Mathematics: Nevada

Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy

Nevada requires that all new elementary teachers pass a general elementary subject-matter test, the Praxis II. This commercial test lacks a specific mathematics subscore, so one can fail the mathematics portion and still pass the test. Further, while this test does cover important elementary school-level content, it barely evaluates candidates' knowledge beyond an elementary school level, does not challenge their understanding of underlying concepts and does not require candidates to apply knowledge in nonroutine, multistep procedures.

Early childhood education teachers in Nevada, who are allowed to teach through grade 2, are required to pass the early childhood general content test, which also does not report an individual math subscore.

Although Nevada now requires elementary teacher candidates to earn at least six credit hours of math, the state specifies neither the requisite content of these classes nor that they must meet the needs of elementary teachers.

**Require all teacher candidates who teach elementary grades to pass a rigorous mathematics assessment.**

Nevada should assess mathematics content with a rigorous assessment tool, such as the test required in Massachusetts that evaluates mathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school level and challenges candidates' understanding of underlying mathematics concepts. Such a test could also be used to allow candidates to test out of coursework requirements. Teacher candidates who lack minimum mathematics knowledge should not be eligible for licensure.

**Require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specifically geared to the needs of elementary teachers.**

Nevada must ensure that new teachers are prepared to teach the mathematics content required by the Common Core State Standards. Nevada should explicitly articulate its expectations for the knowledge and skills it expects elementary mathematics teachers to possess and require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specifically geared to the needs of elementary teachers. This includes specific coursework in foundations, algebra and geometry, with some statistics coursework.

Nevada asserted that all teachers are also required to pass the Praxis I exam, with extensive measures for testing mathematics. The state added that its elementary test includes math testing.

The Praxis I assessment is a basic skills test. It is not intended to be a licensing test but rather an assessment to be used at the point of admission into a teacher preparation program (see Goal 1-A). Such tests generally assess middle school-level skills. To ensure elementary teachers' minimum mathematics knowledge—which includes the critical areas of numbers and operations; algebra; and, to a lesser degree, data analysis and probability—Nevada should require a rigorous math test, such as the one required in Massachusetts, which challenges candidates' understanding of underlying mathematics concepts.

- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution

**Required math
coursework should be tailored in both design and delivery to the unique needs
of the elementary teacher.**

Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire a deep conceptual knowledge of the mathematics that they will teach, moving well beyond mere procedural understanding. Their training should focus on the critical areas of numbers and operations; algebra; geometry and, to a lesser degree, data analysis and probability.

To ensure that elementary teachers are well trained to teach the essential subject of mathematics, states must require teacher preparation programs to cover these four areas in coursework that it specially designed for prospective elementary teachers. Leading mathematicians and math educators have found that elementary teachers are not well served by courses designed for a general audience and that methods courses also do not provide sufficient preparation. According to Dr. Roger Howe, a mathematician at Yale University: "Future teachers do not need so much to learn more mathematics, as to reshape what they already know."

Most states' policies do not require preparation in
mathematics of appropriate breadth and depth and specific to the needs of the
elementary teacher. NCTQ's reports on teacher preparation, beginning with *No Common Denominator: The Preparation of
Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America's Education Schools* in 2008
and continuing through the *Teacher Prep
Review *in 2013 have consistently found few teacher preparation programs across
the country providing high-quality preparation in mathematics. Whether through
standards or coursework requirements, states must ensure that their preparation
programs graduate only teacher candidates who are well prepared to teach
mathematics.

**Many state tests
offer no assurance that teachers are prepared to teach mathematics.**

An increasing number of states require passage of a mathematics subtest as a condition of licensure., but many states still rely on subject-matter tests that include some items (or even a whole section) on mathematics instruction. However, since subject-specific passing scores are not required, one need not know much mathematics in order to pass. In fact, one could answer every mathematics question incorrectly and still pass. States need to ensure that it is not possible to pass a licensure test that purportedly covers mathematics without knowing the critical material.

The content of these tests poses another issue: these tests should properly test elementary and middle school content but not at an elementary or middle school level. Instead, problems should challenge the teacher candidate's understanding of underlying concepts and apply knowledge in nonroutine, multistep procedures. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the tests currently in use in most states. The test required by Massachusetts remains the standard bearer for a high quality, rigorous assessment for elementary teachers entirely and solely focused on mathematics.

**Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics: Supporting Research**

For
evidence that new teachers are not appropriately prepared to teach mathematics,
see NCTQ,* No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers
in Mathematics by America's Education Schools* (2008) at:http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_ttmath_fullreport_20090603062928.pdf

For information on the mathematics content elementary teachers need to know, see National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, "Highly Qualified Teachers: A Position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics," (July 2005). See also Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, The Mathematical Education of Teachers, Issues in Mathematics, Vol. 11, (American Mathematical Society in cooperation with the Mathematical Association of America, 2001), p. 8.

For
evidence on the benefits of math content knowledge on student achievement, see S. Kukla-Acevedo "Do Teacher Characteristics Matter? New Results on the Effects of Teacher Preparation on Student Achievement." *Economics of Education Review*, Volume 28, 2009, pp. 49-57; H. Hill, B. Rowan
and D. Ball "Effects of Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement," *American
Educational Research Journal, *Volume 42, No. 2, Summer 2005, pp. 371-406.

For information on where states set passing scores on elementary level content tests for teacher licensing across the U.S., see chart on p. 13 of NCTQ "Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Removing the Roadblocks: How Federal Policy Can Cultivate Effective Teachers," (2011).