidates had to take. The report looked at three factors: “relevance,” the extent to which courses were relevant to what candidates would be teaching in the field; “breadth,” the degree to which “essential” topics are covered; and “depth,” if enough time was given to these topics.

Only 10 of the 77 programs scored adequately on all three criteria, according to the report, “No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America’s Education Schools.” (They are the University of Georgia, Boston College, Indiana University at Bloomington, Lourdes College, University of Louisiana at Monroe, University of Maryland at College Park, University of Michigan, University of Montana, University of New Mexico, and Western Oregon University.)

The study attributes the inadequacy to a combination of low expectations and standards, haphazard state guidance and an absence of national consensus about what math teachers should know, and the relative dearth of algebra instruction in many curriculums.

“As a nation, our dislike and discomfort with math is so endemic that we do not even find it troubling when elementary teachers admit to their own weaknesses in basic mathematics," said Kate Walsh, president of the teacher quality council, a nonpartisan advocacy group. "Not only are our education schools not tackling these weaknesses, they accommodate them with low expectations and insufficient content. We simply must begin to appreciate the critical importance of elementary teachers gaining the knowledge and skills they need to effectively teach mathematics. It is what our children need in order to keep up with their peers around the world – and what our country needs in order to produce a skilled workforce that can compete in today’s global economy.”

Education schools have grown accustomed to critical reports questioning their rigor and quality, and their representatives often find fault in the studies. But Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, said this one made some good points.

“I think it's really amazing they were able to discern some of the things they discerned,” she said.

Robinson took issue with the suggestion that academic entry standards for teacher education programs are decidedly lacking, arguing that entry standards have been rising "for years" and that teacher education candidates "are as strong as any students on campus."

But she said she could not disagree with the report's assessment that there is a lack of consensus among colleges and the states that govern them on how and what to teach to potential teachers. Robinson said the report correctly criticizes the "professional development" model that many teacher ed programs embrace rather than the classic liberal arts education model, which she favors.

She also noted that her group has advocated for the more rigorous content standards and assessments for teacher candidates that the report describes as necessary.

However, Robinson said that some of the problems cited in the report, teacher education programs cannot change alone. For example, some states have actually limited the amount of credit hours required for teacher education programs.

The report called the University of Georgia's program “exemplary.” Denise Mewborn heads the Department of Mathematics and Science Education at Georgia, and she explained the kind of math preparation her department requires of students.

First, students are required to take two general math courses that any other college student would have to take. They then must take three courses containing content based on elementary math. These courses look at the “why” of underlying math concepts, she said. The students are then required to take two courses that are method-based, meaning that students learn how to teach these math concepts to elementary aged students, Mewborn said. The courses look at how children think about these concepts, how to spark discussion and what to use in order to teach math effectively.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Report Critical of Math Teachers' Preparation

  • Colleges' priorities appear in their graduates
  • Posted by Jack Olson on June 30, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • My state of Texas annually graduates hundreds of men prepared to teach football and only a few dozen prepared to teach calculus. So we get many fine high school football players and few fine high school mathematicians. We could remedy this by requiring our government colleges and universities to offer just as many mathematics scholarships as they do football scholarships (an oxymoron: You start with an ox and end with a moron). But, I doubt that voters who will tax themselves to subsidize professional football teams and to subsidize what amounts to a minor league for the NFL actually value the science of mathematics as much as they value entertainment. Nor do I see the high schools doing anything to change that preference for high football scores over high mathematical SAT scores so I foresee no change due to this report or any more like it.

  • Lucky James Heggen
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on June 30, 2008 at 10:50am EDT
  • Man, I wish I could take credit for writing this article.

    I spent this morning scanning the National Council on Teacher Quality report. While I appreciate what they have done, the report is not particularly comprehensive and no one would accuse anyone who had a hand in the report as being particularly innovative. Furthermore – and unfortunately -- I think the report will have zero impact where it matters most; i.e., with those charged with allocating funds to turn science and mathematics education around in this country.

    If you decide to skip the report, here are a few interesting tidbits:

    1. The title is “No Common Denominator.” Nice ... although “Teaching Politicians the Real Meaning of Fuzzy Logic” must have come in second.

    2. You have to like the fact that three of the eight members of The Mathematics Advisory Group are emeritus professors of mathematics and another of the mathematics professors is an “old timer.”

    3. You will be impressed with the practicality of the report. There is a concerted effort to demonstrate what teachers should know that is not essential for students to know ... although this could easily be expanded one hundred-fold and then generalized.

    4. There is an unfortunate absence of emphasis on making teacher education graphic. In my opinion, virtually every elementary mathematics concept that is difficult for students or teachers to understand can be clarified (and almost made simple) with the clever use of graphical methods (broadly defined).

    4. To give you a sense of the accuracy of the report, they list ten colleges and universities “with the right stuff.” Oops, I forgot to tell you they footnote that with “Although these schools pass for providing the right content, they still fall short on mathematics methods coursework. They do not require a three-credit course dedicated solely to elementary mathematics methods.”

    5. Where is Mark Twain when we need him? In the Washington Post’s report of this study they include the following map, where white states are ones with no guidelines for math preparation for elementary teachers.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/06/26/PH2008062600069.html

    Twain would not miss the fact that there is a high correlation between getting one’s drinking water from the Mississippi River and being less than enthusiastic about mathematics education.

    I cannot exit this post without expressing my prejudice that responsibility for much of what is wrong with mathematics education in these United States falls right at the feet of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In general this organization is not ineffective ... it is counter-productive.

    P.S. For an alternative view of the nature of mathematics and the consequences of mathematics education, check out Paul Lockhart’s “A Mathematician’s Lament.”

    http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

    P.P.S. Very nice post Jack Olson.

  • no trickle-down
  • Posted by dorothy on June 30, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • I'm happy to see that my local university (the University of New Mexico) scored well in this study. I've seen the materials UNM uses in the Math Concepts for Elementary Teachers course and they seem to be both pertinent and rigorous. Unfortunately, it is not a required class.
    I've also seen some of the materials that our elementary schools use to teach students and many are less pertinent, less rigorous, and often unrelated to math concepts that the students will need in high school (let alone higher education).
    Once we get the teacher training up to snuff, perhaps somebody will address the makeup of the textbook selection committees.

  • Math Education or Lack There of
  • Posted by Miles D. Berkow , Adjunct Faculty on June 30, 2008 at 1:30pm EDT
  • As a parent with three sons who went through our public education system, I can only say it is about time that someone with the credentials has finally done the research that proves what we parents have known all along: Our elementary education teachers don't know anything about math.

    Having substitute taught at the elementary level,I saw the teachers copies of the Math textbooks. They had pictures of blackboards with step by step pictures of what the teachers should write on the boards to teach the students. In discussions with my sons' teachers I found out that this was necessary because the teachers didn't know what they were doing.

    As the need for more math savvy people grows, I fear for the future of our nation.

  • Posted by Stan VerNooy , Community College Professor at College of Southern Nevada on June 30, 2008 at 6:50pm EDT
  • In response to the suggestion that the material in question can and should be taught graphically, I recommend that all readers look at the New York Times article available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science/25math.html

  • Cognitive Instruction in Mathematical Modeling
  • Posted by Rob MacDuff, PhD , Can longer, louder and harder get the job done? on June 30, 2008 at 6:50pm EDT
  • I think everyone would agree that mathematics is mainly taught by teachers who could not learn it themselves. The unfortunate truth is that most (approximately 80% or more) students by the time they leave school are mathephobic and this includes many students who get A’s. The underlying assumption of this report is the inadequacy is either an intelligence or training problem. In reality, the mathephobes are curriculum casualities, acceptal collatoral damage of a system where mathematics is the science where no one knows what the symbols mean. And no, numbers are not some abstraction of quantitty as most people think. The fact that the symbols do not mean anything is thought to be the underlying essence of mathematics. In order to illustrate the magnitude of the insanity, let me pose the situation in this way. Suppose that for some crazy reason a nation of mathephobes was the goal. Would choosing our current math programs be an inappropriate choice? How bad does it have to get before the academics realize that longer, louder, and harder is not getting the job done.

    What is needed is a new and innovative program where both teachers and students can learn. A program not just based on mathematics but cognitive science, psychology, science and philosophy as learning is the coordination of the activation of different parts of the brain.

  • Math second to Reading First
  • Posted by Tim Whiteford on June 30, 2008 at 6:50pm EDT
  • This report doesn't surprise me especially given the details of the authors and the type of recommended math identified in Manley's response. The other great dilemma in elementary schools and ElEd teacher education programs is the extent to which instruction in reading and language dominates the school curriculum and college credit allocations. A quick review of a sample of ElEd TE programs reveals up to 50% of the 36 - 50 credits being allocated to reading and language instruction. Many College programs have one 3 or 4 credit math course while others combine math and science within the one course. Some programs have no science at all. And then, of course, there is the debacle that was Reading First, a program that in some schools ate up to 50% of the daily schedule leaving little time for math or anything else.

  • Are Education Schools Solely to Blame?
  • Posted by Richard Hake , Emeirtus Professor at Indiana University on July 1, 2008 at 4:40pm EDT
  • Are Education Schools solely responsible for the generally deficient math (and science) education of K-12 teachers? That at least some of the blame should be shared by university math and science departments is suggested by the following:

    1. Physicist Don Langenberg [BHEF (2001), p. 23], a member of the NCTQ board of directors, and (at the time) Chancellor of the University of Maryland System wrote:

    “Although we in higher education are very skillful at ignoring the obvious, it is gradually dawning on some of us that we bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this sad situation [the state of K-12 education].”

    2. The NSF's (1996) report “Shaping the Future” stated [my inserts at “. . . [insert]. . .”]:

    “Many faculty in SME&T. . . .[Science, Mathematics, Engineering, & Technology]. . . at the postsecondary level continue to blame the schools for sending underprepared students to them. But, increasingly. . .[but not conspicuously]. . . the higher education community has come to recognize the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in situations in which SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's teachers.”

    3. Mathematician Herb Clemens (1989) wrote [my inserts at “. . . [insert]. . .”]:

    “Why don't mathematicians from universities and industry belong in math education? The first reason is that it is self-destructive. The quickest way to be relegated to the intellectual dustbin in the mathematics departments of most research universities today is to demonstrate a continuing interest in secondary. . .[or even worse, primary or undergraduate]. . . mathematics education. Colleagues smile tolerantly to one another in the same way family members do when grandpa dribbles his soup down his shirt. Math education is certainly an acceptable form of retiring as a mathematician, like university administration, unacceptable forms being the stock market, EST. . .[ Erhard Seminar Training?]. . . , or a mid-life love affair. But you don't do good research and think seriously about education.”

    Richard Hake

    REFERENCES
    BHEF. 2001. Business - Higher Education Forum (a partnership of the American Council on Education and the National Alliance of Business), Winter, “Sharing Responsibility: How Leaders in Business and Higher Education Can Improve America's Schools” online at http://tinyurl.com/46zxcq (249 kB).

    Clemens, H. 1989. “Is There a Role for Mathematicians in Math Education?” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 36(5): 542-544.

    NSF. 1996. National Science Foundation Advisory Committee. “Shaping the Future, Volume II: Perspectives on Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology,” Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education; online at http://tinyurl.com/4dhn54 (1.8 MB). This report is one of the few that emphasizes the crucial role of higher education in determining the quality of K-12 education.

  • To Robert MacDuff
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on July 13, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • Excellent and accurate points.