Overview of the Mathematics Curriculum Framework Revision Process

High School Mathematics Redesign

Changes

1. Effective with the ninth grade class entering high school during school year 2009-2010, all students will pursue a focused program of study that includes four credits in mathematics. The four credits are to include Algebra I and II, Geometry or its equivalent, and another mathematics course beyond Algebra I. Students must be enrolled in a mathematics course each school year. A Bridge Mathematics course is designed for students who have not scored a 19 or higher on the ACT by the beginning of the senior year.
2. Students with qualifying disabilities in math, as documented in the individualized education program, shall be required to complete a minimal sequence of Algebra I and Geometry (or its equivalent). The required number of credits in mathematics may be earned with modifications such as, but not limited to, increased time, appropriate methodologies, and accommodations as determined by the IEP team.

Rationale for High School Mathematics Redesign

Implications for Mathematics Teaching

The teacher is the most important link in connecting our students to higher levels of accomplishment and learning. If Dr. William Sanders, developer of TVAAS (Tennessee Value Added Assessment System), tells us anything, it is the inexorableness of teacher-effect. He lists it as the single-most important factor in student achievement: more than socio-economics, budgets, parents, and facilities. The teacher is the most important asset that any school system has to offer.

The new Tennessee Mathematics Standards will require more coverage and depth than the previous standards, and will therefore require more teacher-knowledge and a change in facilitation and pedagogy to achieve these goals. In order to attain greater student achievement, instructors will need to use more efficient methodologies, which are undergirded by a paradigm shift in how students learn.

One such paradigm shift is a move away from the stereotypical textbook-driven plan, which is linear in nature, and thus limited in efficiency, toward a plan which is spiraled and more inline with how human beings actually are wired to learn. Below is a concise compare-contrast of the old and new paradigms.

• All people do not learn in the way a textbook presents a topic anymore than they learn to speak a language by reading a dictionary. In learning to speak, humans proceed in a need-to-know basis, and the formal structures are added later. When a child learns a language, it is more caught than taught, and teachers who design lesson plans and activities based on this idiosyncrasy of human behavior are able to train students more effectively with less stress on the part of both instructor and student.
• The introduction of rich tasks into the curriculum early in the school year enables the teacher to collapse time frames and cover more topics in a deeper vein than textbook-lecture formats.
• There is a myth of coverage among teachers of mathematics that assumes that if a topic is covered then it is mastered. Teaching is more than telling, and just because a topic is covered doesn’t mean that it is mastered.
• When possible, topics should be introduced in a concrete fashion, and abstraction should be added gradually throughout the year until the concrete example is no longer needed. Abstraction is difficult for many students, especially early in their educational tenure, and should be preceded by concrete activities to allow students to attach meaning to the abstraction.
• Most ideas can be introduced early in the school year, even in the first six weeks, and then gradually covered again and again in depth so that all students have an opportunity to master the topics from a concrete, discovery approach to the more abstract, symbolic approach.
• We must assume that all students can learn at higher levels
• In the typical coverage model, time is constant; i.e. the teacher sets aside a week or two to cover a topic. Assessment is done at the end of that time period. Results are generally normally distributed. But if knowledge is the constant, then it is assumed that all students can and will learn the topic, but time and pedagogy will vary greatly for each student to uniformly achieve high standards.
• If learning/achievement, not time, is held constant, then that means students will learn at different rates. This allows students who learn more quickly to serve as tutors, use free-time to explore topics in more depth, and/or allow them more time to work on other subjects and projects that interest them. It is a myth that all students should be working on the same topic at the same pace all of the time for optimal learning.
• With increased emphasis on high-stakes testing, often the joy of teaching and learning can wane. Keep teaching and learning fun.
• There are master teachers in every system in the state. It is imperative that teachers utilize these experts, along with the many other resources available, to achieve the new, high expectations.
• Teachers need not feel overwhelmed or as if they have to re-invent the wheel.