1

In 1995, half of the states (25) had content standards in

mathematics; by 1998, this number had increased to 42

(Council of Chief State School Officers 2000). Forty-five

states had student assessments in mathematics in 1994; by

1999, 47 states had such assessments. The existence of standards and assessments at the state level does not guarantee

that classroom teachers are familiar with the standards or

with the specifications of assessments (Cohen and Hill

2000). Neither does it guarantee that classroom instruction reflects the standards and assessments. In fact, mathematics standards have created significant controversy over

the efficacy of different types of instruction for improving

student performance (Loveless 2001, see, especially, Loveless chapter).

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS), 1995, and the 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in Repeat (TIMSS 1999) take a

representative sample of eighth-grade students. This Brief

draws on surveys administered to these students’ mathematics teachers. Using the survey results, this analysis examines the degree of teacher familiarity with various standards

and assessments in 1995 and 1999. It then compares teacher

reports of their instructional practices in classrooms with

teacher reports of their familiarity with standards and assessments. Instruction is compared on the kinds of problem-solving activities advocated by national and state standards during the mid-1990s and on computational skill practice, which received more emphasis in the standards at the

close of the 20th century (Loveless 2001).

How familiar are teachers with standards,

curriculum guides, and assessment

specifications?

Teacher familiarity with state education department documents, such as curriculum guides and assessment specifications, appears to have increased between 1995 and 1999

(table 1). Fewer students had teachers who were not familiar with assessment specifications (44 percent in 1999 compared with 57 percent in 1995). In 1999, students were

also less likely to have teachers who reported they were not

familiar with their state education department curriculum

guides (20 percent) compared with students in 1995 (33

percent).*

Table 1. Percentage of public school mathematics students

taught in eighth grade, by teachers’ level of awareness of mathematics standards, curriculum guidelines,

and assessment specifications: 1995 and 1999

NOTE: Not all apparent differences in this table are statistically

significant because many estimates have large standard errors.

Standard errors are available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubinfo.asp?pubid=2003022. Teachers who reported “No such

document” are not included. There may be overlap among those

reporting “no such document” and those reporting “not familiar.” In

some cases, teachers unfamiliar with standards documents may have

incorrectly reported “no such document;” in other cases, teachers may

have reported “not familiar” when, in fact, a document existed. The

data did not allow checking of these responses for accuracy.

SOURCE: Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1995, and

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in Repeat, 1999.

March 2003

Mathematics Teachers’ Familiarity With Standards

and Their Instructional Practices: 1995 and 1999

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003–022

IssueBrief

Did teachers who reported greater familiarity

with national, state, and local standards report

different practices from other teachers in

1999?

Students with teachers who were more familiar with national, state, and local standards for practice were more

likely to be asked to do problem-solving activities. For example, in 1999, students with teachers who were very familiar with state education department assessment specifications were more likely than students with teachers who

were fairly or not familiar with these documents to be asked

Standards, guidelines, and specifications 1995 1999

 Not familiar 13.4 15.7

 Fairly familiar 47.8 44.1

 Very familiar 38.8 40.2

 Not familiar 33.3 19.9

 Fairly familiar 37.9 42.7

 Very familiar 28.8 37.5

 Not familiar 57.4 44.2

 Fairly familiar 25.3 35.5

 Very familiar 17.2 20.2

School District Curriculum Guide

 Not familiar 8.4 4.3

 Fairly familiar 37.7 32.4

 Very familiar 53.9 63.3

School Curriculum Guides

 Not familiar 8.7 8.3

 Fairly familiar 27.9 27.7

 Very familiar 63.4 64.0

State Education Department Curriculum Guides

State Education Department Assessment Specifications

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards
2

to represent and analyze relationships using tables, charts,

or graphs in most or every lesson (41 percent, 22 percent,

and 19 percent, respectively; table 2). In 1999, students with

teachers who were very familiar with these documents were

also more likely to be frequently asked to write equations to

represent relationships than students with teachers who were

not familiar with these documents (69 percent and 44 percent, respectively). Similarly, students with teachers who reported being very familiar with state education department

curriculum guides were more likely than students with teachers who were fairly or not familiar to be asked to explain

their reasoning behind an idea in most or every lesson in

1999 (86 percent, 68 percent, and 62 percent, respectively).

However, there were no significant differences in 1999 in

the percentages of students who were asked to practice computational skills in most or every lesson by teacher familiarity with state education department assessment specifications (not familiar = 70 percent, fairly = 65 percent, very =

68 percent).

Did relationships between teacher awareness

and classroom practices change over time?

There were stronger relationships between teacher awareness of standards and assessments and classroom practices

in 1999 than in 1995 on several measures. These stronger

relationships were especially apparent for students with

teachers who were familiar with state education department

documents, such as curriculum guides and assessment specifications. Students with teachers who were very familiar with

state education department curriculum guides were more

likely to have teachers who reported asking their students

to work on problems for which there is no obvious method

of solution in most or every lesson in 1999 than in 1995 (22

percent and 9 percent, respectively). Students with teachers

who reported being very familiar with these guides were

more likely to be asked to write equations to represent relationships in most or every lesson in 1999 compared to 1995

(58 compared with 33 percent and 49 percent compared

with 30 percent, respectively).

Similarly, students with teachers who were very familiar with

the state education department assessment specifications

were more likely to be frequently asked to represent and

analyze relationships using tables, charts, or graphs, to write

equations to represent relationships, and to practice computational skills in 1999 than in 1995 (41 percent compared

with 20 percent, 69 percent compared to 45 percent, and 68

percent compared with 38 percent, respectively). Students

whose teachers were fairly familiar with this type of document were more likely to be frequently asked to work on

problems for which there is no obvious method of solution

Table 2. Percentage of public school mathematics students taught in eighth grade by teachers who reported using various instructional practices in most or every lesson, by teachers’ level of awareness of mathematics standards, curriculum guidelines,

and assessment specifications: 1995 and 1999

NOTE: Not all apparent differences in this table are statistically significant because many estimates have large standard errors. Standard errors are

available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubinfo.asp?pubid=2003022. Teachers who reported “No such document” are not included. There may be

overlap among those reporting “no such document” and those reporting “not familiar.” In some cases, teachers unfamiliar with standards documents

may have incorrectly reported “no such document;” in other cases, teachers may have reported “not familiar” when, in fact, a document existed. The

data did not allow checking of these responses for accuracy.

SOURCE: Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1995, and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in Repeat, 1999.

1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

 Total 67.0 72.6 12.3 25.3 11.6 19.8 36.4 52.7 59.3 66.5

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards

 Not familiar 42.2 67.6 4.6 20.9 3.7 6.3 26.9 31.2 67.6 81.7

 Fairly familiar 69.1 66.9 11.3 18.7 13.3 25.9 36.1 50.6 61.3 60.4

 Very familiar 73.9 83.1 17.0 32.7 13.1 20.6 41.2 64.3 53.3 70.2

State Education Department Curriculum Guides

 Not familiar 57.2 62.3 5.6 13.7 11.9 19.9 47.0 54.5 54.3 74.1

 Fairly familiar 70.9 67.7 15.8 26.8 15.0 20.1 29.6 48.7 67.6 66.3

 Very familiar 75.5 86.3 17.7 29.6 8.9 22.2 33.4 57.7 54.4 68.3

State Education Department Assessment Specifications

 Not familiar 61.3 65.0 10.7 19.4 16.2 14.9 40.9 44.4 64.3 69.7

 Fairly familiar 77.6 78.5 10.8 22.2 5.7 26.3 25.6 53.0 65.1 64.7

 Very familiar 72.2 81.6 20.1 40.9 8.2 16.6 44.6 68.7 37.9 68.0

School District Curriculum Guide

 Not familiar 37.6 72.9 6.4 0.5 9.0 13.9 16.2 36.4 52.4 65.8

 Fairly familiar 66.6 60.2 10.0 24.7 11.4 22.5 43.0 44.8 67.6 72.4

 Very familiar 77.0 80.8 17.0 26.7 14.2 19.6 36.7 57.4 51.0 65.0

School Curriculum Guides

 Not familiar 74.3 38.9 7.1 5.6 19.8 8.6 42.0 44.2 57.0 86.6

 Fairly familiar 51.0 61.9 7.3 16.2 5.2 14.8 27.1 31.7 70.1 69.4

 Very familiar 74.4 85.2 15.3 27.6 12.2 23.6 37.9 58.5 56.3 70.0

Explain reasoning 

behind an idea

Represent and 

analyze relationships 

using tables, charts, 

or graphs

Work on problems 

for which there is no 

immediately obvious 

method of solution

Standards, 

guidelines, and 

specifications

Write equations to 

represent 

relationships

Practice 

computational skills
3

The Issue Brief series presents information on education topics of current interest. All estimates shown are based on samples and are subject to sampling

variability. All differences are statistically significant at the .05 level. In the design, conduct, and data processing of National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES) surveys, efforts are made to minimize the effects of nonsampling errors, such as item nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, or other

systematic error. For more information on the TIMSS studies, visit http://nces.ed.gov/timss.

This Issue Brief was prepared by Marisa Burian-Fitzgerald and Daniel J. McGrath of the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI) with Valena Plisko of NCES,

with analytic assistance from Trevor Williams and David Kastberg of Westat. This Issue Brief was desktopped by Carol Rohr of Pinkerton Computer Consultants,

Inc. For further information, contact Patrick Gonzales, NCES, at 202–502–7346 or Patrick.Gonzales@ed.gov. To order additional copies of this Issue Brief or

other NCES publications, call 1–877–4ED–Pubs. NCES publications are also available on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov.

and to write equations to represent relationships in 1999

than in 1995 (26 percent compared to 6 percent and 53

percent compared to 26 percent, respectively).

At the school level, students with teachers who were very

familiar with school curriculum guides were more likely to

be asked to represent and analyze relationships using tables,

charts or graphs, to work on problems for which there is no

obvious method of solution, and write equations to represent relationships in most or every lesson in 1999 than in

1995 (28 percent compared with 15 percent, 24 percent

compared with 12 percent, and 59 percent compared with

38 percent, respectively). At the level of standards promulgated nationally, however, students with teachers who reported being not familiar with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards or school district curriculum

guides were more likely to be asked to do problem-solving

activities, such as explain reasoning behind an idea in most

or every lesson in 1999 than in 1995 (68 percent compared

with 42 percent and 73 percent compared with 38 percent,

respectively).

Methodological Issues

Change in teachers’ instructional practices may not equal

change in students’ achievement. In fact, researchers are divided on the relative benefits of problem-solving and computation emphases. A cautionary note is also needed on the

measurement of classroom instruction. The analysis of instructional practices relied on teachers’ reports of the activities in which they engaged their students. Self-reports of instruction may lack a universally understood vocabulary with

which to describe practice (Loveless 2001, see, especially,

Shouse chapter). Measures of frequency, absent indicators

of content, quality, and rigor, can provide only limited information to suggest whether teaching is moving in a particular direction.

Conclusion

This analysis shows that teacher awareness of state curriculum guides and state assessments increased between 1995

and 1999. At the end of the last decade, teachers who were

very familiar with these policy instruments were more likely

than their peers to employ instructional practices that are

consistent with the current state curriculum guides and state

assessments. In addition, the Brief provides modest support

for the existence of a relationship between familiarity with

policy instruments and teacher practices (see also Cohen and

Hill 2000). In particular, students with teachers who were

more familiar with state education department curriculum

guides and assessment specifications were more likely to be

frequently given various instructional tasks reflecting the

problem-solving and computation emphases of the current

policies in 1999 than in 1995.

Footnote

*Some of the estimates presented here have large standard errors

because of small sample sizes and the clustered sampling design of

TIMSS. Therefore, large apparent differences may not be

statistically significant. All differences reported in this Brief are

significant to the .05 level. Complete standard errors for this Issue

Brief are available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubinfo.asp?pubid=2003022.

References

Cohen, D. and Hill, H.C. 2000. “Instructional Policy and

Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in

California.” Teachers College Record. 102(2): 294–

343.

Council of Chief State School Officers. 2000. Key State

Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000: Time

and Attendance, Graduation Requirements, Content

Standards, Teacher Licensure, School Leader

Licensure, Student Assessment. Available at

www.CCSSO.org (retrieved December 20, 2002).

Loveless, T. (Ed.). 2001. The Great Curriculum Debate: How

Should We Teach Reading and Math? Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution.