The recent National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' (NCTM) report, Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics, prompted a ceasefire of the so-called math wars that have been raging for years. Instead of pitting traditional math enthusiasts—who stress the basics and learning though memorization—against those who favor the more modern, standards-based "teach for understanding" approach, it validated the importance of both pedagogical philosophies.

When the School District of Onalaska's K–5 teachers broached the idea of adopting new math instructional resources in 2003, they knew their colleagues were a mix of traditional and standards-based math teachers. Unfortunately, the NCTM report wasn't available to assist in their decision-making process.

"We had a group of sixty elementary teachers using thirty-two different math programs," said Fran Finco, director of instructional services. "Even with this disconnected approach, our students generally fared above-average on state tests. We needed to find a way to convince teachers that it was in the students' best interest to unify curriculum and instruction."

About the School District of Onalaska
The School District of Onalaska educates 2,870 students in six schools. The student body comprises 86 percent Caucasian, 10 percent Asian, 2 percent African American, and 2 percent Hispanic. Twenty-two percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Step One: Make an Appraisal
The elementary teachers were using dozens of approaches for math instruction, ranging from the most traditional to the most innovative. The district hoped it could find a new set of resources that would blend these two philosophies.

Onalaska chose a program that promised a blend of traditional and standards-based National Science Foundation (NSF)-approved materials. The elementary staff and administration believed this program would provide the right fit for their district. To gauge whether the blended approach to math instruction would work, half of the Onalaska Elementary teachers volunteered to pilot the program.

Pilot teachers were polled on their preference of program components (traditional or NSF) to use during the ten-month period. Initially, seventeen teachers elected the traditional math program, and thirteen chose the NSF program. The pilot had one requirement for all teachers, regardless of program selection: all instruction needed to be driven by student understanding.

"The pilot group initially leaned toward using a traditional approach to teaching math—many didn't want to change the way they were teaching. It worked well for them in the past, and they really didn't see the need for change," said Finco. "We believed that the training to prepare teachers for the pilot needed to include a discussion about how children learn mathematics and the research behind it."

Step Two: Teach the Teachers
Onalaska launched a comprehensive, four-day professional development seminar to explain the latest research, analyze test data, and introduce innovative instruction methodology to pilot teachers. The seminar included time for interactive role-playing, questions and answers with experts, and peer-to-peer discussion with teachers from a district who had gone through the same process a few years earlier.

The majority of the seminar was devoted to Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI), which is based on two major theses:

1. Children bring an intuitive knowledge of mathematics to school with them, and it should serve as the basis for formal mathematics instruction.
2. Math instruction should be based on the relationship between skills and problem solving.

"At the end of the four-day seminar, teachers were asked which materials they would be taking back to their classrooms for the pilot. Every single teacher chose the NSF materials. Those who originally wanted to use the more traditional materials had changed their minds based on the knowledge they gained during the seminar," said Finco.

Step Three: Assessment
Onalaska used its current assessment, the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), to measure the success of students taught with the pilot program versus the non-pilot teacher control group. In most instances, at the mid-year comparison, students in the pilot program averaged 30 percent higher growth than those in the control group.

"By the end of the school year, we saw some students grow more than 20 RIT points (unit of measure used by MAP)—something we hadn't seen in previous years." Typical RIT growth is between eight and ten point during the school year. "In addition, anecdotal evidence from both parents and teachers supported the effectiveness on the program on both student attitude and achievement," explained Finco. "After using NSF-based instruction for most of the year, the pilot team unanimously recommended it to be the sole mathematics program used in the district. They felt that a blended approach, which included the more traditional materials, was not needed or even desirable."

Step Four: Pilot Teachers Make the Pitch
Toward the end of the successful pilot year, all K–5 math teachers participated in in-service training. One by one, kindergarten through fifth grade pilot teachers made presentations to their non-pilot peers about the new instructional approach and its positive effect on student achievement.

"We had a critical mass of 50 percent of our elementary classroom teachers experience success in the pilot program," said Finco. "Once these teacher-leaders began sharing their confidence in the NSF-endorsed program, the rest of the staff embraced the change and the newly adopted curriculum."

Step Five: Follow-through
Onalaska not only used the pilot program data to gain unanimous approval for the adoption of new curriculum and instruction, but also to better support all teachers during the implementation process. Based on pilot teachers' feedback, the following processes were also applied:

• non-pilot teachers received the same training as pilot teachers prior to implementing the new program
• a half-day per month of teacher collaboration time allowed for continued professional development
• monthly math meetings were held to openly discuss the change in instruction, the new resources, curriculum pacing, and any issues
• change in building schedules provided for sixty uninterrupted minutes of math instruction each day

Conclusion
The School District of Onalaska's pilot program bridged the initial gap between traditional and standards-based math teachers' instructional beliefs and unified them as a group behind one curriculum and method of instruction.

"Our teachers are smart people. When they understood the 'why' of what we were proposing, they were willing to do what was right with regard to student instruction," said Finco. "In order to sustain a substantial change, people need to believe in the process. If you want to overhaul practices that have always been used in the past, education is the key."

Finco added, "If your plan for making a change in math instruction is to demand it from the top down, expect to fail. Our plan to make decisions based on research was verified by what the teachers saw in terms of their own student growth and success. Sustaining this change will depend on the continued support we provide for our staff."