CHAPTER 2

The Mathematical Education of Teachers:

Traditions, Research, Current Context

This report focuses on the mathematical education of teachers, asking more

mathematics departments and more mathematicians to assign high priority to
teacher preparation, content-based professional development, partnerships with
mathematics educators, and increased participation in the mathematics education
community. To appreciate the need for changing some current priorities and prac-
tices in teacher education, it is important to understand what they are, and the
traditions of school mathematics that shaped them, and still shape prospective and
practicing teachers. Thus, this chapter briefly reviews traditions of teacher educa-
tion and school mathematics. It is also helpful to review what is known about the
mathematical knowledge needed for teaching. Thus, this chapter gives an overview
of current research on teacher knowledge, and discusses it in light of the Common
Core State Standards and other aspects of the current educational context.

Traditions, Beliefs, and Practices

Mathematicians roles in teacher education. As stewards of their discipline,

mathematicians have a long tradition of concerning themselves with school math-
ematics and its teachers. In the eighteenth century, Leonard Euler wrote an arith-
metic textbook as did Augustus de Morgan a century later.1 Felix Kleins work
with high school teachers gave us the notion of elementary mathematics from
an advanced standpointunderstanding the mathematical foundations of school
mathematics. Klein was a founder of what is now the International Commission
on Mathematical Instruction. Since its inception in 1908 as part of the Interna-
tional Mathematics Union, its presidents have included Jacques Hadamard, Mar-
shall Stone, and other distinguished mathematicians.2
In the United States, as in many other countries, mathematicians involve-
ment in teacher preparation increased as nineteenth-century normal schools became
twentieth-century colleges and universities. In 1893, the Committee of Ten, com-
posed of presidents of Harvard and other leading universities, led the creation of
influential school curriculum guidelines. Among the writers were Simon Newcomb
and Henry Fine, both future presidents of the American Mathematical Society.
However, for a variety of reasons, both internal and external to the U.S. math-
ematics community, concern for school mathematics and its teachers did not retain
1These were: Einleitung zur Rechen-Kunst (Introduction to the Art of Reckoning), St Pe-
tersburg (vol. 1, 1738, vol. 2, 1740); The Elements of Arithmetic, London, 1830.
2Hodgson points out that one could even see the ICMI as having been formed on the very
assumption that university mathematicians should have an influence on school mathematics. See
The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level, Kluwer, 2001, p. 503.

7
8 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS

similar prominence among mathematicians during much of the twentieth century.3

Although there have been notable counterexamples,4 teacher education and school
mathematics have often been peripheral concerns for mathematicians and mathe-
matics departments. This situation is consistent with existing policies and prac-
tices, inside and outside of mathematics departments. Departmental support and
professional development for mathematicians involved with teacher education is of-
ten sparse.5 In the past, professional development centered on mathematics for
PreK12 teachers has been infrequent, both in general and as an activity of colle-
giate mathematics departments. Over the past decade, this situation has begun to
change. An aim of this report is to facilitate further change.
Beliefs about mathematics and their influences on learning. As mathe-
maticians involvement with school mathematics decreased, the U.S. educational
system expanded. Beliefs evolvedor were maintainedthat shape the context of
education today. Among these were students beliefs about mathematics.
In the 1980s, education researchers began to document unmathematical beliefs
among K12 students. The statements below summarize observations of high school
geometry classes where homework sets consisted of 18 to 45 problems. (Note that
the first statement is counter to the first Common Core Standard for Mathematical
Practice: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.)

Students who have understood the mathematics they have studied will be
able to solve any assigned problem in five minutes or less.

Ordinary students cannot expect to understand mathematics: they expect

simply to memorize it and apply what they have learned mechanically and
without understanding.6

3Murray discusses the polarization of teaching and research within the U.S. mathemati-
cal community in Women Becoming Mathematicians: Creating a Professional Identity in Post
World War II America, MIT Press, 2000, pp. 610. For examples of U.S. mathematician involve-
ment (e.g., the founding of the International Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics (later
ICMI) at the International Congress of Mathematicians) and social context of its diminution, see
Donoghue, The Emergence of a Profession: Mathematics Education in the United States, 1890
1920, in A History of School Mathematics, vol. 1, NCTM, 2003. Changes in twentieth-century
psychology research were also a factor, see Roberts, E. H. Moores Early Twentieth-Century
Program for Reform in Mathematics Education, American Mathematical Monthly, 2001.
4Teaching Teachers Mathematics (Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, 2009) gives an
overview of past and recent counterexamples.
5In 2010, Masingila et al. surveyed 1,926 U.S. higher education institutions that prepared
elementary teachers. Of those who responded (43%), less than half reported giving training
or support for instructors of mathematics courses for elementary teachers. However, the authors
write that there appears to be interest in training and support as a number of survey respondents
contacted us to ask where they could find resources for teaching these courses. See Who Teaches
Mathematics Content Courses for Prospective Elementary Teachers in the United States? Results
of a National Survey, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2012.
6Quoted from Schoenfeld, Learning to Think Mathematically in Handbook for Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1992, p. 359. Note that these beliefs may not be explicitly
stated as survey or interview responses, but displayed as classroom behaviors, e.g., giving up if a
problem is not quickly solved. This discussion is not meant to exclude the possibility of exceptional
mathematical talent, but focuses on the idea that K12 mathematics can be learned in its absence.
 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS 9

Although education researchers have identified these and other unproductive beliefs
held by K12 students, experience and other lines of research suggest that adults
may hold similar beliefs about the existence of people with math minds or the
existence of a math gene.7
Recent psychological research suggests that such beliefs influence teaching and
learning. This line of research has identified two distinct views. The fixed mind-
set or entity view of intelligence considers cognitive abilities to be fixed from
birth or unchangeable. In contrast, the growth mind-set or incrementalist view
sees cognitive abilities as expandable.8 International comparisons suggest that dif-
ferent views are associated with differences in achievement, and research within the
U.S. has documented such associations. Students who entered seventh grade with
a growth mind-set earned better grades over the next two years than peers who
entered with a fixed mind-set and the same scores on mathematics tests. Class-
room studies have shown that it is possible to change students views from a fixed
mind-set to a growth mind-set in ways that encourage them to persevere in learn-
ing mathematics and improve achievement test scores as well as grades.9 Studies
like these suggest that teaching practices are an important factor in reinforcing or
changing students beliefs.
Practices in teaching mathematics and their influence on learning. Un-
productive beliefs about mathematics were identified in the late twentieth century,
but historical research suggests that they may have been fostered by early schooling
practices. Among these were pedagogical approaches. The rule method (mem-
orize a rule, then practice using it) was the sole approach used in U.S. arithmetic
textbooks from colonial times until the 1820s.10 Between 1920 and 1930, pedagogy
based on the work of the psychologist Edward Thorndike again emphasized mem-
orization, e.g., memorization of arithmetic facts with no attempt to encourage
children to notice how two facts might be related. Thus, 3 + 1 = 4 was not con-
nected to 1 + 3 = 4, missing an opportunity to begin developing an understanding
of the commutative law as well as the mathematical practice of seeking structure
(see Appendix C). These pedagogical ideas were revived in the back to basics era
of the 1980s and are sometimes still used, despite the existence of very different
approaches that are currently used.11

7Stevenson and Stigler documented similar beliefs among U.S. first and fifth graders, and
their mothers, but found that their Japanese and Chinese counterparts focused more on effort
rather than ability. See Chapter 5 of The Learning Gap, Simon & Schuster, 1992. See also
Data Compendium for the NAEP 1992 Mathematics Assessment for the Nation and the States,
National Center for Educational Statistics, 1993.
8Note that such beliefs may vary according to domain, e.g., one may believe in a math
gene, but favor continued practice in order to improve sports performance.
9For a brief overview of research in this area, including classroom studies, see Dweck, Mind-
sets and Equitable Education, Principal Leadership, 2010. For a review of research and rec-
ommendations for classroom practice, see Encouraging Girls in Math and Science (IES Practice
Guide, NCER 2007-2003), Institute of Educational Sciences, 2007, pp. 1113.
10See Michalowicz & Howard, An Analysis of Mathematics Texts from the Nineteenth Cen-
tury in A History of School Mathematics, vol. 1, NCTM, 2003, especially pp. 8283.
11Lambdin & Walcott, Changes through the Years: Connections between Psychological
Learning Theories and the School Mathematics Curriculum, The Learning of Mathematics, 69th
Yearbook, NCTM, 2007. For discussion of current practices, see Ma, Three Approaches to One-
Place Addition and Subtraction: Counting Strategies, Memorized Facts, and Thinking Tools,
unpublished.
10 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS

Other beliefs may have maintained fragile understanding of mathematics for

teachers and their students, reinforcing teachers reliance on approaches that fo-
cused on memorizing and following rules. One was the belief that elementary
teachers learned all the mathematics that they needed to know during their own
schooling. Such beliefs are reflected in the policies and practices noted in Chapter 1:
few or no mathematics requirements for K8 teacher preparation and certification;
and infrequent professional development centered on mathematics.
In addition to identifying counterproductive beliefs about learning mathemat-
ics, mathematics education researchers have identified associated beliefs about the
roles of teachers and students in mathematics classrooms:

Doing mathematics means following the rules laid down by the teacher.

Knowing mathematics means remembering and applying the correct rule

when the teacher asks a question.

Mathematical truth is determined when the answer is ratified by the

teacher.12

Systematic studies of U.S. classrooms are not abundant, but their findings and
those of student surveys are consistent with these descriptions of classroom expec-
tations.13
Consistent with traditions for classroom behavior, videotape analyses have
found far fewer occurrences of deductive reasoning in U.S. mathematics classrooms
than in classrooms from countries whose students score well on international tests.14
Moreover, studies of U.S. textbooks and curriculum documents suggest that they
have often been constructed in ways that do not readily afford deductive reasoning.
Such curriculum studies note imprecise, nonexistent, or contradictory definitions, or
more global issues such as repetition of topics, suggesting disconnected treatments
of topics with similar underlying structures (e.g., base-ten notation for whole num-
bers and for decimals).15
Summary. These traditions in U.S. school mathematics suggest that undergrad-
uates (including prospective teachers) who have been educated in the U.S. may
have well-established beliefs about mathematics and expectations for mathematics
instruction that are antithetical to those of their mathematician instructors. As
stated in MET I:

12This is a slight reformulation of Lampert, 1990 as quoted by Schoenfeld, Learning to

Think Mathematically in Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1992,
p. 359. The surrounding text discusses research on school experiences that shape such beliefs.
13For example, see Hiebert et al.s study of eighth grade classrooms, Teaching Mathematics
in Seven Countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study, U.S. Department of Education,
2003.
14See analyses of data from the TIMSS video studies of 1999 (Hiebert et al., pp. 7375) and
of 1995 (Manaster, American Mathematical Monthly, 1998).
15Schmidt and Houang analyzed the content and sequencing of topics in grades 18 in the
U.S. and other countries. See Lack of Focus in the Mathematics Curriculum, in Lessons Learned,
Brookings Institution Press, 2007, p. 66. Examples of treatments of fractions and negative numbers
that do not afford deductive reasoning are given by Wu in Phoenix Rising, American Educator,
2011.
 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS 11

For many prospective teachers, learning mathematics has meant

only learning its procedures and, they may, in fact, have been
rewarded with high grades in mathematics for their fluency in
using procedures. (emphasis added)
The traditions and findings described here suggest that doing mathematics in
ways consistent with mathematical practice is likely to be a new, and perhaps, alien
experience for many teachers. However, such experiences are necessary for teachers
if their students are to achieve the Common Core State Standards for Mathematical
Practice.
Although this situation may look grim, it is not intractable. Collaborations be-
tween mathematicians and mathematics educators in teacher education have made
remarkable progress in developing ways to address teachers unmathematical be-
liefs and practices as well as gaps in their mathematical knowledge.16 As evidenced
by outcomes from the Math Science Partnerships and research on professional de-
velopment, teachers can acquire mathematical practices from carefully designed
experiences of doing mathematics.17 This suggests that doing mathematics in ways
consistent with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Practice is an
important element in the mathematical education of teachers.

Teacher Effectiveness and Mathematical Knowledge

Teacher effectiveness is generally construed as the effect that a teacher has

on her or his students learning. Research on teacher effectiveness often examines
relationships between teacher knowledge and student achievement. In these stud-
ies, students achievement is generally measured by standardized tests,18 but their
teachers knowledge has been measured in quite different ways.
Mathematics courses and certification. For at least 50 years, studies of teacher
effectiveness have often focused on teacher preparation, and mainly on high school
and middle grades teachers. Certification status has been a popular measure. The
existing evidence suggests that certification in mathematics is desirable for high
school and middle grades teachers. Another measure has been the number and
type of mathematics courses taken. In general, studies of high school and middle
grades teachers report that more mathematics courses are associated with better
performance by their students. However, these effects are small, sometimes incon-
sistent, and do not indicate the type of knowledge used in teaching.19 Moreover,

16For example, middle grades and high school teachers who participated in an MSP based on
an immersion approach (involving intensive sessions of doing mathematics) reported changes in
beliefs that affected their teaching, e.g., communicating that it is OK to struggle. See Focus on
Mathematics Summative Evaluation Report 2009, p. 73. Gains in student test scores are shown
on p. 93 (high school) and p. 96 (middle grades).
17For a snapshot from one such collaboration, see Teaching Teachers Mathematics, Mathe-
matical Sciences Research Institute, 2009, p. 34; for descriptions of three Math Science Partner-
ships, see pp. 3241.
18Test quality can be a major limitation for this measure. An analysis of state mathematics
tests found low levels of cognitive demand, e.g., questions that asked for recall or performance
of simple algorithms, rather than complex reasoning over an extended period. See Hyde et al.,
Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance, Science, 2008, pp. 494495.
19See Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy, National Research Council,
2010, p. 112. See also, Telese, Middle School Mathematics Teachers Professional Development
12 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS

certification or undergraduate course-taking are quite imprecise measures, due to

variability in certification requirements and undergraduate instruction.
Mathematical knowledge for teaching. A different line of research has begun
to offer evidence that particular forms of mathematical knowledge are important
in teaching. In the 1980s, scholars began to investigate knowledge for teaching,
criticizing earlier research on effectiveness for ignoring the subject matter and its
transformation into the content of instruction.20 Initially, this line of research ana-
lyzed the actions of teachers in classrooms or outcomes of interviews with teachers,
rather than survey data and test scores. The focus was on identifying kinds of
knowledge relevant for teaching mathematics, rather than mathematical knowledge
in general. For example, prospective teachers were asked to respond to classroom
scenarios, such as a question about why division by 0 is undefined. Responses indi-
cated that even mathematics majors were not always able to answer in a satisfactory
way.21
As noted in MET I, such interviews with teachers awakened many mathemati-
cians to the special nature of mathematics for teaching and its implications for the
education of teachers. Since that time, this line of research has continued toward
developing tests of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Third-grade teachers
scores on one such test (Learning Mathematics for Teaching) were better predic-
tors of their students achievement than measures such as average time spent in
mathematics instruction, years of experience, and certification status.22
Curriculum-specific professional development. A second line of recent re-
search has focused on studying relationships between teachers professional devel-
opment experiences and their students performance on mathematics tests. A 1998
study of professional development in California found that attending workshops
that were mathematics- and curriculum-specific (e.g., as opposed to learning to use
manipulatives or to improve classroom management) was associated with better
student performance on mathematics tests.23 A 2009 meta-analysis of professional
development studies found that those in which teachers focused, for a sustained
period, on examining mathematics underlying the curriculum and how to teach it
were associated with improved student achievement.24 Similarly, a project in which
a research-based toolkit on fractions was supplied to treatment groups of U.S.
elementary teachers to use in lesson study found that groups who used the toolkit

and Student Achievement, Journal of Educational Research, 2012. Teleses measure of student
achievement was the Grade 8 National Assessment of Educational Progress, which includes items
with a high level of cognitive demand. It found number of mathematics courses to be a strong
predictor, but like many such studies, it did not have an experimental or quasi-experimental
design.
20Shulman, Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching, Educational Re-
searcher, 1986.
21On average, the prospective secondary teachers had taken over 9 college-level mathematics
courses. Ball, Prospective Elementary and Secondary Teachers Understanding of Division,
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1990.
22Hill et al., Effects of Teachers Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achieve-
ment, American Educational Research Journal, 2005.
23Cohen & Hill, Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform
in California, Teachers College Record, 2000.
24Blank & Atlas, Effects of Teacher Professional Development on Gains in Student Achieve-
ment, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2009.
 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS 13

were associated with significantly greater student achievement than those of control
groups.25
Teachinglearning paths. A third line of research on teacher effectiveness focuses
on learning trajectoriessequences of student behaviors indicating different levels
of thinking with instructional tasks that lead to development of a mathematical
ability. Related ways to focus instruction are described as teachinglearning paths,
learning lines, and learning progressions. These notions, together with examples
of paths from U.S. research and curriculum materials from other countries, informed
the development of the CCSS.
An example from China may help to illustrate the general nature of these
U.S. notions. Chinese teachers describe a sequence of problems together with con-
cepts and skills that lead students to be able to compute whole-number subtraction
problems with regrouping (e.g., 104 68), and to understand the rationale for their
computations. Each part of the sequence involves a new kind of problem, a new
idea, and a new skill.

Minuends between 10 and 20, New concept and skill of decomposing

e.g., 15 7, 16 8 a ten.
Minuends between 19 and 100, e.g., New concept and skill of splitting off
53 25, 72 48 a ten, followed by decomposing a ten.
Minuends with three or more digits. New concept and skill of successive
decomposition.26

In the U.S., randomized studies of preschool classrooms have shown large stu-
dent gains for a curriculum based on learning trajectories that included sustained
and specific professional development for teachers.27 Studies of elementary grades
have focused on assessment tasks, rather than entire curricula. But, like the curricu-
lum for the preschool classrooms, these tasks outline a learning path that goes step
by step, helping students incrementally increase their understanding, as they move
toward a mathematical goal. They also create a teaching path, helping teachers
perceive the elements of a given concept or skill, and mathematical stepping-stones
in their development.28
Large-scale studies that examine connections between student achievement in
earlier and later grades suggest that improved mathematics instruction in preschool
and elementary grades has a large payoff in later achievement, not only for math-
ematics in later grades (including high school), but for reading.29 Such studies

25Perry & Lewis, Improving the Mathematical Content Base of Lesson Study: Summary of
Results, 2011.
26
Example from Ma, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, Erlbaum, 1999, p. 15.
Similar examples occur in other East Asian countries. Lewis et al. describe how Japanese teachers
manuals may support teachers perceptions of paths in Using Japanese Curriculum Materials to
Support Lesson Study Outside Japan: Toward Coherent Curriculum, Educational Studies in
Japan: International Yearbook, 2011.
27
Sarama & Clements, Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research, Routledge, 2009,
pp. 352363.
28
See special issue on learning trajectories, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2004.
29
See Duncan et al., School Readiness and Later Achievement, Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 2007; Claessens et al., Kindergarten Skills and Fifth-grade Achievement: Evidence from
the ECLS-K, Economics of Education Review, 2009; Siegler et al., Early Predictors of High
14 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS

reiterate the importance of mathematics in preparation and professional develop-

ment for early childhood and elementary teachers.
Summary. Studies of teacher effectiveness suggest that mathematics course-taking
and certification are desirable for middle grades and high school teachers, but are
inconclusive about the nature of the mathematical knowledge that teachers need.
However, the existing evidence suggests that teacher preparation and professional
development should be tailored to the work of teaching. The National Research
Council study Preparing Teachers concludes:
Current research and professional consensus correspond in sug-
gesting that all mathematics teachers . . . rely on: mathematical
knowledge for teaching, that is, knowledge not just of the content
they are responsible for teaching, but also of the broader mathe-
matical context for that knowledge and the connections between
the material they teach and other important mathematics con-
tent.30
Within the U.S., such knowledge is not currently well developed in the profes-
sion of mathematics teaching. Mathematicians are among those necessary for its
development.
For PreK8 teachers, adequate preparation includes more mathematics than
often thought. Moreover, studies connecting teachers understanding of teaching
learning paths and student achievement show how the organization of curriculum
together with attention to teacher knowledge can work together to improve stu-
dents learning. A necessary first step for teachers is to understand the mathematics
in these paths,31 thus mathematicians participation in their education is essential.

Current Context

Since MET I was published in 2001, there have been significant changes in
teacher education: outside mathematics departments with respect to the teaching
workforce and educational policy; within mathematics departments with respect to
courses for teachers and faculty involvement in K12 education.
Demographic changes have occurred for the teaching workforce as a whole.
Analyses of nationally representative survey data find that between 1988 and 2008,
the age distribution for teachers shifted from a unimodal distribution with a peak at
age 41 to a bimodal distribution with peaks at ages 26 and 55. Some of these changes
appear to be due to increases in the numbers of teachers for special education,
elementary enrichment, science, and mathematics.32
In 2000, approximately 22% of secondary schools reported serious difficulties in
filling teaching positions for mathematics. This dropped to about 18% in 2008.
Such staffing difficulties tended to occur at high-poverty, high-minority public
schools in both urban and rural areas. Over half of the teachers who left these
School Mathematics Achievement, Psychological Science, 2012. These studies examined large
longitudinal data sets from the U.S. and other countries.
30
Preparing Teachers: Building Sound Evidence for Sound Policy, National Research Coun-
cil, 2010, pp. 114115.
31
This is made explicit for early childhood educators in Mathematics Learning in Early
Childhood, National Research Council, 2009, pp. 34.
32
Ingersoll & Merrill, Whos Teaching Our Children?, Educational Leadership, 2010.
 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS 15

schools reported dissatisfaction or the intention to pursue another or better job.33

Analysis of 2004 and 2005 data found differences in rates of teacher attrition at
schools in the same district. Also, mathematics teachers who moved from one
teaching job to another were most likely to move to schools with similar enroll-
ments of poor and minority students. This suggests that attrition is not simply
a matter of school demographics, but of school organization. An organizational
factor of particular relevance to the MET II report is provision of content-based
professional development. Mathematics teachers who received it and perceived it
as useful had substantially lower odds of turnover.34
About 40% of practicing teachers have been prepared via an alternative path-
way, that is, outside of a traditional teacher education program. Like standard
programs, these alternative pathways vary widely.35 Such differences can affect the
rest of a teachers career. Analyses of recent survey data find that in the first year
of teaching, teachers with a mathematics baccalaureate, but little or no pedagogical
preparation, left teaching at twice the rate of those with the same degree, but more
comprehensive pedagogical preparation.36
A new accreditation organization with significantly different standards for teach-
er preparation is coming into existence. The Council for the Accreditation of Educa-
tor Preparation (CAEP) will require that the mathematical preparation of teachers
address the CCSS.37 In the past, accreditation requirements for mathematics have
often been met by reporting results on tests such as the Praxis or course grades for
appropriate courses, although other options were available. The new requirements
for mathematics courses will be similar in nature to the current, more detailed, ac-
creditation requirements for methods courses. The standards for these courses have
changed to include standards for mathematical practice and to reflect the content
of the CCSS.
Requirements for professional development have been changing. By 2008, all
50 states had specified professional development requirements for teachers. The
majority of these require 6 semester-hours of professional development over ap-
proximately 5 years. Twenty-four of these states have a policy specifying that
professional development be aligned with state content standards.38
More mathematics departments have designed courses especially for K8 teach-
ers or have designated special sections of courses for these teachers.39 In some

33
Ingersoll & Perda, Is the Supply of Mathematics and Science Teachers Sufficient?, Amer-
ican Educational Research Journal, 2010.
34
Ingersoll & May, The Magnitude, Destinations, and Determinants of Mathematics and
Science Teacher Turnover, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2010, pp. 44, 46.
35
Preparing Teachers: Building Sound Evidence for Sound Policy, National Research Coun-
cil, 2010, pp. 3439.
36
Ingersoll & Merrill, Retaining Teachers: How Preparation Matters, Educational Lead-
ership, 2012. See also Darling-Hammond, Solving the Dilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand,
and Standards, National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, 2000, pp. 1719; Tenth
Anniversary Report, UTeach, 2010, p. 16.
37
CAEP was formed by the merger of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). Two of the MET
II writers are engaged in the development of the CAEP standards.
38
Key State Education Policies on PK12 Education: 2008, Council of Chief State School
Officers, p. 22.
39
CBMS 2005 Survey, Table SP.3.
16 2. THE MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION OF TEACHERS

departments, policies for faculty have changed to facilitate their involvement in

activities for increasing K12 student achievement.40
Collectively, the mathematics community now has substantial experience in
developing partnerships that allow teachers to achieve the goals for teacher prepa-
ration and professional development described in this report and others.41 Collab-
oration with others in mathematics education has allowed mathematicians to have
a major impact on professional development within states.42 Partnerships that
began in the 1990s have expanded in scope or have been duplicated at multiple
locations. Mathematicians have expanded their involvement in mathematics ed-
ucation, forming partnerships with mathematics education researchers, education
officials, and teachers in new kinds of programs. Through these experiences, con-
cerned mathematicians gained greater expertise and awareness about the challenges
to improving mathematical learning in the schools, and within states. More infor-
mation about these and other relevant efforts is on the web page associated with
this report. Because the CCSS have been adopted by most states, many of these
projects will be able to share details and specifics about students and teachers
learning of mathematics in ways that can be readily transported across state lines.
This is a time of great opportunity for mathematics education in the United
States. Lines of communication have been opened among policy-makers, mathe-
maticians, and mathematics educators, and changed educational policies provide
the potential for educational improvement. Mathematicians have an essential role
to play in fulfilling this potential in teacher education, curriculum, and assessment.

40
National Impact Report: Math and Science Partnership Program, National Science Foun-
dation, 2010, p. 15.
41
In addition to the forthcoming CAEP standards, note the 2012 report Supporting Imple-
mentation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Recommendations for Pro-
fessional Development, Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at the North Carolina State
University College of Education.
42
For an overview of MSP outcomes, including increases in student achievement, see National
Impact Report: Math and Science Partnership Program, National Science Foundation, 2010, pp. 6,
1012.