An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Reform Mathematics Curricula Analyzed by Ethnicity, Socio-Economic Status, and Limited English Proficiency

(ProQuest: … denotes formulae omitted.) INTRODUCTION Progress in secondary education today is measured primarily through high stakes testing administered on a state-by-state basis. For example, Texas schools are required to use the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test which formally assesses the state-mandated objectives found in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). While states may require a common assessment instrument, how the objectives are to be taught, however, is generally up to the schools. This results in debates among educators as to the best curricula for all students. The discussion on the forefront of mathematics education continues to be creating an environment where all students have the opportunity to learn and apply mathematics. Although there are many different teaching styles, this article will focus on two approaches to teaching mathematics in the secondary classroom commonly referred to as “traditional” and “reform” and the impact of the curriculum on student achievement analyzed by ethnicity, socio-economic status (SES), and limited English proficiency (LEP). BACKGROUND The characteristics that distinguish reform curricula from traditional curricula usually include sense-making activities, multiple representations such as numerical, graphical, and symbolic, collaborative learning exercises, emphasis on using technology, hands-on activities, and blending concepts from algebra, geometry, probability, statistics, trigonometry and discrete mathematics. Several variations of reform curricula include Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP), Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS), and Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). Some research shows that students from reform-based classrooms score higher on assessments than do students from traditionally-based programs [6, 10], while other studies report that students taught by a reform method show no gains over those traditionally taught [I]. Some studies report that students in reform-based classrooms seem to have improved “their attitudes about mathematics and their ability to succeed” as indicated through surveys [3, 8]. Other major goals of reform mathematics curricula are to promote discussion of mathematics between students and teachers and among students themselves, all the while applying mathematics to real world situations. In particular, however, English language learners benefit when they see mathematics modeled to authentic situations. According to Buchanan and Helman [2], when discussion is promoted in the classroom, English language learners gain the vocabulary needed to improve understanding of concepts and students who seem to struggle the most with traditional approaches seem to do well in the reform type of environment. RESEARCH STUDY This research focused on determining the efficacy and effectiveness of reform mathematics curricula by analyzing Texas high school mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores and using those scores to establish if any trends demonstrate student improvement compared to students taught in a more traditionally-based classroom. Texas was chosen since it has a well-defined set of state objectives and has several years experience with administering a state-wide exam. To investigate the effectiveness of a reform mathematics curricula TAKS scores were collected from 17 demographically matched high schools across Texas for the years 2003-2006. Mathematics supervisors of the districts were sent a questionnaire requesting information that helped determine the type of curricula used to teach secondary mathematics. The questionnaire asked about the textbook, supporting materials, and classroom practices that were used between the years 2000-2006. Specifically, supervisors were asked about the frequency of the following activities considered to be part of a reform curricula: Group Learning; Use of Manipulatives; Hands-on Learning; Blending Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry; and Teaching with Discovery Methods.