Learning to Teach Mathematics in the Context of Systemic Reform

This article looks at how teachers understand recent mathematics reforms. Case studies of three California teachers in a disadvantaged, urban elementary school are presented. Framing the study are issues of teacher learning and systemic reform. These teachers have access to multiple opportunities to learn about reforms. But access guarantees no common understandings. Teachers’ understandings are influenced by the kinds of students they have, their prior knowledge and experience, their views of mathematics, textbooks, and tests. If teachers understand reforms in different ways, this raises questions about systemic reform and the notion of alignment. But there are other problems as well. Questions about what it means to be aligned, how all students’ needs might be considered, and what the multiple goals of a decentralized system mean for teachers suggest that efforts at systemic reform will be challenged on several fronts.

[1]  Mm Kennedy,et al.  A study package for examining and tracking changes in teachers' knowledge (Technical Series ). East The National Center for Research on Teacher Education. , 1993 .

[2]  I. Goodson Studying teachers' lives , 1992 .

[3]  Marshall S. Smith,et al.  Systemic school reform , 1990 .

[4]  Instruction,et al.  Contributing to educational change : perspectives on research and practice , 1988 .

[5]  R. Linn,et al.  Qualitative methods in research on teaching , 1985 .

[6]  D. Cohen A Revolution in One Classroom: The Case of Mrs. Oublier , 1990 .

[7]  Elizabeth Fennema,et al.  Using Children’s Mathematical Knowledge in Instruction , 1993 .

[8]  W. Clune The Best Path to Systemic Educational Policy: Standard/Centralized or Differentiated/Decentralized? , 1993 .

[9]  J. Dewey The child and the curriculum , 1902 .

[10]  Deborah Loewenberg Ball,et al.  Reflections and Deflections of Policy: The Case of Carol Turner , 1990 .

[11]  G. Leinhardt Development of an Expert Explanation: An Analysis of a Sequence of Subtraction Lessons , 1987, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

[12]  Suzanne M. Wilson,et al.  Learning by All. , 1996 .

[13]  A. Peshkin The Goodness of Qualitative Research , 1993 .

[14]  D. Ball,et al.  Relations Between Policy and Practice: A Commentary , 1990 .

[15]  D. Cohen Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice , 1993 .

[16]  M. Lecompte,et al.  Ethnographic Research and the Problem of Data Reduction1 , 1981 .

[17]  Susan H. Fuhrman Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System , 1993 .

[18]  D. Cohen Teaching practice : plus ça change , 1988 .

[19]  M. Wittrock Handbook of research on teaching , 1986 .

[20]  Susan H. Fuhrman,et al.  The politics of curriculum and testing , 1991 .

[21]  James P. Spillane,et al.  Chapter 1: Policy and Practice: The Relations Between Governance and Instruction , 1992 .

[22]  C. M. Clark,et al.  Preparing Teachers for Uncertainty , 1987, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[23]  Suzanne M. Wilson A Conflict of Interests: The Case of Mark Black , 1990 .

[24]  Janine Remillard Is There an Alternative? An Analysis of Commonly Used and Distinctive Elementary Mathematics Curricula. Elementary Subjects Center, Series No. 31. , 1991 .

[25]  M. Mclaughlin The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities , 1990 .

[26]  M. Lampert Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication , 1986 .

[27]  F. Michael Connelly,et al.  Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry , 1990 .

[28]  Penelope L. Peterson,et al.  Doing More in the Same Amount of Time: Cathy Swift , 1990 .

[29]  L. Shulman Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform , 1987 .