okie re ks 513 NCTM STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL MATHEMATICS: VISIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION F. JOE CROSSWHITE, Past President, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Northern Arizona University JOHN A. DOSSEY, Past President, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Minois State University SHIRLEY M. FRYE, President, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Scottsdale School District ‘THE CHALLENGE OF THE TASK F. Joe Crosswhite We can expect that the release of NCTM’s Curriculum and Evaluation Stan- dards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Standards for School Mathematics, 1989) (Standards) will be- come one of those memorable moments that mark the history of our Council. We ‘may remember this event in any of several ways. In one sense, it marks the completion of a very major task—the culmination of almost five years of planning and development. The Standards project has proba- bly been the most ambitious, and almost certainly the most expensive, program our Council has ever undertaken, Thousands of our members have been involved in drafting, reviewing, and refining the Standards. Those folks may justifiably recall the release of the document as commemorating the completion of a job well done. ‘The Standards may be remembered as the first attempt by any teachers" organi- zation to specify national, professional standards for school curricula in theit dis- cipline. This step was bolder than some may realize. We were widely advised that even the word standards might not be well received, that many people might not be able to separate the notion of national leadership from the spector of national control. This reservation seemed particularly strong among funding agencies, especially federal agencies. But the standards pose no threat to local autonomy. They describe a vision for school mathematics—they do not prescribe a curricu- lum. We have always anticipated that local options and local initiatives would determine how well, and to what cxtent, the vision of the Standards would be realized. The standards permit a wide variation in the specific mechanisms of cur- riculum consistent with that vision, ‘The Standards may also be remembered as a prototype for the development of a professional consensus. No document we have ever produced has been so widely discussed or s0 thoroughly reviewed prior to its publication. And none has ever had. the prepublication endorsement of so many professional groups, including fifteen _—_— excel ‘The remarks published here were made during a presentation atthe 67th Annual Mecting of the National Councit of Teachers of Mathematics in Orlando, Florida, 12-13 A pei 1989 Dipindai dengan CamScannerS14 Implementing the Standards ‘major national associations concerned primarily with the mathematical sciences or ‘with mathematics education at any level. Even more striking, perhaps. is the sup- port the Standards has had from over twenty-five other national organizations concerned more generally with education or with curriculum areas other than mathematics. I encourage you to look at the list of endorsing and supporting or- ganizations. It is indicative of the range of partnerships that will be critical to full implementation of our standards, ‘The production of the Standards may also be remembered, and I hope without regret, as the largest single financial commitment the Council has ever made to a program, We did not intend so great a commitment—at least not in the early stages of planning. In fact, at the time it was initially discussed, a project as extensive as this did not seem financially feasible using Council funds alone. We did try to find external funding for the Standards project. But the notion of national curriculum standards was not altractive to most funding agencies, We did receive a small sced grant from the Atlantic Telephone and Telegraph Foundation, which they, and we, hoped might stimulate other agencies to follow suit. None did. Fortunately, even as our planning for the Standards project was under way, the financial condition of the Council improved dramatically as a result of increasing membership and re~ newed national attention to education generally and {o mathematics education specifically. As a result, your Board of Directors at the annual meeting in Wash- ington, DC, three years ago made the commitment to pursue the Standards project independent of external funding. Now that the project has been completed, I hope ‘we can alll be proud that the Standards has been developed and distributed almost entirely with membership funds. ‘The Standards may also be seen as a continuation, a natural extension, of the commitment made a dozen years ago to reassert the leadership role of NCTM in curricular reform. That renewed commitment was signaled by the release of our ‘Agenda for Action (NCTM, 1980) at the Seattle meeting in 1980 and has been reflected in a continuing emphasis on curricular concems throughout this decade in our journals, our yearbooks, our supplementary publications, and our conven tion programs, One of the specific motivations for the Standards project was the recognition in several of our standing committees of the need for more specific criteria for evaluating the impact of curricular efforts growing out of the Agenda for Action. ‘Viewed as another step in a continuing process, the Standards project confirms our recognition that curricular reform must be a way of life for NCTM, that endur- ing change comes slowly and deliberately—more through evolution than through revolution—and that changing conditions in the schools, in mathematics and its applications, and in the techniques and technologies of instruction require that curricular reform be more a linear function than a step function—a linear function, one hopes, with a positive slope. Such a view requires that the NCTM's commit. ‘ment transcend the term of any president or any Board of Directors. That Shirley, John, and | collaborate in writing this message is intentionally symbolic of that kind of continuing commitment. Dipindai dengan CamScannerF. Joe Crosswhite, John A. Dossey, and Shirley M. Frye 515 The Standards may also be seen as only one piece in a broad mosaic of educa- tional reform. Certainly we intend that our Standards be a central piece in that part of the mosaic that depicts school mathematics. But as we approach implementa- tion, we must be aware of the larger, more complex context into which the Standards must fit. We are not alone in this reform movement, Curriculum is not the only target, nor should it be. There is growing awareness that reforms in cur- riculum must be coordinated with adjustments in those other elements of schools and schooling that can facilitate or inhibit change. We have an opportunity, work- ing with other groups equally concemed about the quality of school mathematics, to make this reform more comprehensive than any we have known. ‘We need to complement our standards for curriculum and evaluation with efforts of equal scope and equal quality in such areas as instruction, teacher education, and text and supplementary materials. We need to develop or to catalogue prototypal materials that are consistent with, and illustrative of, the Standards. We need to coordinate our efforts with those of other organizations working to improve mathe- matics education at other levels or to move toward reform in any area of educa- tion. Through such partnerships, we have the opportunity to affect all aspects of mathematics education for all students at all levels. That opportunity presents an exciting challenge. It suggests that, best of all, we may remember the release of this document as a beginning—a commitment to invest our energies and our re- sources as completely in the implementation of the Standards as we have in its development. THE CHALLENGE OF THE PROCESS John A. Dossey At the spring 1986 meeting of the NCTM directors in Washington, DC, the Board passed a motion allocating $150 000 to initiate the Standards project. The goals of the project were to delineate a vision of school mathematics sufficient 10 prepare students for the 21st century and, in doing so, 1o detail what mathematics these studems would need to know and be able to use. The Executive Commitee of the Board met again that spring to further specify the charge. This meeting led to the formation of NCTM’s Commission on Standards for School Mathematics (see the Appendix). This fourteen- member body was created to oversee the deve! ‘opment of the Standards. A second body was assigned (o serve on the wriling teams that actually drafted the Standards. The members of the commission were chosen to represent the NCTM Board, the Mathematical Association of America, the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB), supervisors, publishers, the mathematics-education community in general. Thomas Romberg was asked 10 chair the commission and to direct the work of the writing groups In October 1986 the commission held its first mecting in Chicago. The agenda focused on the selection of individuals to serve on the writing groups. the format the Standards should take, and the establishment of target dates for the develop- ment of the recommendations. The writing groups and their leaders were grudes K-4, Paul Trafton; 5-8, Glenda Lappan; 9-12, Christian Hirsch; and evaluation, Dipindai dengan CamScanner516 Implementing the Standards Norman Webb. Each of these groups had a leader and five working members (see the Appendix). These members were selected to represent classroom teachers, supervisors, teacher educators, and grade-level experts. Each group had a fifth member who was knowledgeable about technology, methodology, or psychology. During the remainder of the winter months of 1986 and the spring of 1987, ‘Thomas Romberg and the writing-group leaders met to refine further the structure of the Standards. In addition, the extamt documents concerning goals for mathe- matics education published by the states and provinces were carefully studied. The ‘commission and various members of the mathematical sciences education commu- nity offered advice and recommendations on the preliminary plans. This effort culminated in the first full meeting of the commission and the writing groups fol- lowing the 65th Annual Meeting in Anaheim in April 1987. At this meeting, the groundwork was laid for the activities of the writing groups during the following. summer. In late June, the writing groups reassembled in Park City, Utah, for two weeks to prepare the first draft of the Standards, This draft was quickly circulated among members of the NCTM Board and the commission and among other selected members of the community immediately following the end of the writing session. ‘The comments resulting from this quick review were collected, refined, and fed back to the writing groups when they reassembled in Leesburg, Virginia, three weeks later. The writers then took stock of the comments, plus their own careful study of the draft, and developed the version that was widely distributed during the 1987-88 school year for nationwide review of, and comments on, the Standards project. This rough draft was analyzed in countless meetings around the county, and a series of in-depth review sessions was conducted by the MSEB. Over 2000 individual pieces of mail concerning the draft were received by the Council and were considered in the development of the final draft of the document. ‘The commission, as well as the writing groups, was most concerned that the final product represent a consensus of the mathematical sciences education community ‘on what students in American schools should know and be able to doas a result of their study of schoo! mathematics. They were further interested in developing a plan for school mathematics that was both realistic and achievable in the nation’s schools, Above all, it had t0 be a document that “made sense” of school mathemat- ics for the reader. The regional meetings of NCTM during the 1987-88 school year produced a wealth of input into the revisions needed. This process culminated in the 66th Annual Meeting held in Chicago in 1988. The major general sessions were devoted to the Standards draft and solicited input from the membership. The Dele- gate Assembly was also given over to a careful study and analysis of specific as- pects of the draft. This feedback, coupled with the written comments and the re- sults of MSEB’s focus-group project, constituted a basis for the development of the final draft during the summer of 1988, “The NCTM and the members ofthe Slandands Wrting Groups wish o acknow ledge the soppon of the Utah Council ef Teachers of Mathematics during this dtu bething proces f the Standards Dipindai dengan CamScannerF. Joe Crosswhite, John A, Dossey, and Shirley M. Frye 57 In carly summer, the writing groups reconvened in Park City, Utah, 10 meld the many comments and suggestions into the final draft of the recommendations for school mathematics. Even though extensive preparation for this process had been made by all involved, the time was especially tense and short, as the writing-group members strained to prepare the “best possible” document on schoo! mathematics for the profession. Following a shont period for editing the final product, the com- mission met to make additional suggestions for minor revisions and to approve the document. At the September 1988 meeting of the Board of Directors in Reston, Virginia, the Board made the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics the official position of the NCTM on what school mathematics should be. Followiag this action, copies of the final draft were circulated among the pro- fessional-mathematics and mathematics-education organizations for endorsement ‘and through the broader education community for letters of support. Fifteen mathe- matics organizations formally endorsed the vision of school mathematics projected by the Standards. In addition, 25 professional-education organizations added let- ters of suppor to the effort to improve the quality of American mathematics edu cation. At the same time, work was going forward with the staff of the public rela- tions firm of Burson-Marsteller for the release of the Standards and the develop- ment and dissemination of the Executive Summary document (National Council ‘of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989). These activities were coordinated around the press conference scheduled for 21 March 1989. The Executive Summary of the Standards was developed by the Committee for the Implementation of the Siandards and formatied for release by the staffs at NCTM’s Reston headquarters and Burson- Marsteller, Over 140.000 copies of this publication were mailed to school superintendents, school board presidents, building principals, and others involved in educational policy at the state and federal levels. In addition, over 80 000 copies of the Standards were distributed to members of the mathematics-education community. These included NCTM members, members of allied professional organizations in mathematics education, members of House and Senate committees related to the goals of the NCTM, and others holding important policy positions in state and federal govern- ment, On Tuesday, 21 March 1989, the NCTM held a formal press conference in the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, to release the Standards. Thomas Romberg, John Dossey, and Shirley Frye were joined on the podium by Sally K. Ride of NASA and Stanford University and by Bud C. Wonsiewicz, vice-president of US WEST Advanced Technologies, Englewood, Colorado, The latter two confirmed the significance of the Standards by detailing the importance of a quality mathe- matics education to our nation and its social, economic, and strategic future. This Press conference was covered by the major networks, news agencies, and periodi- Cals. The response in the press in the following days and weeks heralded the binh of a new national awareness of the importance of mathematics as a discipline for all citizens. Unlike the critical comments that mathematics-edueation reform re- Dipindai dengan CamScanner518 ‘Implementing the Standards ceived in the early 1960s, the media coverage echoed strong support of the move- ‘ment to realize a new vision for school mathematics. ‘THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION Shirley M. Frye In this next decade our profession has an unparalleled opportunity to revitalize mathematics education and to make that mathematics education effective for all students. Our initial step in developing the Standards was unique! No other effort Of this kind had ever been undertaken in any discipline by a professional organiza- tion. The success of our public presentation of the documient adds to our energy 10 continue with the implementation activitics in the next stages. Henry David ‘Thoreau said, “Dreams are the touchstone of our character.” Our dreams, our vi- sions, are indeed the touchstone of the quality of our profession. Having a has affected this organization in wonderful ways—our individual membership is the highest in the history of the Council, and our total membership now exceeds 78 000. The interest and encrgy level of every member are evident in the work being accomplished by individuals, committees, panels, and affiliated groups. We have received public support for our “guided evolution” and broad endorsement from our allied professional groups. The headlines of articles in newspapers and joumals are clear indicators that the media are displaying positive approaches 10 the crisis in mathematics education and to our recommended solutions. During this year’s annual meeting and in subsequent mectings of all types, NCTM held, and will continue to hold, sessions and discussions that address and detail the mathematics content recommended in the Standards and the expectations for students® performance, that identify the barriers to be overcome and the issues to be addressed, that plan for the multitude of peripheral activities, and that devise strategies for marshaling support from internal and extemal sources and groups. Since NCTM’s members have regular opportunities to attend such sessions and participate in those activities, I shall focus these remarks on what our vision of school mathematics will Look like, Since the example in Figure | is taken from an actual classroom, itis truly an existing proof that our standards are achievable and possible. At a recent mathe- matics conference, a high school teacher shared with me a letter that his student had written as the result of a problem-solving activity. In this letter the student exhibits the curiosity, boldness, and imagination that are characteristic of problem solvers. The letter is replete with his delightful style and powers of persuasion. Congratulations to Matt, who applied his new learning, and to his teacher, Tho- mas Seidenberg, who presents open-ended problem-solving experiences in his classes to encourage young mathematicians! For them, mathematics is not a spec- tator sport! This example typifies our vision for school mathematics that should hhave an impact not only on the curriculum but on the instructors and the students. In January, the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) set the stage for the Standards by alerting the public to the need for reform in mathematics education in its publication Everybody Counts: A Report ta the Nation on the Dipindai dengan CamScannerF Joe Crosswhite, John A. Dossey, and Shirley M. Frye 519 Yekima, Washington The Coca-Cola Co. 310 North Ave. NW Atlanta, GA 30313 Dear Roberto, How can it be that both Coke and “the other one” are both the soft drink chosen in ‘taste test? I personally am a devoted Coke drinker. Coke Classic is #1! ‘There is something that has been bothering me. Our precalculus class at Eisen- hower High School was given the problem of finding the can that would hold 12 fl. 2. and would use the least amount of aluminum, Much to our surprise, the can we discovered is much different from the one you chose! Our calculations show that a can with a radius of approximately 3.8367 cm and a height of approximately 7.667 ‘em would use less aluminum than yours and still hold 12 fl. oz. Please explain why you still choose to use more aluminum than is necessary. I doubt that you want to tose ‘money, and I hate to see valuable resources go to waste (I recycle). I feel it would be ‘to your benefit to change the size of the can, help conserve resources, and save money Allin one fell swoop! Something else is on my mind: Cherry Coke was a smashing success! But what about those of us who love vanilla Coke? Now that Burger Ranch has stopped add- ing vanilla syrup to their Coke, where are we to go? How about if you created vanilla ‘Coke for all of us? You don't even have to tell anybody that I gave you the idea. It will be my little gift to you! ‘You will make billions. Pepsi—oops, I said the “P” word—will not be notified. Cordially, Matt Barker, Junior Eisenhower High School Figure b Future of Mathematics Education (MSEB and National Research Council, 1989). Ireveals that 35 million students and 1.5 million teachers in about 16 000 districts study mathematics each day. Our vision is that all these students have a suitable and sufficient mathematics background. Access to quality experiences in every year of schooling must be available to everyone regardless of ethnic background, sex, or handicapping condition. We must believe that it is possible for all students to achieve our expectations. We, as teachers, must treat the student as the constant in our classes and treat time, materials, instructional strategies, and activities as the variables, Parents, administrators, counselors, and the commu to support and encourage students as they work to attain mathematical power. Our vision is achieved through the acts of teaching and caring for our subject and our students. Teachers must nurture, strengthen, and motivate the students as well as “sell” mathematics to them through quality experiences, We must make it possible for them to succeed. Our challenge is to translate the Standards into action by ing expectations will be needed Dipindai dengan CamScanner520 Implementing the Standards and by bringing vitality and vigor into our classrooms. The verbs used in the Stan- dards vividly describe the behavior our instruction should aim to achieve, Words like explore, communicate, construct, use, ond represent stress the involvement of students in the active “doing” of mathematics. Words like collaborate, question, express, value, share, and enjoy bring a new flavor to the work of the students. Words like reflect, appreciate, connect, apply, and extend build a new altitude toward mathematics and its uses. If our students achieve the hoped-for outcomes of our efforts, we should be able to accomplish what John Allen Paulos suggests in his book Innumeracy—that the image of mathematics as being “coldly rational” be changed to being “warmly rational.” Mathematics indeed includes discovering beauty and consistency in nature, relating to the mosaic of the world around us, and discovering new ideas in the fourth and higher dimensions. What exciting oppor- tunities mathematics offers! Mathematics itself is changing, and with it, the entire school mathematics cur- riculum is entering a period of unprecedented change. Thomas Romberg, the able chair of the Commission on Standards for School Mathematics, has said repeat- edly that our project is a blueprint for a design change, not a bandage to patch up deficits here and there, Vital change cannot be brought about by administrative fiat ‘or minor adjustments to the curriculum. Change can be effected only by the people involved. Therefore, the Council will continue to attend to the current projects related to implementing the Standards and to welcome recommendations for fu- ture projects. Each of you will be expected to take a leadership role—from your individual, personal, and professional growth to participation in activities at all levels and in all places. Francis Bacon once said, “The secret of success is to be ready for opportunity when it comes.” And it will come (0 each one of us, as we contribute in our own way to making the vision a reality. The task forces and projects recommended by the major committees and panels are targeting areas of content and the preparation of teachers. The task forces are organized by these topics: geometry, number sense, discrete mathematics, ad- denda, professional standards for teaching, and effects of the standards on school practice. The Committce for Implementing the Standards monitors and schedules the multitude of proposals that results from the work of these groups. All these activities are evidence of the commitment that NCTM has made in terms of its members, time, and monetary resources to describe and facilitate the desired out- comes of needed mathematics programs. This concentration of effort has already established the Standards as a powerful catalyst for change. even in these initial months. In our cooperative ventures with the Association of State Supervisors of Mathe- matics, the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, and the Council of Presidential Awardees in Mathematics, we will be preparing leaders in all the geographic regions 10 carry our message and to influence growth through change. Indeed, the title of the project heralds our mission, “Leading Mathematics into the ‘Twenty-first Century.” ‘The key torcaching the vision is to give students a confident command of mathe- Dipindai dengan CamScannerF Joe Crosswhite, John A. Dossey, and Shirley M. Frye 521 matics. This objective can be accomplished as we diligenily work toward our goals for all students: * To value mathematics * To become confident in one's ability to do mathematics * To become a mathematical problem solver + To communicate mathematically * To reason mathematically Our goals to revitalize mathematics education are lofiy and ambitious, but achievable. Therefore, we must devote ourselves to a long-term effort and dedi- cate our work to incremental changes that are not intended to be in place tomor- Tow. We recognize that some changes have already been accomplished in various Places and were models for the recommended outcomes. Others are in the implem- entation process today, but most will be part of our future work Through our collective efforts, we in NCTM have created a momentum for mathematics. Our commitment and concentration must continue for us to realize our vision, | ask each of you to dedicate your individual talents to contribute to the building of mathematical power in our siudents. [n that way, our vision will be not only the touchstone and measure of our character as a Council but the benchmark of our success as mathematics educators. REFERENCES Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) and National Revearch Council. Everyborly Counts: ‘A Report 10 the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education. Washington, DC; National Acad- ‘emy Press, 1989, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School “Mathematics ofthe 1980s. Reston, VA: The Council, 1980. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Eveluation Standards for Schoot ‘Mathematics: Executive Summary. Reston, VA: The Council, 1989, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Standards for School Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council, 1989, Dipindai dengan CamScanner