1. A History of Mathematics Specialists
1981
1989
NCTM Board recommends mathematics specialist endorsements on teaching
credentials.
National Science Board Commission recommends mathematics specialists in grades
4-6.
Arithmetic Teacher, John Dossey, Elementary School Mathematics Specialists:
Where are They?
Everybody Counts, National Research Council
2000
Principles & Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM
2001
Adding It Up, National Research Council
2001
Mathematical Education of Teachers, CBMS
2003
2008
Johnny Lott’s NCTM Presidential Message, The Time Has Come for Pre-K-5
Mathematics Specialists
Teaching Children Mathematics, Reys & Fennell, Who Should Lead Mathematics
Instruction at the Elementary School Level? A Case for Mathematics Specialists
NCTM/NCATE Program Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists (initial
certification)
Skip Fennell’s NCTM Presidential Message, We Need Elementary School Mathematics
Specialists NOW
National Mathematics Advisory Panel
2010
Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists, AMTE
1983
1984
2003
2003
2006
-McGatha, 2010

2. Mathematics Specialist
Specialization: Background,
Initiatives, and Current Directions
Oregon Math Leaders Annual Conference
McMinnville, Oregon
Nicole Miller Rigelman
Portland State University
rigelman@pdx.edu

3. Overview of Session
 Rationale for the use of Mathematics Specialists and their
impact
 Overview of the national EMS Initiatives
 Resources supporting EMS certification and program
development
 Oregon’s story
 Progress and and future direction through the ―certification‖
process
 What research says about the influence of math
specialists

4. Challenge:
Strengthening the expertise for
teaching mathematics in schools

5. Why Math Specialists?
―Teacher‐leaders can have a significant
influence by assisting teachers in building
their mathematical and pedagogical
knowledge.…Teacher‐leaders’ support on a
day‐to‐day basis ranging from conversations
in the hall to in‐classroom coaching to regular
grade‐level and departmental seminars
focused on how students learn mathematics —
can be crucial to a teacher’s work life.‖
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000

6. Why Math Specialists?
―A single mathematics education leader can
have an incredible impact on the
development and effectiveness of others.…
Leaders in mathematics education at all
levels of the school or district organization …
are crucial for ensuring attainment of high
‐quality school mathematics programs‖
- National Council of Supervisors of
Mathematics, 2008

7. Why Math Specialists?
“the use of teachers who have specialized in
elementary mathematics teaching could be a
practical alternative to increasing all elementary
teachers’ content knowledge (a problem of huge
scale) by focusing the need for expertise on
fewer teachers” (p. 44).
- National Mathematics
Advisory Panel, 2008

8. Common Core State Standards
 Some content shifts to earlier grades
 Focus on conceptual understanding
 Focus on “mathematical
 Problem Solving
Tools
 Reasoning
 Justification
 Modeling
practices”
• Strategic Use of
• Precision
• Structure
• Generalization

10. What do Math Specialists do?
They work in different settings and are asked to do a
variety of tasks:
 Coach/mentor other teachers
 Serve as a teacher leader/coordinator
 Teach multiple classes of elementary students
(e.g., one teacher teaching all the 4th graders
math)
 Teach special groups of students (remedial,
enrichment, pull-out or in-class)
 Plan and provide professional learning
opportunities for teachers

12. State Certification for EMS
Arizona
Maryland
Rhode Island
California
Michigan
South Dakota
Georgia
Missouri
Texas
Idaho
North Carolina
Utah
Kentucky
Ohio
Virginia
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Several other states are in the final stages of adding EMS certification
…. Arkansas and Pennsylvania

13. Charge of the AMTE EMS Initiative
With funding from The Brookhill Foundation:
 Develop guidelines for EMS program development and
state certification.
 Use the national leverage of AMTE (and other partnering
organizations) to advocate for more states to offer EMS
certification/endorsement.

14. Standards for Elementary
Mathematics Specialists
A Reference for Teacher
Credentialing and Degree
Programs

15. MS Program Guidelines
Prerequisites:
 Teacher licensure
 At least three years of successful experience in teaching
mathematics
Components:
 24 quarter hours (16 semester hours) spanning all of the
program components outlined in the standards.
 Includes supervised mathematics specialist practicum –
working with a range of students and teachers.

16. Areas of Knowledge/Expertise
for Math Specialists
 Content Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics
 Pedagogical Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics
 Leadership Knowledge and Skills

17. Mathematical Content
Knowledge
 Specialized mathematics knowledge for teaching.
 Deep understanding of mathematics.
1 Based on recommendations in Mathematics Education of Teachers
Report (2001 and 2012) and Guidelines for Assessment and
Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) Report (2007).

18. Pedagogical Mathematics
Knowledge
 Learners and learning
 Teaching
 Curriculum and assessment

19. Leadership
 Professional Resources
 Communication
 Policy
 Professional development
 Equity

21. EMS State Certification Conference
 Who are EMS professional?
 What difference are they making?
 How does a state get started with certification and
program development?
 What resources are available?
 What are next steps?

22. Oregon’s Math Specialist Task
Force
Team members:
 Mark Freed, Oregon Department of Education
 Linda Samek, George Fox University
 Kathy Cheval, Salem Keizer School District
 Lora Nordquist, Bend La-Pine School District
 Cheryl Beaver, Western Oregon University
Ex-Officio Member:
 Nicole Rigelman, Portland State University

23. Oregon’s MS Action Plan
 Goal 1: Establish MS Certification in Oregon
 Goal 2: Establish Preparation Programs for EMS

24. Goal 1: Establish MS Certification
 Step 1: Develop standards
 Review other state EMS certification stories & AMTE
standards
 MS endorsement to a license
 Model after reading specialist / school social worker
 Elementary, middle, and high

25. Goal 1: Establish MS Certification
 Step 2: Gather letters of support from various influential
bodies
 E.g. Superintendents, Principals, Deans, Business,
Legislators, ODE, Teachers groups (e.g. OCTM, OMEC,
TOTOM, etc.)
 Step 3: Present proposal at November meeting of TSPC
 This is followed by a public review period
 Step 4: Proposal voted on at April TSPC meeting

26. Goal 2: Design Preparation
Program for MS
 Step 1: Secure funding for meetings
 Step 2: Hold a planning retreat with representatives from
institutions across Oregon (summer 2012)
 What is the Content? Format? Who will teach the
courses? What should the Field Experience look like?
Assessment issues?
 Look at models from other states
 READ Oregon & PrISM
 Step 3: Implement programs

27. Future Steps
 Find funding for first cohort
 Find sustainable funding and programs

28. What difference to math
specialists make?

29. Virginia Math Specialists: Year by
Year Scale Score Performance
Significant difference in student achievement between
schools with and without an EMS, but this was NOT
evident in the first year of placement of an EMS at any
grade (in either cohort).
The pattern of achievement was:
o An increase in scores in Year 1,
o Followed by a greater increase in scores in Year 2,
o Followed by an even greater increase in scores in
Year 3.
The size of the increases in Years 2 and 3 drive the
statistically significant effect.
- Campbell, 2010

30. Difference between Students’ Mean
Achievement Scores on SOL’s
(Cohort 1 EMS versus Control Schools)
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Year 1
(2006-07)
6.8
12.3
6.34
Year 2
(2007-08)
10.4
15.4*
19.6*
Year 3
(2008-09)
16.5
13.3
20.3*
Across
2006-09
10.71*
13.68**
15.25**
- Campbell, 2010

31. Achievement Comparison, MCP Cohort I Schools
Findell, Brosnan & Erchick (2008)
100
2007 Percent Proficient
80
60
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Gr. 6
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
2006 Percent Proficient
80
100

32. Ohio MCP Achievement Results
 For one academic year in the program, for all grade levels combined
(grades 3-8), the average relative change for students achieving the
proficient level or higher was 4.65% greater for MCP-coached schools
than non-coached schools. (Zollinger, Brosnan, Erchick, and Bao,
2010).
 Southern Elementary, Southern Ohio, Appalachian population:
Grade 3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Grade 4
59.5
36.1
77.4
63.9
79.7
84.3
59.1
66.7
80.8
82.4
82.0
79.7
Grade 5
Grade 6
Not given 29.5
53.2
15.2
40.0
66.0
85.9
57.4
57.8
58.7
75.0
96.2
Grade 7
Grade 8
58.9
51.2
64.6
51.0
93.3
94.3
43.9
52.8
59.5
73.3
75.0
83.0

33. Specialists' Knowledge of Mathematics for Teaching
85%
Cohort 1
80%
75%
70%
Cohort 2
65%
60%
55%
Pre-Course
Post-Course
First Year of
Experience
Second Year Third Year of
of Experience
Experience

34. Pre-Course
Post-Courses
First Year of Second Year
Experience of Experience
Third Year of
Experience

35. Pre-Course
Post-Courses
First Year of Second Year
Experience of Experience
Third Year of
Experience

36. Mean Hours per Contracted Week
EMS Activity
Cohort 1 Cohort 1 Cohort 1
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Cohort 2
Year 1
Coaching Teachers and Teams
8.21
4.91
4.84
3.83
Preparing for Coaching/Teaching
4.43
4.65
4.69
4.43
Supporting Assessment
3.98
5.06
5.14
4.69
Independently Teaching Students
1.13
1.65
1.69
1.35
Supporting School Math Program
1.88
1.58
1.91
1.91
Performing School-based Duties
2.44
3.45
3.9
3.68
Materials Mgmt/Communication
3.64
4.13
4.43
4.28
Attending Meetings
3.45
2.55
2.51
3.56
Engaging in Personal Prof. Activity
4.95
5.51
4.09
5.4
Non-educational Activity (e.g.,
lunch, travel, all-school event)
3.38
4.05
4.24
4.43

37. How MCP Coaches (Are Expected to)
Spend Their Time In a Typical Week
Brosnan & Erchick (2009)
1/2
Direct work with the teacher, in the classroom
1/5
Working with data (teacher data, student
achievement tests, student open problem
solving analysis)
About
1/6
Reflection and planning
About
1/6
Building level Professional development and
other school activities (committees, community
relations, etc.)

38. Achievement, Teacher Growth, and
Pursuing Consistent Success
 Inconsistencies in the student achievement data in the
MCP as noted earlier, led to…
 Analysis of the teacher understanding of student
thinking and knowledge of instructional decisions, which
led to…
 Disaggregating teacher data by having worked with a
coach or not, which led to…
 Raising a question about what led to the higher
achieving schools’ success.

39. Coaching Characteristics in the Most
Improved MCP Schools
Alignment
with MCP
Protocol
• One coach per building.
• Co-teaching/teaming more often
than modeling; and with 3-4
teachers at a time.
• Few non-coaching activities.
• Consistent pre- and postconferences.
• Provide embedded PD
Leadership
• Consistent attendance and
• Participation in school leadership
participation in MCP PD.
at the building level.
• Promotes expected role of coach.
Administrative • Strong administrative support to
Support
implement the program.
• Principal understanding of MCP
goals, pedagogy, MCP model.
Professional
• Average and above average
Knowledge
measures on content, pedagogy
and Coaching • High comfort level with the
Role
program.
• Analyzes student work and
assessment data with teachers.
• Pursues implementing MCP
model.
Focus on
MCP
Instructional
Principles
•
•
•
Student thinking.
Mathematical knowledge.
Questioning techniques.
•
•
Using process standards.
Using rich problems.