CUPM report on the training of teachers of elementary school mathematics

Embed Size (px)

Text of CUPM report on the training of teachers of elementary school mathematics

  • CUPM report on the training of teachers of elementary school mathematicsAuthor(s): CLARENCE E. HARDGROVE and BERNARD JACOBSONSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 11, No. 2 (February 1964), pp. 89-93Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: .Accessed: 12/06/2014 13:23

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

    This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:23:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • CUPM report on the training of teachers of elementary school mathematics*

    CLARENCE E. H AR DGR 0 VE Northern Illinois University BERNARD JACOBSON Franklin and Marshall College and formerly with CUPM

    Both Professors Hardgrove and Jacobson are members of the Department of Mathematics at their respective schools.

    A he committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUPM) is a committee of the Mathematical Associa- . tion of America. Operating under a grant from the National Science Foundation, it is charged with making studies of and recommending improvements in under- graduate mathematics curricula, thereby reflecting the basic concern of the Associa- tion for improving the content and teach- ing of college mathematics. Moreover, the Committee devotes its energies to reason- able efforts in attempting to effect the realization of its recommendations. A major portion of the work of CUPM is carried on by four Panels, one of which is the Panel on Teacher Training.

    The Panel on Teacher Training is con- cerned with the improvement of the mathematical education of future teachers of mathematics. It is an action group which recommends revisions of mathe- matics teacher education curricula and works toward the realization of such re- visions. Further, it attempts to assist in the development of improved programs for the college mathematics education of those who plan to teach mathematics at any level.

    For the purpose of discussing the prob- lems associated with establishing the cur-

    * Adapted by permission from a report in The American Mathematics Monthly, LXX (October, 1963), 870-77.

    February 1964

    riculum suggested for elementary school teachers (Level I)t, the Panel held a series of ten conferences during the autumn of 1962. These conferences covered the fol- lowing states: Oklahoma, Florida, Michi- gan, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and California.

    Also during the academic year 1962-63 the Central Office of CUPM conducted a study of requirements and offerings of mathematics in the pre-service education programs for teachers in the elementary schools, A summary of current require- ments and conclusions of the ten Level I conferences of 1962 follow.

    Current requirements

    Programs in elementary education are offered in 906 colleges and universities. Of the 906 schools studied, 762 or 84.1 percent submitted usable responses. The results indicate that 22.4 percent of the respondents require no mathematics of prospective elementary school teachers, and 68.9 percent require the equivalent of four or fewer semester hours of mathematics. Table 1 reports the require- ments in terms of semester hours.

    Especially significant is the fact that, of the colleges reporting, 55.6 percent offer

    t For an abridged list of CUPM recommendations see Th Arithmetic Teaches, VII (December, 1960), 421-25,


    This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:23:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Table 1

    Requirements in pre-service programs for elementary teachers

    ,7 , -, . , Number of colleges Number of colleges Number ,7 , of -, hours required

    . , requiring mathematics requiring methods

    0 171 194 1-2 46 272 3-4 308 271 5-6 200 21 7-8 17 0 9-10 10 0

    11-12 7 2 13+ 3 2

    Total 762 762

    no mathematics courses specifically de- signed for prospective elementary school teachers. In many of the institutions, courses in elementary algebra or elemen- tary trigonometry are the only college mathematics courses available to those students.

    Two hundred and seventy-six schools reported that they were presently in the process of considering a revision of re- quirements, and 456 schools reported that it might be possible to increase the re- quirements within the framework of their local programs. CUPM intends to restudy the colleges in those states in which Level I Conferences were held in order to ascer- tain the possible effect of the ten state conferences of 1962.

    The ten Level I conferences

    In general, each conference program in- cluded these activities: get-acquainted luncheon; general session with ideas pre- sented on the mathematics education of elementary school teachers and problems within a specific state; small group discus- sion of "Course Guides"; open meeting with reports of group discussions followed by general discussion; small group discus- sion on problems of implementation of "CUPM Recommendations' '; and a gen- eral meeting at which group reports were followed by an open discussion.

    The following people took part in these programs (some participated in several): E. G. Begle, Marguerite Brydegaard,


    Louise Combs, J. A. Colley, George Cun- ningham, Roy Dubisch, Mary Folsom, Helen Garstens, W. T. Guy, Jr., Clarence Hardgrove, Bernard Jacobson, P. S. Jones, Donovan Johnson, J. T. Kelley, " J. G. Kemeny, Dorothea Meagher, Bruce Meserve, E. E. Moise, W. W. Osborn, W. P. Robinson, Jr., Robert Sloan, Roth-

    ^well Stephens, Joseph Stipano wich, W. P. Viali, and R. J. Wisner.

    The participants at the conferences represented many areas of interest in the education of elementary school teachers. Table 2 shows the number of participants at each conference and their areas of concern.

    Results of conferences

    The participants from elementary schools enunciated clearly and strikingly the need for implementation of CUPM Recommendations. Teachers need to feel secure in the subject matter they teach. Several reports mentioned unfortunate ex- periences of teachers who were unprepared to teach new mathematics material, and principals reported that most elementary school teachers are less well-prepared to teach the mathematics for the elementary school than any other subject. Some super- intendents of schools reported that they were forced to go out of their states to recruit elementary school teachers capable of teaching some of the new programs in mathematics in their elementary schools. The introduction of new programs of

    The Arithmetic Teacher

    This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:23:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Table 2

    Conference participants and their areas of concern

    State Mathematics School of State Dept. of Teachers and Total Department Education Education Principals

    Oklahoma 24 12 4 14 54 Florida 23 17 4 18 62 Michigan 14 13 6 19 52 Maine, New

    Hampshire, Vermont 20 12 9 11 52

    Illinois 31 19 7 10 67 Minnesota 20 8 6 18 52 New York 23 18 9 32 82 Tennessee 29 13 4 10 56 Texas 41 15 6 23 85 California 49 28 8 36 121

    Total 274 155 63 191 683

    study into the elementary school has made the widespread implementation of CUPM Recommendations not only desirable but also necessary.

    Mathematics specialists The widespread opinion that some pro-

    spective elementary school teachers have inadequacies in mathematics led to the suggestion in several of the conferences that mathematics specialists be utilized in the schools (as opposed to the self- contained classroom). This proposal al- ways gave rise to heated and lengthy debate with little consensus. Proponents of the self-contained classroom favored ade- quate training in mathematics for all prospective elementary school teachers to maintain the one-teacher classroom, and it was repeatedly pointed out that the self-contained classroom will be con- tinued. Some participants felt that, should it prove to be impossible to prepare each teacher adequately, the specialist might become a necessity.

    Variability in preparation of college freshmen and the problems posed by this variation were recognized. Many state institutions must accept and enroll all high school graduates, regardless of back- ground and ability. Most institutions, however, have their own regulations for acceptance into particular programs within the institution. Therefore, it is not

    February 1964

    unreasonable for schools and departments of education to require that students who enter a program of elementary education have two years of college preparatory mathematics.

    It was generally agreed that students with strong backgrounds in high school mathematics who enroll in elemen


View more >