Defining the University's Role in Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics

Introduction During the 1980s, California's universities were drawn into an unprecedented venture. Departing from their traditional roles in teacher training and pedagogical research, campuses throughout the state became home to programs aimed at implementing the subject matter Frameworks that were then being developed by California's Department of Education. In the early 1990s, even as a sagging economy led to massive budget cuts for California's schools and universities, funding for these California Subject Matter Projects (CSMPs) continued to grow. Given this remarkable endorsement by the State's funding agencies, the CSMPs were vaulted into a commanding position in their efforts to change the face of K-12 education in California.

Included among these was the California Mathematics Project (CMP), which now has more than a dozen sites throughout California. While CMP began by offering Summer Institutes for teachers, it soon expanded its focus to include the cultivation of "teacher leaders" - i.e., individuals who would bring CMP's "vision" and "beliefs" to their schools, communities, and professional organizations. The CMP has also come to view its university-based programs as "professional homes" from which teachers can pursue a wide range of programs based on both CMP beliefs and the State's Mathematics Framework.

Had the CMP succeeded in moving schools toward the lofty goals articulated in the Mathematics Framework (e.g., "Mathematical Power For All Students"), questions regarding the institutionalization of CMP sites at California's universities might never have come to the fore. However, the demise of California's reading program (based on the "Whole Language" theory espoused in one such Framework) and a growing frustration among parents of children whose instruction is based on California's Mathematics Framework have focused attention on the university's role in such educational reform efforts. Shouldn't universities be scrutinizing such State Frameworks rather than just implementing them? How does one separate fact from the politically charged rhetoric thatpervades these documents? And aside from their success in generating funds, what justification can universities provide for their implicit endorsement of the pedagogical principles on which these "professional development" programs are based?

Separating truth from dogma can be difficult in any field, but especially so in education. Given their unique and defining role as arbiters of truth, it seems incumbent upon universities to reexamine their roles in the form of teacher professional development that is embodied in the CMP.

Professional Development The central goal of any bona fide professional development program is one of reinforcing the professional skills of those in attendance. These skills begin with mastery of an underlying body of knowledge that constitutes the sine qua non of professional competence. Once this core of knowledge has been attained, individual practitioners are in a position to develop a style of delivery that reflects their personal strengths as well as the professional situations that they face.

To the extent that professional development programs address techniques for delivering services, care must be taken to avoid presentations that are prescriptive or ideologically motivated. In particular, programs that focus on technique in the absence of underlying core knowledge do not constitute a valid form of professional development. Efforts to recruit individual practitioners to a particular approach or ideology for the delivery of services are also inappropriate under the banner of professional development. In the area of pedagogy it is possible to marshal studies and statistics in favor of almost any point of view. For this reason, program presenters who cite "research" in support of specific methodologies should be both academically qualified and free from personal interest in validating a particular approach to pedagogy.

While active practitioners can be among the most effective presenters of professional development programs, they must in some sense be "board certified." Especially in programs that focus on the delivery of services, it is essential that those providing instruction be well versed in the body of knowledge that underlies the applications being presented.

Individuals with a financial or ideological stake in the topic being presented face obvious limitations in the delivery of professional development programs.

Objective assessments of individual achievement and the effectiveness of program presentations are essential components of professional development programs.

The University's Role On the basis of such goals, it becomes important for universities to reexamine their roles in validating professional development programs offered by the CMP. There are places in California's educational system for organizations that focus on the welfare of teachers, for entrepreneurs who strive to create new and more effective school materials, and for pressure groups that try to define the goals and methods of the State's educational system. These are, however not the university's role. Universities should be aware of such extramural activities and address them in the context of their teaching and research. But they should strenuously avoid institutional arrangements that suggest university endorsement of the agendas of other groups or organizations.

In this context, campus-based professional development for mathematics teachers should abide by the following principles.

1. Universities should not be identified with "professional development" programs that are designed to recruit teachers to a particular set of pedagogical theories or beliefs.


2. The department of mathematics should be central to the design, delivery, and review of any campus-based professional development program for teachers of mathematics. Such involvement should include the department chair and the undergraduate program committee, not just a single representative to such a program.


3. Professional development programs should be designed with the mathematical background, knowledge and responsibilities of the participants in mind. Single programs that claim to enhance mathematics instruction from elementary through high schools are inconsistent with this principle.


4. The primary focus of professional development programs is one of teaching rather than research. While the "principal investigator" model is appropriate for administering research programs, professional development should be overseen by academic units.


5. University based in-service programs aimed at improving mathematics instruction should be offered only by individuals who have a demonstrated mathematical mastery of the topics they address. Monitoring this aspect of professional development is the responsibility of campus's mathematics department.


6. To the extent that professional development programs are affiliated with UC campus units that engage in research, these units should be subject to University of California standards. Individual publications and the unit's overall program of research should be subject to the same forms of peer reviews as are applied to UC's organized research units (ORUs).

Bringing the CSMPs into alignment with these principles may be a formidable task. It is nevertheless essential if California's colleges and universities are to remain a credible resource for K-12 education.