News

The Center for 21st Century Skills at EDUCATION CONNECTION presents two math workshops this spring: A 21st Century Approach to Teaching Algebra on April 10th and A 21st Century Approach to Teaching Geometry on April 12th.

For more information and registration, click here.

Educators use Differentiated Instruction (DI) to better meet the diverse learning needs of all students. Yet embedding components of DI into planning and instruction can be challenging for teachers, especially in mathematics. This two-day session will offer strategies and techniques for using differentiated lessons to increase proficiency in advanced mathematical content of all students while addressing the varying range of learners’ strengths and needs.

The Mathematics Curriculum Study explores the relationship between student coursetaking and achievement by examining the content and challenge of two mathematics courses taught in the nation’s public high schoolsundefinedalgebra I and geometry. Conducted in conjunction with the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Study (HSTS), the study uses textbooks as an indirect measure of what was taught in classrooms, but not how it was taught (i.e., classroom instruction). The study uses curriculum topics to describe the content of the mathematics courses and course levels to denote the content and complexity of the courses. The results are based on analyses of the curriculum topics and course levels developed from the textbook information, coursetaking data from the 2005 NAEP HSTS, and performance data from the twelfth-grade 2005 NAEP mathematics assessment.

Highlights of the study findings show that about 65 percent of the material covered in high school graduates’ algebra I was devoted to algebra topics, while about 66 percent of the material covered in graduates’ geometry courses focused on geometry topics. School course titles often overstated course content and challenge. Approximately 73 percent of graduates in “honors” algebra I classes received a curriculum ranked as an intermediate algebra I course, while 62 percent of graduates who took a geometry course labeled “honors” by their school received a curriculum ranked as intermediate geometry. Graduates who took rigorous algebra I and geometry courses scored higher on NAEP than graduates who took beginner or intermediate courses.

To learn more and read the report, click here.

At its meeting on February 14–16, the NCTM Board of Directors approved a motion to change the date of the NCTM annual meeting from April to late June or July, with the understanding that the year of implementation is uncertain because of existing contractual obligations. A June or July meeting would permit more teachers to attend the annual meeting, which now conflicts with mandatory testing scheduled in the spring in many states. NCTM annual meeting attendance has declined significantly in recent years, whereas participation at the fall regional conferences continues to increase. Although annual meeting attendees continue to comment favorably on the meeting, noting the high quality of the program, they also cite the increasing demands to prepare for state testing at that time of year. Often, the timing of the annual meeting has conflicted with state testing in the host region, and many teachers have not been permitted to attend. Because NCTM’s mission is to support teachers by offering professional development, removing the barrier of timing for many who would like to attend the annual meeting became imperative. In fall 2012, NCTM conducted a comprehensive market research study to evaluate all aspects of the annual meeting, including the time of year it is traditionally held. The survey went to a representative sample of recent and past attendees, as well as individuals who have never attended an NCTM annual meeting. This sample of members and nonmembers included classroom teachers, administrators, researchers, students, and others. The survey confirmed that the current timing was not ideal for most regular and potential attendees and that a move to the summer could allow greater participation. ... Thank you, Linda M. Gojak NCTM President

 

THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS:

MATH RESOURCES

A presentation, dinner and round table discussion

Thursday, April 4th

LOCATION: Baci Grill, Cromwell, CT

                       

                        Charlene Tate Nichols, CSDE                         Common Core – A CT Progress Report

The Connecticut Council of Leaders of Mathematics is a nonprofit organization with the following purpose:

Next Generation Science Standards for Today’s Students and Tomorrow’s Workforce:  Through a collaborative, state-led process managed by Achieve, new K–12 science standards are being developed that will be rich in content and practice, arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to provide all students an internationally benchmarked science education. The NGSS will be based on the Framework for K–12 Science Education developed by the National Research Council.

Arlington, Va.  January 8, 2013  The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the largest organization in the world promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all, issued the following statement today regarding the release of the second public draft of the Next Generation Science Standards. The statement can be attributed to Dr. Karen L. Ostlund, NSTA President.

“The second public draft of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) released today is a significant step forward in developing exemplary new standards that all states can support. When completed and adopted, these new science standards will change the way science is taught and learned in classrooms nationwide by fully engaging K–12 students in three essential dimensions - disciplinary core ideas, scientific and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts - in a way that will deepen and strengthen their knowledge and skills in science.

We applaud the NGSS writing team and the 26 states for their extensive efforts to develop, review, and revise these standards. We are pleased that many changes have been made based on feedback and look forward to working with Achieve and the writers on additional changes to ensure the final standards meet the needs of science educators across the country.

As a partner in the NGSS development process, NSTA will be working with science educators nationwide to identify and develop professional development and curricular materials that will be needed to work toward successful implementation of NGSS. The levels of achievement called for in NGSS are ambitious and we call on all stakeholders to help us build the capacity to adopt and implement the new standards and provide the broad support that schools and teachers will need in the months and years ahead.”

Click to see the full NSTA bulletin here:  http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=59760.

The TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics summarizes fourth and eighth grade student achievement in each of the 63 countries and 14 benchmarking entities (including CT Grade 8) which participated in TIMSS 2011. The report includes trends in mathematics achievement over time for participants in the previous TIMSS 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 assessments, as well as student performance at the TIMSS International Benchmarks. Achievement results also are presented for mathematics content and cognitive domains. The Mathematics Report provides a rich array of information which describes the educational contexts for mathematics, including home environment support, students' backgrounds and attitudes toward mathematics, the mathematics curriculum, teachers' education and training, classroom characteristics and activities, and school contexts for mathematics learning and instruction.

Click to visit the TIMMS website or read the Full Report or Executive Summary.

Click for Selected US and CT Data. 

To search the TIMMS data, click here. 

To see a video introduction and summaries, click here.

What mathematics do teachers need to know?

How can mathematicians aid teachers in learning this mathematics, in collaboration with others responsible for teacher education?

Current research and experience are synthesized to answer these questions in the new report The Mathematical Education of Teachers II (MET II) from the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. This report updates The Mathematical Education of Teachers (published in 2001) and extends its scope from preparation to professional development in the context of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

The audience for the report includes all who teach mathematics to teachers, mathematicians, statisticians, and mathematics educators; and all who are responsible for the mathematical education of teachers, department chairs, educational administrators; and policy-makers at the national, state, school-district, and collegiate levels.

The report’s central themes are:

• There is intellectual substance in school mathematics - at every grade level.
  
• Proficiency with school mathematics is necessary but not sufficient mathematical knowledge for a teacher.
  
• The mathematical knowledge needed for teaching differs from that of other professions.
  
• Mathematical knowledge for teaching can and should grow throughout a teacher's career.
  

Over the past decade, the Math Science Partnerships (supported by the National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Education) and the NSF's Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program have connected mathematicians at institutions of higher education with K–12 school systems, fostering new partnerships and extending existing collaborations. For practicing K–12 teachers, content-based professional development offered by Math Science Partnerships has changed their attitudes about mathematics, and increased their mathematical interest and abilities. Moreover, it has increased the achievement of their students.

In several states, Math Science Partnerships have provided strong mathematics preparation for elementary mathematics specialists: teachers who may hold the title elementary mathematics coach, elementary mathematics instructional leader, or lead teacher. A 3-year randomized study found that such specialists’ coaching of teachers had a significant positive effect on student achievement. Large-scale studies that examine connections between student achievement in earlier and later grades suggest that improved mathematics instruction in preschool and elementary grades has a large payoff in later achievement, not only for mathematics in later grades (including high school), but for reading.

The MET II report gives an overview of such developments and gives recommendations for teachers’ preparation and professional development. It devotes separate chapters to mathematics for teachers of elementary, middle, and high school grades. The associated web resources give sources of further information about mathematics in the Common Core and programs for teachers.

Each of the MET II writers is a mathematician, statistician, or mathematics education researcher. They include lead and other writers for the Common Core State Standards and principal investigators for Math Science Partnerships as well as past presidents and chairs of the American Statistical Association, Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

The report may be downloaded free at the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences web site: www.cbmsweb.org/MET2. Printed copies may be ordered from the American Mathematical Society www.ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=CBMATH-17.

The Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) is an umbrella organization consisting of sixteen professional societies all of which have as one of their primary objectives the increase or diffusion of knowledge in one or more of the mathematical sciences. Its purpose is to promote understanding and cooperation among these national organizations so that they work together and support each other in their efforts to promote research, improve education, and expand the uses of mathematics.

For further information, contact CBMS director Ronald Rosier: rosier@georgetown.edu, 410-730-1426; 202-293-1170.

FROM:             Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.

   Director, Office of Policy and Research

   and Interim Director of Academic Affairs

DATE:              December 17, 2012

SUBJECT:        Math Entry Requirements in 2015 for State Universities

This communication addresses questions that have arisen about math courses required for admission to Connecticut State Universities beginning in fall 2015.

CSU Board Resolution 10-054 sets subject requirements for normal admission into Connecticut’s state universities for first time students. Among these requirements is four years of mathematics in high school “including as required courses Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, a fourth year in an algebra-intensive course, such as trigonometry or statistics and probability.”

 

Questions have arisen from high schools and from admissions officers if only courses in trigonometry or statistics and probability may satisfy this requirement. The answer is no; these courses are examples of acceptable courses that may qualify, not restrictions upon what mathematics courses must be taken. Any algebra-intensive course that meets the requirements of Public Act 10-111 (Section 16) may satisfy the requirements set forth in this policy and the content of these courses may cover subjects other than trigonometry or statistics and probability.

Real World Math is an online resource for middle-grades mathematics teachers, with over 150 articles, lesson plans, and activities selected because they connect math to the real world and the real classroom. Access it anywhere - computer, Smartphone, tablet.   For more information, go to http://www.nctm.org/catalog/product.aspx?id=13518.