president's address 58th annual meeting

President's Address 58th Annual MeetingAuthor(s): Shirley A. HillSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 28, No. 1 (September 1980), pp. 49-54Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41189351 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 00:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:30:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41189351?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


тшжжжжш national Council of .v.v.v.v.w.v.v.v.w.v.w.w.w

Шк TcachGO oF §|Я¥^Ч| mathematica

ИВ 1AOQ

I 1 4AO7

President's Address 58th Annual Meeting

Shirley A. Hill

I count myself as very fortunate tonight. I am accorded the opportunity to be a spokesperson for a remarkable collective of highly professional members of that most important occupation, teaching. On your behalf, I will be presenting to the educational world, to policy makers in education, and to the public a document that can be a catalyst and force for positive change.

Tonight, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics presents its recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. It is called An Agenda for Action. It is a beginning, a focus for con- certed efforts, a professional point of view about direction for this decade. But in truth, when we talk about education, we must go well beyond the decade.

As educators, we should always have an eye not just on the next ten years but also on the twenty-first century. Every day you walk into the classroom you are face to face with the twenty-first century. It is a tremendous responsibility to realize that our students will be spending most of their productive lives in the next millenium. Our recommendations must look far ahead, and, in a time of some rather short- term, even short-sighted goals, we have a particular responsibility to keep the eyes of society and the public on the future and its needs.

I called myself a spokesperson for a collective of professionals. I chose those words collective and professional care- fully, for they are the keys to the signifi- cance of our recommendations.

There are surely many reasons why people belong to NCTM. Some of the direct benefits are obvious - publications and meetings such as these. There is another, which has always been extremely important to me, and I hope it is to you. It is the chance for a group of professionals with a common cause to speak out with a united voice. We can be relevant and advance our common goal of improving mathematics learning if we speak as a collective of knowledgeable and dedicated professionals to those outside our own circles who influence educational policy.

Although we will not agree on all the specifics (and the recommendations should stimulate healthy debate), I hope you can support the spirit of the NCTM recommendations and engage in some "missionary work" in their behalf. We

need diversity and intellectual choices, but we will not effect positive change through divisiveness and fragmented efforts.

In the 1960s we learned that curriculum change is not a simple matter of devising, trying out, and proposing new programs. In the 1970s we learned that many pres- sures, from both inside and particularly outside the institution of the school, determine goals and directions and programs.

Perhaps in the 1980s we can begin to achieve an important philosophical ideal. In a free society such as ours, the public has a valid and legitimate role in the determination of educational goals and policies. Everyone has a stake in education - it is our future. This ideal is predi- cated on the existence of a well-informed public. That is where we come in. A major obligation of a professional organization such as ours is to present our best knowledgeable advice on what the goals and objectives of mathematics education ought tobe.

The ideal I described is easy to formu- late, difficult to achieve. It depends on the ability to communicate with a broader public - not easy even in this day of mass communications and mass media. But in my view, it also depends on our capacity as professionals to seek out, listen to, and responsibly consider the viewpoints of all sectors of society.

The NCTM recommendations are probably unique in two ways. The Council did seek out, through a survey funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Priorities in School Mathematics (called PRISM), the opinions, preferences, and priorities of many groups. The populations sampled were elementary teachers, secondary mathematics teachers, two-year college mathematics teachers, mathematics supervisors, mathematicians, teacher educators, principals, school board members, and parents. (When I refer to the lay samples, I will mean the last two populations, school board members and parents.)

This extensive survey assumes an important and useful role. Last fall I was asked to testify before a subcommittee of the Congress concerning the results of the second mathematics assessment of the

September 1980 49



National Assessment of Educational Prog- ress (NAEP). In answer to the question "What is your organization doing about this situation?" I gave a detailed descrip- tion of our current activities that address the specific problems and ended by de- scribing the forthcoming Recommen- dations for School Mathematics of the 1980s. Considerable interest was expressed, and later a congressman asked, "Don't you think that in the process of recommending you should consult the opinions of other groups?'

'

You can imagine how glad I was he asked that question, because I could explain that our PRISM survey was doing precisely that. His question was perceptive and decidedly appropriate - not because I had a ready answer but because it under- scores the essential point. The public in general has a valid input into decisions about educational curricula. The NCTM recommendations are responsible in that they did take a broad base of opinion into consideration.

It is important here, however, to recog- nize that opinion surveys, in and of themselves, do not and should not generate professional recommendations. Although public opinion is responsibly listened to, the role of the "technical expert," the professional who, by virtue of training, experience, and commitment is uniquely qualified to give knowledgeable advice, is crucial. Society has the right to expect this considered advice, this leadership. Indeed, informed decisions cannot be made without it.

The NCTM recommendations are probably unique in another way. They rest on an extensive data base about current prac- tices in mathematics instruction. We probably know more about the specifics of classroom mathematics teaching and learning than we ever have. In this sense, the recommendations are based on real- ism. Much of this information comes from a series of status studies funded by the National Science Foundation and from the timely and significant message gleaned from the results of the second mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. You may recall from the extensive coverage of those results released last fall that, put in simplest

terms, students demonstrated a satisfacto- ry level of computational ability with whole numbers, but results on items where such skill was to be applied to the solution of problems were dismal.

It is also important to our membership, as well as to the validation of the recommendations as a Council effort, to point out that the effort was very broadly based. The recommendations are not the thinking of just one or two committees. They bene- fited greatly from input from NCTM standing committees, from data voluntari- ly gathered by the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, from a heart- ening response from our affiliated groups to a request for guidance, and from opinions communicated to me by individual members.

Furthermore, a broadly based position paper rarely arises de novo. It is both unwise and strategically unsound to ignore our history. There have been some important precursors during the latter half of the decade of the seventies; among them are the report of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences National Advisory Committee on Mathematical Education (N ACOME), the Euclid Conference of the National Institute of Education, the report of the College Board Panel on the SAT scores, the Mathematical Association of America's Conference on Priorities in Mathematics Education (PRIME 80), the thoughtful and influential position on basic skills of the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, and inter- pretive reports of the NSF status studies and the NAEP assessment data by NCTM teams.

In rereading all these in chronological order recently, I was astonished at the consistency of their direction. In com- pressing five years into a weekend's reading, I could discern a very logical movement, as if coordinated or planned. It is almost as if, after having muddled around trying to find a clear-cut direction in the early seventies, we began to see things focus, coalesce around a challenge - like a kaleidoscope in which all the pieces begin to settle into place. Perhaps we truly are, as a profession, "getting our act together.

"

Let us look at the context in which we

should place the recommendations. In my opinion, we are approaching a crisis stage in school mathematics. Policy makers in education are not confronting the deepest problems because the public and its repre- sentatives have been diverted by a fixation on test scores.

There are at least three major and urgent problems:

1. School mathematics programs are generally not keeping pace with the changing needs for mathematical ability dictated by developing technologies.

2. Most students are not studying sufficient high school mathematics to prepare them for their futures as workers, consumers, or citizens.

3. There is a growing shortage of qualified mathematics teachers in secondary school classrooms.

I will not go through all the specific recommendations. The booklet, An Agenda for Action, will be available for you to read in all its details. I will present the eight major categories of recommendations and, with the projector and screen, display some of the specific actions recommended.

Recommendation 1 will surprise no one, perhaps; it is

PROBLEM SOLVING MUST BE THE FOCUS OF SCHOOL MATHEMATICS IN THE 1980s.

This means that the ultimate goal in our teaching is the ability to use and apply the mathematics learned. This is not a new goal, of course. But as the national assessment has shown, we are not doing as well as we should in attaining it.

There are two myths that, because they are fallacious, hinder the attainment ofthat goal. One is the fallacy that if one has gained mastery of skills, one can then necessarily apply them later. The second, and a related fallacy, is that you must have mastery levels of skills before you can be presented any challenging mathematical problems. One of the pernicious conse- quences of the second fallacy is the limiting of remedial programs to just more of the same - drill, drill, drill. Such mech- anistic objectives can lead to the kind of

50 Arithmetic Teacher



mind-set, the obsession with familiar routines, habits, and formulas, that is, in fact, counterproductive to the development of problem-solving ability.

Looking again to the future, we should be preparing our students to approach the unfamiliar, the nonroutine. We need to

prepare people who are comfortable with choices. Although the Agenda, in looking ahead a decade, recommends ultimately a

reorganization of the curriculum, the immediate need - the beginning point - is a change in attitude and classroom envi- ronment.

Recommended Action 1.3: Mathe- matics teachers should create classroom environments in which problem solving can flourish.

Fundamental to the development of problem-solving ability is an open mind - an attitude of curiosity and exploration, the

willingness to probe, to try, to make intel-

ligent guesses. Problem solving, which is

essentially a creative activity, cannot be built exclusively on routines, recipes, and formulas.

I do not know exactly what abilities will be in most demand in the twenty-first century, but I am confident there will be little demand for human imitations of a ten-dollar calculator or for nimble test

passers who cannot even tackle a problem until they have seen someone solve one like it.

The PRISM survey indicated that for all

populations sampled, whether lay or

professional, problem-solving ability was the number-one priority. Furthermore, a broad interpretation of the term problem solving was indicated by the fact that, of several possible goals for problem solving, the highest ranking was accorded the goal of '

'developing methods of

thinking and logical reasoning." Recommendation 2 is

THE CONCEPT OF BASIC SKILLS IN MATHEMATICS MUST

ENCOMPASS MORE THAN COMPUTATIONAL FACILITY.

We are still battling against an excessive narrowing of the curriculum in the name of "back to basics." There must be an

acceptance of the full spectrum of basic

skills and a recognition that there is a wide

variety of such skills beyond the mere

computational if we are to design a basic- skills component of the curriculum that enhances rather than undermines education.

The PRISM survey regarding the defini- tion and place of basic skills showed very mixed results. But, in general, there is still

strong support for a skill-drill curriculum, especially among parents.

The time and energy that teachers and

programs should be devoting to building beyond minimal foundations are some- times skirted, being considered risky deviations from the minimal targets on which educators believe they will be

judged. There is great pressure today to use all such time, energy, and resources on overkill in the minimal target areas, even

though little added productivity may be achieved. Such actions place a low ceiling on mathematical competence - at the on- set of an era when our lives will be more

deeply permeated by multiple and diverse uses of mathematics than ever before.

A program that looks to the future cannot build on tradition, nostalgia, and short- term objectives. It is dangerous to assume that skills from one era will suffice for another. Skills are tools. Their importance rests in the needs of the times.

Thus we would not be professionally responsible if we did not go beyond the

priorities expressed in the survey. Some recommended actions are

2.1 : The full scope of what is basic should contain at least the ten areas identi-

fied by the National Council of Super- visors of Mathematics.

2.2: The identification of basic skills in mathematics is a dynamic process and should be continually updated to reflect new and changing needs.

It is time to build on and beyond the NCSM paper. Necessary new skills arise from the mathematics pertinent to the

accelerating and ultimately revolutionary impact of computer technology. Time and

space for including new skills must be

purchased by eliminating the obsolete. It is painful and difficult to eliminate

something traditional from a curriculum. The Agenda for Action makes some sug-

gestions but these must be weighed against stringent standards of productivity related to instructional time. However, we cannot wait any longer in making some of these difficult curricular choices. At this point we are not keeping up, in educational pre- paredness, with the advances of technolo-

gy that will radically affect the entire

society. Even now, the microcomputer is

beginning to blur the lines between school and out-of-school learning. For formal education to remain viable it must address itself to the issue of a central role for com-

puter use. Recommendation 3 is

MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS MUST TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE POWER OF CALCULATORS AND

COMPUTERS AT ALL GRADE LEVELS.

Students must obtain a working knowl-

edge of how to use computers and calculators, including the ways in which one communicates with each and commands their services in problem solving.

Some recommended actions are

3.2: The use of electronic tools such as calculators and computers should be in-

tegrated into the core mathematics curriculum.

3.4: A computer literacy course, famil- iarizing the student with the role and

impact of the computer, should be a part of the general education of every student.

3.12: Certification standards for teachers should include preparation in

computer literacy and the instructional uses of calculators and computers.

In the survey, all population samples were very supportive of educational uses of computers. Although about 78 percent supported an increased emphasis on com-

puter literacy, the data are not clear on whether such courses should be required.

Support for the use of calculators was mixed and varied in degree according to the different populations sampled, with

highest support from supervisors and teacher educators. No group, however, favored decreasing present emphasis, whatever they took that to mean. There seems to be lurking in these results the residual fear that calculators will be a

September 1980 51



crutch, supplanting the learning of computational skills altogether.

The position of the NCTM has always been very clear on this, and present recommendations are consistent with that published position. They state: "It is recognized that a significant portion of instruction in the early grades must be devoted to the direct acquisition of number concepts and skills without the use of calculators. However, when the burden of lengthy computations outweighs the educational contribution of the process, the calculator should be readily available."

The fourth recommendation relates to, and is implied by, the first three. It states:

STRINGENT STANDARDS OF BOTH EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY

MUST BE APPLIED TO THE TEACHING OF MATHEMATICS.

Instructional time is a precious com- modity. It must be spent wisely. Teachers should apportion instructional time according to the productive importance of the topic, recognizing that the value of a skill or knowledge is subject to change over time. There are certain algorithmic skills that require a great expenditure of classroom time. We should be examining whether the calculator has so greatly reduced the demand for these pencil-and- paper techniques that such time could be more effectively apportioned.


4.1 : The major emphasis on problem solving in the curriculum must be accom- modated by a reprogramming of the use of time in the classroom.

4.2: School administrators and parents must support the teacher* s efforts to engage students more effectively in learning tasks.

The issue of testing has been in the forefront of media attention for several years. To much of the public, test scores appear to be at once the symptom of problems and the promise of salvation. This limited view of the evaluation of programs, students, and even the institution of the school itself is in many ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. Superficial crash programs responding to pressure to

increase scores can in fact seriously damage educational quality.

Test scores alone should not be considered synonymous with achievement or program quality. A danger is the increasing tendency on the part of the public to assume that the sole objective of schooling is a high test score. This is often assumed without the critical knowledge of what is being tested or whether test items fit de- sired goals.

Recommendation 5 is

THE SUCCESS OF MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS AND STUDENT LEARNING

MUST BE EVALUATED BY A WIDER RANGE OF MEASURES THAN CONVENTIONAL TESTING.


5.4: The evaluation of mathematics programs should be based on the program's goals, using evaluation strategies consistent with these goals.

If problem solving in mathematics is to be a major objective, then evaluation must respond to this goal. The evaluation of problem-solving . performance will demand new approaches, innovative techniques. Certainly present tests are not adequate.

5.1 : The evaluation of mathematics learning should include the full range of program goals, including skills, problem solving, and problem-solving processes. • Minimal competencies should not be

construed as an adequate measure of an individual's mathematics achievement. 5.2: Parents should be regularly and

adequately informed and involved in the evaluation process .

The next recommendation is the most challenging to ourselves and will probably be the most controversial for this reason. What it proposes will be very difficult for the schools. But the present situation is untenable. Considering the increasing advantage of mathematical knowledge in everyone's life, most students are opting out of mathematical study too early.

Interestingly, public polls show the recognition that mathematics is an essen-

tial subject for all students. Yet the subtle message we send students says otherwise. It is typical to find that only one year of mathematics is required in grades 9-12. Furthermore, many colleges admit students with no more than this minimum. Yet a brochure distributed by both the MAA and the NCTM shows very few college degree programs for which a high school preparation of less than three years is adequate.

The Prime 80 conference of the MAA recommended that we encourage college- bound high school students to take at least three years of high school mathematics. Indeed we should encourage, but I wonder why society assumes that students are mature enough to elect additional mathematics beyond the minimal requirement of one year; yet apparently they are not mature enough to elect, of their own accord, the several years of required English and history.

When a student discontinues the study of mathematics early in high school, he or she is foreclosing on many options, not only for college study but for more and more vocational programs.

Recommendation 6 is

MORE MATHEMATICS STUDY MUST BE REQUIRED FOR ALL STUDENTS AND A FLEXIBLE

CURRICULUM WITH A GREATER RANGE OF OPTIONS SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF THE

STUDENT POPULATION.


6.1 : School districts should increase the amount of time students spend in the study of mathematics. • At least three years of mathematics

should be required in grades 9 through 12.

• The amount of time allocated to learning mathematics in elementary school should be increased. 6.2: In secondary school, the curri-

culum should become more flexible, per- mitting a greater number of options for a diversified student population .

Increasing required mathematics in high

52 Arithmetic Teacher



school puts a burden on us (whoever said teaching was going to be easy?), but it obligates us in an exciting, challenging way. Just as soon as we recommend three required years, we must add, "But not the same three years for everyone.

' ' The traditional college-bound program is not necessarily optimal for everyone's chosen direction, even if they are fully capable. The growing diversification of applications of mathematics, as in the mathematical sciences, demands more than a single college-preparatory program.

At the same time, technical and vocational training at different levels demands more and more diverse mathematical background. In an increasingly techno- logical, quantitatively oriented society, every citizen and consumer needs deeper quantitative literacy, computer literacy, and problem-solving skill of the mathematical type as well as marketable skills. Can we seriously argue that enough mathematics has been learned by the age of fourteen to meet fully even the least of these needs?

There appears to be public support for

this recommendation. In the PRISM survey, over 80 percent of the lay sample believed that at least three years of mathematics in grades 9-12 should be required of the college bound, and over 85 percent believed that at least two years should be required of all high school graduates. The overall average for this sample was 2.4 years required.

However, mathematics is not well taught in a coercive atmosphere. We must continue to build positive attitudes toward mathematics as important not only for learners and society but also for its own nature, content, and processes.

6.5: Teachers, school officials, counse- lors, and parents should entitude toward mathematics and its value to the individual learner.

The previous recommendations will not be attainable without a firm base of support from the profession and the public. Thus, the last two recommendations address vital issues and problems concerning both professionalism and public support.

MARQUETTE MEETING 25-27 September 1980

Marquette, Michigan, home of Northern Michigan University, is located on Lake Superior and is considered to be the most beautiful spot in the world during the fall color season.

Special features include the following: • General sessions by Lola May and

^ "-^^ Stan Bezuszka.

/^^^ Ш**ШГ' • Sessions by Shirley Hill, Max Sobel, АШ ^Ет^ЙА ' Glenadine Gibb, Eugene Smith, and

/ 'в Ш^ Ш~ ' PhilJones- / ^ШГ ^^Ш ^^ш I # Try your luck at our Monte Carlo night. I f ^^^y / • Breakfast meeting with Zalman ' mÇk> в/ Usjskin* ' y^^T ^¿8¿/ # Special math education sessions for

Х^ДрД^ГХ administrators. • Series of sessions devoted to

research.

1 50 workshops and sessions devoted to enriching the professional growth of all concerned. Please join us.

Recommendation 7 says

MATHEMATICS TEACHERS MUST DEMAND OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR COLLEAGUES A HIGH

LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM.

There is growing evidence that we are seeing an erosion of the concept of professionalism. By virtue of your attendance here, you demonstrate that you are professionals. Do you feel less typical in that respect than you once did? Are school administrators encouraging and sup- porting professional growth activities as they once did?

We must retrieve the meaning of the word professional and dedicate ourselves to that standard. But let's face it. There are people in our field who simply refuse to maintain a professional standard. We need to help and encourage colleagues to do so, but we are not obligated to protect those individuals who refuse. Teachers must accept performance and not protectionism as a synonym for professionalism.


7.1 : Every mathematics teacher should accept responsibility for maintaining teaching competence. Full advantage should be taken of all existing opportuni- ties for continuing education. Teachers should belong to professional organiza- tions that are dedicated to the improve- ment of teaching and learning.

7.2: School boards and school adminis- trations should take all possible means to assure that mathematics programs are staffed by qualified, competent teachers who remain current in their field. • The status, compensation and teaching

conditions necessary for the retention of qualified teachers must be dramatically improved.

• School administrators should encourage teachers to take an active professional role and should permit them to participate, without penalty, in con- ferences and vital professional work.

We cannot expect the vital public support needed to achieve our goals without our own commitment and dedication to excellence in the respected profession of teaching.

September 1980 53



The last recommendation, 8, is

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION MUST BE RAISED TO A LEVEL COMMENSURATE WITH THE

IMPORTANCE OF MATHEMATICAL UNDERSTANDING TO

INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY.

At the present time there are too many obstacles to the effective functioning of teacher and student in a true teaching- learning interaction. There are also too many obstacles faced by school adminis- trations and school boards that go beyond their direct control.

There are deep problems in mathematics education that must be confronted by the public because they are ultimately the problems of our society and can only be solved by the cooperation of all sectors of that society.

I have already discussed some of them. But another that is already serious but growing in magnitude is the shortage of qualified teachers of mathematics. Ad- ministrators are forced in an increasing number of classrooms to staff with persons who do not meet qualifications in mathematics preparation.

This is not solely a school problem. When reporters to whom I have described the crisis ask, "What is your organization doing about it?" I, of course, describe all the things we are trying to do, but I add, emphatically, "You are asking that question of the wrong people. What we in education want to do is ask the public, 'What areyou willing to do about it?' "

Unfortunately, it is true today that it is more and more difficult to attract people into mathematics teaching and more and more difficult to keep them there. Mathe- matical knowledge and skill are at a premi- um in today's world, and it is easy for someone with a mathematics background to find employment at a considerably higher salary than teaching affords. Lack of public support has also eroded the non- financial rewards that have historically attracted people into teaching.

It comes down to this: If our public believes mathematics is important (and polls show it does), and if knowledge of the subject is a necessary, though not

sufficient, condition for effective teaching (and one usually assumes this to be true at some level), then what are the public, the parents, our society willing to do?

We are offering our professional organization's resources, efforts, and commitment to the solution of the problems addressed. We have devised an agenda, a blueprint to begin. We cannot solve these problems alone. We must challenge society at large to confront these, their problems. We cannot continue to paper over the difficulties with superficial, short-term remedies - with spuri- ous statistics and slick PR.

We have proposed a starting point. We offer our cooperation. But we must now say to the caring public, "The ball is now in your court."

We have an agenda, a rallying point, and some momentum. We do not need to agree completely on each specific. If we did, I would be terribly worried. That would only happen with a very bland set of recommendations. We need now to support the broad purposes, the spirit, the thrust. We can hammer out the differences as we go.

I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to collectively make a difference, a positive difference, in this decade. This is our decade. In the eighties we will show the world that, as the NCTM T-shirt says, Mathematics Teachers Count. Note: Single copies of An Agenda for Ac- tion are available from the NCTM Head- quarters Office, Dept. E, 1906 Associa- tion Drive, Reston, VA 22091 .

Thanks from the Editorial Panel

One of the ways that we have used to get feedback from readers is to meet peri- odically with teachers in our own geographic areas. The suggestions and comments that have come from the Teacher Advisory Panels have been invaluable in plan- ning the Arithmetic Teacher. Listed below are the names of those who made up the Teacher Advisory Panels for the 1979-80 school year. We are taking this way to publicly convey our appreciation and thanks for their efforts and their interest in the Arithmetic Teacher.

The Editorial Panel

Illinois Ann Adams, Glenn School, Normal Janet Barnard, Parkside Junior High School,

Normal Janice Brown, Metcalf Laboratory School, Illi-

nois State University, Normal John Рус, Brigham School, Bloomington Michael Thomas, Glenn School, Normal

Minnesota Beverly Higgs, Neill Elementary School, Burn-

sviile Beverly Joseph, Cedar Elementary School, Ea-

gan Paul McDowali, Savage Elementary School,

Savage Margaret Pemrick, Rahn Elementary School,

Eagan John Sautner, Metcalf Junior High School,

Burns ville Grace Stormoen, Sky Oaks Elementary School,

Burnsville

Montana Janis Frank, Arrowhead School, Billings Kathy Hedge, McKinley School, Billings Sandra Holmes, Bitterroot School, Billings Pat Hull, Eastern Elementary School, Billings Carol Nelson, Beartooth School, Billings Marsha Putnam, Boulder School, Billings

New Jersey Laurel Robertson, Slackwood School, Lawrence-

ville

North Carolina Sarah Burrow, Sherwood Forest Elementary

School, Winston-Salem Betty Lou Carriker, Branson Elementary School,

Winston-Salem Luann Rejeski, Summit School, Winston-Salem Ruby Webster, Mineral Springs Junior High,

Winston-Salem

5* Arithmetic Teacher



president's address 58th annual meeting

Documents