Response to the Request of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel

for Public Comment

from the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

September 6, 2007

Presented on behalf of AACTE by

William F. Tate IV
Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University
Professor in Arts & Sciences and Chair, Department of Education
Washington University in St. Louis

AACTE, representing 800 schools, colleges, and departments of education across the nation, is
pleased to have this opportunity to testify before the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
We recognize the nation’s critical need to increase the quantity and quality of scientific
personnel to compete in the global economy and to bolster the technical skills of our
workforce to enhance creativity and innovation. Obviously, the teaching and learning of
mathematics is critical to addressing that need.

Our comments are focused on elementary and middle school (K-8) mathematics education,
according to the Panel’s charge, and, as requested, we cite our sources of research evidence.
In cases where definitive findings do not exist, we reference the best judgment of the
profession. Our remarks address item (e) in the Executive Order creating the panel—“the
training, selection, placement, and professional development of teachers of mathematics in
order to enhance students learning mathematics.”

AACTE offers eight policy recommendations to the Panel that we believe would significantly
improve the quality of mathematics teaching and teacher preparation programs. Briefly, the
recommendations are

1. Support syntheses and wide dissemination of the best research available

2. Support research on critical mathematics teacher/teaching issues
3. Encourage consensus-building efforts to develop high-level student mathematics
standards
4. Support the development of student data systems with links to teacher preparation
programs
5. Support teacher preparation reform at both state and federal levels
6. Eliminate out-of-field teaching
7. Encourage investments in mathematics teacher recruitment and retention efforts
8. Correct the inequitable distribution of high-quality teachers

1
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
These recommendations are embedded in the following discussion of several key issue areas.

1. Teaching knowledge, skills, practices, and tools

The Panel is unquestionably aware of the paucity of rigorous research on what is considered
the core question of education: What is it about teaching that influences students’ learning?—
a deficit acknowledged in the recent update to the Handbook of Research on Mathematics
Teaching and Learning.1 It is critical that such knowledge be continually sought and made
known to collegiate education faculty members across the country. Their often-underestimated
impact on tens of thousands of new teacher hires, as well as on the professional development
of employed teachers in schools and districts nationwide each year, is unparalleled. Yet the
value of comprehensive reviews and syntheses of the most rigorous research on what
mathematics teachers should know and how they should teach it, seems not to be apparent.
Examples of such findings include the following:

• The National Research Council in 2001 urged that, beginning in preschool, educators
should help students extend their rudimentary comprehension of numbers, and that in
later years the curriculum should link calculation to everyday situations to help students
make such connections. Further, educators should teach important concepts in depth
rather than covering many topics superficially. Carpenter et al. determined that teachers
should know how to help students connect new knowledge to what they already know,
create a structure for the new knowledge, engage students in inquiry and problem-solving,
and take responsibility for validating their ideas and procedures. Thus mathematics
teachers should have a coherent vision of (a) the structure of the ideas and practices they
are teaching, (b) students’ conceptions, misconceptions, and problem-solving strategies,
(c) students’ typical learning trajectories, (d) the tasks, tools, and scaffolding to support
student sense-making, and (e) the class norms and activity structures that support
learning. Teachers thus need flexible knowledge they can adapt to their students and the
demands of situations as they arise in classes.2

• The positive effect on student learning of elementary mathematics teachers’ mathematical

knowledge for teaching—an effect with as big an impact on mathematics learning as
student poverty or race—is surely well known to National Mathematics Advisory Panel, f or
the concept mathematical knowledge for teaching was conceived by Task Group Chair
1
The enabling condition of “opportunity to learn,” and teaching that promotes conceptual development,
as well as teaching that facilitates efficiency in executing skills, are the teaching features that the latest
review of research links consistently with student achievement. See: James Hiebert and Douglas A.
Grouws, “The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning,” in Second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning, Frank K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), A project of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2007), 371-404.
2
National Research Council. Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford,
and B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

2
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 Deborah Ball and her colleagues.3 They have made significant contributions to describing
and developing methods for assessing Shulman’s “pedagogical content knowledge”4 that
mathematics teachers need to know (i.e., teachers’ skills, such as pinpointing sources of
errors, illustrating key concepts on the fly as needed in the classroom, and explaining
multiple routes to the same end). Their national study of 700 elementary teachers in low-
income schools found that the students of those with the higher scores on a “mathematical
knowledge for teaching” test had the highest math learning gains.

• Regarding effective instructional programs, one particularly exceptional, experimental

study was conducted by Carpenter et al. (2003)5 on Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI).
Title I students in Milwaukee whose teachers used CGI showed stunning gains over those
whose teachers did not. The results were subsequently replicated in schools in several
other states. A second instructional program, Active Mathematics Teaching,6 derived from
direct instruction, has also been evaluated through a true experimental design and its
positive results replicated in a variety of settings.

The research reviews and synthesis efforts, such as those mentioned above, are typically
inaccessible to teachers and teacher educators. Publications whose sponsors do not have
large promotional budgets may receive their brief “media moment” in the sun and then
fade away with the next day’s news. But more likely, they simply appear once in a
subscription-based research journal that can easily be missed by busy practitioners.
Ironically, the most significant research findings of all are synthesized in an expensive

3
See: Heather C. Hill, Brian Rowan, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, “Effects of teachers’ mathematical
knowledge for teaching on student achievement,” American Educational Research Journal, 42(2) (2005),
371-406; Deborah Loewenberg Ball & Hyman Bass, “Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching
and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), “Multiple perspectives on the
teaching and learning of mathematics” (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex, 2000; Deborah Loewenberg
Ball, Heather C. Hill, & Hyman Bass, “Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well
enough to teach third grade, and how can we decode?,” American Educator, Fall 2005; Heather C. Hill &
Deborah Loewenberg Ball, “Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics
professional development institutes, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5) (2004), 330-
351.
4
Lee. S. Shulman, “Merging content knowledge and pedagogy: An interview with Lee Shulman.” Journal
of Staff Development, 13(1) (Winter 1992), 14-17.
5
Carpenter, T., Blanton, M.L., Cobb, P., Franke, M.L., Kaput, J., & McClain, K. (2004). Scaling up
innovative practices in mathematics and science. Research Report. Madison, WI: National Center for
Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.

6
Good, T. L., Grouws, D.A., and Ebmeier, H. Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman, 1983.

3
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 volume7 which— even if a copy is available in a library —is not easily accessible to faculty
and teachers.

The Education Department’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)—an important effort to

determine, using highly rigorous research standards, which instructional programs are
effective in increasing student achievement, and to make that information available free
and accessible to all via the web—has unfortunately, reported inconclusive, and thus not
useful findings. For example, WWC’s reviews of the Connected Mathematics Project—a
problem-centered curriculum designed for all students in grades 6-8— and of Transition
Mathematics—a one-year curriculum that aims to increase 7th through 12th grade
students' skills in applied arithmetic, pre-algebra, and pre-geometry—found both programs
to have “mixed effects” on mathematics achievement. UCSMP Algebra, a one-year course,
appropriate for grades 7-10, designed to increase students' skills in algebra, was found by
WWC to have “potentially positive” effects on mathematics achievement.

RECOMMENDATION #1: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should request

major government support for syntheses and wide dissemination of the best
research available on the teaching and learning of K-8 mathematics. This should be
an on-going service provided without charge to the public.

2. Teacher preparation

High-quality preparation is, of course, essential to enabling candidates’ development of the

knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions they need to teach. Research shows that well-
prepared teachers are more likely to remain in the teaching profession8 and to produce higher
levels of achievement among students.9 Preparation programs also help solve key policy
issues, including the shortage of teachers in particular content areas; the inequitable
distribution of teachers on the basis of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; and the
paucity of minority representation within the educator workforce.

Despite their recognized importance, these programs are frequently criticized—often in terms
of their length, admission and graduation standards (either too high or two low), or their level
of practicality (overly theoretical or too methods-based). Thus several key questions arise,
listed below as A, B, and C.
7
For example, the cost of the recent (2007) Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning,
Frank K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), just mentioned, is $400.
8
Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania, Analysis for NCTAF of the2000-01 Teacher Follow up
Survey. See National Commission for Teaching and America’s Future, No Dream Denied: A Pledge to
America’s Children, Summary Report (Washington, D.C.: NCTAF, 2003), 84-85.
9
Suzanne M. Wilson, Robert E. Floden, and Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Teacher Preparation Research: Current
Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations: A Research Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education (Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, 2001).

4
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
A. What constitutes a high-quality preparation program? In 2001, the NRC described the
features that mathematics, science, and technology teacher education programs should
exhibit.10 These include the following:

• Be collaborative endeavors developed and conducted by mathematicians11, education

faculty, and practicing K-12 teachers with assistance from members of professional
organizations and mathematics-rich businesses and industries….

• Help prospective teacher to know well, understand deeply, and use effectively and
creatively the fundamental content and concepts of the disciplines that they will
teach…

• Unify, coordinate, and connect content courses in mathematics with methods courses
and field experiences….

• Teach content in ways that allow students to appreciate the applications of

mathematics….

• Provide learning experiences in which mathematics is related to and integrated with

students’ interests, community concerns, and societal issues….

• Integrate education theory with actual teaching practice, and knowledge from
mathematics teaching experience with research on how people learn mathematics

• Provide opportunities for prospective teachers to learn about and practice teaching in a
variety of school contexts and with diverse groups of children

• Encourage reflective inquiry into teaching through individual and collaborative study,
discussion, assessment, analysis, [and] classroom-based research and practice; and

• Welcome students into the professional community of educators and promote a

professional vision of teaching. (pp. 69-71)

See: Judith T. Sowder, “The mathematical education and development of teachers,” in Second
10

handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Frank K. Lester, Jr. (ed.), A project of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2007), p. 199-
200.

“Science and technology” were included in the original document but omitted in this chapter of the
11

Second Handbook.

5
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 However, incorporation of each and every feature, to constitute the ideal preparation
program, is rarely possible, and the level of mastery of mathematics content and related
pedagogical skills by teacher graduates of preparation programs is frequently challenged.12
Further, research on the effect of mathematics teachers’ preparation, as measured by
coursework, on their students’ achievement, is ambiguous. Monk found that secondary
teachers’ postsecondary coursework predicted eventual student achievement, but that
mathematics teachers who took more than three mathematics courses fared worse than
those who took fewer; student gains were more clearly tied to teachers’ education
courses.13 Steiner makes an important point as well—that while we know a lot about
desired program characteristics, we can’t know for sure the effects of specific programs.
This is because studies don’t control for the differences in who enters them and because
hard data on the effects of teacher practices on their students’ achievement are not yet
available. If education schools simply reflect the ability of their entering students, he notes,
then the programs don’t have much to show for their effort.14

B. What do we know about the quality of existing preparation programs? U.S. teacher
preparation is highly variable in structure, and probably in content. Some programs begin
with college freshmen, others take midlife career changers; some last 1 year, some 2,
some 4, some 5; some programs for elementary teachers include only a mathematics
course or two, and others include several. Although some course titles may appear in
every program (e.g., methods of teaching elementary school mathematics), the written
descriptions of those courses vary widely; and the enacted curriculum also varies.
Programs’ content and structure might appropriately change, depending on who was
admitted, and on characteristics of graduates.15

Little is known about the content or methods courses offered by teacher preparation
programs in the United States. Experts acknowledge that no national, summary
information exists as to the content of the mathematics and mathematics education

12
See, for example: Liping Ma, Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1999; National Research Council, Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher
Preparation, Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new
millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001; Susan Goya, “The critical need for skilled
math teachers,” Phi Delta Kappan (87) 5 (January 2006), pp. 370-371.
13
David H. Monk, “Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and
student achievement,” Economics of Education Review (13), 125-145.

Remarks of David Steiner, Dean of the School of Education at SUNY/Hunter College, at a National
14

Council on Teacher Quality panel discussion on July 27, 2007 in Washington, DC.
15
Report of working group 7 – Teacher preparation, Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst
Conference: September 11–13, 2003, p. 173; Telephone conversation with Dr. Kathryn Chval, Assistant
Professor, University of Missouri/Columbia, January 4, 2007;

6
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 courses being provided to teacher candidates,16 perhaps due partially to higher
education’s history of autonomy and diversity.17

C. What can be done to ensure that programs attain and maintain the necessary level of
quality? A plethora of differing standards, frameworks, benchmarks, and course-content
guidelines as to what mathematics students should learn and teachers should teach, have
evolved, which may help explain the variation in teacher education programs. These
include state student learning standards and curriculum requirements/frameworks; NAEP’s
mathematics standards; the American Diploma Project and AP courses; the international
standards of TIMSS and PISA; the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences’ “MET,”
teaching standards of state education boards; preparation program approval requirements
of state agencies; the frameworks of testing companies (e.g., Praxis exams), the
Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics and Focal Points of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, the preparation program unit standards of the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education, and the content standards for accomplished
teachers of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Typically, soon after their release, standards are subjected to a long-term updating
process.18 Since 2002, 38 states have developed or revised their mathematics curriculum
standards for students;19 and state boards and agencies regularly reconsider course
requirements for preparation programs and the content and passing scores of their teacher
licensing tests.20 Mathematics learning expectations vary across the states along several
dimensions, including level of specificity, language used to convey learning goals, and
grade placement of specific learning expectations. Taken as a national collection, they
Report of working group 7 – Teacher preparation, Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst
16

Conference: September 11–13, 2003; See also: Sandra Stotsky, “How state boards of education can
upgrade math teaching in the elementary school,” EdNews.org, March 19, 2007.

Comments made at the June 4-5, 2007 Michigan State University policy forum, “Preparing
17

Mathematics Teachers to Make a Difference: Why Teacher Education Matters.”

18
For example, James Lewis, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, at Michigan State University’s June 4-5
2007 Policy Forum on “Preparing Mathematics Teachers to Make a Difference: Why Teacher Education
Matters,” recommended revising the MET standards to include further study of fractions, integers,
rationals, and real numbers, by elementary teachers, as well as the study of statistics, functions and an
introduction to algebra. He also suggested possible additional courses for middle grade teachers:
Number Theory and Cryptology, Discrete Mathematics, Using Mathematics to Understand our World,
and Concepts of Calculus. Other presenters made further suggestions.
19
Barbara Reys and Glenda Lappan, “Consensus or confusion? The intended mathematics curriculum in
state-level standards,” Phi Delta Kappan (88) 9, 676-680.

20
Massachusetts is an example: its Board of Education has recently voted on additional course
requirements and a more demanding mathematics test for elementary and special education teachers.
[Penny: check its status.]

7
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 highlight the lack of national consensus as to common learning expectations in
mathematics at particular grade levels—a situation that can lead to confusion.21

RECOMMENDATION #2: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should urge

support for research on critical mathematics teacher/teaching issues. This research
should include, at a minimum, a description of the current status of mathematics preparation
on the part of K-8 teachers; the essential content for high-quality mathematics teacher
preparation; the optimal length of coursework and clinical experiences and combinations
thereof; and research on the ideal structure, nature, and sequences of courses.

Regarding ensuring the necessary level of program quality, we make the following
recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION #3: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should encourage

consensus-building efforts to develop high-level student mathematics standards.
Several efforts are now proposed or under way to develop student mathematics (and science)
standards—either through collaborations of states or national voluntary standards efforts—
that are pegged at high levels. These include the 29-state America Diploma Project under
Achieve, Inc.,22 as well as the national efforts outlined in several pieces of congressional
legislation23 and in the National Science Board’s draft national action plan to improve the
nation’s STEM education system.24 Efforts such as these, to update existing standards and
clearly articulate, according to international benchmarks, what students at various levels
should know and be able to do regarding P-12 mathematics, would provide critical information
to upgrade teacher preparation programs.

RECOMMENDATION #4: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should support

the development of student data systems with links to teacher preparation
programs. Better information is needed on the actual performance of teachers in classrooms,
particularly on their ability to increase student learning. Although several states are
developing and piloting data systems that follow the achievement of K-12 students, links are
needed to data on the characteristics of their teachers’ preparation programs. If such data
were available, preparation programs could be modified accordingly, increasing their
effectiveness to the benefit of the institutions, the candidates, the schools and, ultimately the
21
Reys and Lappan, “Consensus or confusion,” Phi Delta Kappan.
22
See: http://www.achieve.org/node/604
23
For example, the Dodd-Ehlers bill, also known as the SPEAK Act (Standards to Provide Educational
Attainment for all Kids), S 224 and HR 325, and Senator Kennedy’s SUCCESS Act (States Using
Collaboration and Coordination to Enhance Standards for Students), S 164.
24
National Science Board, A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.—Draft for Public Comment. NSB/HER-07-
9, Revised August 9, 2007.

8
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
achievement of students. We urge the Panel to recommend the appropriation of funds
sufficient for all states to develop and implement longitudinal data systems with the capacity
to track the performance of individual students from year to year, link those students with
their teachers, determine the impact of teachers over several years, link those teachers to
their preparation programs, and ultimately identify the program characteristics associated
with the greatest levels of student achievement.

RECOMMENDATION #5: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should urge

support for teacher preparation reform at both state and federal levels. At the
state level, factors beyond the control of preparation institutions affect their ability to create
their own programs as they might wish. These include decisions by state boards, agencies,
and legislatures as to student standards, student curricula, teaching standards, specialist
designations and requirements, teacher licensing exams, and their passing scores as well as
appropriations for preparation program improvement, induction, and professional
development.25

A key factor in reform is inclusion of teacher preparation within the state’s alignment ladder,
as proposed by the Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF). Program admission
requirements, specialized content courses, and graduation standards for teacher candidates
should be aligned with the state’s P-12 content standards. Both content and teaching methods
courses should be redesigned to help future teachers make insightful connections between the
mathematics they are learning and the mathematics they will teach. We agree with BHEF that
each state must provide colleges and universities with incentives for evaluating and modifying
teacher education programs. 26

At the federal level, we urge the Panel to support the following research-based proposals:

• Mandated extensive, supervised clinical experience. Considerable variation exists in

the extent and rigor of the teacher candidates’ clinical experience required by states.
About three quarters of the states require some clinical experience, which may range from
5 to 20 weeks.27 Research suggests that sustained, high-quality clinical experience is
related to teacher retention. Candidates who have had student teaching are twice as likely
to stay past the first year of teaching as those who have not. Prospective teachers should
exhibit consistent success through a substantial preservice clinical experience involving a
variety of challenging situations and supervised by both university- and school-based
faculty. AACTE recommends at least 15 weeks at 30 hours per week, or a total of 450 hours
for clinical experience.
See: Business-Higher Education Forum, A commitment to America’s future: Responding to the crisis in
25

mathematics & science education, Washington, DC, January 2005. www.bhef.com.

26
Ibid, pg. 20.

Melissa McCabe, “State of the states,’ in Quality counts: A decade of standards-based education.
27

2006. Education Week, Vol. 25, No. 17, January 5, 2006. pp. 72-89.

9
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
• Required assessment of teaching performance. A major omission in the nation’s
system of determining the quality of entry-level teachers is an assessment of their ability
to teach. Innumerable, and frequently inadequate, tests of content knowledge, professional
knowledge, and in some cases subject-specific pedagogy, are available and used by states
in licensing teachers. However, the ability of teachers to actually teach is, with few
exceptions, not part of the licensing process. A growing body of research indicates that
performance assessments that include evidence from actual teaching practice can better
evaluate instructional practice and can serve as powerful professional learning
experiences. Reports of the National Research Council28 and the National Academy of
Education29 call for such assessments.

• A major investment in school/university partnerships. This is the major legislative

vehicle for teacher preparation reform, as it brings together the mathematics program
within arts and sciences, one or more K-12 districts, and the teacher education program to
support fledgling mathematics teachers with effective strategies, understandings, and
techniques. Appropriation levels for such partnerships have been minimal at both state and
federal levels.

3. Out-of-field teaching

The problem of out-of-field teaching—in which teachers are assigned to teach subjects that do
not match their training or education—is a crucial issue for the teaching and learning of
mathematics. Highly qualified teachers may actually become “unqualified” if assigned to
teach subjects for which they are not prepared. Ingersoll describes this as “a chronic and
widespread problem,” as his data show that about one third of all mathematics classes in
grades 7-12 are taught by teachers who have neither a major nor a minor in mathematics or
a related discipline.30 Data show that virtually all U.S. teachers have completed a bachelor’s
degree, and over 90% hold regular teaching certificates. Yet 65% of middle school
mathematics teachers did not have an undergraduate or graduate major in mathematics,
according to 1999-2000 SASS.

28
National Research Council. 2001 Testing teacher candidates: The role of licensure tests in improving
teacher quality. Committee on Assessment and Teacher Quality, Mitchell, K.J., Robinson, D.Z., Plake,
B.S., and Knowles, K.T., editors. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, p. 172.

Linda Darling-Hammond and Joan Baratz-Snowden (Eds.), A good teacher in every classroom:
29

Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005, pp. 62-
63.
30
Richard M. Ingersoll, “Four myths about America’s teacher quality problem,” Chapter 1 in Developing
the teacher workforce—103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, (Eds. M.
Smylie and D. Miretzky. University of Chicago Press, 2004.

10
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
This is not necessarily due to inadequate preparation; it could be due to the lack of fit between
teachers’ fields of preparation and their teaching assignments. Assuming that the decades-old
practice of out-of-field assignment continues due to its efficiency and cost-savings aspects,
then its elimination will not be easily accomplished simply by legislative fiat.31 Interestingly,
only 21 states have a ban or cap on the number of out-of-field teachers.32 Nations with high-
scoring students, such as Korea and Japan and Singapore, tend to have very little out-of-field
teaching.33

RECOMMENDATION #6: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should call for the
elimination of out-of-field teaching. With 18% of middle school mathematics teachers
assigned “out of field,” it is important to take a stand to discourage this practice. The Panel
should recommend that all states phase out the practice of out-of-field teaching by setting a
disappearing cap on the number of out-of-field placements permitted by each district each
year until ultimately, the cap becomes a ban.

4. Mathematics teacher supply and distribution issues

• The Mathematics Teacher Shortage. The first recommendation of the National

Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm is to increase America’s talent pool by
vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education. In 1999-2000, the latest
year for which figures were available, of the total number of public K-12 teachers,
160,000 taught mathematics.34 About two thirds of the nation’s K-12 teachers are
expected to retire or leave the profession over the coming decade, and by 2015, the
shortage of highly qualified mathematics and science teachers is expected to reach
283,000. 35

• Recruitment and retention of mathematics teachers. We know that one third of

teachers (in general) leave within 3 years and half within 5 years. Mathematics (as well
as science) teachers are significantly more likely to move from, or to eave their
31
Ingersoll, Ibid.

Melissa McCabe, “State of the states,” in Quality counts: A decade of standards-based education.
32

2006. Education Week, Vol. 25, No. 17, January 5, 2006, p.89.

Richard M. Ingersoll, “Comparative Study of Teacher Preparation and Qualifications in Six Nations,”
33

CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-47, February 2007.

34
The National Academies, Rising above the gathering storm—Energizing and employing America for a
brighter economic future. Report of the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st
Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology. Committee on Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.)

National Center for Education Statistics, Projection of education statistics to 2014 (Boston, MA:
35

National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).

11
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 teaching jobs because of job dissatisfaction than are other teachers (40% of
mathematics and science teachers compared with 29% of all teachers); and nationally,
mathematics teachers have the highest annual teacher turnover rate (16.4%) among
various fields.36

• Lack of diversity of mathematics teachers. A substantial imbalance exists in the

racial and ethnic makeup of the nation’s teaching workforce compared to students in
the classroom. Although the student population is becoming more and more diverse,
the face of the teaching profession is not keeping pace. Fully 42% of all students in our
public schools are members of minority groups. In urban areas, minority students
constitute clear enrollment majorities, with Hispanic students now the largest minority
group in the nation. Yet teaching continues to be dominated by European Americans.

RECOMMENDATION #7. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel should encourage

investments in mathematics teaching recruitment and retention efforts. Given the
shortage, the high rates of turnover and out-of-field teaching, and the lopsided diversity
among mathematics teachers, it is necessary to launch a concerted recruitment/retention
effort. Research shows that strong induction programs with trained mentors make a positive
difference in the retention of novice teachers and in improving teaching practice within the
school.37 Further, growing interest exists in enabling school districts to offer STEM teachers
compensation that is more closely aligned with that available in other economic sectors.38
Nothing less than a federal “Marshall Plan” is needed to greatly enhance the recruitment and
retention of excellent mathematics teachers, particularly for high-need schools. Substantial
funds should be authorized for a variety of promising purposes:

• Joint collegiate/school urban teaching academies

• Noyce Scholarships, which provide funds that higher education institutions may use
to encourage STEM majors to become K-12 mathematics teachers
• Service scholarships and forgivable loans for the training of outstanding candidates
who agree to teach in high-need schools
• Matching grants to state and districts for high-quality induction programs and
support structures for new teachers in high-need schools
• Teaching assignments for new teachers that support their induction into the field
• Significant bonuses, in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 a year, for National Board-
certified teachers who agree to teach in poor urban or rural schools

Richard M. Ingersoll, “Is there a shortage among mathematics and science teachers?,” Science
36

Educator, 12,1 (Spring 2003).

Thomas M. Smith and Richard M. Ingersoll, “What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
37

beginning teacher turnover?” American Educational Research Journal 41, no. 2 (2004).
38
National Science Board, A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.—Draft for Public Comment. NSB/HER-07-
9, Revised August 9, 2007.
12
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
 • The ultimate development of a national database and analytic agenda for monitoring
and ameliorating teacher supply and demand across the country such that all high-
need schools have high-quality teachers

• Inequities in the distribution of mathematics teachers. Poor students and

students of color are most likely to be taught by inexperienced and underqualified
teachers. Recent data indicate that children in the highest-poverty schools are assigned
to novice teachers almost twice as often as children in low-poverty schools. Similarly,
students in high-minority schools are assigned to novice teachers at twice the rate as
students in schools without many minority students. A recent study by the American
Institutes of Research that directly addresses middle school mathematics students
found that only 70% of economically disadvantaged eighth-grade students had teachers
with a major or minor in mathematics, compared to 83% of eighth-grade students who
were not so classified. Economically disadvantaged students were also less likely to
have a certified mathematics teacher (89%) than those who were not (94%). Further,
students in high-ability mathematics classes were more likely (86%) to have teachers
with a major or minor in mathematics/mathematics education than those in mixed- or
low-ability mathematics classes (66%). Students in low-ability classes were also less
likely to have a teacher with more than 5 years’ experience in mathematics instruction
(58%) than students in high-ability classes (74%).39

RECOMMENDATION #8: Correct the inequitable distribution of high-quality

teachers. The Panel’s report should clearly articulate this educational travesty and insist on
enforcement of existing reporting requirements, on the prohibition of district maldistribution
practices, and on the appropriation of funds to carry out the recruitment/retention
recommendations noted above.

On behalf of teacher preparation programs across the nation, we thank the Panel members for
your attention and for the good work you are doing to help improve mathematics teaching and
learning.

——————————————————————

Attachment: Preparing STEM Teachers: The Key to Global Competitiveness. AACTE. June
2007

39
Elizabeth Greenberg, David Rhodes, Xiaolan Ye, and Fran Stancavage, “Prepared to teach: Teacher
preparation and student achievement in eighth-grade mathematics.” Paper presented at AERA Annual
Meeting in San Diego, April 12-16, 2004 based on work performed by American Institutes for Research
under a cooperative agreement with IES, p. 19.

13
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org