Daniel J. Brahier
Department of Educational Curriculum & Instruction
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403

APRIL 1999

In the last Musings column, I raised the question as to how we will know if the reform curriculum project materials that support the NCTM Standards documents have been successful.  Since that time, much more information has become available.  At the annual RCML conference in College Station, Texas, Dr. Johnny Lott presented a plenary session on the status of the Montana initiative.  In his presentation, he explained how the project evaluators have had to focus on student achievement, attitudes, and course-taking, as well as looking at other effects of using a reform curriculum.  However, he also noted that when all was said-and-done, the National Science Foundation appeared to have been more interested in identifying gains in standardized achievement test scores than anything else.  And, of course, if standardized tests continue to measure low-level skills, as has been shown by Romberg and others, we can't help but to wonder if the reform curricula will have much effect on these scores at all.

The December Musings column generated several responses on the issue of achievement testing, one of which came from Tad Watanabe in Maryland.  In his e-mail, Tad 'mused' as follows:  "I often wonder why students in reform programs can't do better on skills.  In general, I (and others?) tend to think of skills as a 'lower' level thing, and I'm not sure why students who gain better (higher level) understanding automatically don't do better on tasks that require lower level understanding?  Is it because the primary (only?) factor affecting the effectiveness of skill mastery is 'practice' and reform programs don't provide that?  Is it because of the way the tests are given?  What if we gave students an unlimited amount of time to finish these tests?  Would reform students, who may not be as quick carrying out procedures, do much better?"  He went on to say, "So, on the one hand, I agree with those who claim the existing standardized tests are not a good measure of reform programs, but, on the other hand, I also feel students in reform programs should do better than those who are in traditional ones because those tests focus on lower level skills."

Interestingly, in late-January, AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) published a report in which they reviewed 12 middle school mathematics curricula and measured them up against the benchmarks for scientific literacy.  Of the 12 programs reviewed, only 4 were determined to be "satisfactory," and all four of these were NSF-funded project materials with the Connected Mathematics Project rated as #1.  Not a single commercial publishing company's materials were found to be in-line with current standards for mathematics and science.  However, the California back-to-basics group conducted a similar study (with different criteria, of course) and, not surprisingly, had the opposite results -- in fact, the Connected Mathematics Project was rated the lowest on their scale.  While the AAAS stated that CMP contained "in-depth mathematics content and excellent instructional support," the California group stated that CMP is "notably short in content, (has) ill-defined goals for each lesson, and (has) insufficient or poorly designed student work."

I suppose that, like a movie or items on a pizza, different people prefer different things, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that an exemplary set of materials for one group is judged as undesirable by another.  However, a few important questions still remain:  If NSF and other agencies are looking for gains on standardized test scores as evidence of increased student achievement, will the test scores be enhanced when students use project materials?  And, if not, as Tad asked, why not?  Also, if the scores do not improve when a program like CMP is used but do improve when Saxon Math is used, are the critics going to argue that Saxon still "beats" the best of the Standards?

I think the critics are already making that claim, and the back-to-basics movement is trying to get off the ground on a national scale.  As mathematics educators, we depend upon sound research to make arguments; whereas, the California group tends to use fear and intimidation as their allies.  So, what are the researchable questions that might show the constructivist approach to teaching mathematics "works"?  Where do we turn for evidence, and how can we refute proponents of a traditional, skill-based curriculum?

We would like to hear from you!  Take a moment to drop an e-mail to Daniel Brahier to continue this discussion into the next RCML newsletter.

**Additional information on the AAAS study can be found at  www.aaas.org.