NCTM Standards: What do Principals Say About Their Implementation?

This research brief reports the results of the principal's survey of the implementation of the NCTM Standards.

STUDY DESIGN

Subjects. Of the 183 surveys distributed, 110 were returned; a 60% response rate (70 elementary, 18 middle, 20 secondary, 2 unknown). The group included roughly equal numbers of men and women, although men were more prevalent at the secondary level (62%) than at the elementary level (49%). The respondents represented a broad spectrum of experience as a principal with about 36% having 5 years of experience or less, 32% having 6-15 years of experience, and 33% having more than 16 years of experience.

Survey Distribution. Principal Surveys were distributed via district internal mail services along with the Teacher Surveys. Principals were directed to complete the survey and to mail it back to the research team in the stamped envelope provided. They were assured that their responses would be confidential, and were not asked to indicate their name or school name on the survey form.

Data Analysis. Principals' responses were grouped by grade level for purposes of analysis. Responses from middle and secondary school principals were combined due to low sample sizes in each of these categories, so that frequency analyses are for elementary and secondary grade levels. When no differences between elementary and secondary principals are evident, item percentages are reported for all grades taken as a whole.

FINDINGS

Awareness of the Standards

The majority of school principals at all grade levels reported being aware of the Standards, although the degree of awareness appeared to differ as a function of grade level. Fully 63% of elementary principals reported that they had read the Standards, whereas only 29% of secondary principals had done so. About 4% overall reported no knowledge of the Standards. More than half of the principals at each grade level reported that they were well aware of the Teaching Standards, but in this case the number of principals reporting no knowledge was somewhat higher--about 25% of elementary principals and 10% of secondary principals.

Like the teachers who are aware of the Standards, over three fourths of the principals consider themselves well informed about and in agreement with the Standards. Slightly more than half feel prepared to discuss them with teachers in their schools. Principals appear to be fairly accurate in their perceptions of teachers' awareness of the Standards. About 80% of the secondary principals, and 40% of the elementary principals, report that most of the mathematics teachers at their schools are aware of the Standards. Over 90% of principals report that teachers have access to a copy of the Standards, or to Standards-like materials, at their schools; this is also in agreement with data from the teacher survey.

It is clear that awareness does not necessarily mean change. Less than half report significant changes in the teaching of mathematics in their schools, or in their own observation and evaluation of mathematics teaching, as a result of the Standards.

AIDS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARDS

All of the activities identified as available and helpful by a majority of teachers on a corresponding survey were listed as either available or in process by three quarters or more of the principals. Aids that at least 75% of the principals reported as available in their school are:

• Support to teachers who take responsibility for planning and/or implementing mathematics curricular reforms

• Notification of teachers of opportunities to attend workshops not on school time

• Encouragement for teachers to attend regional and state mathematics conferences which emphasize the Standards

• Specific support for mathematics "lead teachers"/department chairpersons

• Fostering a collaborative climate among mathematics and other teachers.

Other aids were reported as either "available" or "in process" by at least 75% of the principals:

• School- or district-wide policy statements articulating a vision of mathematics curriculum reform

• District-wide plans for reform

• Revision of criteria for mathematics curriculum design

• Designating certain teachers as "lead teachers," who will take initiative in educating themselves and their colleagues regarding the Standards

• School maintains a library of instructional materials related to the Standards

• Teachers in my school take an active interest in one another's classrooms, and provide mutual suggestions and support for efforts at mathematics curriculum change.

• Teachers use a portion of the time at department or staff meetings to engage in mathematics activities and to discuss the usefulness of these activities as classroom activities.

In addition, there was general agreement with the teachers on potential aids that were not yet in place in the schools. Two initiatives were described as not available or in process by at least half of the principals:

• Requiring teachers to formulate individual staff development plans, documenting their efforts to incorporate the approaches emphasized in the Standards

• Teachers in a district form a mathematics "support group" to exchange ideas and experiences with teachers from other schools.

A second category of responses on the Teacher Survey included items that were more frequently endorsed as being available and helpful by teachers who indicated that they had changed their teaching practices in accordance with the Standards. Four of the ten items were also endorsed by a majority of principals as available in their schools. They include:

• Encouragement for teachers to attend regional and state mathematics conferences which emphasize the Standards (79%)

• Designating certain teachers as "lead teachers" (69%)

• Maintaining library of Standards-related instructional materials (58%)

• Unofficially recognized "school leader" acts as a catalyst for new instructional practices (62%).

Three of the items endorsed by "changed" teachers were not directly comparable on the two surveys. Thus, although 90% of the principals reported "support" for teachers acting as catalysts for curriculum reform, it was not clear to what extent this support took the form of awards of grant money, which were perceived as helpful by teachers who had made changes. Likewise, although some form of support was available for lead teachers or department chairpersons was offered in 90% of the schools, the prevalence of specific training events for lead teachers cannot be determined from this data. A final item concerning revision of criteria for textbook selection, also perceived as disproportionately available by teachers making changes, was omitted from the Principal Survey. It is difficult to discern the availability of aids to implementation valued by "changed" teachers. It appears that at least three of them are not widely available in the schools: inservice, notification of workshops not on school time, and school or district wide policy statements regarding implementation.

A few differences were noted between elementary and secondary principals. Secondary principals were more likely to report the existence of school-wide plans for curriculum reform as well as requirements for teachers to formulate individual staff-development plans. (It should be noted that a significant proportion of teachers deemed the latter strategy "unhelpful.") It appears that the prevalence of both types of plans is increasing, with 20 to 40% of principals at all grade levels reporting that such changes are in process in their schools. Secondary principals were also more likely to report that teachers interacted with one another inside and outside the classroom in an effort to promote curriculum reform. These interactions could take the form of observing one another's classes, exchanging suggestions on curriculum development, coordinating with teachers from other program levels, or using time at department or staff meetings for exchange of ideas and teaching strategies.

Elementary teachers were more likely to report the existence of unofficially recognized "school leaders" in mathematics reform, as well as officially designated "lead teachers" in mathematics. The prevalence of lead teachers in secondary schools is increasing, however, with almost 20% of principals reporting that this initiative was in process.

OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARDS

Like elementary teachers, elementary principals tended to perceive pressure on teachers (and on themselves) to have students perform well on standardized tests as at least a minor obstacle to implementing the Standards, with more than 20% designating this as a major or primary obstacle. Other situations that over 60% of elementary principals classify as at least a minor obstacle include lack of time and resources for inservice training and lack of material resources such as calculators, computers and manipulatives.

Secondary principals also identified pressure based on standardized test scores as an important obstacle, as did the teachers at these grade levels. Lack of both training and technology resources was also a commonly identified obstacle by these principals. Finally, unlike elementary principals, secondary principals indicated widespread agreement that both student attitudes and low level of student ability constituted obstacles to Standards implementation at their schools. These factors were also mentioned as obstacles by middle and secondary school teachers (but not by elementary school teachers).

PRINCIPAL COMMENTS

District Issues:

• Much staff development will be needed for less dependency on texts, use of strategies, assessing student achievement (5)

• District mathematics objectives need to be revised (2)

• State and local curriculum specialists need to further correlate the NCTM Standards with local expectations and give in-service to teachers including help with record keeping and report cards. This would free teachers from the pressures of standardized test performance and allow them to teach the newer strategies and techniques.

• Attitudinal change for teachers and parents will be a key factor in determining success or failure of the implementation process. Some teachers will implement standards, at least partially,on their own, but it will require an edict from Central office to change others, if then.

• A Math Lead Teacher is needed at each elementary school. These teachers should function exclusively as building level Math Coordinators.

• The math programs currently used allow for implementation of many of the NCTM standards. A possible approach for our county is to show which areas we have been emphasizing, and where we need to grow. Calculators are being used more than in the past for computational skills needed in the process of solving a problem. As the number of computers grows for classroom use, so too will the use of teachers to show mathematical procedures to be carried out in the reasoning of a problem.

• With our organization being so large, decisions of this nature and major changes need to come from the top down. That has not happened as of this date.

• Clearly defined system-wide plans for application of NCTM standards have not been shared.

• An elementary math supervisor is needed to provide division leadership

Principal/School Issues

• The math department in my school is doing a terrific of implementing the standards. A new course is being developed based on the standards.

• The implementation of the NCTM Standards is proceeding as a result of the leadership of our math specialist and building principals

• We have just recently received materials on the NCTM through our math lead teachers. They meet with the Math Specialist for the county who gives them information and informs them of conferences. This has just started this year. We are also in the process of new adoptions which I'm sure will have some impact for our future direction. Though I am familiar with the Standards, I have not read about them in-depth. I have been emphasizing greater use of manipulatives the past several years as well as problem-solving skills. The math specialist did some training with my teachers. My KG and first grade teachers use no workbooks but manipulatives and a fifth grade teacher does a terrific job at teaching reasoning skills, problem-solving, etc. We're on the way but not there yet.

• Our faculty is currently involved deeply in implementing the NCTM Standards. Every classroom teacher has a copy of the Standards and we are meeting each week with Educ. Specialist, math Coordinator, Key Math teacher, and principal. We are reviewing Standards, sharing activities and lessons, and generating ideas about how to have Standards fully implemented by fall. We are already in to "everyday" math but want a structured format to make sure it all happens for students. We are excited about our summer work of planning!

• Our mathematics department is discussing and implementing the changes in the standards. We are making more progress in some areas than others. We plan some in-service activities in the future to help implement the applications of the new standards in our curriculum.

• I see the need to avail myself to learning more about the NCTM Standards. Participating in this survey has been beneficial to me. I will work with the Mathematics teachers regarding implementation procedure.

Teacher Issues

• Our teachers have not had the standards long enough to have implemented many of the standards

• Teachers feel pressure to make change without regard to their input---after all, they are the ones "in the trenches" and are the ones "blamed" for pupils' successes or lack of successes.

• Teachers are receptive to new teaching strategies and manipulatives to best insure students maximize learning from curricula taught. An obstacle for our teachers seems to be the fact that many facets of public education are changing quickly and simultaneously, therefore, adequate transition and training is not being provided. Teachers feel overwhelmed and often revert back to previously reliable methods and material.

General Comments on Standards

• This survey presupposes that those surveyed favor the NCTM Standards and/or feel that they - or any set of standards- will result in an overall improvement in the mathematical competency of American students unless there is a substantive change in American culture.

• Standards - whether old or new - must be implemented and adhered to. As long as parents expect that their children will get good grades for minimum effort - and as long as we administrators, due to lack of support from school boards, do not feel we can support higher teacher expectations, all the NCTM Standards in the world will not help.

• Talking about NCTM Standards and defining changes needed and goals to be set are different. We need more than talking about the "Standards". No one has the time to read that NCTM volume.

Information found in this research brief has been synthesized from the following MERC publications. Copies can be purchased using the online order form on the publications page.

Cauley, K., & VandeWalle, J. (1993, March). The NCTM Standards: Implementation survey instrument.

Cauley, K., & VandeWalle, J. (1993, November). The NCTM Standards: Implementation.

Cauley, K., & VandeWalle, J., & Hoyt, W. (1993, November). The NCTM Standards: Implementation technical report.

top of page | return to research list