UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
Vol. 2, Book 1

June 2013

education.uic.edu/ruepi

Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

By Benjamin Michael Superfine and Alison Castro Superfine

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Benjamin Michael Superfine is an Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is also the Director of the Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative. Alison Castro Superfine is an Associate Professor of Mathematics Education and Learning Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is also the Director of the Office of Mathematics Education at UIC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Education policies around the U.S. have focused intensely on reforming teacher preparation programs. Illinois has engaged in such efforts by restructuring requirements governing the curriculum of teacher preparation programs and testing requirements for teacher certification in mathematics and other disciplines. The recent moves to improve mathematics teacher preparation in particular are driven largely by the belief that well-prepared teachers are critical for ensuring that students receive strong mathematics educations. However, policy efforts to increase the quality of mathematics teacher preparation programs are often disconnected from each other and fail to work coherently and strategically toward developing mathematics teacher knowledge and skills. These policy efforts accordingly can be improved in several ways. First, these efforts

should explicitly articulate a strong vision of the skills and knowledge mathematics teachers should have. Such skills and knowledge should be grounded in subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge an understanding of the prior conceptions and knowledge that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them into the classroom and ways of representing and communicating mathematics in ways that make it comprehensible by students. Second, policy efforts should ensure that all elements of mathematics teacher preparation programs ranging from assessments and curriculum to mathematics teacher educator training are aligned with such a vision. Third, these policy efforts should not be subject to constant revision and should be coherent with other major education policy reform efforts in Illinois.

policy BRIEF
INTRODUCTION
Education policies around the U.S. have focused intensely on reforming teacher preparation programs. Illinois recently has engaged in such efforts by restructuring requirements governing the curriculum of teacher preparation programs and testing requirements for teacher certification in mathematics and other disciplines. These policies are part of a broader effort, both nationally and in Illinois, to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers. Like many other states, Illinois has enacted policies focused on evaluating teachers based on their performance, especially on the basis of their students achievement growth on standardized tests. Although the policy efforts to evaluate practicing teachers have garnered substantial political attention, policymakers have begun to view teacher preparation programs as an essential element of increasing teacher quality effectiveness as well. Such recent moves to improve mathematics teacher preparation are driven largely by the belief that well prepared teachers are critical for ensuring that students receive strong mathematics educations. Indeed, modifying policies governing teacher preparation programs holds the promise of enhancing the quality of new teachers as they embark upon their teaching careers. However, policy efforts to increase the quality of teacher preparation programs in mathematics can be improved in several ways. First, these efforts should explicitly articulate a strong vision of the skills and knowledge that
2
UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

mathematics teachers should have. To be sure, many recommendations for improving mathematics teacher preparation programs have focused on the number of mathematics courses students should take to graduate or whether students have a degree in mathematics. However, these recommendations are largely based on the assumption that teachers will be more effective with simple increases in their levels of mathematical knowledge. The recommendations contained in this brief are based on a more complex and research-based vision of the mathematics teachers should know in order to be effective instructors mathematical knowledge for teaching. Such a vision of mathematics is grounded particularly in subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge an understanding of the prior conceptions and knowledge that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them into the classroom and ways of representing and communicating mathematics in ways that make it comprehensible by students. Second, grounded in a strongly articulated vision of mathematical knowledge for teaching, policy efforts should ensure that all elements of mathematics teacher preparation programs are aligned with this vision. These elements range from assessments and curriculum to mathematics teacher educator training. Third, these policy efforts should not be subject to constant revision and should be coherent with other major education policy reform efforts in Illinois, such as recently enacted policies focused on teacher evaluation and accountability.

There are several other approaches that could be taken to improve the quality of mathematics teachers entering the teacher workforce. Reforms could focus on teacher preparation programs selection of candidates, preparation programs graduation requirements, difficulty of licensure tests, or alternative routes to certification. Several recent policies have concentrated precisely on such approaches, and these efforts deserve thorough consideration and examination. However, what mathematics teachers should know and teacher preparation programs role in helping teachers acquire this knowledge have received far too little attention from policymakers, despite the leverage such an approach potentially has for improving the quality of future teachers. This brief accordingly examines recent policy efforts aimed at improving mathematics teacher preparation policies in the U.S. and particularly Illinois. First, the policy landscape governing mathematics teacher preparation programs is examined. Second, relevant research on mathematical knowledge for teaching is examined, in addition to promising strategies for helping teachers learn these knowledge and skills. This brief concludes by analyzing the prospects for teacher preparation policies in Illinois and offering recommendations for making mathematics teacher preparation policies more effective.

policy BRIEF
THE TEACHER PREPARATION POLICY LANDSCAPE
Education policies in the U.S., and Illinois in particular, have increasingly focused on enhancing the quality of future mathematics teachers through the reform of teacher preparation programs. Teacher preparation programs currently play a central role in the U.S. public education system by recruiting, selecting, and preparing about 200,000 future teachers each year.1 The U.S. contains 1,434 colleges approved by states to train elementary and secondary teachers,2 and Illinois contains 59 approved teacher education institutions of higher education.3 States traditionally have served as the primary regulators of the quality of teacher preparation programs and have employed two primary levers to do so.4 First, state educational agencies review teacher preparation programs to ensure that they meet various state law and regulations about program content, such as those governing specific course requirements, and they approve programs on the bases of these reviews. Second, states set the requirements for teacher certification, which generally include completion of an approved
1

program and the passage of certain content and pedagogical tests. Many states also require or encourage teacher preparation programs to be accredited by independent agencies like the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education or the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, which review programs under their own standards.5 Despite the presence of these quality control mechanisms, teacher preparation programs have been criticized harshly in recent years. This criticism has been especially intense in mathematics, which is often viewed as crucial for the economic competitiveness of states and the U.S. as a whole. For example, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) found in a 2008 report that teacher preparation programs for elementary mathematics teachers are not rigorous, use inadequate textbooks, have low standards for admission and graduation, and employ teacher educators who are not professionally equipped to teach mathematics.6 In a review of 111 undergraduate and graduate teacher preparation programs in 53 education schools in Illinois, NCTQ found that teacher preparation programs are inconsistent, fail to equip future

In a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of teacher preparation accountability and support policies, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality found that teacher preparation programs generally fail to be based on evidence about their effectiveness.

2 3

5 6

U.S. Department of Education, Our Future, Our Teachers: The Obama Administrations Plan for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Deparment of Education, 2011). Chad Alderman, Kevin Carey, Eric Dillon, Ben Miller, and Elena Silva, A Measured Approach to Improving Teacher Preparation (Washington, D.C.: Education Sector, 2011). Illinois State Board of Education, Directory of Approved Programs for the Preparation of Educational Personnel in Illinois Institutions of Higher Education (Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education, 2012). Jane G. Coggshall, Lauren Bivona, and Daniel J. Reschly, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Programs for Support and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2012). Coggshall, Bivona, and Reschly, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Programs for Support and Accountability. National Council on Teacher Quality, No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by Americas Education Schools (Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2008). Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

policy BRIEF
teachers with strategies for effective teaching, discount the importance of selecting the most academically capable teacher candidates, and assign faculty members to teacher out of their areas of expertise.7 As a result, NCTQ gave only one program a grade of A-, while it graded 43 programs as unacceptably weak and 16 as failing. In a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of teacher preparation accountability and support policies, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ) found that teacher preparation programs generally fail to be based on evidence about their effectiveness.8 Such attacks have emerged from the political sphere as well. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan publicly stated, By almost any standard, many if not most of the nations 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom, and, Americas university-based teacher preparation programs need revolutionary changenot evolutionary tinkering.9 In a plan for improving teacher preparation programs, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) further argued that only 23% of all teachers and 14% of teachers in high-poverty schools come from the top third of college graduates, that 90% of highminority districts have difficulty attracting highly qualified mathematics and science teachers, and too many teacher preparation programs fail to provide teachers with rigorous experiences that prepare them for actual teaching.10 Given such criticism, policymakers have begun to enact reforms focused on teacher preparation at both federal and state levels. In 1998, the federal Higher Education Act was modified to require states to provide ED with data about teacher preparation, such as the pass rates of teacher candidates on state certification tests, information on teacher preparation programs, and statewide certification requirements.11 States currently must report 440 different types of such data annually.12 However, ED has argued that such data are not meaningful indicators of program effectiveness, largely because such data do not reveal how effectively program graduates teach.13 Given this position, a federal rule-making panel under the Obama administration engaged in discussions in mid-2012 to overhaul federal reporting regulations to place a greater emphasis on outcome measures of teacher preparation programs, such as the job placement of teachers from these programs and the achievement growth of students served by teachers from these programs.14 However, the rulemaking process ultimately stalled due to the controversy about whether teacher education programs should be evaluated on the basis of their graduates job placement rates, employers satisfaction with graduates they hired, and students performance on standardized tests. While ED representatives felt that teacher preparation programs were not effective and insufficiently accountable for the performance of their graduates, opponents claimed that such use of test scores had little scientific basis. Significant changes also have emerged at the state level. As reported by NCCTQ, at least six states have enacted significant changes to their policies governing teacher preparation programs in recent years.15 Louisiana has begun to use the same value-added measure of student performance on achievement tests to evaluate both in-service teachers and teacher preparation programs, in addition to modifying its certification requirements and using a web-based performance assessment system to evaluate teacher candidates. Texas also employs value-added measures of student performance, surveys principals about the quality of teachers, and examines the pass

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

National Council on Teacher Quality, Ed School Essentials: A Review of Illinois Teacher Preparation (Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011). Coggshall, Bivona, and Reschly, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Programs for Support and Accountability. Jennifer Medina, Teacher Training Termed Mediocre, New York Times, October 22, 2009. Retrieved on April 1, 2013 from www.lexisnexis.com. U.S. Department of Education, Our Future, Our Teachers: The Obama Administrations Plan for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement. Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. (1998). U.S. Department of Education, Our Future, Our Teachers: The Obama Administrations Plan for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement. U.S. Department of Education, Our Future, Our Teachers: The Obama Administrations Plan for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement, 9 Libby Nelson, Going It Alone, Inside Higher Education, April 13, 2012. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/13/rule-making-teacher-preparation-programs-fails-reach-consensus. Coggshall, Bivona, and Reschly, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Programs for Support and Accountability.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
rates of teacher candidates on certification exams to evaluate teacher preparation programs. Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee have begun to move in broadly similar directions. At least 13 states and the District of Columbia have planned to report value-added information on their teacher preparation programs in the coming years.16 The evaluation of outcome measures of such programs is accordingly becoming one of the most important tools for assessing and regulating teacher preparation program quality. Such changes reflect a broad-based policy push to improve teacher quality and effectiveness. With its passage in early 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) required states to ensure that a highly qualified teacher (HQT) is present in every public school classroom. While the definition of HQT varies for different types of teachers, NCLB generally required teachers to be fully certified and to have demonstrated their knowledge and skills by taking sufficient academic coursework in their field, passing a state test, or successfully completing a rigorous state evaluation.17 The Race to the Top Fund (RTT), a $4.35 billion competitive grant fund that was part of the federal Stimulus, provided money to states to enact particular types of education reforms that notably included the evaluation of teachers on the basis of increases in the performance of their students on tests.18 Each of the 14 states that won RTT grants promised to use student acheivement data as a signficant part of teacher evaluation and teacher evaluation data to make personnel decisions.19 Moreover, RTT pushed many states to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), written specifications of the skills and knowledge students should learn in mathematics and language arts that are being developed by a collaboration of states. In addition to states that actually won RTT grants, many other states instituted such reforms in anticipation of submitting RTT applications (e.g. Colorado, Indiana, and Louisiana). Illinois, which also has begun to restructure its teacher preparation policies, has instituted such reforms as well. preparation. First, the state requires teachers to be certified by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) in at least one of five areas: Early Childhood (birth to grade 3), Elementary (grades Kindergarten to 9), Secondary (grades 6 to 12), a particular subject (grades Kindergarten to 12), and Special Education (grades Kindergarten to 12 or preschool to age 21).20 However, there are exceptions for certain types of teachers, such as those in charter schools or who hold alternative certificates. In order to be certified, teacher candidates must pass certain tests.21 They must pass the Test of Academic Proficiency (TAP), which assesses candidates basic skills in reading comprehension, language arts, mathematics, and writing.22 Teacher candidates also must pass a test on the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards, the Common Core Language Arts Standards, and the Common Core Technology Standards. Such standards require that a teacher possesses certain content area and pedagogical knowledge to be certified. For example, teachers should understand major concepts, assumptions, debates, and principles; processes of inquiry; and theories that are central to the disciplines, the cognitive processes associated with various kinds of learning (e.g., critical and

TEACHER PREPARATION POLICY IN ILLINOIS

Although teacher preparation policies in Illinois have not changed as dramatically as in states like Louisiana or Texas, they have begun to shift in ways that reflect the broader political and policy landscape. Illinois currently has in place a patchwork of policy requirements for teacher

16 Stephen Sawchuck, Value Added Concept Proves Beneficial to Teacher Colleges, Education Week, February 22, 2012. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from www.edweek.org. 17 No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C.S. 6319(a)(2) (2002). 18 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 123 Stat. 115, 284 (2009). 19 Benjamin M. Superfine, Jessica J. Gottlieb, and Mark A Smylie, The Expanding Federal Role in Teacher Workforce Policy, Educational Policy 20, no. 1 (2012): 58-78. 20 23 Illinois Administrative Code 25.11 (2012), 105 ILCS 5/21 (2012). 21 23 Illinois Administrative Code 25.11 (2012). 22 In 2012, Illinois adopted emergency rules allowing students to substitute an ACT composite score of at least 22 or an SAT score of at least 1030 for passage of the TAP. Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Licensure Testing System. Retrieved on April 1, 2013 from www.isbe.net/certification/ html/testing.htm. Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

policy BRIEF
creative thinking, problemstructuring and problem-solving, invention, memorization, and recall), the relationship of knowledge within the disciplines to other content areas and to life applications, and how diverse student characteristics and abilities affect processes of inquiry and influence patterns of learning.23 Teacher candidates also must pass a subject matter area test. While the content of this test differs by type of certification, the frameworks for the content tested are fairly broad. For example, the mathematics knowledge assessed by the content area test for Elementary certification includes whether future teachers understand concepts and skills related to numbers, number sense, and numeration (including fractions, decimals, ratios, and percents) to support the learning of mathematics, understand and apply concepts and methods related to algebra and geometry to support the learning of mathematics, and understand and apply principles, concepts, and procedures related to measurement, statistics, and probability to support the learning of mathematics.24 Beginning in 2015, teachers also must pass the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) to be certified. This assessment was developed at Stanford University and requires planning, teaching, assessing, and providing extended commentary on a three to five day lesson that is videotaped.25 This assessment will focus on elements such as teachers abilities to plan focused, sequenced instruction; use knowledge of students to inform instruction; engage students in learning; deepen student learning during instruction; analyze student work; use assessment to inform instruction; and monitor student progress and adjust instruction. Notably, the TPA incorporates many elements from the Framework for Teaching (a rubric used in many districts and schools to evaluate practicing teachers) and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (used to evaluate master teachers for National Board certification).26 Illinois also requires teacher preparation programs to be approved by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). In order to be approved, teacher preparation programs must include certain elements, such as specific course requirements (which differ by certificate type) and a pre-student teaching field experience (which is usually a 12-16 week class experience under a classroom teacher and higher education faculty member). Moreover, the course of study taken by future teacher candidates must meet the Illinois

When teacher candidates graduate from approved and accredited teacher preparation programs, become certified, and enter the teacher workforce in Illinois, they become subject to policies that mirror those currently being implemented around much of the U.S.

23 23 Illinois Administrative Code 24.130(b)(1)(B)-(E) (2012). 24 Illinois Certification Testing System, Field 110: Elementary/Middle Grades Test Framework (Amherst, MA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2003): 007-009. 25 Cynthia Shanahan and Carole Mitchener, Teacher Performance Assessment (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago). Retrieved on April 1, 2013 from www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/ Degrees/Education/Documents/Teachers%20Performance%20Assessment%20CUNY[2].pdf. 26 The Framework for Teaching, created by Charlotte Danielson, is a set of components of instruction aligned to the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Model Core Teaching Standards. This Framework can act as a rubric for evaluating teachers in four domains of teaching: (1) Planning and Preparation, (2) Classroom Environment, (3) Instruction, and (4) Professional Responsibilities. Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument (Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group, 2013).

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
Professional Teaching Standards and the applicable Content Area Standards. Teacher preparation programs must be accredited. Notably, these requirements for teacher preparation programs in Illinois have been enacted recently and are only the most recent iteration of a constantly changing policy landscape. Although ISBE long has overseen teacher preparation programs in the state, it has shifted program requirements repeatedly. For example, the state recently required teachers to be certified in one of four areas (Early Childhood, Elementary, Secondary, or Special (K-12)). Given this certification structure, the state used the Assessment of Professional Teaching (APT) to assess teacher candidates on the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards, and language arts and technology standards.27 Similarly, the state previously required teacher candidates to pass the Basic Skills test, which has been phased out in favor of the TAP. Indeed, instability has long been a central feature of policy requirements governing teacher preparation programs. When teacher candidates graduate from approved and accredited teacher preparation programs, become certified, and enter the teacher workforce in Illinois, they become subject to policies that mirror those currently being implemented around much of the U.S. Illinois is currently phasing in the CCSS. As such, the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), an assessment annually given to students in the state beginning in grade 3, is increasingly incorporating content from the CCSS.28 Beginning in 2014, the ISAT will be replaced by an assessment aligned with the CCSS and developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a 23state consortium. Illinois teachers accordingly will be responsible for teaching the content of the CCSS to their students. Heightening the stakes of these assessments, Illinois adopted the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) in 2010.29 Under this law, all school districts must evaluate nontenured teachers at least once each year and tenured teachers at least once every two years. Such evaluations must incorporate the use of data and indicators of student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance. As implemented in Chicago, these evaluations must incorporate teacher evaluation data gathered through the Framework for Teaching (which is partially integrated into the TPA). When districts perform evaluations, they must rate teachers as excellent, proficient, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory. In 2011, Illinois further enacted SB7, which ties teacher tenure and certification decisions to teachers evaluations under PERA, and includes a procedure for revoking teaching certificates with multiple unsatisfactory ratings.30 The law also ensures that performance evaluation plays an important role in decisions about teacher layoffs and teaching assignment, and streamlines the dismissal process for teachers with tenure. In particular, SB7 allows the State Superintendent of Education to suspend, revoke, or limit a tenured teachers certificate for incompetency, which is defined as receiving an unsatisfactory performance evaluation in two or more school terms in a seven-year period. So, the process for remaining a teacher with certification and in good standing has recently become more difficult and driven by outcome data.

RESEARCH ON MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

While many teacher preparation policy documents in Illinois offer general descriptions of the knowledge and skills teacher candidates are required to have, there is a growing body of evidence about the specific knowledge and skills teachers should have to be effective in the classroom. Given the current ambiguity of these requirements and how they have constantly shifted, this section discusses research on mathematical knowledge for teachinga type of mathematical understanding that is specifically tailored for teaching students

27 Illinois State Board of Education, Certification and Professional Preparation (Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education, 2005). 28 Illinois State Board of Education, Roadmap for the 2013 Illinois Standards Achievement Test Mathematics (Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education). Retrieved on April 1, 2013 from, www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/2013/isat/roadmap-math-13.pdf. 29 Performance Education Reform Act, 105 ILCS 5/24 (2012). 30 SB 7, ILCS 5/10-22.4 (2012). Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

policy BRIEF
mathematical knowledge and skills. This vision of the mathematical knowledge that teachers should know can serve as a robust basis for policy requirements governing mathematics teacher preparation programs moving forward. ages and backgrounds bring with them into the classroom and ways of representing and communicating mathematics in ways that make it comprehensible, and thus learnable, by students. Subject matter knowledge, on the other hand, includes two separate domains of knowledge: common content knowledge and specialized content knowledge.34 Common content knowledge is the substantive type of mathematical knowledge that is used by both teachers and those in other professions. For example, common content knowledge includes understanding how to use percentages to compute amounts of discounts. Specialized content knowledge is the type of substantive knowledge required exclusively for teaching. For example, such knowledge includes understanding how to evaluate the validity of the mathematics in solution methods.35 Indeed, researchers have found that both common and specialized content knowledge are related to increased student achievement.36 As such, it is not enough for teachers to just know mathematics. Rather, teachers should know mathematics in the ways that are needed specifically for teaching students.

Researchers have found that both common and specialized content knowledge are related to increased student achievement. As such, it is not enough for teachers to just know mathematics. Rather, teachers should know mathematics in the ways that are needed specifically for teaching students.

Mathematics education researchers increasingly have emphasized the need for teacher candidates to develop mathematical knowledge for teaching. This type of knowledge for teaching includes two different types of knowledge: (1) pedagogical content knowledge and (2) subject matter knowledge.31 Drawing from early research on teacher knowledge,32 pedagogical content knowledge includes knowledge of the interrelated aspects of content and students (e.g. deciding which of several errors students are likely to make based on where they are in the development of their mathematical understanding), content and teaching (e.g. knowing instructionally viable models for place value and how to teach them effectively), and content and curriculum (e.g. understanding where division with whole numbers fits within the elementary school curriculum in relation to students developmental trajectories).33 Taken as a whole, pedagogical content knowledge is an understanding of the prior conceptions and knowledge that students of different

31 Deborah L. Ball, Mark H. Thames and Geoffrey Phelps. Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, no. 5 (2008): 389-407. 32 Lee Shulman. Those Who Understand: Knowing Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, no. 2 (1986): 4-14. 33 Ball, Thames, and Phelps, Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? 34 Ball, Thames, and Phelps, Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? 35 Deborah L. Ball and Hyman Bass, Interweaving Content and Pedagogy in Teaching and Learning to Teach: Knowing and Using Mathematics. In Jo Boaler (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (Westport, CT: Ablex, 2000): 83-104. 36 Heather Hill, Brian Rowan, & Deborah L. Ball, Effects of Teachers Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, no. 2 (2005): 371-406.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING
Given the growing consensus that teachers need to understand mathematics in ways needed for teaching to be effective in the classroom, researchers have begun to identify approaches particularly suited for evaluating teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching and helping them apply it in the classroom. Researchers have largely focused on the development of assessments and the reform of teacher preparation programs. Because mathematical knowledge for teaching is a highly integrated construct of pedagogical and subject matter content knowledge, traditional assessments of teacher knowledge are inappropriate for assessing it. As part of the Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) Project, researchers at the University of Michigan accordingly have developed a suite of assessments that measures elementary teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching in different areas of mathematics. These areas include number and operations, algebra, and patterns and functions. Items on these assessments not only capture whether teachers can answer the problems they use with students, but also how teachers solve the special mathematical tasks that arise during teaching. For example, items on the LMT assessment include the following questions: (1) Is the number 0 even or odd? (2) Can two different triangles have the same area? (3) Given three different multiplication strategies, which method can be used to multiply any two numbers? Although few teacher education programs currently report using the LMT assessments, they are increasingly being used in various professional development settings around the U.S, such as district- and school-level professional development programs. However, the use of such assessments in teacher preparation programs should be integral for evaluating the effectiveness of programs that focus on the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching.

Given the growing consensus that teachers need to understand mathematics in

REFORMING TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS AND MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

In addition to employing specific assessments for evaluating and developing mathematical knowledge for teaching in teacher candidates, researchers have recommended particular strategies for reforming teacher preparation programs. There is a growing consensus that teacher education programs should be more practice-based. A practice-based approach in teacher education focuses teacher candidates learning on actual teaching practice, thus providing opportunities for them to enact and rehearse practices that are central to mathematics teaching. For example, teacher candidates may learn about leading a whole class discussion, and then have opportunities to rehearse this practice in a classroom setting, receive feedback on the rehearsal, and enact this practice again. Such an approach is particularly suited for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching in teacher candidates and their ability to apply it effectively in the classroom. In contrast to common content

ways needed for teaching to be effective in the classroom, researchers have begun to identify approaches particularly suited for evaluating teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching and helping them apply it in the classroom.

Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

policy BRIEF
knowledge, mathematical knowledge for teaching involves more than simply knowledge about mathematics; it involves the application of this knowledge in the real-world settings of classrooms with a range of students who come to the classroom with their own strengths and weaknesses.37 Because mathematical knowledge for teaching is inherently practiceoriented, teacher preparation programs should be more practiceoriented as well. Reforming teacher preparation programs to be more practice-based particularly would help teacher candidates develop their skills at enacting high leverage instructional practices in mathematics.38 Highleverage practices are instructional practices that occur frequently in teaching, preserve the complexity of teaching, are research-based, and have the strong potential to improve student achievement. For example, high-leverage practices in mathematics might include leading a mathematical discussion that involves probing student ideas, evaluating the mathematical validity of students ideas and explanations, and connecting students ideas by articulating the common concepts underlying them. Indeed, mathematical knowledge for teaching undergirds many of these practices because many of them involve a complex blend of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. If teacher preparation programs are grounded in such a vision of mathematical knowledge, teacher candidates will enter the classroom with an efficacious foundation for effective teaching. Moreover, if a commitment is made to such a vision, this commitment can serve as a stable policy anchor for the constantly shifting teacher preparation program requirements.

Reforming teacher preparation programs to be more practicebased particularly would help teacher candidates develop their skills at enacting high leverage instructional practices in mathematics.

POLICY COHERENCE AND MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Notably, none of these reforms to teacher preparation programs should be designed and implemented in isolation. As demonstrated in the K-12 setting, attempting to import and implement several programs and services can generate serious challenges in schools. For example, early research on the individual and aggregate effects of multiple federal categorical programs on school and district operations found that policy incoherence was associated with substantial program interference and cross-subsidy which compromised the implementation and effects of these programs.39 These programs not only interfered with each other, they interfered with basic school-level operations and instructional programs. Moreover, schools and districts found that they had to reallocate resources from categorical programs and from general operating funds to meet implementation demands. More recently, research has found that

37 Ball, Thames and Phelps, Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? 38 Pam Grossman, Karen Hammerness and Morva McDonald, Redefining Teaching, Re-imagining Teacher Education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, no. 2 (2009): 273-289. 39 Jackie Kimbrough and Paul T. Hill, The Aggregate Effects of Federal Education Programs (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1981).

10

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
cluttered and contradictory federal, state, and district policy initiatives are associated with fragmentation and compromise improvement at the school level.40 Instead, reforms focused on the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching and teacher candidates abilities to apply it should be coherent.41 In particular, these reforms should be strategically designed together so that they converge around similar goals, strategies, and resource demands.42 In this way, these reforms would complement each other and thus be mutually reinforcing. As elaborated in several empirical studies, the logic of instructional program coherence that lies behind them is consistent with research on learning and cognitionthat students are more likely to learn and perform well when their experiences connect with and build on each other.43 In short, mathematics teacher preparation programs should be reformed with the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching as a central goal. If such reform is undertaken, it should involve not only the modification of course content but also the reconstruction of programs, practices, and ultimately policies from the ground up. This reconstruction would involve the selection of assessments and increased integration of practicebased experiences for teacher candidates. It would further require attention to alignment with mathematical knowledge for teaching as new reforms are considered and enacted as well. agenda, Illinois has altered the general politics surrounding this area by creating emphasis and defining the rules of engagement. Some elements of Illinois approach are also likely to align with reforms elsewhere in the state. Many recent state and federal laws, including RTT, PERA, and SB7, were generated in a policy environment that generally includes the improvement and evaluation of teachers. To this end, the TPA already includes many elements of the Framework for Teaching, which is also used to evaluate practicing teachers in Chicago under PERA and SB7. Such broad alignment in evaluation policy makes Illinois education policy more coherent. However, a careful look at teacher preparation programs in Illinois reveals that the new requirements for mathematics teacher preparation in particular raise significant concerns. The standards specifying what teachers should know and be able to do, as reflected in policy instruments like the TAP, are very broad. For example, as discussed above, such standards simply require that teachers should understand major concepts, assumptions, debates, and principles. As a result, there is very little guidance to mathematics teacher preparation programs about the curriculum and learning

THE PROSPECTS FOR MATHEMATICS TEACHER PREPARATION POLICIES IN ILLINOIS

Given the research on the knowledge needed for teaching mathematics and approaches for developing this knowledge, what are the prospects for mathematics teacher preparation policies in Illinois? On a very broad level, Illinois appears to be moving in a positive direction. The recently enacted changes to teacher education programs in the state are generally intended to improve the knowledge and skills of future teachers, including future mathematics teachers. These reforms also reflect a broader movement in Illinois and the U.S. to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers, which several researchers have argued is one of the most important factors driving student learning.44 Indeed, by giving teacher preparation such a prominent position on the reform

40 Fred M. Newmann, BetsAnn Smith, Elaine Allensworth and Anthony S. Bryk. Instructional Program Coherence: What It Is and Why It Should Guide school Improvement Policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, no. 4 (2001): 297-321. 41 Benjamin M. Superfine, Mark A. Smylie, Marlon I. Cummings and Steven Tozer. The Challenging Road to Coherence in Illinois Education Policy, in The Illinois Report 2012 (Urbana: IL: Institute for Government and Public Affairs, 2012). 42 Michael S. Knapp, Jerry D. Bamburg, Michele C. Ferguson and Paul T. Hill. Converging Reforms and the Working Lives of Frontline Professionals in Schools. Educational Policy, 12, no. 4 (1998): 397-418. 43 Anthony S. Bryk, Peter B. Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu and John Q. Easton. Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006). 44 Linda Darling-Hammond. Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9 (2000). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/ view/392; Laura Goe, The Link between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes: A Research Synthesis (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Teacher Quality, 2007). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from ww.tqsource.org/publications/LinkBetweenTQandStudent Outcomes.pdf. Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

11

policy BRIEF
opportunities they should have in place for students. Subject matter tests for different types of certification are more specific. Yet, the content frameworks for these tests are fairly broad as well. While there is rightfully a certain amount of discretion accorded to mathematics teacher preparation programs about exactly which content and skills should be taught, the lack of specificity also leaves much room for sometimes undesirable variation among programswhile some programs may draw on the expertise of faculty in these programs to create strong learning experiences for students, not all programs will necessarily respond in such a fashion. The mathematical content frameworks are even more vague about the relationship between subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. While it is understandable that the frameworks do not use these particular terms, the frameworks treatment of the differences between these types of mathematical knowledge is cursory at best. For example, many of the frameworks simply state that teachers must know certain mathematical content to support the learning of mathematics. Such a statement is far too broad to offer meaningful guidance about the types of mathematics teacher candidates should know. Moreover, assessments of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are largely divorced from each other in applicable standards and content frameworks. Indeed, every future teacher, no matter what grade level or subject, must take the same test of the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards. Such an approach follows the line of thinking that permeates much of the current reform agenda that bare mathematical content knowledge is one of the most important drivers of effective mathematics teaching. However, this approach does not square with modern research on mathematical knowledge for teaching and its utility for helping teachers implement high leverage teaching practices. Illinois mathematics teacher preparation policies also face several potential problems involving incoherence. Policy efforts to increase the quality of mathematics teacher preparation program in Illinois have been largely disconnected from each other. These requirements have constantly shifted, creating an environment of incoherence and instability for these programs. Given these rapidly changing demands, teacher preparation programs have had very little opportunity to work out appropriate and effective implementation practices before new requirements are enacted. Indeed, these programs have never reflected a coherent vision of mathematical knowledge teachers should have. Given that such a vision has failed to form a foundation for Illinois education policies more broadly, teacher education programs remain largely unaligned with these policies as well. For example, PERA and SB7 are generally grouped around increasing teacher quality and effectiveness through evaluation. But the types of evaluation emphasized in these policies are tied to state standards, particular assessments given to students, certain evaluation rubrics, and consequences flowing from the results of evaluations. Some other states (e.g. Louisiana and Texas) are modifying their teacher

However, a careful look at teacher preparation programs in Illinois reveals that the new requirements for mathematics teacher programs in particular raise significant concerns.

12

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
preparation programs in ways that are more closely aligned with state standards and teacher evaluation systems. Illinois has begun to move in this direction by using the TPA, which includes elements of the Framework for Teaching. However, the Framework for Teaching can be generally used to evaluate any teacher, regardless of the content being taught. Because it is not tailored specifically for the high leverage instructional practices that are salient in mathematics, this evaluation is not sufficiently connected to a robust vision of mathematics teacher knowledge as well. Moreover, the suite of reforms besides the TPA that are aimed at improving the effectiveness of practicing teachers mathematics are largely separate from the frameworks contained in certification tests. Similarly, teacher preparation policies are largely divorced at this time from the CCSS, which will constitute the dominant student learning standards in Illinois in the coming years. In short, Illinois policies make few direct links between how teachers are prepared and how teachers are managed once they formally enter the teacher workforce. The entire teacher workforce system, including preparation, recruitment, hiring, evaluation, development, and firing should be aligned to a strong and concrete vision of what a teacher should know and be able to do. As it currently stands, this vision is vague at best and does not account for the ways that mathematical knowledge of teaching should be integrated into policy to support teachers enactment of high leverage teaching practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several possible ways to improve mathematics teacher preparation policies in Illinois. In this section, three principles are discussed for reforming current mathematics teacher preparation policies. First and most importantly, mathematics teacher preparation programs should be grounded in a strong conception of what mathematics teachers should know and be able to do. This vision should be guided by the best available research and encompass more than simply teachers bare knowledge of mathematics. Instead, this vision should draw on research focused on the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. While teachers should be very well trained in common content knowledgethe type of knowledge that those in various professions and fields should knowteachers should also know mathematics in ways that are particularly suited for teaching. Given the centrality in current policies of improving pre-service and practicing teachers, this vision of mathematical knowledge for teaching should be explicitly articulated. In order to articulate this vision, Illinois should convene representatives from major stakeholders in mathematics teacher preparation, including teachers, school administrators, policymakers, university personnel, and researchers. In doing so, the state would not only lay the groundwork for all other mathematics teacher preparation policies but would become an innovator among states in this field as well. To be sure, ISBE has already made some efforts to reach out to different education stakeholders invested in changing teacher

Policy efforts to increase the quality of mathematics teacher preparation program in Illinois have been largely disconnected from each other. These requirements have constantly shifted, creating an environment of incoherence and instability for these programs.

Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

13

policy BRIEF
certification requirements. However, these efforts should be enhanced and ongoing as a research-based vision of mathematical knowledge for teaching is more explicitly developed and articulated. Second, state policies should be enacted to ensure that the proper sorts of instruments and experiences are put in place in teacher preparation programs to develop mathematical knowledge for teaching in future mathematics teachers. The state currently relies on a suite of assessments as a gatekeeper for teachers and, in this way, effectively drives the content of teacher education programs. However, as discussed above, these assessments are not necessarily aligned to each other and a strong and consistent vision of what mathematics teachers should know and be able to do. While some assessments such as the TPA may be a step in the right direction, state assessment systems for mathematics teacher candidates should be more closely aligned with mathematical knowledge for teaching. The LMT assessment could be a useful starting point for building such assessment systems, however it is possible that the state could design its own assessments in light of its own vision of mathematical knowledge. Given the range of practice-based data incorporated into the TPA, this assessment could be preserved as the core of such a system as well. In addition to modifying its assessment policy, the state should enact laws or regulations to ensure that practice-based learning plays a more central role in mathematics teacher preparation. Practice-based learning is particularly critical for grounding teacher preparation programs in mathematical knowledge for teaching and helping future teachers learn how to implement high leverage teaching practices. Indeed, there needs to be knowledgeable university faculty instructors who can model effective and high leverage practices for future mathematics teachers. Moreover, state policy should ensure that a range of other elements of teacher preparation programs aligns with its vision of mathematical knowledge for teaching, including curriculum, the training of mathematics teacher educators, and standards for admission to teacher preparation programs. Finally, mathematics teacher preparation policies should be aligned with other major education policies in the state. In this respect, it is critical that a consistent vision of mathematical knowledge for teaching underlies all such mathematics policies. For example, the vision of teachers mathematical knowledge underlying evaluation and accountability reforms like PERA and SB7 should be aligned with that underlying mathematics teacher preparation programs. Similarly, this vision should align with what students should know and be able to do under the CCSS. As it stands, there are already some areas of overlap across the different reforms. However, many gaps remain. Given that policy coherence is crucial for making sure that policies work together and are mutually reinforcing, such alignment is critical no matter what the underlying vision is.

CONCLUSION
Mathematics teacher preparation policies are quickly changing in Illinois. Such attention to enhancing mathematics teacher quality and effectiveness is promising. However, these current policies can be improved in several ways. Grounding these policies in a strong and explicit vision of mathematical knowledge for teaching will ensure that these policies are better aligned with current knowledge about the kind of mathematical understanding teachers need to teach effectively. Aligning all elements of mathematics teacher preparation programs to this vision, ranging from assessments and curriculum to mathematics teacher educator training, will help develop such knowledge in future teachers. Finally, aligning mathematics teacher preparation policies with other major education policies in Illinois will make the states policies more coherent, stable, and ultimately effective. By undertaking such policy reforms, Illinois can ultimately increase the odds that its significant efforts in education reform have not been undertaken in vain and that its students receive the mathematical learning opportunities that they deserve.

14

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
ABOUT US
The Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the most significant problems facing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently fails to reflect what we know and what we do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying. Instead of being polemic and grounded primarily in ideology, public conversations about education should be constructive and informed by the best available evidence.

OUR MISSION
RUEPIs work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy in Chicago and other urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issues facing these areas, including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacher workforce policy. We offer timely analysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best available evidence.

OUR APPROACH
Given RUEPIs mission, the projects work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are not grounded in any particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay a foundation for ensuring that debates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of how education policies have fared in the past. The principles are as follows: Education policies should be coherent and strategic Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms Education policies should account for local context RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

Learn more at www.education.uic.edu/ruepi

Improving Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy in Illinois

15

1040 West Harrison Street Chicago, Illinois 60607

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
CONTACT US
bsuperfi@uic.edu education.uic.edu/ruepi

FOLLOW US
facebook.com/ruepi