Mathematics has a girl problem. Although girls achieve at equal levels to boys in middle and high school, many girls stop taking math as soon as they can. Girls are also much less likely than boys to enter math-intensive college majors and, later, careers. Gender researchers have shown that the root of this girl problem is not differences in innate math skills, but rather the contexts in which students learn mathcontexts that give girls less encouragement and less confidence in their math abilities. Eager to address this girl problem, educators and policymakers usually respond: okay, so how do we fix the girls? But, according to Jo Boaler, its the math classrooms, not the girls, which really need fixing.Boaler, a Professor of Math Education in Stanfords School of Education, explained in a recent presentation why traditional ways of teaching math through rote memorization just arent cutting it. Her research shows that by simply changing the way math is taught, gender differences in math achievement and math confidence disappear. Are girls really worse at math?Boaler is often asked whether the girl problem is just a gene problem. Americans tend to understand gender differences in math achievement as unchangingunchangeabledifferences in the way that boys and girls think. Girls just arent hard wired for math, some say. But decades of research proves this assumption wrong. For one, gender gaps in math achievement have rapidly declined over the last centuryfar outpacing any possible shifts in human genetics. Additionally, gender differences are country-specific: in some European nations, boys and girls math performance is equal. In places like Iceland, girls outperform boys. If gender differences vary by culture, then can these differences really be genetic? Perhaps most compelling, researchers examined over 250 separate studies of gender differences in math and found no appreciable differences in ability once the number of math courses boys and girls took was held constant.Many educational decision-makers now understand that girls preferences are not a result of genetics but rather the different ways boys and girls are treated by peers, teachers and parents vis--vis math. To address this issue, schools abound with math camps, extracurricular activities, and special (often pink) toys meant to develop girls confidence and interest in math. But, Boaler asks, if the learning contexts are the problem, why are most policies aimed at addressing gender differences in math still trying to fix girls?Fix the classrooms, not the girlsEducational environments in which girls and boys learn math need changing, says Boaler. The majority of math classrooms in the U.S. take a traditional approach to learning, where teachers introduce students to progressively more difficult mathematical procedures. Students are expected to memorize these procedures and then execute them on homework and tests. Math problems are usually the closed-ended type where a single answer can be circled at the end, and math procedures are usually taught by extracting them from real-world situations where a person might actually need to use those procedures. For most of us, save the obtuse word problem here and there, learning math meant scribbling down, memorizing, and recapitulating the long strings of equations our teachers wrote on the board.

Elementary school student. Source: iStockPhotos/John ArcherJust because this is the way most of us were taught math does not mean its the only way, the best way, or the most gender equitable way. Boaler asks: what if we identified the learning environments that produced the most equitable and successful results and then used those learning environments as templates for the way math should be taught?Boalers research actually identified such a learning environment. She studied approaches to math education at two otherwise nearly-identical high schools in England: Amber Hill and Phoenix Park. Amber Hill approached math the traditional waystudents copied down formulas from the board, completed worksheets, and were split up into one of eight ability groups. At this school, boys did better in math than girls.Things were different at Phoenix Park. Instead of a traditional environment, students learned math through collaboration, working together with their classmates to solve complex, multi-dimensional, open-ended problems. At Phoenix Park, boys and girls performed equally well in math and both boys and girls scored at higher levels than the students who had learned math traditionally. But what about the boys?Skeptics might argue that this erasure of gender differences was achieved because boys math performance slipped in the Phoenix Park context. But, thats simply not the caseBoaler found that, although the improvement was smaller in magnitude, boys at Phoenix Park also scored slightly better than boys at Amber Hill. If a learning environment produces a more equitable learning experience for one group of students without negatively affecting the other groups math achievement, why wouldnt we adopt this new approach?Boaler explains that there is a surprisingly high level of resistance among parents, teachers, and principals to this new way of teaching math. Part of this resistance may be due to the belief that math is a rite of passage of sorts, which builds character and perseverance in young people. I struggled through my math courses, some say, and so should todays students. But the fact is, Boaler explains, compared to other academic subjectsEnglish, science, etcthe way we teach math to children is very different from the way math education researchers have identified as the most effective way to teach math. By realigning math education to be more like the gender-equitable learning environments at Phoenix Park, we can move the dialogand the blamefrom whats wrong with girls to how we can make math education better for everyone.Of course, not all parents have the ability to place their children in gender-equitable math learning environments. For those parents, Boaler has an important piece of advice: parents should emphasize to their children that being good at math is an achievement, not a gift. Once studentsespecially girlsunderstand that being good at math is something that one can earn, they are likely to be more confident in their math abilities, and less willing to give up on math._______Dr.Jo Boaleris a Professor of Mathematics Education in the Stanford School of Education. Her work has appeared in news outlets in the US and the UK, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Her most recent book,What's Math Got to Do With It?(2008) is aimed at increasing public understanding of effective math teaching and learning. Boalers presentation was co-sponsored by the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, theStanford University School of Education, and theEducation and Society Theme House (EAST)as part of the winter symposium,Ms. at 40 and the Future of Feminism. Many thanks to Professor Christine Min Wotipka for organizing this event.Responses to Sugar and spice and math under-achievement?

03 April, 2012Peggy Ludwick (not verified)Thanks for this great article. I've been doing gender equity work in the schools for the past 30 years, focusing on building interest, confidence, and achievement in math/science for middle school-aged, under-served girls.These have been special, grant-funded, after school programs (GEMS - Girls Empowered by Math and Science). Unfortunately, things haven't changed all that much in the traditional classroom, as you so aptly pointed out. And, I'm constantly amazed at the number of women who, as mothers, throw up their hands and say, "I was never good in math", in front of their daughters! I've always told all of my children and students: "You need to take 4 years of high school math and science to better prepare for college, have access to more/higher paying career options, and be a math/science literate citizen capable of making informed decisions in both your public and private lives. You don't have to like math to take math." If I hadn't had intro to calculus in HS, I never would have gotten through my calculus classes in college, which were required for my major in Microbiology and Public Health.I did post-graduate work at Stanford University Medical Center in 1970 - 72. I'll be visiting my youngest son in Palo Alto, who is also a Stanford grad (in Film and Media Studies!), at the end of April. I would love to visit the Clayman Center on Monday, April 30th. Would that be possible?

04 April, 2012Anonymous (not verified)If it weren't for an AP level Calculus course at my high school, I would have never majored in math in college. I was shy in class and never considered myself a "wizard" at math. I had many women math teachers, which may subconsciously broke gender stereotypes. Being a bland subject taught in public school, I would have never thought I would have come this far with it. I am accepted into a graduate program in Mechanical Engineering. I just wish there were more women in my classes! The boys are incredibly male centric in their humor and approach to solving. Many assume a women cannot pass these classes. The encouragement level and empathy from peers is non-existent. If my girlfriends were in my classes, I would have a better time and want to be there learning more.I teach K to 7 Math for an online gifted math program through Stanford. The online environment allows students to work at their own paces through an advanced curriculum. 66 out of 152 (or 43%) of my currently active students are female.- See more at: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2012/sugar-and-spice-and%E2%80%A6-math-under-achievement#sthash.E1GSW7mX.dpuf

Working with Your Child's Teacher to Identify and Address Math DisabilitiesBy: Diane Pedrotty BryantIn this article: How Are Math Disabilities Identified? Understanding Assessment Results Different Models for Identifying Learning Disabilities Working With Your Child's Teacher to Identify and Address Math Difficulties Summing It UpEducators and researchers are beginning to pay more attention to the notion that some students have difficulty learning math skills and concepts taught in today's classrooms. It is important for school personnel and parents to work together to identify math problems when they arise and to address them both at school and home. Identifying and addressing math difficulties in the early grades can potentially prevent more serious problems in later grades. This article will explain how children are identified as having a math disability and suggest ways to work with your child's teacher to address the problems.How Are Math Disabilities Identified?Mathematics disabilities are identified through a variety of procedures. Usually the classroom teacher or parent observes that the child is having persistent difficulty learning mathematics and tends to perform poorly on classroom math assessments compared to the rest of the class. For example, the child may have trouble remembering what the teacher has taught or she may have difficulty using effective strategies to solve math problems. By observing and working directly with a child over time, the teacher can determine if her difficulty learning mathematics is persistent. Unfortunately, mathematics disabilities are usually not identified until the upper elementary school years because early problems often go undetected and assessment results may not be sensitive enough to detect a problem until the later grades.Information about the child's performance can be gathered in several ways. Weekly tests, homework, and class work samples are examples of information the teacher can collect about the child's progress learning the mathematics curriculum. The teacher may adapt how instruction is provided to accommodate a child's learning needs and then note how the child responds to those adaptations. The teacher may also seek assistance from a specialist or school support team who can offer additional ideas about how to adapt instruction for the child who is struggling to learn the curriculum. The teacher may also consult with the child's parents to understand how the child is doing on math homework. All of this information helps the teacher and school support team develop a profile of the child's learning difficulties and her response to instruction and adaptations.If the child continues to exhibit learning problems, a formal referral for special education assessment might be recommended. There are a variety of formal assessments that can be used to identify math skills and concepts that are problematic for the child. Some of these measures are specific to the curriculum, some are diagnostic in nature, and others are viewed as measures of achievement. The school psychologist or other diagnostician determines which assessment measures to use for testing purposes. The following are examples of some of the more common assessment measures:Curriculum-based assessmentsrelate specifically to the skills and concepts typically taught in a certain grade level. Examples include: Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-Revised Brigance Inventory of Essential SkillsDiagnostic assessmentsprovide information about a student's strengths and weaknesses compared to students of the same age or grade level. Examples include: Key Math-Revised Stanford Diagnostic Mathematics Test-4Achievement assessmentsbroadly measure areas of academic knowledge and application and compare a child's performance to that of students of the same age or grade level. Examples include: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised Wide Range Achievement Test-3 Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery, Part Two: Tests of AchievementUnderstanding Assessment ResultsAs the school assesses your child for a possible math disability, you can play an active role. For example, you can ask to see information collected by the classroom teacher on your child's math performance in class. Additionally, the school is required to inform you of the results of the assessment conducted as part of a special education referral for testing. You can learn more about the results from any of the assessments by asking some of the following questions: What skills and concepts do the assessment measure? How much and what type of instruction has my child received prior to the assessment? What information does the assessment provide? How will the assessment results be used to provide more appropriate math instruction for my child? Who is the best person (at school or an outside professional) to provide my child with extra math support? If you and the teacher think a tutor would offer the type of assistance your child needs, don't hesitate to ask the teacher for recommendations.Different Models for Identifying Learning DisabilitiesMost school districts currently use a process called the discrepancy model to identify whether a child has a specific learning disability (LD), as defined by state regulations. In the discrepancy model, the school psychologist determines if there is a significant discrepancy between a child's potential (usually measured by an intelligence, or IQ, test) and achievement (as measured by an achievement test). Researchers have called this model into question for a variety of reasons; it is viewed by many as an inappropriate method for identifying LD, in part because a child must experience academic failure before her LD is identified.With this in mind, the current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) legislation permits states (and school districts) to use alternative procedures for identifying LD. The response-to-intervention model looks at how a child responds to research-based instruction over time. In this approach, math instruction that is delivered in small groups and tailored for the child's learning needs is implemented and the child's progress noted.Working With Your Child's Teacher to Identify and Address Math DifficultiesYou can play an active role in helping to identify and address your child's math difficulties. For example, you can work with your child's teacher by: Sharing information and observations about any difficulties your child has completing homework. Being involved in the assessment process. Asking questions about instructional (teaching) practices.To address your child's math difficulties at home, you can develop a sense of her questions and frustrations while supervising and observing her doing homework. Here are some questions to ask your child to help her approach her math homework assignments: How did your teacher explain the problems in class today? Did you do any math problems like this in class today? Could they help you figure out your homework? Did your teacher explain the steps for solving this type of problem? How can you break the problem into smaller chunks to help you solve it?Noting your child's responses to the questions and sharing this information with her classroom teacher may provide insight into the particular difficulties your child is experiencing.Finally, you canlearn about the instructional practicesused by teachers and math specialists to help your child. When talking with your child's math teacher, ask some of the following questions: What math skills will you teach during the next report card grading period? How do you use small group work and peer support to provide extra math assistance? What types of adaptations will you provide if my child struggles learning the math skills and concepts? How can a calculator be used to help my child perform basic calculations to solve more advanced math problems? What strategies or steps will you provide to help my child learn and solve math problems? What math vocabulary is included in classroom lessons that we can reinforce at home? Is there math software that would help my child practice math skills?Summing It UpBy working with your child's teacher, you can help ensure that your child's math needs are being identified and addressed. This article has offered a series of questions about assessment and instructional practices to help you collaborate effectively with your child's teacher. Above all, remember that your observations and input as a parent are valuable to the process of helping your child succeed in school.Counseling 101 ColumnA Problem-Solving Model for Improving Student AchievementProblem solving is an alternative to assessments and diagnostic categories as a means to identify students who need special services.By Andrea CanterThe implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has prompted renewed efforts to hold schools and students accountable for meeting high academic standards. At the same time, Congress has been debating the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which has heightened concerns that NCLB will indeed leave behind many students who have disabilities or other barriers to learning. This convergence of efforts to address the needs of at-risk students while simultaneously implementing high academic standards has focused attention on a number of proposals and pilot projects that are generally referred to as problem-solving models. A more specific approach to addressing academic difficulties, response to intervention (RTI), has often been proposed as a component of problem solving.What Is Problem Solving?A problem-solving model is a systematic approach that reviews student strengths and weaknesses, identifies evidence-based instructional interventions, frequently collects data to monitor student progress, and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions implemented with the student. Problem solving is a model that first solves student difficulties within general education classrooms. If problem-solving interventions are not successful in general education classrooms, the cycle of selecting intervention strategies and collecting data is repeated with the help of a building-level or grade-level intervention assistance or problem-solving team. Rather than relying primarily on test scores (e.g., from an IQ or math test), the students response to general education interventions becomes the primary determinant of his or her need for special education evaluation and services (Marston, 2002; Reschly & Tilly, 1999).Why Is a New Approach Needed?Although much of the early implementation of problem-solving models has involved elementary schools, problem solving also has significant potential to improve outcomes for secondary school students. Therefore, it is important for secondary school administrators to understand the basic concepts of problem solving and consider how components of this model could mesh with the needs of their schools and students. Because Congress will likely include RTI options in its reauthorization of special education law and regulations regarding learning disabilities, it is also important for school personnel to be familiar with the pros and cons of the problem-solving model.Student outcomes.Regardless of state or federal mandates, schools need to change the way they address academic problems. More than 25 years of special education legislation and funding have failed to demonstrate either the cost effectiveness or the validity of aligning instruction to diagnostic classifications (Fletcher et al., 2002; Reschly & Tilly, 1999; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). Placement in special education programs has not guaranteed significant academic gains or better life outcomes for students with disabilities. Time-consuming assessments that are intended to differentiate students with disabilities from those with low achievement have not resulted in better instruction for struggling students.Dilemma of learning disabilities.The learning disabilities (LD) classification has proven especially problematic. Researchers and policymakers representing diverse philosophies regarding disability are generally in agreement that the current process needs revision (Fletcher et al., 2002). Traditionally, if a student with LD is to be served in special education, an evaluation using individual intelligence tests and norm-referenced achievement tests is required to document an ability/achievement discrepancy. This model has been criticized for the following reasons: A reliance on intelligence tests in general and with students from ethnic and linguistic minority populations in particular A focus on within-child deficiencies that often ignore quality of instruction and environmental factors The limited applicability of norm-referenced information to actual classroom teaching The burgeoning identification of students as disabled The resulting allocation of personnel to responsibilities (classification) that are significantly removed from direct service to students (Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999).Wait to fail.A major flaw in the current system of identifying student needs is what has been dubbed the wait to fail approach in which students are not considered eligible for support until their skills are widely discrepant from expectations. This runs counter to years of research demonstrating the importance of early intervention (Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Thus, a number of students fail to receive any remedial services until they reach the intermediate grades or middle school, by which time they often exhibit motivational problems and behavioral problems as well as academic deficits.For other students, although problems are noted when they are in the early grades, referral is delayed until they fail graduation or high school standards tests, increasing the probability that they will drop out. Their school records often indicate that teachers and parents expressed concern for these students in the early grades, which sometimes resulted in referral for assessments, but did not result in qualification for special education or other services.Call for evidence-based programs.One of the major tenets of NCLB is the implementation of scientifically based interventions to improve student performance. The traditional models used by most schools today lack such scientifically based evidence. There are, however, many programs and instructional strategies that have demonstrated positive outcomes for diverse student populations and needs (National Reading Panel, 2000). It is clear that schools need systemic approaches to identify and resolve student achievement problems and access proven instructional strategies.How It WorksAlthough problem-solving steps can be described in several stages, the steps essentially reflect the scientific method of defining and describing a problem (e.g., Ted does not comprehend grade-level reading material); generating potential solutions (e.g., Ted might respond well to direct instruction in comprehension strategies); and implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the effectiveness of the selected intervention.Problem-solving models have been implemented in many versions at local and state levels to reflect the unique features and needs of individual schools. However, all problem-solving models share the following components: Screening and assessment that is focused on student skills rather than classification Measuring response to instruction rather than relying on norm-referenced comparisons Using evidence-based strategies within general education classrooms Developing a collaborative partnership among general and special educators for consultation and team decision making.Three-tiered model.One common problem-solving model is the three-tiered model. In this model, tier one includes problem-solving strategies directed by the teacher within the general education classrooms. Tier two includes problem-solving efforts at a team level in which grade-level staff members or a team of various school personnel collaborate to develop an intervention plan that is still within the general education curriculum. Tier three involves referral to a special education team for additional problem solving and, potentially, a special education assessment (Office of Special Education Programs, 2002).Response to intervention.A growing body of research and public policy discussion has focused on problem-solving models that include evaluating a students RTI as an alternative to the IQ-achievement discrepancy approach to identifying learning disabilities (Gresham, 2002). RTI refers to specific procedures that align with the steps of problem solving: Implementing evidence-based interventions Frequently measuring a students progress to determine whether the intervention is effective Evaluating the quality of the instructional strategy Evaluating the fidelity of its implementation. (For example, did the intervention work? Was it scientifically based? Was it implemented as planned?)Although there is considerable debate about replacing traditional eligibility procedures with RTI approaches (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), there is promising evidence that RTI can systematically improve the effectiveness of instruction for struggling students and provide school teams with evidence-based procedures that measures a students progress and his or her need for special services.New roles for personnel.An important component of problem-solving models is the allocation (or realignment) of personnel who are knowledgeable about the applications of research to classroom practice. Whereas traditional models often limit the availability of certain personnelfor example, school psychologiststo prevention and early intervention activities (e.g., classroom consultation), problem-solving models generally enhance the roles of these service providers through a systemic process that is built upon general education consultation. Problem solving shifts the emphasis from identifying disabilities to implementing earlier interventions that have the potential to reduce referral and placement in special education.Outcomes of Problem Solving and RTIAnticipated benefits of problem-solving models, particularly those using RTI procedures, include emphasizing scientifically proven instructional methods, the early identification and remediation of achievement difficulties, more functional and frequent measurement of student progress, a reduction in inappropriate and disproportionate special education placements of students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and a reallocation of instructional and behavior support personnel to better meet the needs of all students (Gresham, 2002; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). By using problem solving, some districts have reduced overall special education placements, increased individual and group performance on standards tests, and increased collaboration among special and general educators.The enhanced collaboration between general education teachers and support personnel is particularly important at the secondary level because staff members often have limited interaction with school personnel who are outside of their specialty area. Problem solving provides a vehicle to facilitate communication across disciplines to resolve student difficulties in the classroom. Secondary schools, however, face additional barriers to collaboration because each student may have five or more teachers. Special education is often even more separated from general education in secondary school settings. Secondary school teachers also have a greater tendency to see themselves as content specialists and may be less invested in addressing general learning problems, particularly when they teach five or six class periods (and 150 or more students) each day. The sheer size of the student body and the staff can create both funding and logistical difficulties for scheduling training and team meetings.Is Problem Solving Worth the Effort?Data from district-wide and state-level projects in rural, suburban, and urban communities around the country support the need to thoughtfully implement problem-solving models at all grade levels. There are several federally funded demonstration centers that systematically collect information about these approaches. Although national demonstration models may be a few years away, it seems likely that state and federal regulations under IDEA will include problem solving and RTI as accepted experimental options. Problem solving continues to offer much promise to secondary school administrators who are seeking to improve student performance through ongoing assessment and evidence-based instruction.PLReferencesFletcher, J., Lyon, R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K., Francis, D., Olson, R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 185250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 467519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 437447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction-Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Author.Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground (Report of the Learning Disabilities Round Table). Washington, DC: Author.Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Reschly, D., & Tilly, W. D. III (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 1948). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (Eds.) (2003). Special issue: Response to intervention.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3).Ysseldyke, J., & Marston, D. (1999). Origins of categorical special education services in schools and a rationale for changing them. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 118). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Case Study: Optimizing Success Through Problem SolvingBy Marcia Staum and Lourdes OcampoMilwaukee Public Schools, the largest school district in Wisconsin, is educating students with Optimizing Success Through Problem Solving (OSPS), a problem-solving initiative that uses a four-step, data-based, decision-making process to enhance school reform efforts. OSPS is patterned after best practices in the prevention literature and focuses on prevention, early intervention, and focused intervention levels. Problem-solving facilitators provide staff members with the training, modeling, support, and tools they need to effectively use data to drive their instructional decision-making. The OSPS initiative began in the fall of 2000 with seven participating schools. Initially, elementary and middle level schools began to use OSPS, with an emphasis on problem solving for individual student issues. As the initiative matured, increased focus was placed on prevention and early intervention support in the schools. Today, 78 schools participate in the OSPS initiative and are serviced by a team of 18 problem-solving facilitators.OSPS in Action: Juneau High SchoolThe administration of Juneau High School, a Milwaukee public charter school with 900 students, invited OSPS to become involved at Juneau for the 20032004 school year. Because at the time OSPS had limited involvement with high schools, two problem-solving facilitators were assigned to Juneau for one half-day each week. The problem-solving facilitators immediately joined the Juneaus learning team, which is a small group of staff members and administrators who make educational decisions aimed at increasing student achievement.When the problem-solving facilitators became involved with Juneau, the learning team was working to improve student participation on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE). The previous year, Juneaus 10th-grade participation on the exam had been very low. The learning team used OSPSs four-step problem-solving process to develop and implement a plan that resulted in a 99% student participation rate on the WKCE. After this initial success, the problem-solving model was also used at Juneau to increase parent participation in parent-teacher conferences. According to Myron Cain, Juneaus principal, Problem solving has helped the learning team at Juneau go from dialogue into action. In addition, problem solving has supported the school within the Collaborative Support Team process and with teambuilding, which resulted in a better school climate.By starting at the prevention level, Juneau found that there was increased commitment from staff members. OSPS is now in the initial stages of working with Juneau to explore alternatives to suspension. The goal is to create a working plan that will lead to creative ways of decreasing the number of suspensions at Juneau.Marcia Staum is a school psychologist, and Lourdes Ocampo is a school social worker for Optimizing Success Through Problem Solving.What Is Response to Intervention?Many researchers have recommended that a students response to intervention or response to instruction (RTI) should be considered as an alternative or replacement to the traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy approach to identifying learning disabilities (Gresham, 2002; Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Although there is considerable debate about replacing traditional eligibility procedures with RTI approaches (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), there is promising evidence that RTI can systematically improve the effectiveness of instruction for struggling students and provide school teams with evidence-based procedures to measure student progress and need for special services. In fact, Congress has proposed the use of research-based RTI methods (as part of a comprehensive evaluation process to reauthorize IDEA) as an allowable alternative to the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy procedure in identifying learning disabilities.RTI refers to specific procedures that align with the steps of problem solving. These steps include the implementation of evidence-based instructional strategies in the general education classroom and the frequent measurement of a students progress to determine if the intervention is effective. In settings where RTI is also a criteria for identification of disability, a students progress in response to intervention is an important determinant of the need and eligibility for special education services.It is important for administrators to recognize that RTI can be implemented in various ways depending on a schools overall service delivery model and state and federal mandates. An RTI approach benefits from the involvement of specially trained personnel, such as school psychologists and curriculum specialists, who have expertise in instructional consultation and evaluation.ResourcesNational Center on Student Progress Monitoring,www.studentprogress.orgNational Research Center on Learning Disabilities,www.nrcld.orgCritical Issue:Ensuring Equity and Excellence in Mathematics

ISSUE: All students, regardless of race, ethnic group, gender, socioeconomic status, geographic location, age, language, disability, or prior mathematics achievement, deserve equitable access to challenging and meaningful mathematics learning and achievement. This concept has profound implications for teaching and learning mathematics throughout the school community. It suggests that ensuringequity and excellencemust be at the core of systemic reform efforts, not only in mathematics, but in education as a whole.

OVERVIEW:Educators and community members are beginning to recognize that most students, including adisproportionate number of women, minorities, and the poor, leave school without the mathematical skills they need to thrive in an increasingly complex, global economy.A tradition of low expectations,changing workforce needs, economic necessity, and shifting demographics call for unprecedented reform in mathematics education. Responses to this call for reform have included the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' (NCTM's)Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics(1989), NCTM'sProfessional Standards for Teaching Mathematics(1991), and portions of theNational Education Goalsestablished by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994). Behind Goals 2000 and the NCTM standards is the conviction thatall studentscan learn a significant core of mathematics and that the entire school community must have high expectations for every child's mathematics education.InReaching All Students With Mathematics(Cuevas & Driscoll, 1993b), an NCTM task force gave special attention to programs that work to ensure equity and excellence for all students. These programs and other exemplary programs implement high standards and oftenfoster cultural and linguistic diversityin an effort to increase the participation and success of underrepresented groups. Many of the best practices of such programs can be adapted for individual school communities.

GOALS: All students will have equitable access to challenging and meaningful mathematics learning and achievement. Teachers will promote and model a belief in the importance of diversity, excellence, and high-quality mathematics instruction in their work with students, colleagues, and the community. Administrators, school board members, parents, and other members of the school community will support and model a belief in the importance of equity and excellence in mathematics education.

ACTION OPTIONS: Raise expectations throughout the school community for the mathematics achievement of females, minorities, and students with disabilities. Address teacher- and student-related factors that influence minority student participation and performance in mathematics (e.g., expectations, previous experiences, assessment practices, language, stereotypes). Addressgender inequitiesin mathematics. Increase participation and achievement in mathematicsby students from underserved groups. Make mathematics more meaningfulfor traditionally underrepresented students. Improve students' self-esteem and confidence in their mathematical abilities by enabling them to have "success experiences" in challenging and meaningful areas. Reexamine allgrouping practices. End traditional tracking, use flexible grouping, and encourage frequent collaboration by students of diverse ability, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and cultural background. When appropriate, make program decisions based on the systemic analysis of student performance data disaggregated by race, gender, and ethnicity. Use mathematics assessments to promote equity. Avoid culturally biased assessment practices. Evaluate all assessments - including alternative assessments - based on equity criteria. Participate in professional development experiences designed to support the reexamination of beliefs, expectations, and cultural sensitivities; develop skill in teaching in diverse classrooms; improve practice in new curriculum, instruciton, and assessment strategies; and redefine roles and responsibilties in support of equity in mathematics. Provide educational leadership to support equity and excellence through policy, staffing, curriculum,new standards and assessments, professional development, and participation in decisionmaking. Involve parents as partnersin the mathematical education of their children. Involve community members - particularly members from a variety of cultural backgrounds and experiences - as role models, tutors, career speakers, consultants, and partners in reform.

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW:Some people believe that inherent differences in ability among males and females, racial and socioeconomic groups, and individual students make high expectations for all students unrealistic and ill-conceived. Although research generally has discredited this view, the debate has been reopened by a recent book,The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,by Murray and Herrnstein.Parents of gifted students and some educators fear that gifted students will suffer if high-end tracking and ability grouping are eliminated. They also question the appropriateness of having these students serve as peer tutors in heterogeneous, cooperative learning environments as the primary experience of gifted education. They are not convinced that ensuring equity and excellence for all students will improve the educational experiences of gifted students.Parents of minority students are concerned about new math standards and curricula that deemphasize paper-and-pencil computation. Computation skills often are associated with mathematical competence, and the lack of mastery of these skills has been used to justify denying opportunities to minority students. Therefore, these parents are not convinced that mathematics reform is in the best interests of their children (Secada, 1994).

IMPLEMENTATION PITFALLS:Teachers, school leaders, students, parents, and community members may havediffering conceptions ofequity, making the goal of achieving equity and excellence more problematic.According to Michael Apple (1992) (cited in Century, 1994), poor schools already in advanced states of decay may view the NCTM Standards as unattainable and beneficial only to more wealthy schools and districts; they may see reform merely as intrusive outside control that will perpetuate - rather than eliminate - inequalities. All schools involved in reform will have to understand and share the democratic vision that underlies the Standards and address the issues of power and practice raised by the Standards.The widely held and deeply rooted belief that poor and minority students, students with disabilities, and female students are inherently incapable of attaining high levels of mathematics achievement may be internalized by students, parents, community members, and educators, thus becoming a "self-fulfilling prophecy." For example, such beliefs often support the misconception that adults living in poverty lack motivation or intelligence and that their children have the same "inadequacies." These attitudes about socioeconomic status, racial minorities, gender differences, and labeling must be recognized and reexamined to promote equity and excellence (Century, 1994).Educators will needtime for ongoing, effective professional developmentas they learn new curriculum, instruction, and assessment strategies. Indeed, all members of the school community will need to reexamine their beliefs, expectations, and cultural sensitivities;develop a shared visionof equity and excellence in mathematics education; and determine their new roles and responsibilities in supporting equitable mathematics education for all students.Successful reform also will require creating a supportive climate for implementation,integrating community services, engaging families and communities, and developing guidelines for effective collaborative planning.Math Teachers: The Nation Builders of the 21st CenturyRemarks to the National Council of Teachers of MathematicsAPRIL 15, 2011Contact: I want to start by thanking you. All of you here today have dedicated your lives to the classroom and your students.I know that you could have chosen easier jobs and everyone knows there are plenty of better paying jobs--especially people with your high level of mathematical knowledge.But you have responded to a calling one in which you are transforming the lives of children every day.President Obama and I understand the role that teachers play in preparing our students for success in life.Other than parents, the biggest impact on a child's success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom.It doesn't matter what the academic subject is -- or the age of the student.From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is the teacher.All too often teachers don't get the respect they deserve.Shortly after he took office, President Obama travelled to Asia. He discovered that in South Korea and Singapore teachers are considered "nation builders." That is a powerful concept nation builders.In those countries, everyone understands that teachers are preparing the leaders and workers who will ensure the country's long-term economic prosperity.Sadly, In America, our teachers aren't treated like the nation builders that they are.Education is the key to America's success in the 21st Century.Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, recently said that "the best solution to income inequality is producing a high-quality education for everyone."He believes that, in the information age, "people without education will not be able to improve their economic situation."Our teachers are integral both to our economic and national security and to solving the civil rights issues of our generation.Last month, I participated in a sobering press conference where military leaders outlined their challenges in recruiting young men and women into the armed services.Here's a stunning statistic: 75 percent of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 are unable to enlist in the military today because they have failed to graduate from high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit.Finally, I firmly believe education is the civil rights issue of our generation.For all of these reasons, President Obama is investing in education reform. He is committed to reducing the deficit even if it means cutting some programs that he cares deeply about.But in budget negotiations, he has maintained a commitment to our cradle-to-career educational agenda that is remarkable. We have to educate our way to a better economy.The President understands that math teachers have a unique role to play in the future of education.To be a well-informed citizen and a participant in the knowledge economy, Americans must be mathematically literate.We need to be able to do basic computation and solve complex problems. We must understand the magic of compound interest and how it affects our personal financial decisions.We should be able to use the logic of Algebra and the spatial reasoning of Geometry to understand and solve real-life problems.These mathematical practices equip learners with the ability to solve complex problems and think critically about issues unrelated to mathematical concepts.With these skills, our young people will have the potential to do amazing things in math, in science, or whatever field they choose to pursue.As professionals devoted to the teaching and learning of mathematics, you are the teachers, the school leaders, the professors, the curriculum developers, and the researchers who will shape young students' minds to be leaders of the future.Today, it's clear that too few American students have the mathematical knowledge to compete in our 21st Century globally-based economy.Look at the scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Just 40 percent of 4th graders and 34 percent of 8th graders are proficient in math.Although the NAEP scores have increased steadily over the past two decades, far too many students haven't mastered challenging subject matter in foundational skills of Algebra and geometry.The international data is even more troubling. Data from the Program for International Student Assessment shows that American 15-year-olds are scoring below the average of industrialized nations.Fortunately, educators have many model programs to follow. Walter Payton College Prep in my home town of Chicago is just one such example.It's a high performing high school, but the teachers at Payton know they need to contribute to mathematics improvement in their broader community.They run a citywide Saturday math program for middle school students who want to explore advanced mathematical concepts such as infinities, geometric inequalities, and complex geometry.The school has a math team that has won state titles several times beating prestigious private schools. In the classroom, it's produced high achievement across all subgroups of students.For all of their work, the team at Payton won an Intel Star Innovator Award last year as one of the best mathematics programs in the country. I understand that many members of the Payton math department are here today.I'd like to recognize them and applaud their work.Across the country, there are plenty of examples of math engagement, excitement, and extraordinary achievement like Payton.Our challenge is to make these experiences the norm for mathematics education in America.As mathematics educators, you will play a leading role in scaling what works and solving these problems.I see three specific issues for math educators to address.First we need to improve student achievement to dramatically increase the number of students graduating from high school and going to college prepared to succeed in higher level mathematics.Second, we need to raise expectations of our students and increase the rigor of the curriculum.And finally, we need to improve the quality of teaching in the classroom.The first challenge is to prepare students for success in college. To ensure our nation's long-term competitiveness, President Obama has challenged America to once again lead the world in college completion.Just one generation ago, we did lead the world with about 40 percent of our young adults earning college degrees.We've stagnated while South Korea and other countries have passed us. Now we're ninth. To meet the President's goal, 8 million additional students will have to earn a degree over the next decade.In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that Algebra is the key to success in college.Students who have completed Algebra II in high school are twice as likely to earn a degree as those who didn't.One of the best gifts math teachers can give their students is to teach them how to solve complex algebraic equations.It provides the foundation of using logic to solve problems. It helps students make connections between multiple pieces of information. It teaches them to use reasoning to figure out which tools to use to solve a problem.The Algebra experience prepares them for higher level mathematics and leads to academic success across the curriculum.I want to add that Algebra is essential for all college students not only those who are pursuing four-year degrees.Every year thousands of students earn a degree from a community college or an industry-recognized certification that will help them land a job that leads to a successful career.Those students will need to be mathematicians too. Airplane mechanics do complex measurements and work with proportions and ratios.X-ray technicians calculate time exposures to capture the clearest possible image.Most factory workers need to understand Algebra II or even some trigonometry to operate complex manufacturing electronic equipment. These are the jobs and the skills required to compete successfully in today's economy.For all students, Algebra is a gateway for success in college and beyond.To meet the challenge of ensuring all students complete Algebra, our teachers need to increase the rigor of what's taught in the classroom.For decades, researchers have documented that American schools aren't providing an in-depth mathematics curriculum.They have called math instruction in America "a mile wide and an inch deep."Historically, in many schools, the course of study repeats mathematical concepts several times over the course of the K-12 curriculum providing students a superficial understanding of mathematical concepts without ever leading them to a mastery of the subject. Thankfully, that is changing in a profound way.Through the courage and leadership of governors and chief state school officers, states are addressing this problem by adopting a common set of high standards in mathematics and language arts.These standards are raising expectations for students.Instead of dummying down the standards to make politicians look good, they increase rigor for students.Starting in kindergarten, the standards put students on an instructional path to learn the mathematics necessary for success in college and careers.Researchers are starting to analyze these standards and are finding that they are as rigorous as the expectations for NAEP and the achievement of the high-performing countries who are currently out-educating us.NCTM has been a leader in the standards movement for more than two decades.The new common core math standards build on the work of your organization and are closely aligned with your new Focus on High School initiative.These standards have been adopted by 42 states, and teachers across the country will need to change their practice to be aligned with them.I know NCTM is working closely with other math groups to begin the hard work of turning these standards into practice.This will take time, and your leadership here is essential.We need you as an organization and you as individuals to become leaders among teachers and principals so all teachers and all schools have the tools and supports necessary to make these standards come to life in the classroom.We all know that standards aren't a panacea. We must couple them with the next generation of assessments.Today's tests don't measure higher-order thinking skills or deep understanding of subject material. They focus primarily on computation and recall.American students deserve better than the fill-in-the-bubble tests.With $350 million available from the Race to the Top competition, the U.S. Department of Education is supporting the state-led effort including 44 states to create the next generation of math assessments that will be game-changers in education.They will measure student achievement against the new standards and track whether students are prepared for success in colleges and careers.These assessments are the ones that you've longed for. They will measure critical thinking skills and complex student learning.These assessments will provide you with timely, high quality information that is instructionally useful and documents student growth.I want to thank Mike Shaughnessy for playing an important role in this process.The expertise that NCTM and other math groups bring to the table is critical to ensuring that these assessments build on what we know is possible for mathematics teaching and learning.The voice of the mathematics teacher needs to be heard loud and clear to make sure the final products reflect what happens in the classroom.New standards and assessments are a powerful combination. But they are not sufficient.Teachers will need new tools and materials to make them work.In the President's fiscal 2012 budget, President Obama has proposed $206 million to support projects for teachers of mathematics and the other STEM subjects.These projects will provide you with what you need to succeed by creating instructional materials, identifying proven strategies, and providing professional development.With new standards, assessments, and instructional materials, teachers will have the tools necessary to ensure students have the mathematical knowledge to be ready to complete college and succeed in their careers.Our final challenge is to address the critical shortage of mathematics teachers and improve the quality of teaching in the classroom.The President has set a goal of preparing 100,000 new teachers over the next decade. These teachers will have deep content knowledge and strong teaching skills in math and science, engineering and technology, and his budget makes a significant investment in teachers.We are asking Congress for $80 million in the Teachers and Leader Pathways program to begin to reach this goal.This program will support the creation or scaling up and expansion of high-quality teacher preparation programs.Because we know that math and science teachers require both deep understanding of the subject matter and the instructional skills to thrive in the classroom, this program will fund traditional programs as well as alternative routes.The budget also includes a new scholarship program to recruit high-achieving college students into teaching. With the Baby Boomer generation retiring, these recruitment efforts are more important than ever.The Presidential Teaching Fellows program would provide scholarships of up to $10,000 to the best students in the nation's most effective teacher preparation programs.After receiving the scholarship, these candidates would commit to teaching for three years.Over the past decade, we've seen the development of new programs that are designed to recruit new teachers with deep content knowledge and instructional skills.At the University of Texas, the UTEACH program has become a model by recruiting high-achieving students in the math and sciences and preparing them to use these skills in the classroom. It's a model that's been replicated across the country. Progress is being made, but we have had a shortage of math and science teachers for decades. If we are going to stop simply admiring the problem and solve the teacher shortage, we're going to need to have a real conversation about teacher compensation.Because graduates with strong math skills have lucrative opportunities in other professions, our state and local districts need to provide financial incentives to draw them into the classroom and keep them there.Our federal dollars: School Improvement Grants, the Teacher Incentive Fund and others can all be used to pay great math and science teachers more, especially in disadvantaged communities.As we seek to strengthen the teaching profession and get our students who need the most help the teacher talent they need, I absolutely support paying mathematics teachers more as a way to keep our best math teachers in the classroom and recruit a new generation of talent.In addition to recruiting new teachers, we need to help build the skills of those currently in the classroom.It's no secret that most existing professional development programs are disconnected from the reality of the classroom. As a nation, we spend far too much money on professional development that is not what you asked for, and that is not meeting your needs. That must stop.There are also examples of strong supportive professional development programs that clearly demonstrate that investments in teacher supports can lead to increased student learning.I'm proud of our efforts systemwide in Chicago where our mathematics professional development programs showed significant gains in student achievement based on teacher participation and getting teacher input. Tracking this data and being very transparent about it helped us improve our professional development efforts each year.Across the country, we must focus on two areas. First, we need new tools and materials for teachers to implement the new set of college- and career-ready common standards. Second, we must build the capacity of school and district leaders who understand both the teaching and learning of mathematics and also how to manage large support programs.I cannot stress enough how important this work is. I see it as I visit classrooms across the country. Our children grow up so fast. The impact you are having on them is extraordinary, even if that's sometimes hard to see day to day.Today, they're learning their multiplication tables and struggling to solve polynomial equations.It won't be long, though, before they become the mechanics who repair airplanes, the pilots who fly them, or the engineers who design them.They will become medical technicians who take X-rays, nurses who administer dosages of drugs, or doctors who perform surgeries.Whatever they're doing five, or 10, or 20 years from now, the mathematics you are teaching them today provides them with the foundation for their success and for the long-term prosperity of our country.Thank you for being the nation builders who are making that happen.