This study determined teachers' perceptions related to application of, and barriers to implementation of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards with students labeled learning disabled (LD) and emotionally disturbed (ED). A stratified random sample of 129 secondary general education math and special education teachers responded to a mail survey. A majority of special education teachers indicated they had not heard of the NCTM Standards. Respondents reported teaching mostly basic skills/general math to secondary students with LD and ED, versus higher-level math, such as algebra and geometry. Teachers identified lack of adequate materials as a considerable barrier to successful implementation of activities based on the Standards. Implications for practice and future research are also provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. A.KutashK.DuchnowskiA. J. (2001). A comparison of the academic progress of students with ED and students with LD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 106–115.
2.
BaroodyA. J.HumeJ. (1991). Meaningful mathematics instruction: The case for fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 54–68.
3.
BatchelderM. L. (1998). Austin collaborative for mathematics education. Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 103).
4.
BlankR.DalkilicM. (1992). State policies on science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: State Education Assessment Center, Council of Chief State School Officers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 163).
5.
BlankenshipC. S.LovittT. C. (1976). Story problems: Merely confusing or downright befuddling?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 290–298.
6.
BosC. S.VaughnS. (1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (3rd ed., pp. 311–342). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.*
7.
BottgeB.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
8.
BricklinP. M.GallicoR. (1984). Learning disabilities and emotional disturbance: Critical issues in definition, assessment, and service delivery. Learning Disabilities, 3, 141–156.
9.
BrownP. J.KreismanM. B.NobleA. J. (1999). What students have to say about mathematics: Education reform and students' reality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443 727).
10.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multi-trait, multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
11.
CarrS.PunzoR. P. (1993). The effects of self-monitoring of academic accuracy and productivity on the performance of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 241–250.
12.
CawleyJ. F.MillerJ. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematics performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track towards comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–254.
FowlerF. J.Jr. (1988). Survey research methods. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.*
15.
GagnonJ. C.McLaughlinM. J.RhimL. M.DavisG. A. (in press). Standards-driven reform at the local level: Report on a survey of local special education directors in large districts. Journal of Special Education Leadership.
16.
GallicoR.BurnsT. J.GrobS. C. (1991). Emotional and behavioral problems in children with learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: Singular.*
GuntnerP. L.DennyR. K. (1998). Trends and issues in research regarding academic instruction of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 44–50.
19.
HoganS.PraterM. A. (1993). The effects of peer tutoring and self-management training on on-task, academic, and disruptive behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 118–128.
20.
HuntingtonD. J. (1994). Instruction in concrete, semi-concrete, and abstract representation as an aid to the solution of relational problems by adolescents with learning problems. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/02, 512.
21.
HutchinsonN. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, P L. No. 105–17. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 325).
24.
KauffmanJ. M. (2001). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
25.
LappanL. G.FeyJ. F.FitzgeraldW. M.FrielS. N.PhillipsE. D. (1998). Connected mathematics. Menlo Park, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.*
26.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs: Implications from teacher perceptions and a review of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32 (5), 1–22.
27.
MacciniP.HughesC. A. (2000). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10–21.
28.
ManouchehriA. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: What are the dilemmas?Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 276–285.
29.
MaroldaM. R.DavidsonP. S. (1994). Assessing mathematical abilities and learning approaches. In ThorntonC. A.BleyN. S. (Eds.), Windows of opportunity: Mathematics for students with special needs (pp. 61–82). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 115).
30.
Maryland State Department of Education (2000, August). High School Assessments (Fact Sheet 1). Baltimore, MD: Author.
31.
McDonnellL. M.McLaughlinM. J.MorisonP. (Eds.) (1997). Educating one & all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32.
McLaughlinM. J. (1999). Access to the general education curriculum: Paperwork and procedure or redefining special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12 (1), 9–14.
33.
McLaughlinM. W.ShepardL. A.O'DayJ. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based re-form. Stanford, CA: The National Academy of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 867).
34.
McLeodT. M.ArmstrongS. W. (1982). Learning disabilities in mathematics skill deficits and remedial approaches at the intermediate and secondary level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 305–311.
35.
MeyenE. L.VergasonG. A.WhelanR. J. (1993). Educating students with mild disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.*
36.
MontagueM.BosC. S. (1990). Cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of eighth grade students' mathematical problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 371–388.
37.
MontagueM.BosC.DucetteM. (1991). Affective, cognitive, and metacognitive attributes of eighth-grade mathematical problem solvers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 145–151.
38.
National Center for Education Statistics (1995). Common core of data (CCD): School years 1991–1992 through 1995–1996. Arlington, VA: Sierra Systems Consultants, Inc.
39.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 344 778).
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
41.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 516).
42.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
43.
National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management (1998). What the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) means for systematic school improvement (Policy Brief). Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 425 938).
44.
National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45.
NoletV.McLaughlinM. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.*
46.
PapanastasiouC. (2000). Effects of attitudes and beliefs on mathematics achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 27–42.
47.
ParmerR. S.CawleyJ. F. (1995). Mathematics curricula framework: Goals for general and special education. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17, 50–66.
48.
PicciottoH. (1990). The algebra lab. Sunnyvale, CA: Creative Publications.*
49.
ReysR.ReysB.BarnesD.BeemJ.PapickI. (1998). What is standing in the way of middle school mathematics curriculum reform?Middle School Journal, 30, 42–48.
50.
RiveraD. P.TaylorR. L.BryantB. R. (1994/1995). Review of current trends in mathematics assessment for students with mild disabilities. Diagnostique, 20, 143–174.
51.
SalendS. J.HofstetterE. (1996). Adapting a problem-solving approach to teaching mathematics to students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 209–217.
52.
SandsD. J.AdamsL.StoutD. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68–83.
53.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1986). Academic characteristics of behaviorally disordered and learning disabled students. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 184–190.
54.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.
55.
ShrinerJ. G.KimD.ThurlowM. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (1993). IEP's and standards: What they say for students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 5). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 659).
56.
SieberS. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335–1359.
57.
SmithS. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEP's) in special education: From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
58.
ThurlowM. L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33 (3), 1–15.
59.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444 333).
60.
Van De WalleJ. (1994). Elementary school mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.*
61.
WagnerM. (1995). Outcomes for youth with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. Future of Children, 5 (2), 90–113.
62.
WeisbergH. F.KrosnickJ. A.BowenB. D. (1989). An introduction to survey research and data an alysis (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
63.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.*
