Conversations in Search of a Common Denominator

Abstract

Earlier in 2008 two reports were released that address teacher quality and teacher education for mathematics: In March, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP, 2008b) issued Foundations for Success, and in June, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ, 2008) published No Common Denominator. These reports call to mind the controversial National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) report, Teaching Children to Read, and the NCTQ (2006) report, What Education Schools Aren't Teaching About Reading--And What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning. It is tempting for the teacher education word to engage in these latest reports on education as it responded to earlier studies of reading and reading instruction. The general response to reports on reading instruction focused more on critical analyses than on considerations of what the reports had to offer to enhance how we prepare candidates to teach reading. In this editorial, we propose a different approach to the reports. (1) To build our case, we first summarize the purposes, methods, and major findings and recommendations from the Foundations for Success and No Common Denominator reports. We next consider several different lenses or perspectives by which the teacher education community might reasonably read and respond to these reports. These ways of reading offer different critiques of the reports. Although not discounting the role of critique, this approach sometimes leaves us vulnerable to the claim that the teacher education community is both defensive and unwilling to engage in serious self-appraisal. We offer an alternative way of attending to, and engaging with, the reports' findings and recommendations, one that involves both active listening and conversational reframing. We hope this proposed approach nudges the field toward productive, proactive deliberations and program renewal. Foundations for Success and No Common Denominator Two prominent reports address an important question--What do teachers need to know about and teaching to student achievement in mathematics? The NMAP (2008b) and the NCTQ (2008) take as a point of departure a concern about K-12 students' performance in math. As of the problem, they note the mediocre performance of U.S. in international comparisons of achievement test performance, the low percentage of 12th graders who are proficient in on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the achievement gap that exists along racial and economic lines. Using now familiar alarmist rhetoric, they warn of the consequences to the U.S. economy and social fabric if achievement does not improve. For example, the NMAP (2008b) cautions that our national economic competitiveness ... and the safety of the nation and the quality of life ... are at issue (p. xi). Both reports also recognize the teacher's fundamental role in raising student achievement and argue that the knowledge base for teacher education must focus more directly on content knowledge for teaching mathematics. The two reports come to this general conclusion in different ways. The NMAP, established through a Presidential Executive Order, was charged to use the best available scientific evidence to make recommendations that foster greater knowledge of and improved performance in among American students (NMAP, 2008b, p. 71). Specifically, the charge requested that the panel examine available research and make recommendations regarding the training, selection, placement, and professional development of teachers of in order to enhance students' learning of mathematics (NMAP, 2008a, pp. 5-ix). One Task Group within the panel addressed teaching and teacher education. They identified approximately 14 large-scale studies that related teachers' mathematical knowledge (as measured by teachers' certification status, course work, and/or tests of teachers' mathematical knowledge) to student achievement gains. …