Once again I see and hear the very real need for directed study groups in schools or areas where teachers have programs, community cultures, and class configurations or sizes in common. Teacher leaders would then have specific time to support. Mentors would have more direction and, again, allotted time to mentor. Inexperienced teachers would be linked to the strengths of experience and experienced (traditional) teachers would be linked to fresh-thinking instructors. (Doesn't this sound like a heterogeneous grouping?) I've seen its effectiveness, and suggest that teacher leadership consider this avenue as a primary focus strategy. Thanks for the forum, Jim. Betty Young ---------- From: Jim Abrams <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [MLMATHNET] Do standards-based program work? Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2003, 1:52 PM Do Standards-based Programs Work? The other day administrators and teachers were talking in a workshop about their school's math performance, which after gaining for a few years, has been disappointingly flat. One principal commented, "We thought our new math program would be the 'be all, end all'. We've found it wasn't everything we had hoped." I suspect the sentiment resonates with many teachers and administrators around the state. A lot of teachers and administrators hoped "the program would do it all". But unfortunately, the promise of the standards-based programs, those that align well with the framework, depends heavily on the teacher. The VISMT math staff comes to this belief from auditing schools across the state: observing classrooms throughout schools, interviewing teachers and watching children. A similar conclusion is echoed in a recent study released by the Federal Department of Education: "A federally subsidized research project has released initial findings demonstrating that curricula based on the NCTM's framework result in higher test scores. ŒStudents using the programs we studied consistently outperformed other students,¹ said Sheila Sconiers, director of Alternatives for Rebuilding Curricula, which conducted the study. "The study recommends that the new style of curriculum is best used in districts with experienced teachers, because it requires teachers to learn new ways of teaching." The New Programs Appear Self-evident , But They're Not The teaching philosophies, the teaching strategies, and the content in the standards-based programs are radically different from what teachers have used before. Unfortunately the lessons in the new programs make it appear as if the teaching is self-evident‹simply follow the directions and results will follow. As we watch teachers use the programs it is obvious that there many interpretations, many of which are inconsistent to greater or lesser degree with the intent of the authors. One recent study indicated that teachers inadvertently mis-implement 70% of the daily lesson tasks. The most frequent error is to diminish the cognitive challenge of the task. Maximum Student Gains Depend Highly on Teacher Skill and Knowledge Across Classrooms It is my opinion, based on looking at scores across schools and observing classrooms within many schools, that the program 'alone' might account for only 20% of the potential impact on student performance that can be achieved. The other 80% resides in the teachers¹ knowledge, and their skill in using the program as the authors intended‹ACROSS CLASSROOMS. The term "across classrooms" underscores the powerful synergy that occurs where there is consistency in teaching strategies and philosophies as students progress from class to class. It isn't just the student knowledge that builds from grade to grade, it¹s also students¹ skills in learning mathematics in a new way, through inquiry. That can't be emphasized too much. Jim Abrams Director of Mathematics Education Vermont Institute for Science, Math & Technology 7 West Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Ph: (802) 828-0069 [log in to unmask]