A Landscape Paper

A Survey OF Mathematics AND

Science Reform IN THE Southeast

A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast:

A Landscape Paper

SERC @ SERVE

Dr. Francena D. Cummings, Director

1203 Governors Square Boulevard, Suite 400 • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • 800-854-0476

Proprietary Document—Written permission required for duplication or use.
Associated with the School of Education

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

First Printing, 2003

Edited by

Donna Nalley, SERVE Publications Director

Karen DeMeester, SERVE Senior Program Specialist

Designed by

Tracy Hamilton, SERVE Art Director

Photography by

Shelley Call, Barbara Davis, Donna Nalley, and Tracy Hamilton

Select photographs used in this magazine are from Comstock Klips, Corbis, Creatas, 

EyeWire Images, Image 100, and/or PhotoDisc.

Additional photographs provided by Penny Gilmer and classroom teachers (masters and 

doctoral students at Florida State University).

Photographs may not be reproduced without written permission from the photographer or 

the stock photography company.

This document was produced 

with funding from the Dwight D. 

Eisenhower National Programs 

from Mathematics and Science 

Regional Consortia Program, 

Institute for Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, 

under contact no. R319A000011.

The content of this publication 

does not necessarily reflect 

the views or policies of the 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, 

nor does mention of trade 

names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

FOREWORD v

PREFACE vii

NATIONAL 1

Introduction

The Need for Mathematics and Science Reform

The Need for Standards

Developing Effective Teachers

Focusing on Equity

Highlights and Challenges

Epilogue: New Directions in Federal Policy

REGIONAL 15

The Regional Landscape

The Need for Reform

 • NAEP

 • TIMSS

 • Implications

Supporting Reform with Accountability 

 • Standards

 • Curriculum

 • Assessment

 • Graduation Requirements

 • Implications

Developing and Keeping Effective Teachers

 • Qualified Teachers, Schools, and Student Assignments

 • Recruitment of Mathematics and Science Teachers

 • Ensuring Teacher Quality

 • Implications

Table OF Contents

A Survey OF

Mathematics AND

Science Reform

IN THE Southeast:

A Landscape Paper
Professional Development

• Alabama

• Florida

• Georgia

• Mississippi

• North Carolina

• South Carolina

• Implications

Supporting Reform with Mathematics and Science Programs

• National Science Foundation

• Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium at SERVE (The Consortium)

• The Eisenhower Professional Development Program

• The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)

• Specialized Math and Science Secondary Schools

• Implications

A Conclusive Perspective: A Reflective View of the Landscape

 • Eyes on the Prize: Improving Student Achievement

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST STATES IN DETAIL 49

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA FROM 1990−2000 101

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

APPENDIX C: REGIONAL COORDINATING BOARD 109

REFERENCES 115
iii

Acknowledgments

A Survey of Mathematics and Science Reform in the Southeast: A Landscape Paper began with the 

idea of providing a panoramic view of mathematics and science reform in each state and ultimately 

evolved into a synthesis of mathematics and science reform in the Southeast. Behind a document 

like this are always individuals who have made unique contributions. Those involved with this document include mathematics and science educators, community members, experts in mathematics 

and science, editors, and the staff of the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium @ SERVE. 

From concept to final product, this document has been a collaborative process. 

The Consortium is indebted to the following readers and reviewers who provided feedback on the 

content of the initial and final drafts: Robert Davis, Alabama State Department of Education; Wilma 

Guthrie, teacher, Talladega City, Alabama Schools; Clementine Sherman, Miami-Dade County Florida 

Mathematics Supervisor; Frank Orr, West Georgia University; Malcolm McEwen, Delta State University; Michael Kestner, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; Terri Mayfield, Greenville 

South Carolina Hub; Marsha Winegarner, Florida Department of Education; Bob 

Moore, Georgia Department of Education; Nancy Campbell, Mississippi Department of Education; Marjorie Claytor, South Carolina Department of Education; 

Gloria Allen, Aiken Hub Director; John Caldwell, North Carolina Northwest 

RESA; and Tracy Crow, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. Their feedback 

and insights influenced the final version of this document. Also, a special 

thank you goes to Tracy Crow for editorial services for the final draft.

At the Consortium, Renee Akbar, former Senior Program Specialist for the 

Consortium, provided the leadership for this project. In this role she was coordinator, writer, and facilitator. In the early stages of the project, she worked with two consultants who made noteworthy contributions to this project. Dr. Charles Eilber of Charles Eilber 

Associates, Inc. made contributions to the conceptualization of the project, and he offered ongoing 

support in reviewing drafts and conducting the expert panel reviews. Sheridan Hill, a freelance writer 

from Winston Salem, North Carolina, conducted interviews with key state leaders and experts in science and mathematics. She also provided substantial writing for each section of the first draft. In 

addition, the entire Consortium team made valuable contributions through researching, framing, and 

writing various sections of the document. The Consortium team consists of the following:

Renee Akbar, former Senior Program Specialist

Malcolm Butler, former Program Specialist

Karen Charles, Assistant Program Director

Francena D. Cummings, Director

Grace Gilbert, former Senior Program Specialist

Mohammad Islam, Evaluation Specialist

Glenda Josey, Processing Assistant III

Julie Lambert, former Research Associate

Beverly Lettinhand, Processing Assistant IV

Mellisa Smith, Senior Program Specialist

Jewl Trostorff, Administrative Assistant

Michael Vigliano, Program Specialist

A Survey OF

Mathematics AND

Science Reform

IN THE Southeast:

A Landscape Paper
iv 

The Senior Policy Analysts in each of the 

SERVE states provided valuable input regarding the accuracy of content and on the substance of this document. We appreciate their 

feedback and, most of all, their contributions as 

liaisons between the states and SERVE.

Finally, and most importantly, the Regional 

Coordinating Board for the Consortium provided significant guidance in several aspects 

of this document. From the very beginning, the 

Board provided valuable insights in determining the feasibility of the document and framing 

the document. They also provided feedback on 

the various drafts. For a listing of the Regional 

Coordinating Board members, see Appendix C. 

To all these individuals, we offer sincere thanks 

for their contributions and encouragement during the development of this document.
v

Foreword

Brian L. Gerber, Associate Dean, Valdosta State University, Regional Coordinating Board Chair

As a boy I read about and sought pictures of the expansive landscapes of the western national 

parks—Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and the like. Finally, as a young man out of high 

school, I ventured to these areas. To this day, I have not forgotten the experience of standing on the 

rim of the Grand Canyon or in a gorge at Yellowstone and turning 360 degrees to get the perspective 

that no photo could convey. The pictures I had examined as a boy were but a small slice of the complete landscape. Only with the vistas of the entire landscape at my disposal was I able to fully appreciate the beauty, complexity, and harsh reality of the environments before me. A panoramic view 

helps us comprehend and appreciate other aspects of our lives as well. This is especially true in the 

landscape of education, and, in this case, mathematics and science education reform. 

This landscape paper provides an excellent historical perspective of mathematics and science education reform in the United States with a focus on 

the Southeast. The writers paint a vivid image of the forces that shaped the 

current educational environment of the region. With 10 years of service to the 

region, the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and 

Science Education at SERVE was able to provide the insight necessary for 

constructing such an image.

Today we are in the midst of a mathematics and science reform effort that is 

standards-based, focused on high accountability, and systemic in nature. While 

education reform is continual, the current reform effort is unique because it is 

pervasive. The emphasis is not just on learning more content but also on modifying the content to make it challenging. The reform movement is not just about 

making sure the students know more, it is about making them think, inquire, 

and construct knowledge pertinent to their own lives. Furthermore, research 

provides the foundation for modifications to teacher preparation, professional 

development, and all aspects of instruction and assessment. 

For those of us living and working in the southeastern states, it is encouraging to see how educators 

have responded to the current standards and accountability movement. Critical examination of student achievement has driven the movement, and school leaders are raising academic requirements 

in mathematics and science, demanding challenging curricula, and seeking professional development for teachers that will make a difference with students. Teachers are seeking new instructional 

methods that break away from the lecture and “drill and kill” teaching techniques. Consistent with 

the standards documents described in this landscape paper, teachers are beginning to embrace true 

inquiry, and most of the teachers with whom I work feel all students can succeed in mathematics 

A Survey OF

Mathematics AND

Science Reform

IN THE Southeast:

A Landscape Paper
vi 

and science. Such an attitude is paramount to 

achieving the results expected by society for all 

students, not just a chosen few.

The large number and diversity of programs 

supporting student achievement in mathematics 

and science are also encouraging. As outlined 

in this paper, these programs range from statewide initiatives to local district projects, professional development to curriculum development, 

and resource centers to incentives to hire and 

retain teachers. Many of these programs are 

supported by the National Science Foundation, 

the Department of Education, or other organizations. In addition, the assistance of organizations such as the Southeast Eisenhower 

Consortium at SERVE is essential for schools 

to succeed in raising all students to high levels of learning. The skilled and dedicated staff 

at SERVE is able to bridge the gap between 

legislative mandates and classroom practice. 

Organizations such as these are instrumental in 

shaping the ultimate landscape of reform.

While we have come quite a distance, we still 

have a long and challenging road to travel. The 

high-minority population and low socioeconomic status of the region has become an 

excuse for low student achievement in all subject areas, especially in mathematics and science. The most unqualified teachers, in both 

content and pedagogy, are routinely assigned 

classes with predominantly minority students. 

Traditional, lecture/worksheet-dominated 

instructional techniques that emphasize rote 

memorization through drill and practice are 

often used in these classrooms and undermine 

the learning of these minority students. Low 

expectations for student achievement and 

unqualified teachers in schools with highminority populations create academic prejudice, which hinders minority students from furthering their educations and perpetuates a 

cycle of poverty. 

Other challenges may be even more daunting. 

Low salaries and poor administrative support 

for teachers are elements that force half of all 

new teachers to seek other employment within 

five years of beginning their teaching careers. 

Any good businessperson will tell you that consistency is a key to sustainability. If a school 

reform effort is to succeed, a high proportion of 

teachers and administrators must be in place 

over an extended period of time to ensure 

its continuation. This is not happening in the 

Southeast. Teacher shortages, especially in 

mathematics and science, are spawning lateral 

entry programs, such as the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Troops to Teachers, of various rigors to accommodate demand. Exacerbating the 

problem, these lateral-entry teachers have even 

shorter life spans in the classroom than their 

traditionally trained counterparts.

Much more could be said concerning the information and data provided in this landscape 

paper. However, its true utility is the 360-

degree perspective of mathematics and science reform in the nation and specifically the 

Southeast that it provides to parents, teachers, 

administrators, and legislators. This broad view 

is essential to keeping priorities in focus, and 

although the paper offers encouragement, it 

also reveals the numerous challenges ahead. 

While addressing these challenges, everyone 

involved in mathematics and science reform 

must keep the ultimate goal in mind—high 

achievement for all students.
vii

Preface

This document, A Survey of Mathematics and Science Reform in the Southeast: A Landscape Paper, 

was conceptualized as a document to offer perspective on mathematics and science reform in the 

Southeast. The intent was to provide a panoramic view of mathematics and science reform in each 

SERVE state (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and, ultimately, a synthesis of mathematics and science reform in the Southeast region. 

Since 1992, the Consortium has been in the midst of reform in the Southeast region. Its solid relationships with a wide range of stakeholders in each state poised the Consortium to step back and 

offer insider-outsider perspectives. The view we present here reflects not only the rich experiences 

with our clients but also our own reflections on reform.

Over the last decade, two common notions have framed reform in mathematics and science: setting high standards for all students and designing action plans for achieving those standards. With 

these two ideas in mind, a framework for thinking about mathematics and science reform was created based on systemic reform literature and reform experiences in schools. The following issues 

became the organizing principles for the document: accountability and standards, effective teachers, 

professional development, equity, and innovative and special initiatives.

The information for this document was obtained through a variety of sources: interviews, documents 

from the individual states, websites, and focus groups. Conversations with state science and mathematics supervisors about their state curriculum frameworks and other related artifacts were very 

helpful. In addition, many research reports and national documents were valuable as we developed 

the framework for the document. In the section describing programs supporting mathematics and 

science reform, programs were selected that appeared to impact a considerable portion of the state 

and that may have been pilot projects that could be replicated across the state.

As we neared completion of this document, the No Child Left Behind Act became an important force 

driving reform. While many states have developed plans to implement this legislation, there is much 

to learn about how it will impact mathematics and science reform. We know that providing “highly 

qualified” mathematics and science teachers in all classrooms is a lofty and noble goal but will also 

be a struggle. States have taken action toward setting high standards and designing accountability 

measures, but they have been less consistent about ensuring that students are taught by effective 

teachers who know their subjects.

Our hope is that the region will continue to move forward. The teaching and learning of mathematics 

and science in our schools is a critical matter for the future of our nation. The past efforts coupled 

with efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act may be yet another tool to move us closer to 

achieving our goal—a high-quality education for all children.

Francena D. Cummings, Director

A Survey OF

Mathematics AND

Science Reform

IN THE Southeast:

A Landscape Paper
viii
A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast: A Landscape Paper

THE National Context

3

INTRODUCTION:

THE National Context

Few images from the last quarter of the 20th century are more compelling 

than that of Earth viewed from the moon by the crew of the Apollo 8 

mission. The picture that came into our homes through television, 

magazines, and newspapers was not a globe with divided territories, but an image of wholeness. This inspirational image of an 

interconnected system abundant with life was made possible 

through advances in mathematics, science, and technology. 

Preserving this connected system will require a paradigm 

shift in the way we educate all children. 

At the dawn of the 21st century, we are faced with an 

increasingly interdependent global community that 

demands new and changing job skills and an informed 

citizenry. Schools are challenged to produce students who 

are problem solvers and creative thinkers. Students who 

understand and work within the emerging global community 

using higher-level thinking skills will be essential for generating 

information that enriches people’s lives. Mathematics- and science-related knowledge and abilities are essential requisites for a 

postindustrial knowledge-intensive society.

This document, A Survey of Mathematics and Science Reform in the Southeast: A Landscape Paper, provides a synopsis of K−12 mathematics and science education reform 

efforts in the six SERVE states in the southeastern region of the United States: Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The Landscape Paper begins with an 

overview of mathematics and science education reform at the national level, including a section 

on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which will most certainly have an enormous impact on 

mathematics and science education across the country. The story of the Southeast’s mathematics 

and science reform journey through the 1990s and into the new millennium follows. This Landscape Paper highlights trends across the region in terms of standards and accountability, student 

achievement, teacher development, and programs supporting reform. Appendix A provides greater 

detail about reform initiatives for each of the individual SERVE states. Appendix B includes charts 

and detailed data from the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) for the six states. 

This document is designed to examine, not evaluate, the reform movement in the Southeast and to 

inform the audience of key reform activities in the region and states.

Mathematics- and 

science-related 

knowledge 

and abilities 

are essential 

requisites for a 

postindustrial 

knowledgeintensive society.
4 

THE Need FOR Mathematics 

AND Science Reform

Mathematics and science education is once 

again in the midst of reform. While earlier 

reform efforts in the 1960s and 1970s resulted 

from the Russians’ launch of Sputnik 

in October 1957, the impetus 

in the 1980s and beyond has 

been linked to the poor performance of U.S. students on 

national and international tests. 

The current wave of educational reform began in 1983 as 

the nation’s attention focused 

on A Nation At Risk published 

by the U.S. Department of Education. Poor student performance triggered 

a call for reform to improve K−12 education 

at the national, state, and local levels. Subsequently, summits of the nation’s governors in 

1989 and 1996 resulted in a movement to 

develop national standards in all subjects. 

By 1994, the GOALS 2000: Educate America Act was in place, establishing eight 

national education goals. Goal number 

five represents one of the challenges we 

did not meet: “By the year 2000, United 

States students will be first in the world in 

mathematics and science achievement.” 

Attempts to reach this goal, however, 

inspired the process of weaving high 

expectations with high standards. 

Two important educational assessments, the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 

provide data on what children know and do not 

know about mathematics and science. In the 

1996 NAEP assessment, no more than three 

out of 10 students in the fourth, eighth, 

and twelfth grades could perform at the 

proficient level or above on the NAEP 

mathematics and science tests 

(National Center for Education 

Statistics, 2002).

While NAEP indicated national 

achievement problems in mathematics and science education, 

TIMSS examined the international 

achievement gap. American student 

performance in mathematics and science 

declined between fourth and eighth grades 

compared to other countries. According to 

a report by the Glenn Commission, Before 

It’s Too Late, American children are not 

“world-class learners” when it comes to 

mathematics and science (U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Mathematics and Science 

Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000a). 

While U.S. fourth-grade students 

scored among the best in the world 

in science and above the international average in mathematics, our 

high school students scored near the 

bottom compared to other TIMSS 

nations in both mathematics and science. During the 1998−1999 school 

year, TIMSS was administered again to 

eighth-grade students in 38 countries. 
5

Although TIMSS-R (Repeat) did not test the 

same students who were fourth-graders in 

1995, it did provide a picture of how much students in the U.S. had progressed between 

grades 4 and 8. U.S. educators hoped that students who had been in the fourth grade in 1995 

would continue their strong performance and 

score respectably as eighth-graders. Unfortunately, the results show that U.S. students performed relatively lower in 1999 than in 1995 

when compared to participating nations 

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Compared to high-scoring nations where the 

focus of instruction was on thinking and understanding concepts, it seems that U.S. students 

According 

to a report 

by the Glenn 

Commission, 

Before It’s Too 

Late, American 

children are not 

“world-class 

learners” when 

it comes to 

mathematics

and science.

(U.S. Department of 

Education, National 

Commission on 

Mathematics and 

Science Teacher for the 

21st Century, 2000a)

spend more time practicing routine procedures 

with a curriculum that has been described as 

“an inch deep and a mile wide.” U.S. education 

is often criticized for paying too little attention to 

the complex thinking and reasoning skills that 

students need to become lifelong learners and 

flexible workers. Even U.S. students say that 

schools expect too little from them. According 

to a Public Agenda poll (Education Week, 1998), 

while three-quarters of high school students say 

they put a lot of effort into their schoolwork, 

only 30% find school exciting. If we hope to 

reach our national education goals, students 

should be taken seriously as thinkers, and the 

practice of teaching should be nurtured. 
6 

THE Need FOR Standards

New visions for learning present students with 

opportunities to investigate real-life questions 

embedded in activities that require them to 

develop their own in-depth thinking and questioning. Mathematics learning is no longer a 

matter of adding, subtracting, dividing, and 

memorizing tables and definitions. Mathematics and science draw upon children’s natural 

curiosity and prior experiences and help them 

make sense of the world and their place in it. 

Also, learning mathematics and science fosters higher-order thinking skills and cognitive 

strategies to select, organize, evaluate, and use 

knowledge for a productive life. Scientific literacy has become a “civic competency required 

for national thinking about science in relation to 

personal, social, political, economic problems 

and issues that one is likely to meet throughout 

life” (Hurd, 1998, p. 410).

By the early 1990s, policymakers and educators reached a consensus that standards-based 

reform was the most promising strategy for 

improving schools and raising student achievement (Council of Chief State School Officers, 

2001). Meeting standards, however, is a challenge we will continue to face throughout the 

coming decades. Why set standards? “Because 

all students should learn important mathematical concepts and processes with understanding,” said the National Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics (NCTM) in its 2000 publication Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. 

Three NCTM standards documents—Curriculum 

and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989), Professional Standards for Teaching 

Mathematics (1991), and Assessment Standards 

for School Mathematics (1995)—were the precursors to the 2000 mathematics standards and 

provided the initial framework for what is valued in standards-based mathematics education. 

The science standards address inquiry as the 

primary focus. Inquiry is a learning approach 

that emphasizes examining the natural or material world. Such examination leads to asking 

questions and making inferences in search of 

new meanings. The standards also address 

connections between science and technology, 

the personal and social perspectives of science, 

and the history and nature of science. Science 

standards have emerged from long-term initiatives to reform K−12 education in natural and 

social science, mathematics, and technology. 

In 1991, Project 2061 published Science for 

All Americans to define what constitutes adult 

scientific literacy and to outline what students 

should know in science, mathematics, and technology by the time they leave high school. 

Benchmarks for Science Literacy was published 

by Project 2061 in 1994 as a companion to 

Science for All Americans. The Benchmarks

specify how students should progress toward 

science literacy at different grade levels. Building on the work of the preceding organizations, 

the National Research Council published the 

National Science Education Standards in 1995, 

and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) published Pathways to the Science 

Standards: Guidelines for Moving the Vision into 

Practice in 1997. 

To spread the implementation of the standards 

across the country, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a range of improvement 

strategies. These strategies included State Systemic Initiatives (SSI), Urban Systemic Initiatives 

Scientific 

literacy has 

become a “civic 

competency 

required for 

national thinking 

about science 

in relation 

to personal, 

social, political, 

economic 

problems and 

issues that one 

is likely to meet 

throughout life.”

(Hurd, 1998)
7

(USI), Rural Systemic Initiatives (RSI), and the 

Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics 

and Science Achievement (CPMSA) program. 

These NSF programs shared the same guiding principle: All children can learn rigorous 

science, mathematics, and technology. Unlike 

past efforts to reform mathematics and science 

education, these NSF programs focused on 

systemic approaches to reform.

The U.S. Department of Education also created a range of initiatives that support exciting 

approaches to teaching science and mathematics, such as the National Commission on 

Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st 

Century, chaired by former senator and astronaut John Glenn. Known as the Glenn Commission, the project’s mission was to develop 

strategies to raise the quality of mathematics 

and science teaching throughout the nation. 

The U.S. Department of Education also funds 

initiatives such as the Eisenhower Regional 

Consortia and the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education. These two entities work cooperatively 

with other education organizations at the local, 

state, and regional levels for the improvement 

of mathematics and science education. The 

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse provides 

an expansive library of information about curriculum materials and professional development 

in print and online.
8 

The most effective instrument for change and 

reform lies “with teaching itself” (U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on 

Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st 

Century, 2000b). The vision of teaching as an 

intimate, focused, professional practice serves 

us well as an ideal for school reform. Quality 

teaching is crucial to raising student performance. School improvement efforts must focus 

on recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers 

who encourage students in America’s 88,000 

public schools to think, discuss, and solve 

problems related to their lives. 

Teachers, particularly mathematics and science 

teachers, must be well prepared in both content and pedagogy. This is a concern for many 

states. According to the Glenn Commission’s 

report, more than 25% of high school mathematics teachers and nearly 20% of high school 

science teachers lack even a minor in their 

teaching field. In the highest minority schools, 

students have less than a 50% chance of being 

taught by a science or mathematics teacher 

who holds both a license and a degree in the 

field. In 1998, 72% of grades 7−8 mathematics 

teachers were certified in mathematics. In science, 73% of grades 7−8 teachers were certified in science (Council of Chief State School 

Officers, 1999).

The current reform effort—to meet standards 

and define new curriculum frameworks—proposes the development of new instructional 

strategies, materials, and methods of assessment. Effective learning environments encourage a pervasive respect for student ideas and 

serious engagement in higher-order thinking. 

The standards for mathematics and science 

teaching share several common goals, including the following:

• Promotion of high expectations for all

students

• Emphasis on depth rather than breadth of 

content coverage 

• Emphasis on tasks that provide students the 

opportunity to actively engage in the subject 

matter, solve problems, and apply skills in 

broader contexts. 

In standards-based teaching, effective teachers use a variety of teaching strategies to tie 

together learning, understanding, and application. The standards place additional intense 

demands on teachers. Therefore, ongoing professional development and effective teacher 

preparation are essential elements in improving 

teaching and learning in American schools.

Proper development of skills is just one aspect 

of what is needed to achieve reform. Citing professional development for teachers as a critical 

component to quality teaching, the U.S. Department of Education funded the National Center 

for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science (NCISLA) to 

Developing Effective 

Teachers

The most 

effective 

instrument for 

change and 

reform lies “with 

teaching itself.”

(U.S. Department of 

Education, National 

Commission on 

Mathematics and 

Science Teaching 

for the 21st Century, 

2000b)
9

write science and mathematics reform goals 

that “will mean engaging students in a variety 

of problem situations in a classroom environment that rewards alternative solution strategies, encourages appropriate modeling, invites 

reflective thinking, allows genuine sharing of 

information, and encourages articulation and 

justification of problem solutions and strategies” 

(NCISLA, 2002).

In 1998, about a third of all dollars allocated 

by the NSF for SSIs went to professional 

In the highest 

minority schools, 

students have 

less than a 

50% chance of 

being taught 

by a science or 

mathematics 

teacher who 

holds both a 

license and

a degree in

the field.

(Council of Chief State 

School Officers, 1999)

development of teachers. The SSIs concentrated resources for professional development 

based on several premises, including that elementary and middle school teachers in science and mathematics are inadequately 

prepared and that existing professional development opportunities are fragmented. An 

evaluation report of the SSIs concluded that 

the professional development system and the 

policies that affect it are in need of restructuring (Corcoran, Shields, & Zucker, 1998).
10 

Large-scale education reform in the United 

States is difficult due to the growth of the 

U.S. population, complexity of the education 

system, and the increasing diversity of our 

students. African Americans, Latinos, and 

American Indians represent nearly one-third of 

the under-18 population and are predicted to 

make up more than two-fifths of this population by 2030. Students in these groups perform 

significantly lower on achievement tests than 

White and Asian students. To compound the 

problem, non-White teachers are scarce. Only 

about 7% of teachers in public schools are 

minorities, while minorities comprise more than 

35% of K−12 students (Snyder, 1999).

We know that our schools are not always 

places where all students experience equal 

opportunity for success. Achievement discrepancies related to gender and ethnic origin 

remain a hindrance to a nation that clearly 

needs to maximize its human potential. It is 

promising that the standards movement has 

called to the forefront the question of how to 

provide equal access to quality education. Setting meaningful standards can help achieve 

the goal of a quality education for all; no matter where they live, students should have the 

same opportunity to study a challenging curriculum. The equity concepts of inclusion and 

teacher expectations must be linked to the process of providing equal opportunity for all. 

In the mid-1990s, the gap in average NAEP 

mathematics scores between White and Black 

17-year-olds was about a third less than it had 

been in the early 1970s. However, minority 

gains in the 1990s have been more modest 

than those recorded in the 1970s and 1980s. In 

some instances, ground may actually have been 

lost (College Board, 1999). The NAEP 1996 science assessment, which looked at demographic 

subgroups, level of parental education, type of 

school attended, and participation in selected 

government programs, found that: 

• Male and female students in grades 4 and 8 

had similar scores. 

• In grade 12, male students had higher 

scores than female students. 

• White and Asian/Pacific Islander students 

had higher average scores than Black and 

Hispanic students at all three levels tested. 

• Native-American students had higher average scores than Black and Hispanic students 

in grades 4 and 8. (The sample of NativeAmerican students at grade 12 was too 

small to permit comparisons.) 

In Setting Our Sights: Measuring Equity in 

School Change, Ruth S. Johnson illustrated that 

data can be used as a lever to achieve school 

change systemically. Johnson advocates the 

use of achievement plans that outline concrete 

steps toward raising the achievement of diverse 

student groups and the use of data to trigger, 

sustain, and institutionalize change (Johnson, 

1996). Recent studies suggest that teachers 

who succeed with non-mainstream students 

often convey content-specific knowledge in cultural-specific ways (Delpit, 1986; Heath, 1983; 

Ladson-Billings, 1989, Nelson-Barber, 1989, 

Meier & Nelson-Barber, 1990).

Focusing ON Equity

Only about 7% 

of teachers in 

public schools 

are minorities, 

while minorities 

comprise more 

than 35% of K−12 

students.

(Snyder, 1999)
11

Teachers who provide a stan-

dards-based education cre-

ate and use curricula that are 

directly linked to students’ 

cultural experiences, a process 

that begins with the teacher’s 

familiarity with specific cul-

tures. Without clear understandings of the common 

knowledge base and culturally 

specific experiences, teach-

ers are likely to misinterpret 

student behavior and motives 

and to misjudge their abilities 

and potential (Meier & NelsonBarber, 1990).

One of the most successful 

system-wide approaches was 

Equity 2000. Begun in 1990 as 

a six-year demonstration proj-

ect at six urban sites across 

the country, Equity 2000 

aimed at closing the gap in 

educational success and rates 

of college attendance between 

minority and non-minority 

students and between dis-

advantaged and advantaged 

students. The program was 

designed to eliminate tracking, 

set high standards for all stu-

dents, provide enrichment and 

support to enable all students 

to reach those standards, and 

build student aspirations to 

attend college.

Without clear 

understandings 

of the common 

knowledge 

base and 

culturally specific 

experiences, 

teachers 

are likely to 

misinterpret 

student behavior 

and motives 

and to misjudge 

their abilities and 

potential.

(Meier & Nelson-Barber, 

1990)
12 

The reform movement has spawned many 

policies designed to support and advance the 

reform agenda. Nationally, states have taken 

steps to ensure that policies are in place to 

reduce risk of student failure and to enhance 

teacher quality. The southeastern states are 

no different. Policies addressing attendance, 

graduation requirements, content standards, 

teacher preparation and licensure, school 

leader/administrator licensure, and student 

assessment have been written and implemented to address some of the challenges 

mentioned below. 

The lack of continuity in the system remains 

a significant reform challenge to (a) the recruitment and continued education of teachers, 

particularly in rural and urban areas; (b) the 

advancement of the reform agenda from legislation to the classroom; (c) the provision of 

equal access to quality education; and (d) the 

measurement of progress. A scarcity of useful and reliable data at the federal and school 

level has often limited educators’ ability to track 

their reform progress. States and districts must 

continue to seek out, interpret, and appropriately integrate valuable information into their 

planning and implementation processes. At the 

same time, communities would benefit from 

broad needs assessments to identify their greatest challenges and to target areas for focusing 

their efforts. It is difficult to imagine how our 

lives will change in this new millennium. We do 

know, however, that along the way we must 

relentlessly pursue an accountability infrastructure that encourages local ownership, supports 

teachers, and advances students toward higher 

achievement. 

Retaining good teachers is also a serious challenge for the nation. In 2000, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) conducted 

a nationwide survey and found that large 

numbers of teachers are considering leaving 

the profession because of job dissatisfaction 

due to “poor administrative support” and “poor 

salary” (NSTA, 2000). States are implementing 

incentives that range from desperate to creative, such as offering a free college education 

and free housing to those who will move to the 

state to teach. Nevertheless, teacher turnover 

rates are increasing; if we hope to improve 

mathematics and science education in America, 

it is critical that we address this challenge with 

innovative programs.

Highlights AND Challenges
13

With the standards movement and accountability 

measures gaining momentum after a decade of state, 

regional, and national 

initiatives, the year 2002 

began with the No Child 

Left Behind Act (NCLB), 

the reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 

NCLB has the potential 

to cast much of the work 

happening in southeastern 

schools in a new light. 

NCLB emphasizes four 

major themes: teacher 

quality, greater accountability for districts and schools, local control and 

flexibility of spending federal dollars at the state 

level, and increased options for parents. Since 

its introduction in January 2002, states and 

education organizations have been working to 

understand the law and its implications and to 

determine the most effective ways of implementing NCLB. 

In terms of accountability, NCLB requires that 

states establish a definition of proficiency using 

several indicators. States will be required to 

implement annual reading and mathematics tests first in three grade bands (3−5, 6−9, 

10−12) and then at each level between grades 

3−8 by 2005−2006. An assessment for science must be added by 

2007−2008 (North Carolina 

State Board of Education, 

2002). Within 12 years, 

states must demonstrate 

100% proficiency, while 

setting incremental goals 

for reaching this benchmark. Title 1 schools that 

fail to progress incrementally will receive technical 

assistance, and students 

at those schools will have 

the option to attend other 

schools. The Act requires 

that data be disaggregated 

to ensure that children in 

diverse groups are meeting proficiency standards; report cards of 

school and district progress will be published. 

In an effort to support these requirements and 

consolidate and coordinate efforts, the U.S. 

Department of Education and the NSF are 

cooperating to support the Math and Science 

Partnership (MSP) program. This program is 

envisioned to be a five-year national effort to 

unite the activities of higher education institutions, K−12 school systems, and other partners 

in support of K−12 students and teachers. The 

program is part of the No Child Left Behind 

plan to strengthen and reform K−12 education 

(NSF, 2002).

As the regional portion of this landscape 

paper demonstrates, each of the six states in 

EPILOGUE:

New Directions

IN Federal Policy

The teacher 

quality 

requirements 

outlined in the No 

Child Left Behind 

Act include the 

provision that 

each classroom 

has a “highly 

qualified” or fully 

licensed and 

certified teacher 

by the end of 

2005.
14

the Southeast has taken steps to implement 

accountability measures over the past decade. 

How the NCLB Act is implemented in each 

state and how it changes accountability measures is yet to be determined. 

The teacher quality requirements outlined in 

the NCLB Act include the provision that each 

classroom has a “highly qualified” or fully 

licensed and certified teacher by the end of 

2005. New teachers hired in Title 1 schools 

must be highly qualified beginning with the 

2002−2003 school year. U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige issued a report on teacher 

quality in June 2002 in which he called for an 

overhaul of teacher preparation and state certification requirements. In his report, Secretary 

Paige suggests that such requirements are outdated and too rigid in a time of teacher shortages. He calls for programs that give teachers 

stronger backgrounds in the subject matter 

they will eventually teach. Some responses to 

Paige’s report have contended that his proposal 

overlooks the importance of a solid grounding 

in proven teaching methods, which are emphasized throughout the No Child Left Behind Act 

(ASCD, 2002). As with most provisions of the 

Act, states have control over implementation 

but will need to establish goals and benchmarks toward reaching NCLB goals.

States and districts are only beginning to study 

NCLB and what it means for continuing existing initiatives and securing funding for future 

endeavors. States, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Congress, and local districts 

will still work to reach consensus on the definition of a variety of terms and goals. However, 

the mandates within the law are far-reaching, 

with the potential to influence education in a 

multitude of ways. The coming years will show 

how states in the Southeast change educational 

requirements to comply with this legislation, 

particularly for mathematics and science. 
A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast: A Landscape Paper

THE Regional Landscape
16
The six states in the SERVE region—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina—boast a varied geographical landscape and diverse topography unique to the 

Southeast region. From the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina to the Everglades in Florida, 

each state is rich in natural resources with great stretches of fertile land. Agriculture, manufacturing, seaports, the space industry, textiles, and tourism provide the economic backbone for the 

region. Varied industries 

have attracted diverse 

populations from 

around the country and 

the world, and these 

populations have had 

THE Regional Landscape

17
18 

substantial cultural and linguistic influences on the region. Predicted acceleration of these population 

shifts (see Table 1) will have a direct impact on the schools and children of the Southeast.

Table 1. Projected State Populations by Race: 2000−2025 

AL FL GA MS NC SC TOTAL

White Not 

Hispanic

2000 3,231 10,405 5,270 1,755 5,748 2,624 29,033

2025 3,724 12,196 5,977 1,904 6,639 3,102 33,542

% change +14%

African 

American

2000 1,137 2,326 2,279 1,012 1,738 1,156 9,648

2025 1,364 3,556 3,322 1,162 2,244 1,402 13,050

% change +26%

Hispanic 

American

2000 37 2,390 189 21 121 42 2,800

2025 63 4,944 346 39 210 81 5,683

% change +51%

American 

Indian, 

Eskimo, 

Aleut

2000 18 51 17 8 94 8 196

2025 23 84 21 8 110 10 256

% change +23%

Asian, 

Pacific 

Islander

2000 34 267 142 19 96 33 591

2025 57 526 247 32 173 57 1,092

% change +56%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 (Numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Resident Population)

The population 

shifts in the 

Southeast 

have helped 

stakeholders 

recognize 

the need to 

strengthen 

the quality of 

education for 

all students, 

especially in 

mathematics

and science.

National data indicate that U.S. students, 

particularly in the Southeast, are not 

achieving at high rates and that there are 

significant achievement gaps between 

regions, races, and social classes. These 

gaps appear in grades, test scores on 

national assessments, course selections, 

and college completion rates (Haycock 

& Ames, 2000). The population shifts in 

the Southeast have helped stakeholders 

recognize the need to strengthen the quality 

of education for all students, especially 

in mathematics and science. Elements 

of reform, such as accountability and 

standards, teacher quality, and programs 

supporting mathematics and science 

improvement, are key issues covered in 

this report in an attempt to understand how 

the Southeast is participating in the reform 

movement and to answer the following 

questions: What initiatives have been put in 

place? Are the efforts making a difference for 

the Southeast’s diverse student population? 

What challenges remain?
19

Results of two large-scale assessments, the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), indicate there 

is a continuously widening achievement gap 

attached to geographic location, class, and 

race. NAEP is a national test used to gauge 

the educational progress of U.S. students in 

various content areas, including mathematics 

and science. TIMSS is an international assessment that focused on the mathematics and science achievement of students, generally at the 

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade levels. These 

two assessments offer evidence that there is a 

need for reforming mathematics and science 

education. Scores from both tests confirm there 

is a student achievement problem in this country that is especially critical in the Southeast. 

Both tests are examined below from regional 

and national perspectives.

THE Need FOR Reform

For the past 

decade, the 

Southeast has 

continuously 

improved eighthgrade (NAEP 

mathematics) 

student 

proficiency 

levels.

40

50

60

70

80

1990 1992 1996 2000

Percentage

61

55

66

75 74

54

59

58

67

51

63

70 72

50

64

69

40

48

55

Central

N.E.

Nation

West

S.E.

Source: National Assessment of 

Educational Progress, 1990–2000. 

Figure 1. Percentage At or 

Above Basic Proficiency 

in Grade 4 Mathematics

by Region

NAEP

As indicated by the NAEP mathematics 

assessment, between 1990 and 2000, at 

grades four and eight, the average percentage 

of students scoring at or above proficiency 

steadily increased. As Figure 1 illustrates, 

during that decade, the percentage of fourthgrade students in the Southeast who scored 

at or above basic proficiency in mathematics 

increased by 21%, which is greater than the 

national average increase. 

The Southeast experienced its most significant 

increase in average- to high-performing fourthgrade students between 1992 and 1996. This 

increase was more than any region besides the 

central states. Additionally, between 1996 and 

2000, southeastern fourth-grade students made 
20 

Figure 3. Percentage At or Above Basic 

Proficiency in Grade 4 Mathematics by

Race/Ethnicity

* Florida data is from NAEP 1996, 

as the state did not participate in 

NAEP 2000.

Source: National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 

2000.

Figure 2. Percentage At or Above Basic 

Proficiency in Grade 8 Mathematics by Region

Source: National Assessment of Education Progress, 1990–2000.

greater gains in mathematics proficiency than fourth-graders from any 

other region, except for the western 

region. Despite the progress, the 

increases are not enough to be at 

parity with the other regions and the 

nation as a whole. 

On the NAEP mathematics assessment for grade 8, southeastern 

students showed an increase in the 

percentage of students at or above 

basic proficiency in mathematics 

from 1990 to 2000 (see Figure 2). 

Between 1996 and 2000, the Southeast increased the proficiency rate 

by only 1%, a gain higher than only 

the northeastern region, which measured no increase in the students’ 

proficiency levels. For the past 

decade, the Southeast has continuously improved eighth-grade 

student proficiency levels, at a 

rate that has narrowed but not 

closed the achievement gap with 

some regions. 

Within the southeastern region, 

disaggregated NAEP 2000 data 

(Figures 3 & 4) reveal the achievement gap between the races. 

Ranging from a low of 27 points 

(FL, White-Hispanic, grade 4) to 

a high of 51 points (FL, BlackWhite, grade 8), most gaps hover 

40

50

60

70

80

1990 1992 1996 2000

63

59

67

67

67

57 58

62

66

52

66

69

74

50

56

57

43

50

59

N.E.

Central

Nation

West

S.E.

0

20

40

60

80

100

AL FL* GA MS NC SC US

White

Black

Hispanic

74

3637

70

26

43

75

38

43

66

2730

86

5856

77

37

46

78

38

47
21

According to 

TIMSS, compared 

to high-scoring 

nations where 

the focus of 

instruction was 

on thinking and 

understanding 

concepts, it 

seems that 

U.S. students 

spend more time 

practicing routine 

procedures.

(NCES, 2000)

in the 30- and 40-point ranges—an alarming 

discrepancy. In most states, the gaps increase 

from grade 4 to grade 8, while overall scores for 

all sub-groups decline from grade 4 to grade 8 

(exceptions: FL-White, NC-Hispanic). Progress 

in school does not seem commensurate with 

progress in achievement. Longitudinal NAEP 

data from 1990−2000, disaggregated by race, 

can be found in Appendix B.

TIMSS 

The Third International Mathematics and Science 

Study (TIMSS) administered in 1995 and again in 

1999 also highlighted problems in U.S. student 

achievement. The 1995 administration of TIMSS 

focused on fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade 

student achievement in 41 countries. 

While U.S. fourth-grade students 

scored among the best in the world in 

science and above the international 

average in mathematics, U.S. high 

school students scored near the bottom in both mathematics and science. 

TIMSS-Repeat (TIMSS-R), administered in 1999, was a follow-up to the 

original TIMSS and focused on eighthgrade students in an effort to measure growth over a four-year period. 

Thirty-eight countries, including the 

United States, participated in this 

study. Thirteen states and 14 districts 

or consortia of districts, including two 

districts from the Southeast, participated in the TIMSS-R benchmarking 

(Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, Gregory, 

Garden, O’Connor, Chrostowski, & 

Smith, 1999). The TIMSS-R results 

show that in 1995, U.S. fourth-graders 

exceeded international averages in 

mathematics and science; however, 

by 1999, the performance of U.S. 

eighth-graders relative to their international 

peers was average. The results also show that 

the relative performance of U.S. students on 

the TIMSS-R was lower than those students 

participating in the 1995 TIMSS assessment 

(National Alliance of Business, 2001). 

In an analysis of the data of the participating 

countries, two important findings emerged. 

Compared to high-scoring nations where the 

focus of instruction was on thinking and understanding concepts, it seems that U.S. students 

spent more time practicing routine procedures 

(NCES, 2000). Also, in nations where eighthand twelfth-grade students scored higher than 

U.S. students, teachers undergo long apprenticeships and continually develop the art of 

teaching by having teachers examine and discuss their instructional practices (Lewis, 2000).

Figure 4. Percentage At or Above Basic 

Proficiency in Grade 8 Mathematics by 

Race/Ethnicity

* Florida data is from NAEP 1996, as the state did not 

participate in NAEP 2000.

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) 2000. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

AL FL* GA MS NC SC US

67

24

29

72

21

39

73

3034

59

 20

15

83

42

57

72

3334

77

32

40

White

Black

Hispanic
22 

Implications

As indicated by NAEP and TIMSS, there is a 

great disparity in student achievement among 

nations, U.S. regions, and among students 

of different races in the United States. These 

results emphasize the need to re-examine the 

achievement problem and to decide which 

course of action is appropriate. In response to 

the call for improved student achievement, the 

six SERVE states have followed the national 

trend of developing standards for student learning. As a result, leaders are mandating high 

standards for graduation; states are developing 

or refining challenging curriculum; teachers are 

searching for new material, methods of instruction, and alternative assessments; and families 

and the general public are raising their expectations about education. Over the last eight years, 

the six Southeast states have maintained a 

steady effort to bring about change in student 

achievement. While states are dealing with 

many aspects of reform, it is apparent that the 

development of standards and the administration of high-stakes tests are not enough to sustain a standards-based educational system. 
23

Efforts to raise standards and test scores and to 

narrow the achievement gap have highlighted 

the need for accountability, and the southeastern states have been responsive. The passage 

of the No Child Left Behind Act by the U.S. 

Congress places even greater emphasis on 

accountability measures, though it is too early 

to measure the Act’s influence on achievement. 

During the past decade, the six SERVE states 

developed accountability systems that hold 

teachers and administrators responsible for 

the academic progress of students based on 

what students should know and be able to do 

at certain grade levels. Even though the implementation of accountability policies varies from 

state to state, accountability efforts in the region 

have common threads: standards, curriculum, 

assessment programs, and increased graduation requirements.

Standards define what knowledge and skills 

students should gain in all content areas, including mathematics and science. The curriculum 

provides teachers guidance on how to help 

students reach those standards. Assessments 

provide information on how well teachers are 

teaching and students are learning the curriculum content and meeting the standards (American Federation of Teachers, 2001). Graduation 

requirements in the states in the Southeast 

region were increased to motivate students 

to meet higher expectations. However, the 

challenge to implement meaningful policies 

or programs to narrow the relative achievement gaps remains. In response to this challenge, North Carolina, for example, is requiring 

local school systems to develop annual plans 

for closing gaps, increasing funding, developing resource centers and pilot programs, 

encouraging community/school collaboration, 

and implementing other initiatives to ensure 

that the achievement gaps close. Below are 

descriptions of how the region is 

implementing standards-based 

mathematics and science education to elevate achievement in the 

region in general. 

Standards

The six states in the SERVE region 

have followed the national trend 

of developing and implementing 

content standards to improve 

overall student achievement (see 

Table 2). Each state developed 

standards using the national mathematics and science content and 

process standards models developed by the National Council of 

Teachers of Mathematics and the 

National Research Council, 

respectively. Both sets of standards provide a framework to 

guide the teaching and learning of 

mathematics and science by providing states and districts the 

skills and knowledge that students 

should acquire at every grade level. In addition, all six states have now implemented 

tenth-grade exit examinations.

Supporting Reform

WITH Accountability
24 

Table 2. Status of State Standards

State

Has the state 

adopted 

standards in 

mathematics 

and science?

Standards 

that are clear, 

specific, and 

grounded in 

mathematics 

by grade level

Standards 

that are clear, 

specific, and 

grounded in 

science by 

grade level

Are students 

required to

master 10thgrade standards

to graduate

(as of 2001)?

Alabama Yes EMH EM Yes

Florida Yes EMH EMH Yes

Georgia Yes EMH EMH Yes

Mississippi Yes EMH EM Yes

North Carolina Yes EMH EMH Yes

South Carolina Yes EMH EMH Yes

E=Elementary School, M=Middle School, H=High School

Source: Education Week, Quality Counts 2002

The establishment of standards created an 

impetus for curricular and instructional change. 

Responses to those changes vary across 

states and districts. While states rely heavily 

on national and state standards to improve 

the quality of instructional delivery, districts 

have utilized other aspects of accountability to 

change core processes of instruction. Among 

them are expansions of the curriculum, standardized assessment processes, and more 

rigid graduation requirements.

Curriculum

The results of the TIMSS study conducted in 

1995 and 1999 make a case for why curriculum is an important component to mathematics 

and science reform. One aspect of the study 

was the comparison of U.S. mathematics and 

science curricula with the curricula of other 

nations. TIMSS 1995 described mathematics 

and science curricula as being a “mile wide 

and an inch deep.” U.S. textbooks are larger, 

heavier, and cover a wider array of topics, but 

at the expense of covering any of those topics 

in sufficient depth to convey basic understandings (Valverde & Schmidt, 1997). The key difference between what American students are 

taught and what their international peers are 

taught lies in the shallow educational opportunities students have to learn most mathematics 

and science topics.

The new vision of learning reflected in all the 

new standards documents in the Southeast 

presents students with real-life challenges 

embedded in activities that call upon them to 

dig deep into content, to develop their own 

thinking by asking questions, and to demonstrate their understanding. Mathematics and 

science learning is no longer solely focused 

on memorizing computational facts and lists of 

tables and definitions. It calls upon children’s 

natural curiosity, coupled with their prior experiences, to make sense of the world and their 

place in it. 

The majority of 

the schools in 

the Southeast 

continue to adopt 

mathematics and 

science curricula 

and textbooks 

that focus more 

on breadth than 

depth, cover 

disjointed topics, 

and are not 

substantively 

standards-based.
25

To accommodate this new vision, curriculum 

materials must change. Yet the majority of the 

schools in the Southeast continue to adopt 

mathematics and science curricula and textbooks that focus more on breadth than depth, 

cover disjointed topics, and are not substantively standards-based. While the materials may 

have been written based on state standards, 

they do not provide the learner with opportunities to deeply investigate topics or connect one 

topic with another. On the other hand, NSF has 

funded innovative mathematics and science 

curricula that span the K−12 grade range and 

address some of the issues cited above. These 

resources are in use on a limited basis across 

the SERVE states, but the preferred resources 

are still the traditional curricula and textbooks. 

Project 2061 of the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conducted 

an independent curriculum-materials analysis of 

13 middle school mathematics texts and found 

only four to be satisfactory—all of which were 

NSF-funded curricula (AAAS, 2000).

Why do states steer away from these materials? The most pointed difference between 

NSF-funded materials and traditional materials 

is the organization of the content. Traditional 

textbooks compartmentalize strands such as 

algebra and geometry or biology and chemistry, 

whereas in NSF materials, strands are often 

integrated with each other, highlighting connections among strands and topics. When it comes 

to pedagogy, the strategies are also different. 

The reform-oriented NSF materials emphasize 

problem solving and inquiry, and while there 

may be some problem solving in traditional 

materials, the emphasis is on algorithms, 

definitions, and “cookbook experiments.” All 

too many teachers teach through lecture and 

show-and-tell rather than through highly interactive strategies. When teachers have to make 

choices about curriculum materials, they tend 

to choose those that embrace their philosophical approach to teaching. Therefore, curriculum 

changes are likely to be very slow. 

Assessment

The gauge that 

each state uses to 

judge if standards 

are being met is 

a state assessment. All of the 

six SERVE states 

either score their 

tests against a 

set of standards, 

which is known 

as a criterion-referenced test (CRT), 

or compare student performance 

against either a 

national or state 

average, which 

is known as a 

norm-referenced 

test (NRT). Table 

3 summarizes the 

grade levels tested 

and the types 

of tests used to 

measure school 

performance and 

student achievement in each of 

the SERVE states 

(as reported in 

2000).
26 

Table 3. Southeastern States’ Mathematics and Science Assessment Programs

State Name of Assessment Grades

Type 

of Test

Content 

Standards

Alabama

High School Basic Skills 

Exam 11 CRT

Alabama

Course of 

Study

High School Graduation Exam 10 CRT

Stanford Achievement Test, 

9th Edition 3−11 NRT

Florida

Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test 5, 8, 10 CRT

Sunshine State 

High School Standards

Competency Test 10−12 NRT

Georgia

Kindergarten Assessment 

Program K DT

Quality Core 

Curriculum

Iowa Test of Basic Skills 3, 5, 8 NRT

Criterion Referenced

Competency Test 4, 6, 8 CRT

High School Graduation Test 11, 12 CRT

Mississippi

Iowa Test of Basic Skills 4−9 NRT Mississippi 

Curriculum 

Subject Area Testing Program Frameworks Algebra 

I CRT

North

Carolina

NC Grade 3 Pretest 3 NRT

North Carolina 

Standard 

Course of 

Study

End-of-Grade Test 3−8 NRT

Open-ended Assessments 5−8 CRT

End-of-Course Test 9−12 NRT

NC High School

Comprehensive Test 10 NRT

South

Carolina

Palmetto Achievement

Challenge Test 3−8, 10 CRT South Carolina 

Curriculum 

High School Exit Exam 10 NRT Standards

NRT = Norm-referenced Test, CRT = Criterion-referenced Test, DT = Diagnostic Test

Source: Council of Chief State School Officers (2000). 
27

Graduation Requirements

In response to the need for all students to meet high expectations, most southeastern states have 

increased the mathematics and science graduation requirements during the past decade. 

Table 4. Mathematics & Science Graduation Requirements for the SERVE States

Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi North

Carolina

South

Carolina

State 

mathematics 

credit 

requirements 

for high school 

graduation (2000)

4 3 3 3 3 4

Algebra 1 

required for 

graduation?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Eighth-graders 

taking an 

algebra class 

(1996)

21% 27% 30% 18% 30% 28%

State science 

credit 

requirements 

for high school 

graduation

4 3 3 2 3 3

Sources: State Departments of Education, 1999; CCSSO, 2001

As Table 4 indicates, each SERVE state has 

increased graduation requirements in all core 

subjects, including mathematics and science, 

with Alabama having the most stringent (four 

credits required in mathematics and science to 

graduate). Algebra I is required for graduation 

in all six SERVE states. In addition, according 

to the American Federation of Teachers (2002), 

most states in the Southeast, except for Alabama, have promotion policies at elementary 

and/or middle school level (see Table 5). In 

addition, Table 5 indicates that each state also 

requires graduating seniors to take and pass 

some type of exit exam; however, these exams 

are not yet all aligned with the state standards. 
28 

Table 5. Promotion Policies and Exit Exams

in States in the Southeast

State

Promotion Policy Exit Exam

Elementary 

School

Middle 

School High School

Alabama 

Florida   

Georgia  

Mississippi   

North Carolina   

South Carolina   

Source: American Federation of Teachers, 2002

Implications

Across the Southeast, there is evidence that 

states are placing increased emphasis on 

student outcomes as a measure of accountability for quality education. To that end, the 

state legislators have established by statute 

some form of accountability focusing on performance for students, schools, and/or districts 

on high-stakes tests. All of the SERVE states 

have invested considerable effort in raising 

standards in mathematics and science, but 

Across the 

Southeast, there 

is evidence 

that states are 

placing increased 

emphasis 

on student 

outcomes as 

a measure of 

accountability 

for quality 

education.

they vary in the amount of progress made 

toward implementing reform in those areas. 

This implies that, to implement accountability laws and to meet national and state standards, states and districts must develop new 

resources and strategies in alignment with 

curriculum and assessment systems. If the 

standards are clearly outlining expectations for 

students, what are the implications for teaching 

and professional development? 
29

By 2005, America’s schools will be serving 

more than 54 million children, and education 

is struggling to answer the obvious question: 

how can we respond to this demand? Highpoverty urban and rural schools already foresee recruiting difficulties for teachers qualified 

in critical subjects such as special education, 

science, mathematics, and bilingual education 

(Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, 2002). 

This issue is magnified in the Southeast where 

the percentage of poor and minority children, 

often the majority in urban and rural schools, 

not only far exceeds the national average but 

also continues to climb. Add to this the need 

for more teachers of color to build a teaching 

force that mirrors the growing diversity that 

defines the South, and a focus for the regional 

struggle emerges—recruiting and retaining a 

quality teaching force in a region where the 

average teacher’s salary is often far below the 

national average. 

High standards for students concomitantly 

require high-quality teachers who are knowledgeable of the content and adept at using 

effective instruction. Research confirms that the 

most significant impact on student achievement 

is a certified, competent classroom teacher 

(Darling-Hammond, 1999). Several southeastern 

states are beginning to develop plans to attract 

and retain highly qualified teachers (Southeast 

Center for Teaching Quality, 2002), and these 

efforts will only increase with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Developing AND Keeping 

Effective Teachers

Research conducted by Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University has found that 

teacher preparedness correlates with teacher 

effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, 1995a). The 

results of the study show that teachers who are 

prepared with a major in their field are more 

effective in producing student achievement 

gains than teachers who are not. Hence, the 

distribution of qualified teachers both across a 

state and across the disciplines is an important 

indicator of educational equity. How does the 

Southeast shape up?

Qualified 

Teachers, 

Schools, 

AND Student 

Assignments 

In a 2001 study looking at the distribution of 

qualified teachers (those with at least a minor 

in the field they are teaching) in the southeastern states, including the nation as a whole, at 

least one out of four secondary classrooms in 

high-poverty schools were taught by an outof-field teacher (with the exception of Alabama 

and Florida). North Carolina had the highest 

percentage at 41%. Furthermore, three states 

Research 

confirms that 

the most 

significant impact 

on student 

achievement 

is a certified, 

competent 

classroom 

teacher.

(Darling-Hammond, 

1999)
30 

in the region (Mississippi, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina) had 

unqualified teachers in at least 

one out of five secondary classrooms in high-minority schools 

(see Figure 5).

In developing a state and national 

database on achievement patterns 

by race and class, the Education Trust found that disadvantaged students most likely (a) are 

assigned to low-level classes with 

curricula that are not intellectually rigorous, (b) are assigned 

to classes taught by teachers 

who are inadequately prepared, 

and (c) have little or no access 

to materials and resources that 

help to increase student achievement (Education Trust, 2001). 

Disaggregated student data in the 

southeastern states show the distribution of qualified mathematics 

teachers. In the SERVE region, 

the distribution of well-prepared 

Figure 5. Percentage of Secondary Classes 

Taught by Unqualified Teachers Lacking

a Major in the Field, SASS 1993-94

(Low = Less than 15%; High = Greater than 50%)

Source: Education Trust, 2001. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

AL FL GA MS NC SC US

State Average

Low Poverty

High Poverty

Low Minority

High Minority

In some southeastern states, 

unprepared 

teachers are disproportionately 

serving AfricanAmerican and

Latino students.

Table 6. Percentage of Eighth-Grade Mathematics Students With

Mathematics-Major Teachers

8th-Grade Math 

Students

State (%) Region 

Average (%)

National 

Average (%)

AL FL GA MS NC SC SE-all 6 US

All Students 53 42 30 39 41 42 41 44

By Ethnicity

African-American 53 46 30 38 38 35 40 36

Latino 45 42 37 45 37 36 40 37

White 54 40 29 38 44 47 42 48

Source: NAEP 2000 (FL shows NAEP 1996).
31

teachers of mathematics varied from state to 

state; however, unprepared teachers were disproportionately serving African-American and 

Latino students in some southeastern states 

(see Table 6). While some states (Alabama, 

North Carolina, and Mississippi) demonstrated 

variances of only a few percentage points 

among the three major populations noted, South 

Carolina demonstrated a major discrepancy in 

teacher assignments.

Although the aggregated data across the six 

states reveal that the percentage of children 

being taught eighth-grade mathematics by 

prepared teachers ranged from 30 to 53%, the 

regional average (41%) was 3 points less than 

that of the national average 

of 44%. Individually, only 

Alabama (53%) surpassed 

the national average (by 9%). 

All other states fell below 

the national average: Florida 

and South Carolina (both 

42%), North Carolina (41%), 

Mississippi (39%), and Georgia (30%). Alabama, Florida, 

North Carolina, and South 

Carolina all met or surpassed 

the regional average of 

41%. However, Georgia and 

Mississippi fell below the 

regional average. Considering the Southeast region by 

ethnic groups, the averages 

for African-American and 

Latino (both 40%) students with mathematically 

prepared teachers was higher than those of the 

national average of 36% and 37%, respectively. 

Conversely, the average for the White students 

(42%) being taught by prepared teachers fell 

short of the national average of 48%. The data 

indicate that teacher shortages in mathematics 

and disparate assignments of qualified teachers are critical problems in the Southeast.

Recruitment of 

Mathematics 

AND Science 

Teachers

The financial incentives of mathematics and 

science-based professions outside of teaching 

increase the challenges for recruiters of mathematics and science teachers. The recruitment 

of mathematics and science teachers of color 

becomes even more difficult, considering that 

members of these underrepresented populations have a wider range 

of career options than 

ever before. For these 

reasons, states have 

begun recruitment programs for nontraditional 

applicants, including professionals seeking 

career changes, retired 

and ex-military personnel, and people who 

were once certified to 

teach but never entered 

the classroom. 

Reports such as The 

Urban Teacher Challenge warn, however, 

that teacher shortages 

lead to stop-gap measures, including the hiring 

of non-certified teachers and long-term substitutes, which can only be tolerated as short-term 

solutions (Recruiting New Teachers Inc., Council of Great City Schools, & Council of the Great 

City Colleges of Education, 2000). To circumvent this potential problem, most SERVE states 

have implemented some sort of lateral-entry 

Some states like 

North Carolina, 

South Carolina, 

and Georgia 

have even turned 

their sights 

beyond the 

borders of the 

United States by 

using exchangeprogram 

sponsors to 

recruit qualified 

teachers.
32 

program to improve the transition of potential 

candidates from their current status (working 

elsewhere, retired, relocating) to the classroom. 

In addition, district recruitment teams are traveling with increasing frequency to job fairs in the 

Northeast to entice young teachers to consider 

employment in southern schools. Some states 

like North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia 

have even turned their sights beyond the borders of the United States by using exchangeprogram sponsors to recruit qualified teachers. 

Since 1998, one such sponsor has been the Visiting 

International Faculty (VIF) 

program, which has brought 

almost 4,500 teachers to this 

region, of which 760 were 

math and science teachers 

(Fanelli, personal communication, 1/29/03).

Ensuring 

Teacher 

Quality

The National Commission 

on Teaching and America’s 

Future (NCTAF) suggests 

that teacher quality can be 

assessed by considering three practices within 

a state: the accreditation of teacher preparation programs, the initial licensing of teachers, and the continued certification of veteran 

exemplary teachers. An affiliate of the NCTAF, 

the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality at 

the University of North Carolina, recently published Teaching Quality in the Southeast: A Call 

for Regional Action, a report on teacher quality 

in the region that reviews practices, defines 

issues, and suggests processes for creating local solutions based on research-based 

evidence. Both agencies assert that poor and 

minority children have less access to quality 

teachers than do others, and both are interested in documenting the connection between 

teacher quality and student performance (Berry 

& Buxton, 2000).

Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs 

in Mathematics and Science. All six SERVE 

states have partnership agreements with the 

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher 

Education (NCATE). Teacher preparation institutions in each state are required to have their 

overall programs evaluated by NCATE. The 

organization has written mathematics and science program standards in conjunction with 

NCTM and NSTA, respectively (NCATE, 1998). 

Mississippi and South Carolina use these program standards to evaluate their teacher preparation institutions. Alabama, Georgia, and North 

Carolina have developed their own program 

standards, and Florida currently uses a comprehensive performance-based licensing system 

that meets NCATE’s criteria. 

Standards for Initial Teacher Licensure in 

Mathematics and Science. The Council of 

Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has taken 

the lead in organizing a group of state education agencies, institutions of higher education, 

and national education organizations involved 

in the reform of the education, licensing, and 

ongoing professional development of educators called the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). Since 

the lack of portability of teacher licenses inhibits 

the recruiting of future teachers, INTASC coordinates the reciprocity of licenses across state 

lines. INTASC has also taken on the challenge 

of developing prototype portfolio assessments 

for teacher candidates that will include the 

assessment of mathematics and science content knowledge and pedagogical content 

knowledge (CCSSO, 2002). 
33

Standards for Accomplished Teachers of Mathematics and Science. One accepted benchmark 

for accomplished teachers is the National Board 

for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). 

Table 7 shows the number of board-certified 

mathematics and science teachers in the SERVE 

region in the two areas of mathematics and science certification offered by the Board. While 

nine states in the South, including the six SERVE 

states, can claim over half of the National Board 

Certified teachers in the nation, the range across 

the six states is wide. 

Teachers in Alabama and Georgia apparently 

do not see the salary boosts they receive as a 

compelling enough reward for the time, effort, 

and expense necessary to pursue national 

certification. It is surprising, however, that the 

two states with the highest teacher numbers, 

Florida and North Carolina, rank lower than Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina in salary 

incentives (based on a $35,000/yr. salary). All 

states currently provide at least some assistance 

in paying for the application process.

Table 7. NBPTS Certified Math and Science Teachers

for SERVE States and State Incentives 

NBPTS Certification AL FL GA MS NC SC Total

Early Adolescence–Math 18 77 28 31 179 80 413

Early Adolescence–Science 13 116 49 28 102 94 402

Adolescence/Young 

Adulthood−Math 19 147 35 74 239 110 624

Adolescence/Young 

Adulthood−Science 26 162 45 64 227 110 634

Total 76 502 157 197 747 394 2,073

State Incentives 

Salary Incentives−annual 

increases (percentages 

based on current salaries)

$5,000 10% 10% $6,000 12% $7,500

Source: Updated from website www.nbpts.org as of November 22, 2002.

Implications

As the region moves through various phases 

of mathematics and science education reform, 

developing and retaining teachers is critical. 

New expectations and requirements for students 

and teachers require meaningful and engaged 

learning that embraces change in practice and 

in what teachers know. While effective teacher 

preparation is the best tool the region has to 

achieve this vision, research-based professional 

development that will increase content knowledge is also key to enhancing teacher quality 

and transforming the educators into facilitators 

of inquiry and problem solving (Collins, 1997). 

What is the nature of this professional development for mathematics and science educators in 

the Southeast?

As the region 

moves through 

various phases 

of mathematics 

and science 

education

reform, 

developing 

and retaining 

teachers is 

critical.
34 

The mathematics and science standards 

not only outline higher expectations for students but also include teacher guidelines for 

instruction, assessment, equity, and professional development. The struggle to create 

meaningful learning opportunities for teachers 

so that they can help students meet higher 

standards landed squarely on the shoulders 

of professional developers. For mathematics 

and science teachers, the changing emphasis 

from teacher-centered classes (board work, 

seatwork, homework) to student-centered 

environments (stimulus-rich, activity-based) 

involves understanding how problem solving 

and inquiry translate into teacher and student 

behaviors. Serving as the bridge between 

teacher preparation programs and the quality 

instruction that comes with guided experience, 

professional development is moving from the 

more traditional sit-and-get sessions to experiences that model 

standards-based instruction.

With the introduction of standards, teachers are responsible 

for new and more challenging 

content at lower grades; for 

example, algebra at the eighth 

grade has become much more 

common. Teachers now have to 

contend with new materials and 

new instructional techniques. 

Mathematics manipulatives and 

science kits are more common 

in classrooms, as are innovative 

curriculum programs. In order 

to provide effective assistance 

to teachers struggling with new 

Professional Development

approaches, professional developers must now 

provide learning experiences where teachers 

can experience the changes and techniques 

they must themselves implement with students. 

Research suggests that the most effective 

professional development reflects the needs 

and challenges of reform efforts (Darling-Hammond, 1995b; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). 

In response to national standards developed 

by the National Staff Development Council, the 

Southeast has created an array of professional 

development opportunities for mathematics 

and science teachers. Each SERVE state has an 

infrastructure (see Table 8) that supports professional development of current classroom teachers, and each has developed specific strategies 

that recognize professional development as a 

key feature of instructional improvement. 

Professional 

developers 

must now 

provide learning 

experiences 

where teachers 

can experience 

the changes and 

techniques they 

must themselves 

implement with 

students.

Table 8. State Agencies Supporting

Professional Development

State Infrastructure

Alabama Eleven Regional In-service Centers at 

university sites across the state

Florida Six Area Centers for Excellence 

strategically located across the state

Georgia Thirteen Regional Education Service 

Agencies located across the state

Mississippi Mississippi Teacher Center

North Carolina

Ten Math/Science Education Centers, 

nine at university sites across the 

state

South Carolina Eight Mathematics/Science Units 

strategically located across the state
35

Alabama

In Alabama, the Foundation Law of 1995 mandates the allocation of 

state funds for local professional development. 

The current state funding formula allocates a 

portion of the money to 

individual districts and 

the rest to the Regional 

In-service Centers (RICs). 

The RICs were created 

in 1984 and are the primary conduit for the state’s professional development activities. The 11 RICs are located 

at university sites across the state and are 

charged with assessing the needs of teachers 

and schools in their areas and developing and 

providing professional development programs 

to meet those needs. In addition to state funds, 

Alabama received over $10 million in federal 

money in 1995 from Eisenhower funds and a 

Goals 2000 grant. 

Both math and science teachers have 

active professional 

organizations concerned with 

effective professional development. The 

Alabama Conference of Teachers of Mathematics and the Alabama Science Teachers Association each host an annual conference for their 

membership. 

Florida

The School Community Professional Development Act of 1995 is the foundation of Florida’s 

professional development system. It encourages the establishment of collaboratives among 

school districts, local universities, and the Florida Department of Education to develop coordinated professional development initiatives. 

This model is reflected in two state-supported 

programs, the Area Centers for Educational 

Enhancement and the Florida Academies for 

Excellence in Teaching. These entities represent partnerships between districts and local 

universities and serve as primary deliverers of 

statewide professional development related to 

standards implementation. Federal funding for 

professional development in Florida in the 

1990s included a Goals 2000 grant (over $5 

million) and K−12 and Higher Ed Eisenhower 

funds (over $10 million in 1996 alone).

A variety of agencies and organizations offer 

professional development opportunities to 

mathematics and science educators across 

Florida. The professional organizations for 

mathematics and science teachers conduct 

annual conferences and are involved in various 

activities at the local level. In addition, the Florida League of Teachers, a state-supported network of award-winning teachers from across 

the state, operates as a professional development service provider for teachers and districts.

Georgia

Georgia law established 16 

Regional Educational Service 

Agencies (RESAs) to provide on-demand technical 

assistance to the school 

districts in the state. Services include research 

and planning, staff development, and assistance 

with curriculum, instruction, and assessment. 

RESAs supplement their 
36 

state funding with fees 

from local districts, 

competitive grants, 

and federal funding. Federal funding for Georgia 

has included 

a Goals 

2000 grant 

in 1995 

($8.9 

million) 

and an 

Eisenhower 

Professional 

Development 

grant in 1995 

($6.2 million).

In addition to the RESAs, professional development is available through several other 

initiatives. Founded in 1989, Georgia Youth 

Science & Technology Centers, Inc. (GYSTC) is 

a private, non-profit educational organization 

designed to increase interest and enthusiasm 

in science and the technologies, particularly 

among elementary and middle school teachers and students. GYSTC has established 15 

regional centers across the state that provide 

staff development workshops and programs 

for teachers as well as assemblies, activities, 

and camps for students. CEISMC, the Center 

for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics 

and Computing at Georgia Tech, provides outreach to the K−12 education community.

Mississippi

In Mississippi, the State Board of Education 

listed professional development as one of its 

top three goals, and the state department of 

education’s program guidelines define professional development as “a mandatory program 

of activities which is initiated by the school 

district, based on identified instructional needs 

and designed to promote continued demonstration of the essential competencies and 

responsibilities necessary for the school district 

to meet its goals.” Professional development 

remains a local responsibility, and each district 

must appoint a staff development coordinator 

responsible for submitting and implementing 

the district’s professional development plan. 

The state supports a resourcerich website and 

provides online 

resources that 

support professional development activities, 

including access 

to MarcoPolo: 

Internet Content for 

the Classroom, a 

consortium of agencies offering online 

content and professional development, and the Achieve Resource Center, a U.S. 

Department of Education program being piloted 

in six states that searches the Internet for classroom resources by subject and grade.

The Mississippi Council of Teachers of Mathematics (MCTM) sponsors an annual conference for its 1,000-plus members and publishes 

two newsletters for members. Both MCTM and 

the Mississippi Science Teachers’ Association 

offer professional development programs that 

address standards implementation.
37

North 

Carolina

North Carolina has 

long recognized 

the importance of professional development 

and is to be commended for the state funding 

allocated for professional development. It has 

recently established the North Carolina Center 

for School Leadership Development, a department in the university system that houses 

seven state-supported professional development programs: the North Carolina Center for 

the Advancement of Teaching, the North Carolina Teachers’ Academy, the Mathematics and 

Science Education Network, the North Carolina Principals’ Fellows Program and Principals’ Executive Program, NCTeach, and the 

North Carolina Model Teacher Education Consortium. State funds also support the Teaching Fellows Program. Federal Goals 2000 and 

Eisenhower monies have routinely supplemented state funds.

The development of math and science teachers has been advanced by the state-supported 

Mathematics and Science Education 

Network (MSEN) authorized by 

the North Carolina legislature in 

1984. Under MSEN, the state 

university system set up eight 

mathematics/science learning 

centers, a research and development center at North Carolina 

State University, and a liaison with 

the North Carolina School of Science 

and Mathematics. These centers are primary providers of professional development 

in mathematics, science, and technology. The 

centers conduct in-service activities on mathematics and science instruction and curriculum 

and sponsor a pre-college program targeted at 

increasing minority student participation in mathematics and science educational opportunities.

Professional organizations for teachers, the 

North Carolina Science Teachers Association, 

and the North Carolina Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics host annual conferences and are 

active in the professional development of their 

members. The North Carolina Science Leaders Association also supports the development of leadership skills for young science 

educators through its Science Fellows Leadership Program.

South Carolina

The State Department of Education’s (SDE) vision for professional development 

is expressed in its 

ADEPT program 

(Assisting, Developing, and Evaluation of 

Professional 

Teaching), which 

was implemented in 

1993. The model measures teaching skills in 10 

professional areas and 

reflects the expectations of 

South Carolina’s state curriculum 
38 

Implications 

Professional development opportunities are 

available to teachers throughout the region. The 

establishment of higher standards for students 

and teachers drives improvement efforts not 

only to increase student achievement but also 

to enhance teacher practice. Teachers involved 

with mathematics and science reform are challenged to rethink what is effective in helping students transform from passive learners to active 

learners. Professional development, therefore, 

is pivotal in narrowing the achievement gap and 

expanding learning opportunities. Professional 

development itself has had to change to accommodate the new vision of learning and teaching 

and to support excellence and equity. Service 

providers also need the time and resources to 

scrutinize the effectiveness of the professional 

development they deliver.

frameworks and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The formative nature of the ADEPT teacher evaluation 

model makes it a key professional development instrument for teachers.

Professional development for mathematics 

and science teachers 

is delivered by content 

specialists from the 

South Carolina SDE and 

by specialists located 

in the eight mathematics and science units on 

college and university 

campuses across the 

state. The 13 original 

hubs from the South 

Carolina Statewide Systemic Initiative (SCCTM) 

(1993−2003) provided 

the structure around 

which the math/science 

units were recently 

established. In addition, 

the state ensures on-site 

professional development in low-performing schools through its 

Teacher Specialist on 

Site and Curriculum Specialist on Site programs.

Both teacher professional organizations, 

the South Carolina Science Council and the 

South Carolina Council 

of Teachers of Mathematics, host annual 

conferences for members, and the SCCTM often 

co-hosts a “Carolinas” mathematics conference 

with its sister organization NCCTM.
39

National

Science 

Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides states with financial, material, and human 

resources to support school systems that are 

undergoing reform in all areas of science and 

mathematics education. NSF programs in the 

Southeast include rural, urban, and state initiatives designed to bring about comprehensive 

systemic change in order to improve mathematics and science education for students, 

particularly those who are traditionally underrepresented in advanced mathematics and science 

courses. Table 9 displays the systemic initiatives 

in the Southeast. These systemic initiatives were 

designed to provide ambitious, coordinated, 

coherent, and comprehensive standards-based 

curricula and meaningful professional development opportunities. In fact, during the 1990s, 

these programs were able to impact curriculum, 

state policies, and professional development 

in the region that in turn helped school districts 

increase their student enrollment rates in mathematics and science courses (NSF, 1998; Systemic Research Inc., 2001). 

Supporting Reform

WITH Mathematics AND 

Science Programs

In 1995, NSF also funded the first cohort in 

a new initiative, the Local Systemic Change 

through Teacher Enhancement (LSC) program. 

The goal of the LSC program was to improve 

the teaching of science, mathematics, 

and technology by focusing on the professional development of teachers within 

whole schools or school districts, with an 

emphasis on preparing teachers to implement designated exemplary (NSF-funded) 

mathematics and science curricula in their 

classrooms. Among the more notable 

LSC projects in the Southeast were the 

Hands-On Activity Program (HASP), which 

impacted over 600 teachers and 13,500 

students in seven school districts around 

Huntsville, Alabama; Elementary Science 

Education Partners (ESEP), which impacted 

1,600 teachers and 30,000 students in 

Atlanta (Georgia) Public Schools, a district 

with a minority student population over 

90%; and Realizing Achievement in Mathematics Performance (RAMP), which supported all 980 K−12 mathematics teachers 

in Durham (North Carolina) Public Schools 

(NSF, 2003; SERC@SERVE, 2001). 

Results from the 2000−2001 LSC core 

evaluation revealed both strengths and weaknesses in the design and implementation of 
40 

the professional development and the impact 

of those interventions on teachers and their 

teaching (Horizon Research, 2002). While the 

most significant weaknesses in professional 

development sessions for teachers were in 

modeling effective assessment strategies 

and questioning participants in ways likely to 

enhance their conceptual understanding, the 

reported strengths included increased impact 

on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, networking 

with other teachers, and increased confidence 

in knowledge of content and pedagogy. Finally, 

classroom observations showed that teachers 

who participated in LSC professional development were more likely to use the designated 

instructional materials and that the quality of 

the lessons taught improved with increased 

participation in LSC activities (Weiss, Banilower, 

Overstreet, & Soar, 2002).

Southeast 

Eisenhower 

Regional 

Consortium AT

SERVE (THE

Consortium)

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), formerly known as the Office of Educational 

Research and Improvement (OERI), of the U.S. 

Department of Education administers a network of 10 Eisenhower Regional Consortia for 

Table 9. Representative NSF Systemic Initiatives in the Southeast (1992−)

State/Programs SSI* RSI CPMSA USI USP

Alabama Montgomery Birmingham

Florida 1992-96 Jacksonville Miami

Georgia 1992-98 Atlanta

Mississippi Delta RSI Jackson

North Carolina 1992-96 Appalachia RSI

Coastal RSI

Roanoke 

River Valley

Winston 

Salem

South Carolina 1993-2003 Coastal RSI

* Oldest program that existed in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina between 1992 and 1998; it exists in South 

Carolina (1993−2003). 

USP=Urban Systemic Program CPMSA=Comprehensive Program for Mathematics and Science Achievement

RSI=Rural Systemic Initiative USI=Urban Systemic Initiative

SSI=Statewide Systemic Initiative

Source: National Science Foundation, as of 1/28/03.

During the 

1990s, the 

National Science 

Foundation’s 

Statewide 

Systemic 

Initiatives were 

able to impact 

curriculum, state 

policies, and 

professional 

development in 

the region, and 

as a result, they 

helped school 

districts increase 

their student 

enrollment rates 

in mathematics 

and science 

courses.
41

Mathematics and Science Education to help 

improve mathematics and science education in 

the nation. The Southeast Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education is operated by a nonprofit entity, SERVE, 

affiliated with the University of North Carolina at 

Greensboro. The Southeast Consortium 

assesses needs, establishes priorities, and 

offers strategies for systemic improvement in its 

six-state region. The design of the Consortium’s 

service delivery model for technical assistance 

includes three major components: consultative 

services, intensive site services, and the Technical Assistance Academy for Mathematics and 

Science Services.

The consultative services component allows 

the Consortium to respond to short-term needs 

in the region that are often associated with key 

priorities from states and districts. Through 

intensive site services, including the Middle 

School Mathematics Project, activities are 

focused on coordinating and disseminating 

exemplary mathematics and science instructional strategies, resources, and materials that 

are standards-based. The Technical Assistance 

Academy for Mathematics and Science Services 

(TAAMSS) is a long-term activity providing highquality professional development to a cadre of 

selected mathematics and science educators. 

To assist mathematics and science professional developers in the Southeast, the Consortium created the TAAMSS, referred to as 

the Academy. As a develop-the-developer 

model based on the work of Loucks-Horsley 

and other research, the Academy is a longterm professional development experience that 

introduces mathematics and science educators from the Southeast to the latest research, 

emerging materials, and facilitation techniques 

supporting mathematics and science reform 

(Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). 

The Academy format is an interactive participant-centered event that models effective 

professional development in mathematics and 

science. The first Academy cohort included 

75 professional developers who became part 

of a regional network that reported serving 

more than 20,000 educators with resources 

and materials through Academy participation (SERC@SERVE, 1996−1999). The second 

Academy cohort consists of 80 professional 

developers from the region, many who work 

for or with state-based service centers. Based 

on this relationship, Consortium data indicate 

a significant shift in the delivery of professional 

development from the staff at these centers. 

There is more attention to ongoing events, 

greater participant engagement, and more 

relevance attached to specific content topics 

(SERC@SERVE 1996−2001).

Another major task of the Consortium is to disseminate practical, useful information, such 

as research and the identification of best practices in mathematics and science education 

with schools, districts, and state education 

agencies, through a variety of print and electronic materials. Between 1995 and 2002, over 

270,000 publications and electronic materials 

have been disseminated with 93% of recipients 

from a recent client survey reporting that the 

information received added value to their work. 

The Eisenhower 

Professional 

Development 

Program

The Eisenhower Professional Development 

Program (EPDP) was instituted to support highquality professional development activities for 

The first 

Technical 

Assistance 

Academy for 

Mathematics and 

Science Services 

(TAAMSS) cohort 

included 75 

professional 

developers who 

became part of a 

regional network 

that reported 

serving more 

than 20,000 

educators with 

resources and 

materials.

(SERC@SERVE)
42 

teachers and to ensure that professional development activities are targeted to teachers of atrisk students. Established in 1984, this federally 

funded grant was at first mandated for training 

in mathematics, science, and technology only. 

In 1999, this was amended to include other 

core subjects such as reading and language 

arts. The program provides funds through 

state education agencies (SEAs) to local school 

districts and through state agencies for higher 

education (SAHEs) to institutions of higher 

education and nonprofit organizations. Under 

NCLB, the Eisenhower Professional Development program has been replaced by Improving 

Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, Part A), a 

state formula grant program in which funds are 

made available to SEAs, LEAs, and SAHEs to 

support and help shape state and local activities that aim to improve teacher quality and 

increase the number of highly qualified teachers and principals (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

When applying for Eisenhower grants, local 

education agencies (LEAs) completed an application process that required significant information related to teacher and student needs. 

Teacher participation was highly encouraged in 

planning for professional development activities. According to a U.S. Department of Education executive summary published in 1999 on 

Designing Effective Professional Development: 

Lessons from the Eisenhower Program, SAHEs 

distributed allocations to higher education 

institutions and nonprofits through a competitive grant process that addressed priorities and 

guidelines based on states’ plans for improving 

teaching and learning. 

While there were several goals for the Eisenhower program, two major objectives shaped 

the portfolios of both K−12 programs and SAHE 

grantees: (a) classroom instruction is improved 

through effective professional development, 

and (b) high-quality professional development 

and state policy are aligned with high state 

content and student performance standards. 

At the K−12 level, the structural features of professional development activities varied widely. 

Typical activities included in-district workshops 

and institutes and out-of district workshops and 

conferences. Some districts’ activities pursued 

more reform-based activities such as study 

groups, teacher networks, mentoring, internships, and research projects. These activities 

appeared to be longer in duration than the 

more traditional activities.

SAHE grantees included many colleges and 

universities that provide professional development to teachers or prospective teachers from 

many districts throughout a region. These activities included workshops and retreats, summer 

institutes, and advanced degrees in the content 

areas. A considerable number of the activities 

were high in science and mathematics content and contact hours; they spanned many 

months. In many instances, SAHE grantees 

targeted teachers of special populations; however, the participation by this group of teachers 

was low compared to other groups.

Within the six SERVE states, Eisenhower funds 

have greatly enhanced professional development for educators. There has been an increase 

in on-site training in content and pedagogy for 

mathematics and science, as well as other core 

subjects. Teachers were able to use Eisenhower 

funds to attend many conferences, such as the 

National Council of Teachers of Math (NCTM) and 

the National Science Teachers Association 

(NSTA) conferences. Although Eisenhower funds 

could be used for training in a number of core 

subject areas, most teacher training was in math 

(27%), science (18%), or a combination of math 

and science (27%). Overall, there have been 

great improvements in math and science 

teacher training at the local, state, and national 

Within the six 

SERVE states, 

state Eisenhower 

funds have 

greatly enhanced 

professional 

development for 

educators.
43

level. A comprehensive evaluation of the program showed that continuous support for professional development activities in mathematics 

and science has played a major role in capacity 

building in these two subjects in school districts.

The Southern 

Regional 

Education Board 

(SREB)

The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) 

has worked since 1948 to improve all areas 

of education in southern states, from early 

childhood through post-doctorate. The organization was created in response to an interest 

of southern leaders in business, education, 

and government who wanted to improve all 

aspects of education. Currently, there are 16 

member southern states that are working on 

similar issues (www.sreb.org). Based on its 

2002 Annual Report, SREB has established 12 

goals, such as school readiness and an aligned 

educational system of schools, colleges, and 

universities, that it seeks to implement and 

achieve by providing professional development 

and learning resources. 

Among the programs that emphasize principles 

related to improving mathematics and science 

are High Schools That Work, Improving the Middle Grades, and Pre-engineering Program of 

Study. These programs focus on key principles, 

such as: 

• Teaching to standards

• Offering algebra as the lowest level 

mathematics course

• Hiring teachers certified in mathematics and 

science

• Stressing the overall application of science 

in the workplace

• Developing high-quality professional development through a variety of formats 

• Teaching mathematics and science in ways 

that engage students

Professional development is a major emphasis 

in all of SREB’s school-based initiatives. 

Technology is a major tool for providing professional development that is 

flexible and meets the busy schedules 

of teachers. One example is an online 

course, Spotlight on Algebra, that has 

been designed and successfully implemented. The course is for middle-grade 

teachers of mathematics that focuses 

on thinking about the curriculum content, how to teach it, and how to help 

the students. It has been well received 

by both teachers-in-training and veteran 

classroom teachers alike.

SREB provides numerous print and 

electronic resources for a variety of 

stakeholders. Some of the documents 

provide rich frameworks for guiding 

schools and policymakers in reform. 

A recent document focusing on mathematics is a concrete example of “just in time” 

information for supporting districts as they 

develop and implement rigorous mathematics 

programs for middle schools. The document, 

Getting Students Ready for Algebra I: What Middle Grades Students Need to Know and Be Able 

to Do, offers tools to assist middle and high 

schools in setting goals and priorities for mathematics that will enhance students’ readiness 

for success in Algebra I. Readiness indicators 

were established by working with teachers and 

experts from Educational Testing Service (ETS). 
44 

These indicators are aligned with SREB member states’ mathematics frameworks. 

In sum, SREB is a 

regional organization that 

is able to pull together 

the best thinking around 

issues related to southern schools. Over the 

years, the leadership 

has challenged member 

states to use national 

measures of excellence as benchmarks 

for its vision of leading 

the nation in educational progress. Coming together around this 

vision has provided a 

momentum for member 

states to experience 

steady growth through the establishment of 

specific goals and accountability measures 

(SREB, 2002). 

Specialized Math 

AND Science 

Secondary 

Schools 

Public, charter, magnet, and specialized high 

schools that emphasize mathematics and 

science curricula are found throughout the 

Southeast. These secondary schools provide 

students with high intellectual ability an environment committed to scholarship in the sciences and mathematics. Four out of six SERVE 

states (Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina) have specialized schools 

that were established by each state’s legislature. The schools are highly competitive and 

select students that are interested in and have 

a strong aptitude for mathematics and science. Most schools accept students who have 

completed 10th grade and live in residential 

communities that provide both academic and 

non-academic pursuits. These schools have 

been highly effective in providing rigorous programs for the students.

In addition to these schools, there are a number of fee-based mathematics and science programs for gifted high school juniors and seniors 

found on many college and university campuses. These schools offer similar academic 

opportunities for students. Many of them are 

not residential, and they generally are highly 

sought after by those parents who wish to have 

their students remain at home but have academically challenging mathematics and science 

opportunities as well. 

The National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science, and 

Technology (NCSSSMST) is one organization 

that works to foster, support, and advance the 

efforts of these specialized schools. NCSSSMST 

provides professional and curriculum development; advanced mathematics, science, and 

technology educational programs; and collaborative projects among its members (NCSSSMST, 

2002). This organization has approximately 80 

member schools.

Implications

There is no doubt that improving instruction is 

key to significantly increasing the number of 

students performing at high standards. However, improving instruction not only requires 

increasing teachers’ instructional capacities and 

content knowledge but also requires teachers 
45

to understand the dynamics of instruction and 

its role in teaching and learning (Cohen & Ball, 

2001). When the National Commission on 

Teaching & America’s Future issued its 1996 

report, it confirmed what many in the field of 

education already believed: Teacher quality is 

the factor that matters most for student learning. 

Since then, it is clear that national and regional 

programs sponsored by NSF, the U.S. Depart-

ment of Education, and the Consortium have 

provided assistance to schools here in the 

Southeast to reform mathematics and science 

education with the goal of strengthening and 

retaining quality teachers. However, there is still 

a long way to go. 

With the subject of teacher quality making its 

way to the top of the education reform 

agenda, there is now a need in the Southeast 

to not only develop but also sustain and then 

expand effective programs that turn best prac-

tices into systems of support for teaching 

everywhere (Darling-Hammond & Berry, 1998). 

To this end, the high-performing schools in the 

region that invest in teacher skills and empha-

size mathematics and science learning can 

serve as models of excellence for all public 

schools. Furthermore, despite the student 

selectivity of these schools, examining their 

academic programs can provide insight into 

effective strategies for fostering students’ natu-

ral mathematics and science abilities and 

teachers’ love for teaching. 

With the subject 

of teacher quality 

making its way 

to the top of the 

education reform 

agenda, there is 

now a need in 

the Southeast 

to not only 

develop but also 

sustain and then 

expand effective 

programs 

that turn best 

practices 

into systems 

of support 

for teaching 

everywhere.

(Darling-Hammond

& Berry, 1998).
46 

This report has focused on the educational 

landscape of reform in mathematics and science education in the Southeast and reform 

efforts designed to address improvement in 

mathematics and science. While the purpose 

of the report was not to evaluate recent efforts, 

insights were acquired about the nature of 

reform in the Southeast.

A close examination of the landscape of mathematics and science reform in the Southeast 

reveals an array of activities ranging from statewide to local advocacy initiatives. While many 

states identified a need to improve mathematics and science achievement, the standards 

movement and accountability laws are true 

drivers for reform. Therefore, the standards 

movement from national organizations such as 

the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Research Council, and the 

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science has served as a catalyst for change in 

the region.

Reform in the Southeast may be characterized as a steady flow of efforts to bring about 

change in student achievement. Across the 

landscape, individual states have defined 

accountability as related to setting standards for 

curriculum, instruction, and assessment. States 

have spent considerable energy on developing 

and implementing curricula approaches that 

are standards-based and emphasizing higher 

A Conclusive Perspective:

A Reflective View

OF THE Landscape

expectations for all students. These activities 

represent springs of hope in the mathematics 

and science landscape.

The region has benefited from national funding 

of programs and initiatives designed to improve 

mathematics and science education at the K−12 

level. The NSF-funded programs began the 

momentum for change with an emphasis on 

teacher development; however, each SERVE 

state provides significant financial resources 

and infrastructures to support professional 

development for K−12 teachers. Regional entities like the Southern Regional Education Board 

and the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium @ SERVE provide technical assistance 

to build capacity for systemic change. In many 

instances, these agencies work with selected 

schools and districts to build and model best 

practices. The networks that emerge from 

regional activities serve as powerful tools for 

facilitating change.

Among the summits in the landscape is the 

struggle to align curriculum, instruction, and 

assessment. All of the SERVE states have 

passed accountability policies committed to 

holding schools and students accountable for 

academic performance and achievement, and 

states and districts have developed criterion-referenced tests to measure student performance 

against specific academic requirements. States 

are no longer totally relying on norm-referenced 

While many states 

identified a need to 

improve mathematics 

and science 

achievement, the 

standards movement 

and accountability 

laws are true drivers 

for reform.

The region has 

benefited from 

national funding 

of programs and 

initiatives designed to 

improve mathematics 

and science 

education at the 

K−12 level.
47

tests, which compare students’ performance 

against their peers at certain grade levels and 

in certain subjects. In their efforts to emphasize 

the importance of school and student accountability, states are investigating how to sanction schools that under perform. Sanctioning 

options include school closure, pupil transfers, 

withholding funds, and rewards and incentives 

(Education Week, 2002). The requirements of 

the No Child Left Behind Act will also affect the 

measures taken to enforce accountability (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2002).

The region has been 

working to establish 

assessment programs 

that support standardsbased mathematics and 

science curricula and 

accurately measure 

what students know in 

these areas. Graduation 

for seniors in each 

SERVE state is contingent upon statewide exit 

or end-of-course exams 

(Education Week, 2002). 

Policies to end social 

promotion in elementary 

schools have been 

passed in most of the 

SERVE states (American 

Federation of Teachers, 2002). By the year 

2006, all of the SERVE states will have policies 

in place that will base exit or end-of-course 

exams on state 10th-grade standards or higher 

(Education Week, 2002). Overall, the regional 

response to accountability has progressively 

moved forward and has earned the region an 

average grade of “B” from Education Week’s 

Quality Counts 2002.

While accountability is one summit in the 

landscape, teacher quality is perhaps the most 

crucial. A recent quote by Stephanie Hirsh 

emphasizes that this is not just a problem in 

the Southeast. Hirsh (2001) asserts: “Policymakers and school officials are belatedly recognizing that standards-based reform will rise 

or fall based on the quality of teaching.” While 

the Southeast region has a significant number 

of accomplished mathematics and science 

teachers who have participated in and successfully completed the certification process 

through the National Board of Professional 

Teaching Standards, it faces a major problem 

in finding a sufficient number of teachers for all 

its schools. This is 

especially true in hardto-staff schools that 

have poor student 

achievement and characteristics associated 

with low-performing 

schools. Within many 

federal and state initiatives, policymakers 

have created a mandate for raising teacher 

quality. The programs 

that ensure this 

increase must soon follow for all states.

According to Quality 

Counts 2002, the overall quality of teachers in the region is average. 

The region is challenged by a critical teacher 

shortage, especially in the areas of mathematics and science. Recruiting teachers qualified in 

critical subject areas is problematic. To further 

exacerbate the problem, the percentages of 

teachers of color are disproportionately lower 

than the percentages of minority students, who 

are often the majority in many of the region’s 

schools. The region is challenged to develop 

regional or state programs that attract, prepare, 

and retain top-quality teachers.

All of the SERVE 

states have passed 

accountability 

policies committed to 

holding schools and 

students accountable 

for academic 

performance and 

achievement.

By the year 2006, all 

of the states in the 

SERVE region will 

have policies in place 

which will base exit

or end-of-course 

exams on state tenthgrade standards

or higher.

(Education Week, 2002)

 “Policymakers and 

school officials are 

belatedly recognizing 

that standards-based 

reform will rise or 

fall based on the 

quality of teaching.”

(Hirsh, 2001)
48

Accurately measuring student achievement is a 

challenge for the SERVE states. Various forms 

of assessment are used to measure how well 

students, teachers, schools, and districts are 

meeting state standards. A deeper challenge 

involves closing the achievement gap between 

high and low achievers. The NCLB legislation 

ups the ante for this issue by requiring states to 

disaggregate data by race, gender, and socioeconomic status. This is a significant requirement, and states across the region as well as 

others in the nation will struggle to meet it. 

Thus, the final words of this document call for a 

focus on student achievement.

Eyes on

the Prize: 

Improving 

Student 

Achievement 

Most advocates of the reform movement 

believe that Americans support the notion of 

higher standards and goals for schools. Standards provide a framework for what is valued 

in mathematics and science education, but that 

is only the beginning. Achieving this goal 

requires collaboration, coordination, and 

involvement of all members of the community. 

It requires a spirit of hope that can be felt 

among the important stakeholders working to 

support children and teachers in teaching and 

learning. In addition, it requires a long-term process that includes changes in policies, practices, professional development, curriculum, 

instruction, and assessment. 

From many recent reports, it is generally 

known that the most important factor, however, is a highly qualified teacher. In its report 

Before It’s Too Late, the National Commission 

on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 

21st Century amplified this factor with the following statement:

[A]fter an extensive, in-depth review of what 

is happening in our classrooms, the Commission has concluded that the most powerful instrument for change, and therefore 

the place to begin, lies at the very core of 

education—with teaching itself....We are of 

one mind in our belief that the way to interest children in mathematics and science is 

through teachers who are not only enthusiastic about their subjects, but who are also 

steeped in their disciplines and who have 

professional training—as teachers—to teach 

those subjects well. (U.S. Department of 

Education, National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st 

Century, 2000c, p.5).

The last 10 years of reform in mathematics and 

science have provided a solid beginning for the 

southeastern states; yet there are miles to go on 

this reform journey. The current NCLB mantra 

offers both hope and challenges. The hope is 

that educators and community stakeholders will 

take seriously the notion that all children should 

have access to quality science and mathematics 

teaching and learning. With this access, there 

should be reasonable chances for success 

through support systems, quality instruction, 

and adequate resources. Schools and communities, including higher education, must work 

together to ensure that rigorous academic 

opportunities are realities for all students. While 

resources are always critical in moving reform 

forward, the greater ingredients are the will and 

moral commitment to make the necessary 

changes. Student learning is the prize!

The hope is 

that educators 

and community 

stakeholders will take 

seriously the notion 

that all children 

should have access 

to quality science 

and mathematics 

teaching and 

learning.

Schools and 

communities, 

including higher 

education, must 

work together 

to ensure that 

rigorous academic 

opportunities are 

realities for all 

students.
49

APPENDIX A: 

Southeast States

IN Detail

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina
50
51

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST IN DETAIL 

Alabama

More than four million people live in Alabama, with 834,000 children between the ages of 

5 and 17. During the 1999−2000 school year, 732,042 pre-kindergarten to twelfth-grade students were enrolled in Alabama’s 1,445 public schools. Although the state spends more than 

$5,000 per student, poverty remains a challenge. About 16% of the state’s population lives in 

poverty, including about a quarter of all children under 18. Currently, 240 Alabama schools 

are classified as schoolwide Title I project schools, and 56% of Alabama students are eligible 

for free or reduced-price meals (Alabama State Department of Education, 2001; U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2000).

The rich agricultural valley of the Tennessee River sets the context for the northern part of the 

state, where the Appalachian Highlands begin. The Black Belt lowland once produced much 

of the state’s cotton, and farther south, black pines lead into coastal plains and the Gulf of 

Mexico. In the 1900s, some of the state’s forestry and cotton fields were turned into pasture 

for dairy and beef cattle. Farm income continues to rise, with the principal crops being cotton, 

peanuts, soybeans, and corn.

Accessible deposits of iron ore, coal, and limestone in the Birmingham area and oil wells 

in the coastal regions led to industrial development in Alabama. Today, chemicals and 

plastics are growing industries, with service 

industries dominating in Birmingham. Technology has been a major factor in the state’s economy since 1960 because of the Marshall Space 

Flight Center in Huntsville. Technology’s role in 

Huntsville’s economy increased in the seventies, eighties, and nineties with more high-tech 

industries, including computer design and production. The growth of the automobile industry 

along the automotive corridor through the state 

has also brought new jobs, new capital, and 

new demands for a better-educated workforce.
52

Supporting 

Reform WITH 

Accountability

A Fordham Foundation study published in 

January 2000 ranked Alabama among the top 

five states for standards and accountability. 

Alabama’s education reform agenda 

focuses on student performance, local 

accountability, and critical capital needs. 

The Alabama legislature encouraged 

reform in the 1990s through an education reform law in which failing schools 

faced state take over. In 1998, the first 

year of the law’s implementation, 111 of 

the state’s 1,340 schools were on academic alert, meaning that those schools’ 

scores on the Stanford Achievement 

Test, Ninth Edition (SAT-9) ranked below 

the 23rd percentile. Accountability is 

based on test scores from the SAT-9 

(grades 2-8), the Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing (grades 5 and 7), and 

the Alabama High School Graduation 

Exam (grades 10-12). Results of the three 

assessments determine the academic 

status of a school system.

In Alabama, curriculum is based on 

courses of study, which are reviewed, 

revised, and reprinted every five years to maintain a current set of standards in each field. The 

courses of study are aligned with the standards 

and objectives of the Alabama High School 

Graduation Exam (AHSGE) and the SAT-9. 

According to the Alabama Code, teachers are 

legally bound to teach the topics addressed in 

the courses of study according to the appropriate grade-level standards. Courses of study 

are developed by teams of elementary, middle, 

and high school teachers experienced in the 

appropriate content area along with administrators, university faculty, and representatives 

of business and industry. The general public 

also has the opportunity to provide input to 

the documents.

Significant mathematics reform in Alabama 

began with the alignment of the state’s 

1991−1992 course of study with the National 

Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 

1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for 

School Mathematics. Reform efforts continued 

with the 1996−1997 revision of the course of 

study, aligning it further with NCTM standards 

but also incorporating objectives from the SAT-9. 

In 1995, the state adopted a course of study 

in science with the vision of scientific literacy 

for all students. It became effective during the 

1996−1997 school year and was based on 

research in Project 2061’s Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy, both 

published by the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science. The Alabama science course of study was revised in 2000 and 

corresponds to the National Science Education 

Standards published by the National Research 

Council in 1995, and it remains aligned with the 

national priorities outlined in the Project 2061 

documents. The 

science course 

of study reflects 

a rigorous, integrated instructional 

approach to teaching fundamental science concepts.
53

Like most southern states, Alabama instituted 

stringent graduation requirements designed to 

increase curriculum rigor and college preparedness (Alabama State Department of Education, 2001). Alabama high school seniors are 

required to successfully complete the Alabama 

High School Graduation Examination and the 

following courses:

• English Language Arts—4 credits

• Mathematics—4 credits to include Algebra I 

and geometry

• Science—4 credits to include biology and a 

physical science

• Social Studies—4 credits to include world 

history and geography, U.S. history and 

geography, economics, and government

• Other courses—physical education, 

health education, fine arts, and computer 

applications

Programs 

Supporting 

Mathematics AND 

Science Reform

A number of activities support mathematics and 

science learning in Alabama. Some of the more 

innovative approaches include the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded activities, such 

as the following:

• Birmingham Comprehensive Partnership 

for Minority Student Achievement is a fiveyear system-wide project designed to double 

the number of minority graduates of Birmingham Public Schools (BPS) who are prepared 

to enter college as science, mathematics, 

engineering, and technology majors. 

• The Birmingham Public Schools have 

formed a collaborative relationship with the 

University of Alabama Birmingham—the 

Birmingham Compact and the Alabama Alliance for Minority Achievement Program. 

Project activities are intended to impact all 

K−12 BPS students and to serve primarily teachers of mathematics and science in 

grades 6−12. 

• Project Teaching Easy Access to Mathematics and Science (TEAMS) links the Montgomery Public Schools (MPS) to Alabama 

State University, the University of Alabama 

Birmingham, Auburn University, BellSouth, 

TCI Cable Television, and the Montgomery YMCA in an effort to improve student 

achievement in 

college preparatory mathematics and science. 

The program is 

designed to be 

system-wide and 

to affect all K−12 

students with 

the exception of 

those enrolled 

in magnet, 

alternative, 

or special 

education 

schools or 

centers. 

The intent 

of Project 

TEAMS is 

to increase 

enrollment 

in and successful 
54 

completion of upper-level mathematics and 

science courses.

• Birmingham Systemic Change 2000 

Project is a teacher enhancement project 

between the BPS and the University of Alabama Birmingham. The two education agencies formed a coalition to address declining 

student achievement in mathematics. The 

project is designed to provide major staff 

development for all BPS teachers of grades 

K−5 and has four key elements, including 

the adoption of an NSF-sponsored curriculum series, Everyday Mathematics. 

• Hands-On Activity Science Program 

(HASP) is a local systemic change initiative 

that focuses on teacher enhancement and 

is the result of collaboration between eight 

Alabama school districts and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The 

project combines resources from the 

eight districts, UAH, local engineers, and 

scientists to support a hands-on modulebased science curriculum. The school 

districts support a materials resource 

center that supplies and refurbishes 

materials for teachers and, through the 

Institute for Science Education, provides 

professional development for teachers 

in grades K−5 and their principals. The 

NSF program was originally funded in 

1990 and has since been re-funded.

EisenhowerFunded 

Activities

Eisenhower activities have been present in 

all levels of mathematics and science education in Alabama. Title II Eisenhower monies 

have been used across the state for K−12 staff 

development activities in core subjects. Two 

statewide agencies also have significant ties to 

Eisenhower activity—the Alabama Commission 

on Higher Education, which is responsible for 

awarding Eisenhower grant monies to institutions of higher education, and SECAC, a comprehensive assistance center funded through 

SEDL (the Southwest Education Development 

Laboratory) that provides assistance to the state 

department, local school districts, and individual 

schools in implementing federal programs.

The Alabama Commission on Higher Education has recently funded several projects and 

one evaluation component through Eisenhower 

funds, with support from their host institutions 

and other governmental and private entities. 

The projects offer hands-on training and follow-up support for K−12 teachers in public 

and private schools. Programs funded for the 

2001−2002 fiscal year included:

• Integrated Science: Comprehensive Training 

for Middle School Teachers, a topic-based 

curriculum with major science concepts and 

innovative teaching strategies.

• Project ALAHASP: Alabama Hands-on Activity Science Program, a program that trains 

teachers in the use of science modules and 

that employs problem solving and inquiry 

teaching strategies.

• ACE-Alabama Classroom Project: Independent Study Scholarship, a program to provide meritorious Alabama teachers with the 

opportunity to study in subject area workshops or immersion programs in the U.S. 

or abroad. 

• Teaching the Future: Space Exploration and 

the Improvement of Science and Mathematics Education in Alabama Schools, a series 

of three progressive workshops that introduce space exploration as it applies to science and mathematics.
55

University 

Regional

Inservice 

Centers 

Alabama is divided geographically into 11 inservice areas. The 11 areas are served by regional 

inservice centers housed at universities. Inservice centers receive yearly appropriations of 

money for each student enrolled in K−12 in 

their respective regions to provide services 

to all schools, teachers, and administrators in 

their assigned regions. According to a recent 

Inservice Center Task Force Report, the 11 

inservice centers are asked to focus their staff 

development efforts on those curricular areas 

requested by the school systems they serve 

and programs that address as a priority those 

topics identified as critical issues. 

The Alabama Regional Inservice Centers provide training for key leaders and provide additional support to schools identified as in 

“caution” or “alert” by the state’s accountability 

standards. There are 60 key leaders, mostly 

classroom teachers, serving all areas of the 

state. Each key leader is responsible for identifying a point of contact in each school in his/her 

region and offering training to those points of 

contact. The ultimate goal of the inservice centers is to provide high-quality staff development 

for teachers.

Other Support 

Programs 

Additional programs designed to increase 

scientific literacy in Alabama: 

• Building a Presence in Science is supported by the National Science Teachers 

Association and the Exxon Corporation. In 

1997, Alabama became one of 10 states 

participating in a program to disseminate 

and train teachers in implementation of the 

National Science Education Standards. 

• Alabama Science in Motion (ASIM) is a network of traveling vans offering high school 

laboratory experiences with modern instrumentation to students and professional 

development opportunities through workshops and mentoring links with university 

faculty to high school teachers. The 11 

regional inservice centers support the ASIM 

program by housing the program staff, disseminating equipment, and providing facilities for training ASIM participants. 

• A number of organizations have 

joined together to create the Alabama Partnership for Science 

Education in conjunction with the 

National Sciences Resource Center 

(NSRC). The partnership aims to 

bring strategic planning opportunities to Alabama’s school systems.

• Spotlight on Science (SOS) is 

an annual event that takes place 

in October across the state. This 

day is set aside for special events 

that focus a spotlight on science 

activities in the classroom and in 

the community. Media coverage is 

widespread, including newspaper, television, and radio. 

• Other support programs that contribute to 

scientific literacy within a broader scope of 

educational purposes include the Alabama 

Virtual Library and the Alabama Best Practices Center.
56 

Developing 

AND Keeping 

Effective 

Teachers

There is good news about public education in 

Alabama. The percentage of public secondary 

school teachers who hold a teaching certificate 

in their main teaching assignment is among the 

highest in the country at 96%, according to the 

1999 National Education Goals Report. However, Alabama struggles 

to train and keep good 

teachers because the 

state lacks a comprehensive teacher-development 

system. Today, there are 

about 46,000 K−12 public 

school teachers in Alabama, and the state faces 

chronic teacher shortages 

in certain geographic 

areas and subjects, such 

as mathematics, science, 

foreign languages, and 

special education. There 

is also a shortage of qualified minority teachers, 

particularly male minority 

teachers. 

Two initiatives were established to remedy this 

problem. First, Governor 

Siegelman proposed pay 

increases for teachers 

ranging from 1% to 5.5%, 

with progressively higher 

raises for teachers with 

more seniority. A study 

released in 1999 by the Public Affairs Research 

Council of Alabama, an independent research 

group, showed that starting salaries in the 

state exceeded the national average for new 

teachers by more than $1,650, but that overall 

teacher salaries fell short by nearly $5,000 (Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, 1999). 

Teachers who became Nationally Board Certified as of the 2001−2002 school year received 

a $5,000 pay raise added to their step in the 

state’s salary schedule for public school teachers. Alabama has a total of 456 Board Certified 

teachers (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002).

Second, the state board has established more 

routes to certification effective July 1, 1997. 

School systems may now hire individuals who, 

though experienced and knowledgeable, may 

not have a background in education. Alabama 

also participates in the Troops to Teachers program, which allows military and Coast Guard 

personnel and Department of Defense and 

Department of Energy civilian employees to 

pursue a new career in public education.

Quality Counts ’99: Rewarding Results, Punishing Failure (Education Week) recognized that 

Alabama provides opportunities and funds for 

teacher professional development, but not the 

time teachers need to take advantage of such 

opportunities. In the 1999 legislative session, 

funding was approved for two additional compensated days of professional development to 

be added to the academic year, at a cost to the 

state of $21 million.

Highlights AND

Challenges

Coalition building is beginning in Alabama, 

where business and industry play an important 
57

role in all aspects of K−12 education. For 

instance, the A+ Education Foundation is a 

grassroots organization funded by contributions from 18 corporate foundations and committed to improving teaching and learning in 

Alabama. The Alabama Math-Science and 

Technology Education Coalition (AMSTEC) 

coordinates participants from pre-K−12 education, higher education, business, industry, and 

NASA to work together to provide leadership 

in improving mathematics, science, and technology education.

In September 1999, state education officials 

and business leaders joined forces to encourage a new era of parental involvement in the 

education of Alabama’s school children. State 

board of education members, State Superintendent Ed Richardson, and business leaders 

encouraged parents to renew their involvement in public education by visiting their child’s 

school on Monday, October 11, 1999, for Alabama’s first statewide parenting day. 

Poverty remains a problem. About 16% of the 

population lives in poverty, with 23% of the 

children under age 18 and 25% of the children 

under age 5, respectively, living in poverty 

(U.S. Census, 2000). In a survey sponsored 

by SERC@SERVE and administered to 35 people in July of 1999, the following challenges 

were cited: 

Accountability

• Ensuring that students pass the Alabama 

High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) in 

mathematics and science.

• Offering remediation for students who fail 

the examination.

• Ensuring that students pass algebra and 

geometry.

• Teaching course curricula objectives 

rather than test objectives.

Teaching

• Providing quality 

professional 

development for 

mathematics and 

science teachers.

• Finding qualified 

teachers and tutors 

in mathematics and 

science.

• Keeping good, 

experienced 

teachers.

Resources

• Updating technology 

so that all schools 

have calculators, 

computers, e-mail 

addresses, lab 

access for students, 

and Internet access 

in the classroom.

• Providing a sufficient number of mathematics and science 

education specialists at all levels.

The commitment to reform is perhaps Alabama’s greatest weapon against the financial 

and labor challenges it has historically faced. 

Strong signs of success include raising the number of units required in core subjects from 11 to 

16, the Alabama High School Graduation Exam, 

smaller class sizes, and the strengthening of 

professional development offerings. From the 

legislature to the governor’s office, from the state 

board of education to individual principals and 

teachers, a commitment to improving education 

for Alabama’s students is evident. The strong 

support of higher education, informal science 

entities, and private businesses continues to 

play a major role in successful educational 

reform in the state.
58

Alabama Web Resources

Organization Web Location

Alabama State Department of Education www.alsde.edu

Alabama Council of Teachers of Mathematics www.dpo.uab.edu/~tsmith/ACTM.htm

Marshall Space Flight Center www.msfc.nasa.gov

Alabama School of Fine Arts www.asfa.k12.al.us

GLOBE www.globe.gov

Dauphin Island Sea Lab www.disl.org

Environmental Center at Camp McDowell www.campmcdowell.com/cmec

The McWane Science Center www.mcwane.org

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium at SERVE

www.serve.org/Eisenhower

The Global Hydrology and Climate Center www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_home.html

The North Alabama Science Center www.sci-quest.org

Exploreum Museum of Discover, Mobile www.exploreum.net/index.html

Cook’s Natural Science Museum, Decatur www.decaturcvb.org/Pages/Press/cooks.html

Eichold-Heustis Medical Museum, Mobile www.inusa.com/tour/al/mobile/eichold.htm
59

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST IN DETAIL 

Florida

The state of Florida includes a peninsula with more than 8,000 tidal shoreline miles that spans six 

degrees of latitude and a panhandle that borders southern Alabama and Georgia. The Sunshine 

State’s climate, coast, and environmental resources are a major attraction to 45 million annual visitors. In addition to tourism, Florida’s economy is dependent on manufacturing, agriculture, and international trade. 

There are more than 15 million residents, and 80% of them live in one of the 35 coastal counties. 

With one of the fastest-growing populations in the country, Florida is challenged to provide an equitable education for its students. In 2001, Florida had a K−12 school enrollment of 2.6 million students, increasing at a rate of more than 60,000 new students a year for the last five years. Florida’s 

students are among the most diverse in the world. In Miami-Dade County, the nation’s fourth-largest 

school district, students speak more than 40 languages and dialects. as more families move to the 

state, Florida must contend with the sheer numbers of children as well as a highly mobile population 

of students whose parents are involved in migrant work.
60

Twenty-two percent of the children in 

Florida live in poverty. While this number is down from 24% in 1996, Florida 

has steadily ranked 36th in the number 

of children living in poverty. In some districts, such as Miami-Dade, over half of 

the students qualify for the federal free 

and reduced-price lunch program for the 

poor. Additionally, a significant number 

of the students are limited English proficient (Education Week, 1998).

Florida has taken steps toward reforming mathematics and science education 

throughout the state, and it has benefited from National Science Foundation 

(NSF) initiatives. A Statewide Systemic 

Initiative (SSI), several Urban Systemic 

Initiatives (USI), and a Rural Systemic 

Initiative (RSI) have been instrumental in 

creating specific reform programs and 

in fostering long-term development of 

reform capabilities. In addition, Florida 

is one of several states identified by the 

Council of Chief State School 

Officers (CCSSO) as having 

a state policy linking teacher 

professional development 

programs with state content 

standards (CCSSO, 2000). 

Throughout the state, collaborations among regional education networks, consortia, 

teacher academies, and the 

Florida League of Teachers 

work to assist local education agencies in aligning district curriculum with Florida’s 

content standards. Statewide 

trainers deliver specialized 

training programs to help 

align local curriculum, instruction, and assessment to the 

state content standards. To 

address reform, the state has allocated money 

for professional development, adopted some 

of the country’s strongest incentives for teachers to earn national board certification, and 

strengthened its accountability system. 
61

Supporting 

Reform WITH 

Accountability

Blueprint 2000 was initiated in 1991 by the Florida legislature and described a new system for 

school improvement and accountability. This 

document provided for more local control and 

involvement and was a change from the former 

focus on state-managed education. The Florida 

Department of Education and the science education community in Florida took the lead in 

reform in the early 1990s through a grant from 

the Dwight D. Eisenhower National Program 

in Mathematics and Science Education (Title II) 

to develop a pre-K−12 Florida science curriculum framework. This effort was one of the first 

state attempts in the nation to create a pre-K−12 

framework. It resulted in Science for All Students

and became the precursor to the Florida curriculum framework for science, which included 

the Sunshine State Standards. 

Florida’s curriculum frameworks for seven content areas, including mathematics and science, 

drafted in 1994 and approved by the state 

legislature in 1996, provided schools with a 

K−12 set of standards that was benchmarked 

at four grade levels (K−2, 3−5, 6−8, and 9−12). 

The curriculum frameworks contain the content 

standards and give overviews of best practices 

in instruction, curriculum development, interdisciplinary instruction, classroom assessment, 

and program improvement. The frameworks 

for seven curriculum areas have been distributed in print and CD-ROM to every school, district, college of education, teacher-preparation 

institution, and community college in Florida. 

An electronic curriculum planning tool (software with learning activities tied to standards) 

and software to help mathematics and science 

teachers learn to score writing assessments and understand rubrics have 

also been distributed.

The Sunshine State Standards (SSS) 

identify what all students should know 

and be able to do in key subjects from 

preschool through high school. The SSS 

were legislatively mandated and implemented in 1997 to align curriculum, 

instruction, and assessment. Schools 

are required to teach the content established by the SSS, and students are 

evaluated on their knowledge of the 

standards through the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). 

FCAT is a driving vehicle for educational reform in Florida. This criterionreferenced test measures student 

achievement on the knowledge and 

skills described in the SSS. The test 

includes multiple-choice, short-answer, 

and extended-response items that measure specific standards in grades 4, 8, and 10 

in reading, and grades 5, 8, and 10 in 

mathematics. The FCAT also includes 

open-ended questions requiring students to show their work or explain how 

they arrived at answers. First administered in the spring of 1998, the test is 

being expanded to cover more grades. 

The assessment of additional grades for 

mathematics and reading will be accomplished by a norm-referenced test. A 

criterion-referenced science assessment 

will be added at grades 5, 8, and 10 in 

2003. Students do not receive individual 

grades; schools receive grades based 

on student performance. 

As of 2001, passing the FCAT is required 

for a state of Florida Standard High 

School Diploma. Final FCAT scores determine if students meet the graduation 
62 

requirements set by the State Board of Education. Students whose FCAT scores do not meet 

the requirements for a high school diploma 

have six more opportunities to take the test.

Making schools accountable for student progress is one of the Florida governor’s goals. 

Through legislation in 1999, Governor Jeb Bush 

announced the A+ Education Plan. The plan 

requires that schools be assigned letter grades 

every year based on their performance on state 

tests. Under the legislation, students in schools 

graded F twice in four years may transfer to 

better public schools or receive 

state-financed vouchers to pay 

for private or religious school 

tuition. A school that earns 

an A or improves its grade 

receives an additional $100 

per student (Florida Governor’s 

Office, 2000−2001).

As part of the accountability 

legislation in Florida, state 

school improvement teams 

were formed to work with 

School Advisory Councils 

(SAC). Each SAC includes the 

principal, teachers, and local 

individuals within the school 

community. SACs must be 

representative of the ethnic, 

racial, and economic community served by the school. 

Beginning in the 1999−2000 

school year, SACs were mandated to assist in preparing and evaluating the 

school improvement plan, which represents 

the school’s efforts to reach state and local 

education goals. For each school in danger 

of not meeting state standards or not making 

adequate progress toward meeting the goals 

and standards of its school improvement plan, 

the school board is required to develop and 

implement a two-year plan for securing assistance and intervention. Schools failing to make 

adequate progress for two years in a four-year 

period are reported to the Commissioner and 

the State Board of Education for possible state 

intervention.

Programs 

Supporting 

Mathematics AND 

Science Reform

The State Systemic Initiative and Its 

Influence on Current Reform Efforts

The state’s Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) 

was funded by the National Science Foundation between 1991 and 1996 and worked to 

improve science and mathematics education 

with a primary focus on K−8. In addition to 

providing professional development, addressing policy, educating teachers about materials selection, and developing ten discovery 

schools, the SSI worked to remove specific 

blocks in education by improving school climate and encouraging minorities and females 

to study science. A post-secondary component 

worked on improving teacher preparation for 

mathematics and science.

“The legacy of the Florida SSI is the training 

and experiences provided to our teachers and 

principals,” said Thomas Baird, the principal 

investigator. “The legacy of the SSI resides in 

the people as well as the infrastructure it created, evidenced by the programs, Higher Education Consortium, Area Centers for Excellence 

in Education, and the Coalition for Improving 

Mathematics and Science. The SSI raised the 

levels of awareness and expertise regarding 
63

mathematics and science reform. Principals and 

teachers still come up to me and tell me, ‘What 

I got from the SSI is what made the difference.’ 

That kind of thing is hard to calibrate, but is one 

of the most lasting effects,” Baird reports (T. 

Baird, personal communication, April 4, 2000).

In June 1996, as SSI funding was ending, the 

six Area Centers continued as the Area Centers 

for Educational Enhancement (ACEE), which 

provide professional development and technical assistance for all subject areas. The ACEE 

worked to make teachers and parents aware 

of the Sunshine State Standards. The ACEEs 

have been state-supported with Eisenhower 

higher education funds and continue to create 

collaborations between universities, school 

districts, and consortia to assist critically lowachieving schools and to help teachers implement the Sunshine State Standards in more 

effective ways.

The Higher Education Consortium in Mathematics and Science (HEC) was founded in 

1993. The HEC addresses the improvement of 

mathematics and science education through 

a statewide annual conference focusing on 

research and effective practices in college 

teaching and learning.

Additional NSF-Funded Initiatives

Florida received two Urban Systemic Initiative 

(USI) grants from the National Science Foundation, one in Miami-Dade County and one in Jacksonville-Duval County, both charged with the 

systemic improvement of K−8 science. The 

Miami–Dade County USI successfully awarded 

more than 450 teachers (most from schools 

identified by the Florida Department of Education as critically low-performing) with graduate 

degrees in mathematics and science from Florida State University through a combination of 

face-to-face and distance learning protocols. 

There is now a cadre of instructional leaders for 

the K−8 classrooms, and it is their responsibility 

to work with teachers to implement the standards and look for ways for all students to find 

success in learning.

The goals of the Jacksonville–Duval County 

USI are to (a) increase achievements by all 

students in science, mathematics, and technology; (b) implement high-quality, standards-based curriculum, instruction, and 

assessment; (c) support policies that promote 

quality science, mathematics, and technology education; (d) align resources to support 

quality science, mathematics, and technology 

education; (e) obtain broad-based support for 

science, mathematics, and technology education from parents, businesses, post-secondary institutions, and other segments of the 

community; and (f) ensure successful entry 

by all students into the workforce and postsecondary education. Obtaining these goals 

will lead to a reduction in the achievement gap 

between majority and minority student populations and success for all students (Duval 

County Public Schools, 1999).

Other Initiatives to Support Mathematics

and Science Education Reform

The Florida Coalition for Improving Mathematics and Science (CIMS) is implementing its 

strategy to “spark enthusiasm” for science and 

mathematics through the work of 20 volunteers from business and industry, NASA, the 

state legislature, the State University System 

Board of Regents, the Florida Department of 

Education, the Community College Board, and 

school districts. CIMS was formed in 1998 as a 

result of the encouragement of NASA and the 

National Alliance of State Science and Mathematics Coalitions (NASSMC).

The Florida Chamber Foundation has established a strategy for cultivating world-class 

schools that supports high standards, accurate 
64 

assessments, accountability tools to measure 

school performance, competent and inspired 

teachers, advanced technology, and a culture 

of continued improvement (Florida Chamber of 

Commerce, n.d.). Through networking, workshops, and resource materials, the foundation 

works toward its goals with the help of business and industry.

In addition to developing standards and providing other reform initiatives, the Florida 

Department of Education 

offered training programs that 

focused on awareness of the 

standards initiative; alignment 

of local curriculum development; improving instruction; 

making connections between 

curriculum, instruction, and 

assessment; providing authentic assessment tools; and 

exploring ways to assess students with disabilities. Best 

practices in mathematics, 

science, social studies, and 

reading have been identified, 

and a CD-ROM was developed 

and distributed statewide. 

Marketing strategies inform 

educators, students, parents, 

businesspersons, and citizens 

through speeches, presentations, teleconferences, newsletters, and brochures about 

the continuing education system of standards and accountability. Publishers 

of instructional materials are now required to 

correlate instructional materials submitted for 

state adoption to the Sunshine State Standards.

Developing 

AND Keeping 

Effective 

Teachers

In the spring of 1999, when mathematics and 

science were areas of instruction designated 

as having critical teacher shortages, legislators 

approved a new series of requirements that 

had to be met by local districts to receive any 

part of the $39 million state appropriation for 

teacher professional development. To be eligible, district officials must prove that their principals have evaluated their teachers’ strengths 

and weaknesses through an analysis of student 

grades, test scores, and disciplinary records 

and have tailored training to meet the specific 

needs of the teachers and schools. Professional development requirements are structured to ensure that teacher training revolves 

primarily around state standards and how to 

teach them. The equivalent of an academic 

major is required of secondary teachers (Fordham Foundation, 1999).

Florida is unique in requiring districts to implement a performance-based pay schedule for 

schools and mandating the consideration of 

student achievement in the evaluation of teachers. Teacher tenure is awarded. The Florida 

Excellent Teaching Program rewards teachers 

who earn certification by the National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). As of 

2002, 3,490 teachers have become Board Certified. The legislature pays 90% of the certification fee for any teacher who completes the 

process, and teachers receive 10% raises upon 

completion. Teachers who agree to act as mentors or are working in particular districts are eligible for additional raises (NBPTS, 2002).
65

The Florida Collaborative for Excellence in 

Teacher Preparation (FCETP), funded by NSF 

and established in 1998, involves six universities: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical 

University, Florida State University, University 

of Central Florida, University of North Florida, 

University of West Florida, and University of 

Florida. FCETP’s objectives are to substantially 

increase the number of students enrolled in science and mathematics teacher preparation programs in participating institutions, to increase 

the number of students who graduate and 

accept positions teaching science and mathematics in middle and high schools in Florida, 

and to assist teachers in their first three years of 

teaching as well as experienced teachers in the 

science, mathematics, engineering, technology, 

and education disciplines (FCETP, 2002).

Highlights AND

Challenges

Florida has several highlighted initiatives 

focused on increasing the number of minorities in science, engineering, and mathematics. 

Housed at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, the Florida-Georgia Alliance for 

Minority Participation Project (FGAMP) is a coalition of 13 academic institutions committed to 

increasing the number of minority graduates in 

science, engineering, and mathematics. FGAMP 

is one of 25 projects currently supported by 

NSF under the umbrella of the Alliances for 

Minority Participation Programs (FGAMP, 2002). 

FGAMP students receive renewable scholarships of up to $2,000 annually. Activities implemented to aid the retention and progression of 

students include summer bridge programs, peer 

study groups, graduate school preparation institutes, faculty-directed undergraduate research 

projects, summer internships, faculty and peer 

mentoring, and graduate-level mentorship. 

The Florida Department of Education’s Equal 

Educational Opportunity Program (EEOP) consults with Florida schools, school districts, 

community colleges, universities, parents, 

students, and community groups to improve 

civil rights compliance and equity in education. The EEOP states that, “Equity in education occurs when males and females, African 

Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, immigrant students, 

pregnant or parenting students, and students 

with disabilities demonstrate school participation and achievement that is not identifiable 

by the subpopulation to which they belong” 

(Florida Department of Education, 2000). 

Like most southern states, Florida faces the 

challenge of keeping good teachers. “We’re losing mathematics and science teachers who can 

find better-paying jobs elsewhere,” said Linda 

Fisher, K−12 Mathematics Specialist with the 

Florida Department of Education (L. Fisher, personal communication, April 4, 2000).

There are some concerns among Florida educators that the teaching of science is suffering 

because it is not yet included in the Florida 

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). “Science is losing ground in large part due to powerful influences exerted on teachers to elevate 

student test scores in mathematics and language arts,” said Dr. Chris Muire, Research and 

Development Coordinator at Florida State University (C. Muire, survey response, 1999).

The current statewide reform emphasis is on 

higher expectations and the activities that will 

create higher achievement: state standards, 

high-stakes testing with FCAT, and legislative 

actions. All of Florida’s efforts are rooted in the 

belief that all students must have the opportunity to achieve. 
66

Florida Web Resources

Organization Web Location

Florida Association of Science Teachers 

(FAST)

www.floridascience.org

Florida Collaborative for Excellence in 

Teacher Preparation (FCETP)

www.fcetp.org

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium at SERVE

www.serve.org/Eisenhower

The Florida Virtual School www.flvs.net

Florida Division of Colleges and Universities www.fldcu.org

Florida Marine Science Education Association www.fmsea.org

Florida Public Schools and Organizations www.firn.edu/education/organizations.html

Florida Department of Education www.firn.edu/doe

Florida Sea Grant www.flseagrant.org

Florida Educational Technology Corporation, 

Inc.

www.fetc.org

Florida Council of Teachers of Mathematics 

(FCTM)

www.uwf.edu/fctm

SERVE www.serve.org
67

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST IN DETAIL 

Georgia

Georgia has a population of more than 8 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), with almost half of 

the population living in the Atlanta metropolitan area, the city most symbolic of the new South. 

With 180 public school systems and about 1.4 million children enrolled in more than 1,900 

schools, Georgia continues to seek new and creative ways to educate its increasingly diverse citizens. When it comes to education reform, Georgia recognizes the power of collaboration and the 

value of teacher support. Many of Georgia’s education initiatives are funded to provide teachers 

with ongoing classroom support as they implement innovative instructional strategies designed 

to improve student achievement. 

These initiatives have created a landscape of educational reform in Georgia that can be characterized as an “Alphabet Soup.” Support for reform comes from national and state support systems, 

assessments, and activities such as the SSI, 

GALILEO, QCC, GLC, SAT9, CRCT, and the 

RESAs. Informal science providers have supported professional development opportunities for teachers through programs such as 

GYSTC. The following sections explain each 

initiative’s role in Georgia’s science and mathematics reform movement.
68

Supporting 

Reform WITH

Accountability

Georgia recognizes that it cannot 

improve the quality of education for its 

children until it improves the quality of 

teaching. The Quality Basic Education 

(QBE) Act of 1986 led to the establishment of a uniformly sequenced Quality 

Core Curriculum (QCC) in Georgia. In 

1995, the Georgia School Improvement Panel 

began to address revising the QCC. The panel 

surveyed nearly 8,000 Georgia teachers, who 

overwhelmingly supported revision of the QCC. 

More than 150 educators, parents, and business leaders from across 

the state served on writing teams carefully balanced by race, gender, 

position, and geography. 

The result was Georgia’s 

Quality Core Curriculum 

revision, the official state 

curriculum in Georgia 

public schools (Georgia 

Department of Education, 

1999−2002). 

Content standards were 

established for K−12 

English/language arts, 

mathematics, science, 

social studies, foreign languages, fine arts, health 

and physical education, 

technology/career education, and agriculture education. Content strands for mathematics include 

problem solving, algebra, computation and estimation, geometry, measurement, number and 

number relationships, number systems and 

number theory, patterns and functions, probability, and statistics. Content strands for science 

include inquiry, physical science, life science, 

and earth/space science. Although these standards are considered permanent, they will be 

revised periodically in conjunction with the state 

textbook adoption cycle. Two years prior to a 

given adoption on the local level, the QCC will 

be revised so that local school districts can 

revise local curriculum the year before adopting 

textbooks. 

In the fall of 1998,Georgia teachers began 

using the revised QCC, which was approved 

by the state school board in late 1997. Georgia 

is revamping its testing program to reflect the 

most recent version of its standards. Students 

took tests directly tied to the new curriculum in 

the spring of 2000. Measuring progress began 

in the spring of 2000, when third-, fifth-, and 

eighth-graders joined tenth-graders in taking 

tests tied to the curriculum.

A new high school graduation examination 

was implemented in 1999, resulting in approximately 5,000 of the state’s 65,000 seniors failing to pass all five sections after four attempts. 

In their senior year, students who fail the Georgia test have four chances to retake any of the 

four sections (science, mathematics, social 

studies, and English/language arts) and still 

graduate on time. A fifth opportunity is available 

in the summer after graduation. Tutoring and 

remedial programs are also available. Since the 

implementation of the test, the passing rate for 

first-time takers has increased in mathematics 

(1999−88%; 2000−92%; 2001−93%), while science has been stable but lower in percentage 

passing (1999−72%; 2000−73%; 2001−71%). 

Obviously, much work is needed to improve 

student performance on both exams. However, 

beginning in 2003, the graduation examinations 

are eliminated, and high school students are 

required to take and pass end-of-course exams.
69

Programs 

Supporting 

Mathematics AND 

Science Reform

A+ Plus Education

Educational reform in the state took on critical 

importance when newly elected Governor Roy 

Barnes took office in January 1999. During his 

tenure, the legislature passed The A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 (House Bill 1187), which 

includes several key measures that impact mathematics and science reform in Georgia. Among 

the more significant items were:

• Requiring all school systems, technical 

schools, colleges, and universities to belong 

to a Regional Education Service Agency 

(RESA).

• Mandating that holders of a renewable 

certificate must pass a computer skills 

competency test before they can receive 

certification renewal.

• Giving teachers who receive National Board 

Certification a 10% increase in salary.

• Giving teachers who teach in a field that is in 

short supply a one-step advance on the salary schedule.

• Mandating criterion-referenced competency 

tests (CRCT) in mathematics in grades 1−8, 

with science in grades 3−8 to be added later.

• Requiring the development of end-of-course 

tests in high school, which will replace the 

high school graduation tests.

• Creating an Education Coordinating Council. 

(Georgia Department of Education, 2000)

Statewide Systemic Initiative

In 1992, Georgia received a five-year Statewide 

Systemic Initiative (SSI) award for $10 million 

and created the Georgia Initiative in Mathematics and Science (GIMS). GIMS initially targeted 

grades 4−8 in four major goal areas: (1) diversity, (2) teacher development and recruitment, 

(3) curriculum/instruction/assessment, and 

(4) partnerships for system change. Although 

GIMS no longer exists, several key aspects of 

the initiative continue.

Conceptual Framework for Diversity outlined 

the beliefs and principles of GIMS that relate 

to creating an environment for teaching and 

learning that promotes equity and excellence. The GIMS diversity goal was to serve 

as a framework for its processes, programs, 

and activities. A pre-service education program was designed and implemented for 

minority teachers of science and mathematics. In addition, a gender-equity program 

involving five institutions of higher education and six major school systems was 

established; a program for the recruitment 

of minorities as future teachers of mathematics and science was implemented; diversity principles were instituted as part of the 

Principles of Educating Teachers (POET) 

initiative; and the Science, Engineering, 

Communications, Mathematics Enrichment 

(SECME) program was expanded in order to 

reach 57% of the minority student population 

in the state. 

Georgia Youth Science and Technology Centers 

(GYSTC) offer Georgia’s teachers and students the 

opportunity to engage in science in new, exciting 

ways. The 15 regional GYSTC workshops and 

programs are designed to meet the needs of individual systems and schools, and programming 

decisions are made locally. GYSTCs and RESAs 

work closely together to complement one 

another. GYSTCs are funded equally by educa-
70 

tion, government, and business, with a third of 

funds coming from each (GYSTC, 2002).

Thanks to the GYSTCs, teachers can get a 

boost for staff development workshops with 

special programs in chemistry, aviation, physics, and hypermedia; they can take field trips 

to the Okefenokee Swamp, the north Georgia 

Mountains, SciTrek, Zoo Atlanta, and other 

locations. Student enrichment experiences 

include model rocketry workshops, star tracking, spooky science, and robotics available 

through after-school and Saturday Science programs, day and summer camps, and school 

assemblies. 

Center for Education 

Integrating Science, 

Mathematics, and 

Computing (CEISMC) 

Created in the early 

1990s, CEISMC is a 

unifying support system for core undergraduate courses in 

science, mathematics, 

and computing on the 

campus of the Georgia 

Institute of Technology. 

CEISMC partners include 

corporate CEOs and 

employees; the Georgia 

Partnership for Excellence in Education; the 

Georgia Coalition for 

Science, Technology, 

and Mathematics Education; academic professionals in the state’s 

major universities; and hundreds of school 

administrators and teachers. CEISMC is part of 

the College of Sciences at the Georgia Intitute 

of Technology. With the backing and support 

of Georgia Tech, NSF, corporate partners, and 

other groups, CEISMC has initiated and cosponsored a number of pre-college programs, such 

as those that follow.

The CEISMC Mentoring Program (CMP) recruits 

Georgia Tech students with strong science, 

mathematics, technology, and/or engineering 

backgrounds to conduct education outreach 

and to enhance K−12 educational experiences. 

Georgia Tech students help children develop 

skills in problem solving and critical thinking, 

assist teachers in making education exciting 

and relevant, and serve as role models for the 

children. CEISMC also provides mentors with 

training to attain these goals. 

High school students in advanced placement 

chemistry and calculus have the opportunity to 

make a seamless transition from high school to 

college through the High School to College Transition Program. Students also have the opportunity to earn college credit for work done in high 

school. Teachers from participating schools 

work with Georgia Tech professors to ensure 

alignment of content, labs, and projects. Field 

trips to Georgia Tech have been incorporated 

into the program, allowing students to take 

advantage of the Georgia Tech connection. This 

program is a partnership between Georgia Tech, 

Atlanta Public Schools, DeKalb County Schools, 

and the Gwinnett County School System.

Georgia’s Project 2061 team has addressed 

reform efforts at the school district level in rural 

Georgia. It has offered extensive training to colleagues on using Project 2061 tools, and members of the team serve as consultants to other 

reform projects throughout the state. Members 

have helped the Georgia SSI to develop a framework for mathematics and science. The science 

portion of the reform framework is based on 

Benchmarks for Science Literacy. The framework has the support of the Georgia Council of 

Teachers of Mathematics, the Georgia Science 

Teachers Association, the state Board of Education, teachers, and the business community.
71

Georgia Invests in Technology

Georgia excels among southern states in 

investing in technology and education. The 

state can boast of providing computer labs in 

every elementary school and in each of the 

32 technical institutes; new computer equipment, hardware, and software for adult literacy 

programs; satellite dishes for each of Georgia’s 

elementary, middle, and high schools and for 

each of its technical institutes and university 

system institutions.

Georgia schools and schoolteachers were the 

recipients of $8 million in Technology Literacy 

Challenge Funds in the 1998−1999 academic 

year. Districts will receive up to $75,000 or may 

join with other districts in a consortium and be 

eligible for $340,000. Professional development 

grants were awarded to 68 school systems to 

train teachers to be technologically literate. The 

state is working hard to be ahead of the curve 

in advancing technology in the classroom for 

students all over the state. This federally funded 

grants program aims to stimulate local, state, 

and private sector partnerships focused on integrating technology into teaching and learning. 

The state has also developed GALILEO (GeorgiA LIbrary LEarning Online), a statewide online 

library sponsored by the Board of Regents of 

the University System of Georgia. Through the 

World Wide Web, GALILEO provides users in 

Georgia’s colleges and universities with access 

to more than 100 databases, thousands of periodicals and scholarly journals, an encyclopedia, 

business directories, and government publications. GALILEO is considered by many to be the 

best statewide virtual library in the world. 

Developing 

AND Keeping 

Effective 

Teachers

The Board of Regents 

recently brought issues 

of certification and higher 

education accountability 

to the forefront through 

targeted discussions and 

goal setting. The Board 

of Regents approved several principles that spell 

out how teachers should 

be trained. Included in the 

10-point plan is a policy 

that offers a “guarantee” 

that teachers who graduate from the system’s 

teacher education programs are qualified to 

develop and implement 

a strong educational program. Universities will 

retrain teachers if the schools that hire them 

don’t think they are doing an adequate job—as 

long as the teachers are teaching in the fields 

for which they were prepared. Another recommendation is that students majoring in early 

childhood education also minor in both reading 

and mathematics. The next step for the Board 

of Regents will be to work with the 15 teacher 

education programs in the state to put those 

plans, which are supported by the state Department of Education, into action. The following 

are programs designed to enhance teacher 

effectiveness:
72 

Standards-based Teacher Education Project 

(STEP)

Eight higher education institutions involved in 

teacher preparation have agreed to analyze and 

improve their preparation programs in order to 

ensure that graduating students are sufficiently 

prepared in their content knowledge and skills 

to teach grades K−12. STEP institutions have 

agreed to redesign courses as needed to better 

prepare future teachers and to create 

accountability systems that measure 

how well teachers know their subject 

matter and how effectively they teach 

students (Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 2002).

GIFT 

(Georgia Industrial Fellowships for 

Teachers)

The Georgia Industrial Fellowships 

for Teachers is a year-round program 

designed for high school and middle 

school science and mathematics 

teachers. It begins with a six- to eightweek summer experience working 

with a mentor in business, research, 

or informal science organization. 

Teachers experience scientific inquiry 

or applications and uses of new technologies in the workplace. Through 

GIFT, teachers linked through interdisciplinary professional networks return to their 

classrooms renewed and empowered. 

Teacher Certification Program

The Teacher Certification Program is a partnership between Georgia State University’s College 

of Education and Georgia Tech’s College of 

Sciences. The Program serves as a vehicle for 

students majoring in engineering, mathematics, 

and science to receive secondary certification 

while pursuing their Georgia Tech degrees. 

Some educational classes are taught on the 

Georgia Tech campus, making it convenient to 

pursue certification and a Georgia Tech degree 

simultaneously. The Program provides information, academic advisement, and other services 

for students seeking certification. 

Teaching and Learning Camps

Teaching and Learning Camps from CEISMC 

provide teachers with opportunities to develop 

and apply new instructional approaches in 

mathematics and science. A major goal of the 

camps is to assist teachers in motivating students to engage in mathematics, science, and 

technology activities and to explore related 

career options. 

Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation 

Program (GATAPP)

The GATAPP program is a classroom-based 

preparation option for individuals who have 

not previously completed a teacher preparation program. Phase I is an instructional phase 

offered as an introduction to teaching. Phase 

II is a two-year classroom-based induction 

training period to be completed while teaching full-time. The two-year induction program 

includes seminars in appropriate teaching and 

content areas, mentoring by a three-person 

support team, and the creation of a portfolio of 

achievement. At the end of the two-year program, during which the candidate has been in 

the classroom as a teacher, the candidate must 

pass the PRAXIS II exam (Professional Standards Commission, 2001).

Additional preparation and retention programs 

include the Middle Grades Mathematics and Science Initiative, a project of the Professional Standards Commission and the Board of Regents 

to provide content courses in mathematics and 

science to strengthen teachers’ content knowledge, and the Advanced Academies for Future 

Teachers, designed to recruit future teachers 

from current Georgia high school students. 
73

Challenges AND

Highlights

Although Georgia has many strengths as a 

southern state with a high number of rural 

schools, it does face challenges, including one 

of the highest high school dropout rates in the 

country. Steps are being taken by the Georgia 

Department of Education to reduce the dropout 

figures by better preparing three- and four-yearolds for the schooling experience. The Office 

of School Readiness (OSR), created in 1996, 

provides Georgia’s four-year-old children with 

high-quality preschool experiences through the 

Georgia Voluntary Prekindergarten Program. 

Children in the program are provided with an 

appropriate learning environment to increase 

their cognitive skills while they are developing 

physically and emotionally.

The Georgia Prekindergarten Program, which 

is funded by the Georgia Lottery, provides the 

largest preschool initiative per capita in the 

nation. During the 1997−1998 school year, 

approximately 70% of all eligible four-year-old 

children received preschool experiences in 

Georgia: 60,000 through the Prekindergarten 

Program and an additional 13,000 through 

enrollment with federally funded Head Start.

At the other end of the pre-K−12 learning experience are HOPE scholarships funded by the 

Georgia Lottery for Education. HOPE, Helping 

Outstanding Pupils Educationally, is Georgia’s 

unique scholarship program that rewards students’ hard work with financial assistance in 

degree, diploma, and certificate programs at 

eligible Georgia public and private colleges and 

universities and public technical colleges. At 

public colleges, the HOPE scholarship provides 

full tuition, approved mandatory fees, and a 

book allowance. Room and board expenses 

are not covered. At private colleges, the HOPE 

scholarship provides $3,000 per academic year, 

and students can qualify for the Georgia Tuition 

Equalization Grant of $1,050 per academic year, 

for a total of $4,050 per academic year at private colleges. Since 

the HOPE Program 

began in 1993, over 

500,000 Georgians 

have received more 

than $1 billion through 

this program.

Additional HOPE programs support potential teachers through 

scholarships. These 

programs operate, 

in effect, as servicecancelable loan programs, whereby one 

commits to teach in a 

K−12 Georgia public 

school after graduation in return for the 

scholarship (Georgia 

Student Finance Commission, n.d.). 

If the aforementioned 

initiatives, programs, 

and scholarships are 

any indication, Georgia is well on its way to improving science 

and mathematics teaching and learning. Its 

teachers, students, and citizens deserve such 

efforts, and all benefit from the commitment. 

With their success, Georgia will continue to be 

the symbol of the “new South.” 
74

Georgia Web Resources

Organization Web Location

Georgia Learning Connections (GLC) www.glc.k12.ga.us

Georgia Department of Education www.doe.k12.ga.us/index.asp

Center for Education Integrating Science, 

Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC) www.ceismc.gatech.edu

Science, Engineering, Communications, 

Mathematics Enrichment (SECME) www.secme.org

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium at SERVE www.serve.org/Eisenhower

Georgia Science Teachers’ Association www.ceismc.gatech.edu/gsta

SciTrek www.scitrek.org

Georgia Museums on the Web www.masmacon.com/links.htm

Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally 

(HOPE) www.dtae.tec.ga.us/hope.html

Georgia Youth Science and Technology 

Centers (GYSTC) www.spsu.edu/gystc
75

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST IN DETAIL 

Mississippi

First explored by Spain in 1540, Mississippi, known as the Magnolia State, entered the union in 

1817. With most of the state’s rivers belonging to the Mississippi or Alabama River systems, Mississippi is named after an Indian word meaning “Father of Waters.” Mississippi has a varied topography 

from the hilly landscape at its highest point in the northeast corner along the Tennessee River to the 

most distinctive region, the Delta, found between the Mississippi and the Yazoo rivers in the western part of the state. Southern Mississippi is covered mainly by a wide band of longleaf yellow pine 

(hence the region’s nickname, “piney woods”) and grassland along the coastal plains.

Agriculture continues to be a major component of the state’s economy, with cotton and soybeans as 

the largest cash crops. Mississippi is the largest producer of pond-raised catfish, and the sixth-largest 

natural gas-producing state in the nation. It maintains both offshore and land based oil-drilling operations. Mississippi is also 

the home of NASA’s Stennis Space Center, where 

space shuttle engines are 

tested. The state’s largest 

private employer, Ingalls 

Division of Litton Industries, builds cruise ocean 

liners and ships for the 

U.S. Navy (Friends Education Network, 2001; 

50states.com, 2002). 
76

With more than 2.8 

million residents 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 

2001), about 29% 

of the population is 

under 18 years old, 

and 24.5% of the 

children live below 

poverty. There are 

156 school districts 

(Mississippi Department of Education, 

2001a) and 1,037 

public schools (Mississippi Department 

of Education, 2002a) 

in Mississippi, including three agricultural high 

schools, schools for the deaf and the blind, 

and a mathematics and science 

high school. 

State education leaders have 

been very active in reforming 

the mathematics and science 

curricula. Mississippi ranked 

third in the nation as the most 

improved state in increasing 

the percentage of all students, 

especially minorities and 

females, who earned degrees 

awarded in mathematics and 

science (National Education 

Goals Panel, 1999). 

Supporting 

Reform WITH 

Accountability

The Mississippi Education Reform Act of 1982 

was the impetus for Mississippi’s accountability system and assessment programs. 

Early accountability systems were driven by 

the goal of students mastering basic skills. 

Through the years, school districts became the 

focus of accountability by assigning accreditation levels for student performance based 

on a set of process and content standards. In 

1999, the Mississippi Student Achievement Act 

revamped the state’s testing and accreditation 

system and shifted the focus from districts to 

individual schools, with accreditation measured 

against annual performance standards (Mississippi Department of Education, 1999). Focusing accountability at the school level helped to 

rate Mississippi’s accountability system as sixth 

in the nation based on consistency, security, 

openness of public scrutiny, and flexibility to 

improve (Princeton Review, 2002).

As part of the state’s accountability system for 

education, schools and districts are ranked 

based on both achievement standards (norm-referenced tests, which compare students with 

other students nationally) and process standards 

that measure the quality of school services. The 

Mississippi Department of Education makes a 

semi-annual report to the state Board of Education, identifying at-risk schools (where the majority of the students enrolled in the school are at 

risk of failing school), noting the problems, and 

making recommendations for improvement. 

High-performing schools are identified and 

rewarded for overall student achievement, and 

low-performing schools receive assistance. Senate Bill 2156 also established the criteria and the 

process for improving the performance of lowachieving schools (Mississippi Department of 

Education, 1999a). If the same school within a 

district remains at risk for four consecutive 

years, or if a majority of the schools within a 

school district are identified as at risk, the state 

Board of Education may become the “conservator” of the school and require the school to 

develop corrective action plans.
77

The cornerstone of accountability is a new student assessment program that is aligned with 

the Mississippi Curriculum Frameworks and 

state benchmarks. Several panels of teachers 

from throughout the state spent part of the summer of 1999 identifying skills within the state’s 

curriculum frameworks that should be tested. 

Administration of the tests began in the fall 

2000, with accreditation levels following later. 

Under this new testing system, students take 

age-appropriate, teacher-administered diagnostic tests in grades K−2. In grades 3−8, students participate in more formal testing based 

on concepts outlined in the state curriculum 

and benchmarks. These tests also determine 

if schools have met student growth goals. 

According to the long-range plan, students who 

do not meet these benchmarks will receive 

remediation the following year and will not be 

promoted until mastery is demonstrated.

Public school students must meet graduation 

standards requiring 24 academic credits in 

grades 9 through 12. Three credits in mathematics are required to graduate, including one credit 

in algebra, one in geometry, and one in another 

mathematics course. Three science credits are 

also required for graduation, two of which must 

have a laboratory component, and one must be 

in biology. In addition, graduating seniors must 

maintain a 2.0 cumulative grade point average 

and pass the end-of-course tests in Algebra I, 

Biology I, U.S. History, and English II (with a writing component) to graduate. The end-of-course 

tests were phased in during school year 

2001−2002 to replace the Functional Literacy 

Exam as a requirement for graduation. The endof-course tests are given in the ninth grade, and 

the student can take the test three times each 

year until a passing score is achieved (Mississippi Department of Education, 2000).

The curriculum structure in Mississippi is moving from textbook-driven and objective-based 

to one that describes benchmarks and competencies for each grade level. The new focus is 

on teaching strategies that address a variety of 

auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles. 

Curriculum documents are revised every five 

years by the Department of Education to continue aligning state instructional policies with 

national standards.

Mathematics Framework

The 1995 Mississippi Mathematics Framework 

was graded a “B” by the Fordham Foundation 

(Fordham Foundation, 1998), and it was revised 

in 2000. The K−12 mathematics framework provides an outline of what students should learn 

through competencies, teaching objectives, unit 

themes, strategies, and assessments. The two 

previous documents that made 

up the framework were the Mississippi Mathematics Curriculum 

Structure and the Mississippi 

Mathematics Process Guide, 

both implemented in 1995.

The five content strands in the 

new mathematics framework 

are Patterns/Algebraic Thinking, 

Data Analysis/Prediction, Measurement, Geometric Concepts, 

and Number Sense. There are 

also five process strands: Problem Solving/Reasoning, Estimating, Incorporating Technology, 

Communicating, and Making 

Connections/Applications.

To bridge the gap between what students 

know and can do now in mathematics and 

what the new mathematics framework outlines 

that students should know, the state’s Department of Education has produced a set of videos that provide information and examples to 

K−8 teachers on using the mathematics framework as well as incorporating process strands 

into their teaching.
78 

Science Framework

Mississippi’s science curriculum was written as 

a draft during the 1993−1994 school year, at 

the same time the national science standards 

were being written. Benchmarks were added 

at grades 4, 8, and 12 to become aligned 

with the national standards. The latest document went to the legislature for approval in 

2000. Many districts elected to implement the 

new framework during the 2001 school year, 

with full implementation occurring during the 

2002−2003 school year. 

The 2001 Mississippi Science Framework, 

which outlines the competencies students 

should learn, is organized by grade level for 

grades K−8 and by course for grades 9−12. 

Competencies represent general understandings of a concept or successful task performances. Appropriate instructional technology, 

literature, and multimedia are incorporated 

throughout the science framework.

The framework comprises three content 

strands: Life Science, Earth and Space 

Science, and Physical Science, and five 

process strands: Unifying Concepts and 

Processes, Science as Inquiry, Science and 

Technology, Science in Personal and Social 

Perspectives, and the History and Nature 

of Science. The strands provide continuity 

in teaching K−12 science and the basis for 

curriculum development for K−12 teachers (Mississippi Department of Education, 

2001b). The Biology I Instructional Intervention Guide was published in 2001 to assist 

students in mastering Biology I, which is a 

graduation requirement.

Programs 

Supporting 

Mathematics AND 

Science Reform

Among the entities supporting mathematics 

and science reform are initiatives funded by the 

NSF, such as the Delta Rural Systemic Initiative, 

and the state’s universities and community colleges, which offer technology, networking, and 

organizing resources.

The Delta Rural Systemic Initiative

NSF funded the Delta Rural Systemic Initiative 

(Delta RSI) in 1997 as a $10 million, five-year 

project (NSF, 2001). Housed at the University of 

Mississippi, the project targets 237,000 school 

children in poor, rural families in 100 school districts in the Lower Mississippi River Delta region 

of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The 

goals of the project include (1) improving the 

K−14 learning environment and (2) promoting 

student achievement in science, mathematics, 

and technology.

The strands of the cooperative work of the 

Delta RSI and the districts it serves are derived 

from the NSF drivers of reform and are related 

to data-driven decision making, curriculum 

analysis, professional development, using 

resources wisely, analyzing district reform policies, and community engagement. 

Mississippi School for Mathematics

and Science

Nearly 300 students are enrolled in the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science, 

located on the campus of Mississippi University 

for Women. The Mississippi Legislature estab-
79

lished the residential school in 1987 to serve 

academically gifted students. At the school, students can choose from 17 advanced courses, 

including linear algebra, logic and game theory, 

unified geometry, the history of mathematics, and third-year calculus. All 29 available 

science courses include a strong laboratory 

component. Students use high-tech equipment 

to study robotics, computer programming, creative multimedia, and other subjects. Computer 

software is upgraded regularly, and computerized tutorial programs assist students who have 

difficulty in certain subject areas.

Mississippi Science Hub

The Mississippi Region Educational Development Center (EDC) K−12 Science Curriculum 

Center, housed at Mississippi College, provides 

access to exemplary K−12 science materials to 

educators in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, 

Tennessee, and Louisiana. Through examination across the grade bands, K−5, 6−8, and 

9−12, educators learn the benefits of adapting 

and implementing inquiry-based science curricula and the related impact on student 

achievement. 

CPMSA and USP

In 1996, NSF awarded a Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) grant to Jackson Public Schools. 

The $3.4 million grant helped to support the 

strengthening of science, mathematics, and 

technology education. To do this, the district 

has agreed to undergo systemic reform by 

changing its approach to the teaching and 

learning of K−12 mathematics and science 

(Jackson Public Schools, 2002a).

The Jackson Public School System was also 

awarded the Urban Systemic Program (USP) 

grant for 2001−2004. Pleased by the progress 

the system was making under the CPMSA grant, 

NSF affirmed its commitment to the district with 

an additional $3.3 million. Most of the 

money is allocated to professional development for teachers and other projects 

designed to increase student achievement in mathematics and science. Since 

the awarding of the grants, (1) science 

and mathematics teachers have deepened their content knowledge through 

professional development, (2) more students are enrolling in advanced science 

and mathematics courses at the high 

schools, (3) more students are graduating 

high school prepared to take higher-level 

mathematics and science courses in college, and 4) test scores have increased 

(Jackson Public Schools, 2002b).

An Emphasis on Technology Education

Jones County Junior College (JCJC), the largest 

single campus, two-year college in Mississippi, 

received from NSF two Advanced Technological 

Education (ATE) grants. The first grant, Technology Partnership for Computer Network Training, 

was designed to provide training in networking 

technology to faculty at secondary schools and 

two-year colleges. JCJC, in cooperation with 

Copiah-Lincoln Community College, Itawamba 

Community College, Mississippi Delta Community College, and Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College, spearheaded this effort to provide 

training that enabled the implementation of an 

advanced computer network management curriculum for two-year technical students and a 

related curriculum for secondary students. The 

training also focused on the use of computer 

networks as an instructional tool.

The second grant created the Southeast Consortium for Advanced Network Technology 

Education. The consortium is to develop educational and communication strategies and 

infrastructures to support existing and emerging network technologies for two-year colleges.
80 

The Challenging Regional Educators to 

Advance Technology in Education (CREATE) 

for the Mississippi consortium was organized to 

expand and support Mississippi’s 

technology initiative by moving 

Mississippi to the next level of 

technology integration and affecting the learning of all students in 

the state. The CREATE website 

provides a virtual community giving participants the opportunity 

to share ideas, resources, and 

best practices in technology and 

to offer support to other educators and citizens.

Other Programs Supporting

Educational Reform

Five regional educational consortia are strategically placed 

throughout the state. The partnerships consist of school 

districts, community colleges, 

colleges, and universities. Members pool their 

resources for special projects and professional 

development, share expertise, and work cooperatively to influence state and national educational policies. The five consortia are: 

• Delta Area Association for Improvement of 

Schools at Delta State University

• North Mississippi Educational Consortium at 

the University of Mississippi

• East Mississippi Education Center for Educational Development at Mississippi State University, Meridian Campus

• Southern Education Consortium at University 

of Southern Mississippi

• Gulf Coast Education Consortium

Business collaborators supporting reform in 

Mississippi include Business and Industry 

Internships for Educators, which offers programs for secondary and post-secondary teachers to interact directly in the business world. 

As a nonpartisan education policy research 

coalition, the Public Education Forum of Mississippi monitors reform related to public education. The Forum’s website offers up-to-date 

legislative summaries and other pertinent news 

of reform in the state. 

Developing

AND Keeping 

Effective 

Teachers

The Commission on Teacher and Administrator Education, Certification, and Licensure and 

Development was created under the Mississippi 

Education Reform Act of 1982. The Commission was charged with establishing standards 

for preparation, licensure, and continuing professional development. Mississippi’s teacher 

licensure requirements are similar to those 

found in other states. However, Mississippi 

allows potential teachers four routes to becoming a certified teacher: (1) approved program, 

(2) alternate route (revised 2002), (3) Masters of 

Arts in Teaching, and (4) reciprocity. Potential 

teachers also must achieve a passing score on 

the NCATE and the Praxis II to become a certified Mississippi teacher (Mississippi Department 

of Education, 2002b). 

There are several opportunities throughout 

Mississippi for teachers to enhance their skills 

in mathematics and science teaching. The Student and Teacher Research Institute − the Delta 

Experience (STRIDE) was a science research 

institute funded by NSF for 1998−2003 (NSF, 
81

2002). Teachers from the Mississippi Delta and 

high-achieving students spent three weeks 

working with scientists in field and laboratory 

settings and one week in a research laboratory. 

Teams also attended follow-up sessions during 

the academic year.

NASA’s Stennis Space Center in south Mississippi offers opportunities for research, internships, and partnerships as well as teacher 

resources. The Educator Resource Center 

provides free services to educators, including 

videotapes, computer software, slides, lesson 

plans, and other educational materials (Stennis 

Space Center, 2002). Stennis also offers preservice teachers who are preparing to teach in 

elementary or middle school an opportunity to 

engage in a two-week intensive training that will 

expose them to problem-centered learning in 

mathematics and science education.

The University of Southern Mississippi’s J. L. 

Scott Marine Education Center and Aquarium 

offers a variety of educational experiences for 

both teachers and students of all ages. The 

COAST: PILOT Pathfinder Institute is a nationally recognized in-service program for K−12 

teachers of predominately minority students. 

The institute gives teachers the opportunity to 

learn and develop curriculum materials relating to oceanography and coastal processes 

through fieldwork, including a cruise aboard a 

research vessel (University of Southern Mississippi, 1999).

Training for the new mathematics framework for 

K−12 mathematics teachers was provided by 

the state in school year 2000−2001. Four-day 

training programs were offered through regional 

service centers housed on the campuses of 

the University of Southern Mississippi, Jackson 

State University, Mississippi State University 

(Meridian campus), and Delta State University. A 

supplement for K−8 teachers was published in 

the spring of 2000 and includes benchmarks, 

informal assessments, and strategies to be 

used with students who are not mastering the 

benchmarks. The state offered two-day training 

programs in using these intervention strategies 

across the state during 2001−2002. 

Incentives to Attract and Retain Teachers

Mississippi’s challenge is providing teachers 

the support they need to develop and remain 

in Mississippi school districts. The state is 

faced with constant turnover and a lack of 

qualified applicants. To help with the 

shortage problem, the 1994 Legislature mandated the establishment of 

a Teacher Center that would help to 

attract and retain quality teachers in 

Mississippi. The focus is on recruitment, training, and support (Mississippi 

Department of Education, 2002b). 

Four years later, Mississippi was still 

faced with a teacher shortage problem 

that led state legislators to pass the 

1998 Mississippi Critical Teacher Shortage Act. This Act provides scholarships, grants, home loans, and moving 

expenses for teachers willing to work 

in the Delta region and other designated shortage areas. Teachers who 

become certified by the National Board 

for Professional Teaching Standards earn an 

extra $6,000 a year, the biggest such incentive 

offered by any state. 

This incentive has helped to motivate more 

than 1,400 Mississippi teachers to achieve 

National Board Certification (National Board 

for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002). 

Mississippi teachers earn on the average $31, 

913 a year, compared to the average salary of 

$37,072 a year in the southeastern states in 

which it competes for teaching talent. In May 

2000, a pay increase package was amended 
82 

to a broad accountability plan that divides individual schools into three 

tiers according to their students’ performance on state tests. Depending 

on the school’s performance, the bill calls for teachers to receive various 

rewards and sanctions.

Highlights AND Challenges

Without question, the state’s biggest challenges are the need to recruit 

and maintain qualified teachers and the need for educational reform to 

connect with the social and economic changes necessary to position 

students and teachers for educational success. Dr. Charles Alexander, 

professor of mathematics at the University of Mississippi and Principal 

Investigator of the Delta Rural Systemic Initiative (Delta RSI), named inadequate housing, teacher shortages, limited access to capital, lack of jobs, 

and health and environmental issues as obstacles to reform. To address 

these gaps and to turn a challenge into an asset, the Delta RSI networks 

widely with many sectors of the region.

“While our programmatic monies are directed toward the systemic reform 

of mathematics and science, we join hands with other people working 

in the ancillary areas,” Alexander said. “The total infrastructure must be 

addressed; we are plugging into parallel actions whenever we can so that 

we aren’t just picking at a problem in fragments” (C. Alexander, personal 

communications, 2002).

The business community looks forward to the day when the reform of 

science and mathematics will take a permanent hold of Mississippi. One 

corporate executive, George Williams, said, “It will become necessary 

for teachers to put more emphasis on higher standards. Our company 

and others like us are struggling to find local students willing to work in 

research” (Williams, 1999).
83

Mississippi Web Resources

Organization Web Location

Mississippi Department of Education www.mde.k12.ms.us

Mississippi Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics

www.msms.k12.ms.us/mctm

Stennis Space Center Education and 

University Affairs

wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov

J.L. Scott Marine Education Center & 

Aquarium

www.aquarium.usm.edu

Challenging Regional Educators to Advance 

Technology in Education (CREATE)

www.create4ms.org

Mississippi EDC K−12 Science Hub www.mc.edu/campus/academics/EDU/

MSRegHub/MRH%20Index.html

Mississippi Teacher Fellowship Program www.olemiss.edu/programs/mtfp/home.htm

Delta Rural Systemic Initiative www.drsi.org

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium at SERVE

www.serve.org/Eisenhower

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse www.enc.org

Public Education Forum of Mississippi www.publiceducationforum.org

North Mississippi Educational Consortium www.olemiss.edu/depts/educ_school/Nmec

Delta Area Association for Improvement of 

Schools www.ntweb.deltastate.edu/daais

85

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST IN DETAIL 

North Carolina

One of the original 13 colonies, the Tar Heel state’s geography ranges from the extensive coastal marshlands to the red clay of the Piedmont and westward to the pre-glacial Appalachian mountain chain. The Piedmont region is the state’s hub of industry 

and population, while the mountains of the west remain the focus of a lively folk culture and the home of a Cherokee reservation.

About half of North Carolina’s population lives outside urban communities, giving it 

one of the largest rural populations in the nation. The industrial base has centered on 

manufacturing of textiles, furniture, and cigarettes. In the past 30 years, strong growth 

has occurred in computers, electronic communications equipment, chemicals, and 

machinery. The leading industrial state of the southern Atlantic states, agriculture 

remains an important industry in the state, although the number of people it employs 

continues to decline. North Carolina leads the nation in the production of tobacco, 

sweet potatoes, and turkeys.
86

The public school system has been 

supported by the state since 1933. 

There are 100 counties in North 

Carolina, most of which represent 

a single school district or local educational agency. There are several 

counties with two or more districts, 

often separate city and county systems. Besides the 117 public school 

districts in the state, there are also 

three federal schools (the Cherokee 

Central Schools and Fort Bragg and 

Camp LeJeune Military Schools) 

and a variety of special schools, 

including the North Carolina School 

of Science and Mathematics. Public 

post-secondary education includes 

the University of North Carolina 

system (16 universities under the 

general administration of a president 

and a board of governors) and the 

North Carolina Department of Community Colleges (same administrative configuration).

Supporting 

Reform WITH

Accountability

In 1995, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to place the Department of Public 

Instruction (DPI) under the authority of the state 

Board of Education. The Governor appoints 

the members of the Board, whereas the state 

superintendent, who oversees the Department 

of Public Instruction, is an elected official. Mathematics and science specialists on the DPI staff 

create the development of curriculum products 

in these areas and coordinate professional 

development opportunities offered by DPI. 

In response to the School-Based Management 

and Accountability Program enacted by the 

North Carolina General Assembly in June 1996, 

the state Board of Education established the 

ABCs of Public Education. One of the most 

significant features of the ABCs program is the 

extent to which it is designed to reduce bureaucracy and give individual school systems freedom to decide how state and federal education 

dollars will be spent. 

Elementary and middle schools implemented 

the program during the 1996−1997 school year, 

followed by high schools in 1997−1998. The 

ABC plan—accountability, basics, and (local) 

control—defines North Carolina’s approach to 

putting standards-based education into action 

and is designed to hold each school in the 

state accountable for teaching core capabilities in reading, writing, and mathematics. On 

the simplest level, the ABCs require (a) a year’s 

worth of academic growth for a year’s worth 

of instruction and (b) demonstrated rising test 

scores from one year to another. It is important 

to note that this is a growth model, not a gradelevel model, and growth over a year is determined by a student’s starting point as well as 

ending point.

Supporting implementation of the ABC plan, the 

new mathematics Standard Course of Study 

(SCS), aligned with the ABCs, went into effect in 

the fall of 1999. The new science SCS went into 

effect in 2000−2001. The North Carolina Mathematics and Science Standard Courses of Study 

are designed to reflect the national standards in 

both disciplines; both SCS documents support 

inquiry-based learning and suggest a 

balance between 

content and process (North Carolina 

State Board of Education, 1999−2001). 
87

Table 10. North Carolina Graduation Requirements in Mathematics and Science

High School Diploma Pathways

Course Career Prep College Tech Prep College University 

Prep*

Mathematics 3 credits

Including Algebra I

3 credits

Algebra I, II, 

Geometry or 

Integrated Math 

I, II, III or

Algebra I, Technical 

Math I and II

4 credits

Algebra I, II, Geometry, 

and one higher 

math course 

or

Integrated Math I, II, III 

and one higher 

math course

Science 3 credits

A Physical Science 

course, Biology, Earth/

Environmental Science

3 credits

A Physical Science 

course, Biology, 

Earth/Environmental 

Science 

3 credits

A Physical Science 

course, Biology, Earth/

Environmental Science 

* Fourth math credit effective for freshmen entering 2002−2003

Under the ABC plan, end-of-year testing in mathematics for grades 3−8 focuses on numeration, 

geometry, patterns and pre-algebra, measurement, problem solving, data analysis, and statistics and computation. Accountability in science 

begins on the high school level where, in addition to tests in Algebra I/II and Geometry, endof-course tests are given in Physical Science, 

Biology, Chemistry, and Physics (North Carolina 

State Board of Education, 1999−2002). Although 

high school students are not yet required to 

pass EOC (End-of-Course) examinations to pass 

the courses, EOC scores count as 25% of their 

final grades in the courses. Table 10 includes 

the graduation requirements in mathematics 

and science that are effective for freshman 

entering in the 2000−2001 school year.

Since the present accountability system does 

not test science until high school, North Carolina schools are free to adopt an experiential 

science program at the local level but are not 

obliged to do so. According to Bill 

Spooner, former chief science consultant for the North Carolina DPI, many 

elementary school teachers, insecure 

about the new science standards, are 

tempted to ignore them. The problem 

is exacerbated by the fact that the lack 

of accountability for science in elementary school has resulted in a decline in 

its emphasis in the curriculum in favor 

of the tested subjects—mathematics, 

reading, and writing. Furthermore, 

the state textbook commission has 

adopted the use of more traditional 
88 

LEA Eisenhower coordinators, offers curriculum 

and leadership institutes for teachers, and sponsors the K−8 Infrastructure project, an initiative 

based on the LASER model that assists districts 

in implementing a kit-based, inquiry-focused science curriculum for K−8 students. 

The MSEN was authorized by the North Carolina legislature in 1984. Housed in the state 

university system, MSEN consists of an executive office, eight mathematics/science learning 

centers, a research and development center 

at North Carolina State University, and a liaison with the North Carolina School of Science 

and Mathematics (University of North Carolina, 

2002). The individual centers provide mathematics and science professional development for educators in their regions, while the 

executive office administers the Higher Ed 

Eisenhower grants and coordinates statewide 

activities, often with DPI. Recently, MSEN 

hosted a series of forums on TIMSS and provided leadership and coordination for the writing of a state science framework. Community 

and business leaders are always included in 

the design of these statewide initiatives. The 

MSEN Pre-College Program (housed on several 

MSEN campuses) serves traditionally underrepresented students in grades 6−12 and relies in 

part on the power of community partnerships to 

support its programs.

Through a central facility at North Carolina 

State University and satellite offices in Edenton 

(east) and Lenoir (west), The Science House 

continues to provide cutting-edge science, 

mathematics, and technology support to teachers across the state. The staff is instrumental 

in developing and delivering local workshops, 

state and national presentations, and summer 

and long-term programs (the Imhotep Academy) 

for students. Annually, the Science House hosts 

a K−12 Outreach conference for state university and business partners to highlight unique 

partnerships across the region that are focused 

science textbook programs that, while they 

include kits of equipment, do not adequately 

replace hands-on learning experiences (North 

Carolina State Board of Education, 1999−2002). 

In mathematics, the NSF-supported materials 

were not adopted because they do not align 

with the grade-level expectations expressed in 

the standard course of study. Schools and districts are free, however, to use these materials 

to support their curriculum wherever possible.

Programs 

Supporting 

Mathematics AND

Science Reform

A collaborative approach to reform that emphasizes professional development around the 

state standards is evident in the efforts of the 

North Carolina DPI, the Mathematics and Science Education Network (MSEN), the Science 

House at North Carolina State University, and 

the Eisenhower Consortium @ SERVE. The 

MSEN has been an effective partner with the 

North Carolina DPI in convening key groups 

within the state from time to time, and on a 

regional scale, the Eisenhower Consortium has 

played the same role.

The mathematics and science unit 

in the North Carolina DPI is responsible for the standard courses of 

study, instructional materials, and 

curriculum frameworks, and it 

complements its work with an array 

of professional development offerings aligned with the department’s 

vision for mathematics and science 

education in North Carolina. The 

department supports a network of 
89

on benefiting students. The Science House is 

a model of collaboration with such partners as 

NASA, Burroughs Wellcome, GlaxoSmithKline, 

and Lucent Technologies.

On a regional level, North Carolina teachers 

of science and mathematics receive ongoing 

support from the Eisenhower Consortium for 

Mathematic and Science Education at SERVE. 

The Consortium offers a Technical Academy 

for Mathematics and Science Services for educators across the Southeast, and more than 

two dozen mathematics/science educators 

from North Carolina have participated and are 

participating in this ongoing professional development initiative. In addition, the Consortium 

supports a summer Technology Institute at 

Fayetteville State University, where teachers are 

able to explore applications of technology to 

the teaching of mathematics. The Consortium 

also continues to advance school/museum partnerships in the state by collaborating with Discovery Place in Charlotte on a Teacher Camp-In 

during the fall, where teachers take over the 

museum for a night (Education Week, 1999). In 

addition, through partnerships with agencies 

outside of North Carolina, such as the Miami 

Museum of Science, the Exploratorium, and the 

Educational Development Center, the Consortium is able to offer national professional development opportunities to Tarheel educators.

Developing 

AND Keeping 

Effective 

Teachers

The 1999 Education Week Report Card gave 

North Carolina an A rating for efforts to raise 

teacher quality. In addition to applauding North 

Carolina for having more Board 

Certified teachers than any other 

state, the report recognized the 

strides made in professional 

development as a result of the 

Excellent Schools Act, ratified 

in June 1997. Recent reports 

suggest, however, that despite 

financial rewards for teachers 

who achieve National Board 

Certification (a 12% salary bonus) 

(National Board for Professional 

Teaching Standards, 2002), 

North Carolina is facing a serious 

teacher shortage over the next 

10 years, due to anticipated student population 

growth and teacher attrition (Broad, 1999). 

In response, North Carolina has raised teacher 

salaries as an enticement to enter the profession. Similarly, the North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program recruits high-ability high school 

students into the profession by offering a 

$20,000 four-year college scholarship in 

exchange for a four-year commitment to teach 

in the state. Administered by the University of 

North Carolina General Administration office, 

NC-TEACH makes it possible for individuals to 

enter the teaching profession through non-traditional routes. Aided by a $3 million grant from 

the U.S. Department of Education, NC-TEACH 

is designed to put teachers in the classroom 

after six weeks of intensive training, followed 

by in-service training during the induction 

phase of teaching (University of North Carolina, 

2002). In addition, the state has implemented a 

performance-based licensure program that 

requires initially certified personnel to go 

through a three-year induction period and produce a professional portfolio. The legislature 

has approved funding for mentors to support 

these new teachers. 

In the university system, state-funded programs 

supporting educator growth and development 
90 

are housed under the Center for Educational 

Leadership of the University of North Carolina General Administration office. In addition to the MSEN, other programs include 

NCCAT and the Teacher Academy. The 

North Carolina Center for the Advancement 

of Teaching (NCCAT), established in 1985 on 

the campus of Western Carolina University 

in Cullowhee, is a national leader in providing enrichment programs for teachers that 

enliven the art of teaching (NCCAT, 2002). 

The North Carolina Teacher Academy, 

housed at the University of North Carolina, 

supports the continuous learning of teachers in key areas of school committee leadership, instruction, core content, and use of 

modern technology (Barkley, 1999). 

Another state agency with professional 

development programs, especially for science teachers, is the Office of Environmental 

Education in the Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (DENR). DENR is 

responsible for protecting North Carolina’s natural resources and does so through a program 

of resource management and educational support. Programs at DENR offer a wide range of 

opportunities for teachers through field-based 

experiences such as Project Wet and Project 

Wild (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2002). DENR also 

provides the coursework necessary for teachers to complete an endorsement in environmental education for their teaching certification.

The growing use of technology and access to 

it across the state by teachers has fostered the 

expansion of LEARN NC, a program of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School 

of Education that provides teachers with Webbased, teacher-designed teaching and learning 

materials linked to the North Carolina Standard 

Course of Study. LEARN NC even provides 

free training in the use of its database of lesson 

plans, its assessment resources, and other 

materials (LEARN NC, 2002).

Highlights AND

Challenges

Recent legislation (HB 1840) calls for every 

LEA in North Carolina to establish a task force 

to develop a local plan for closing the achievement gap that exists between White and minority students in the state.

Closing this academic achievement gap is a top 

priority for the state Board of Education, and collaboration with local businesses, agencies, and 

community leaders is a recommended key strategy. To this end, DPI and other partners have 

hosted an annual Closing the Achievement Gap 

Conference for the past five years. Follow-up 

from the 2000 conference includes the development and statewide dissemination of a video, 

Closing the Achievement Gap: From the Students’ Perspective. With over 2,500 attendees in 

2001, the conference has become the state’s 

primary vehicle for sharing resources and best 

practices, for heightening awareness of achievement gap issues, and for convening practitioners who are successfully addressing these 

issues.

Addressing gaps attributed to rural isolation is 

the target of an initiative and another exemplar 

of collaboration, the North Carolina School of 

Science and Mathematics (NCSSM), a model 

for mathematics and science education for 

grades 11 and 12. NCSSM has been the template for 13 similar schools both nationally and 

worldwide. Interestingly, in addition to its focus 

on students gifted in mathematics and/or science, part of NCSSM’s mission is to develop 

approaches to instruction that can be used 

beyond its walls, acting “as a catalyst for 
91

educational improvement in the state and 

nation” (NCSSM, 2002). To address this mandate, NCSSM houses the Education Future Center (EFC), a technology-driven outreach program 

created in 1996 with a $1 million gift from the 

Burroughs Wellcome Fund. The EFC electronically connects seven cyber-campus sites with 

each other and NCSSM to provide rural K−12 

classrooms with the latest resources in science, mathematics, and technology education 

(EFC, 2002).

In the 1990s, North Carolina received accolades for systemic change and notable 

improvements in almost every area of public 

instruction, a dramatic transformation from its 

former status among the lowest states in the 

nation in educational achievement. In September 1999, the National Alliance of Business 

awarded North Carolina the 1999 NAB Distinguished Performance Award for the State of the 

Year. Attributing improvements in the state’s 

educational system to strong business/education partnerships, NAB President Robert Jones 

concluded that, “Under Governor Hunt’s inspired 

leadership, North Carolina’s schools have made 

more progress in more areas than any other 

state (in the areas of) early childhood development, teacher salaries and standards, school 

safety and student accountability” (North Carolina DPI, 1999).

Further recognition for the overall success 

of the North Carolina DPI came in November 

1999, when the DPI was chosen by the North 

Carolina Quality Leadership Foundation as one 

of 15 organizations that, measured against 

national standards, demonstrated high achievement in the 1999 North Carolina Performance 

Excellence Process (NCPEP) (North Carolina 

DPI, 1999).

North Carolina also excelled in Education Week’s

Quality Counts ‘99 report as one of two states 

in the nation (tied with Texas) that came furthest 

in developing a comprehensive accountability 

system. The state’s accountability program, 

the ABCs of Public Education, was applauded 

as the driving force behind the rise in student 

achievement in North Carolina (North Carolina DPI, 1999). National recognition was also 

forthcoming in 1998 when the National Goals 

Panel cited North Carolina “as the state showing the most significant improvement during 

the 1990s, by increasing its performance on 14 

measures” (North Carolina DPI, 1999). Of particular note, in the panel’s assessments, were 

gains in mathematics and reading achievement 

on NAEP from 1990 to 1996.

Finally, North Carolina boasts more teachers 

certified by the National Board for Professional 

Teaching Standards than any other state. It is 

within the context of this overall success in 

educational leadership that the state’s story of 

mathematics and science education unfolds. 

Former mathematics and science division chief 

in the North Carolina DPI, Mike Kestner, sees 

the curriculum revisions in 1989 as a 

key event in North Carolina’s success in 

the nineties. North Carolina educators 

were serving on national committees, 

and the state mathematics curriculum 

emerged as a reflection of the national 

recommendations (M. Kestner, personal 

communication, June 24, 2002). The 

curriculum reached far beyond arithmetic, and NCTM strands were used 

to unite key concepts. Well-prepared 

mathematics students (among others) 

began participating in dual enrollment 

programs, spending part of the day on 

their high school campuses and part in 

classes at the local community college. 

In 1995, the Public School Forum of North 

Carolina, a non-profit research organization 

devoted to examining major issues facing 

North Carolina schools, chose mathematics 
92

and science instruction as its focus. 

The results of a year-long study were 

published in September 1995 in a report 

entitled, A State of Disconnectedness: An 

Examination of Mathematics and Science 

Instruction in the North Carolina Public 

Schools. Taken in its entirety, the report 

is a blueprint for building the kind of collaborations that could result in a fully 

aligned, systemic program of mathematics and science education for the teachers and students of North Carolina. But 

national standards in both mathematics 

and science, benchmarks from Project 

2061, and curriculum efforts from NSF-funded 

projects were already starting to have an 

impact on the North Carolina landscape.

Encouragingly, in the years following the 

Forum’s report, North Carolina has begun to 

connect the dots. Professional organizations 

like NCSTA and NCCTM have become more 

active in MSEN initiatives, and MSEN and DPI 

have worked collaboratively with the Eisenhower Consortium at SERVE. Regional MSEN 

centers have partnered in applying for grants, 

and the DPI K−8 Infrastructure project for elementary and middle school science has pulled 

in business and community partners in rethinking the delivery of K−8 science. Mathematics 

and science leaders are talking not only to partners outside the community but also across the 

disciplines within the community. 

North Carolina Web Resources

Organization Web Location

North Carolina Science Teachers Organization www.ncsta.org

North Carolina Science Leadership Association www.ncsla.net

North Carolina Council of Teachers of Mathematics www.ncctm.org

North Carolina Mathematics and Science Education Network www.unc.edu/depts/msen

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium at SERVE www.serve.org/Eisenhower

The Science House at North Carolina State University www.science-house.org

North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching www.nccat.org

North Carolina Teach—Lateral-entry licensure for new teachers www.ncteach.ga.unc.edu

North Carolina Teaching Fellows www.teachingfellows.org

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction www.ncpublicschools.org

North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics www.ncssm.edu

North Carolina Teacher Academy www.ga.unc.edu/NCTA

Public School Forum of North Carolina www.ncforum.org

LEARN NC www.learnnc.org

North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources

www.enr.state.nc.us
93

APPENDIX A: SOUTHEAST IN DETAIL 

South Carolina

One of the 13 original colonies, South Carolina has a rich and varied history. The state’s first permanent settlement in Charleston spread across the Low Country and resulted in the development of a 

plantation commerce based primarily on rice and indigo. At the same time, traders and small farmers, who eventually established cotton as the major cash crop of the upcountry, were settling the 

interior. By the time of the American Revolution, South Carolina was one of the New World’s richest 

colonies, and in 1788, its merchants and planters enthusiastically supported becoming the eighth 

state to ratify the constitution and enter the union (Geography Home Page, 2002). 

Once primarily agricultural, South Carolina is now home to large textile mills and industries, such 

as wood, steel, chemical, and machinery, that produce eight times the cash output of its farms. 

Although farms have decreased in number, those that remain are larger and more productive. 

South Carolina ranks second behind California in peach production, fifth overall in tobacco, and 

boasts the only commercial tea plantation in the U.S. Other leading agricultural commodities 

include nursery and greenhouse products, watermelons, peanuts, broilers and turkeys, and cattle 

and calves. In addition to agriculture and manufacturing, tourism has 

become a major industry as beaches, 

mountains, and an expansive
94

system of lakes attract visitors and new 

residents to South Carolina’s abundant 

natural resources and recreation areas 

(Morton, 2001).

 With a thriving economy come jobs, families, and children (students). Results of the 

2000 census rank South Carolina 26th in 

population with the following breakdown: 

resident population: 4,012,012; White: 

2,695,560 (67.2%); Black: 1,185,216 (29.5%); 

Hispanic/Latino: 95,076 (2.4%); other: 1%; 

school-age population: 25.2% (Geography 

Home Page, 2002). South Carolina’s 700,000-

plus public school students (42% African-American, 55% White) are served by 85 regular 

school districts and one special district (South 

Carolina Department of Education, 2000a, 

2001−2002a). The number of students has 

risen dramatically in coastal parts of the state 

such as Horry County, recently predicted to be 

the nation’s second-fastest-growing area in the 

next decade (Horry County Public Schools). 

Supporting 

Reform WITH

Accountability

Several developments in 

the 1980s set the stage 

for South Carolina’s 

reform strategies 

of the 1990s. In 

1984, the Educational Improvement Act (EIA) 

provided $240 

million for the 

implementation of 60 new 

programs 

ranging from defining minimum standards 

to establishing incentive pay. The EIA mandated that schools offer accelerated classes 

to include advanced placement courses in science. While this legislation was being drafted, 

the South Carolina Science Council (SC2) 

pushed the legislature to increase the number 

of science units required for graduation from 

one to two. In 1988, a science component 

was added for students in grades 3,6, and 8 to 

the annual Basic Skills Assessment Program 

(BSAP). Then, in 1992, the eighth annual evaluation of the implementation of the EIA found 

that the modest gains first realized had leveled 

out, that actual losses had occurred, and that 

much of the nation had out-paced South Carolina in educational gains. These findings fueled 

the reform agenda for the next decade. In 1991, 

the first South Carolina Curriculum Congress, 

a statewide group of teachers, parents, business leaders, and other interested citizens, met 

to provide South Carolina’s citizens an answer 

to this question: What do we want children to 

know and be able to do?

Answers to this question were articulated 

through a curriculum framework process that 

began in 1992. South Carolina produced its first 

frameworks in mathematics, foreign languages, and visual/performing arts 

because of the existence of the 

National Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics standards and the level of 

readiness in those disciplines. The frameworks include recommendations for policy 

changes, instructional materials, professional development, assessment, and ongoing support. The frameworks played a major 

role in guiding systemic reform efforts in South 

Carolina during the nineties, resulting in an 

increasingly focused progression from curriculum frameworks to grade-span achievement 

standards (1996) to grade-level academic 

standards (1998, revised 2001).
95

The law further established an annual grading 

process that rates schools as excellent, good, 

average, below average, or unsatisfactory in 

two areas: absolute performance and rate of 

improvement. Low-performing schools must 

develop a plan to improve performance and 

receive assistance from the state in the form of 

grants for professional development, teacher 

on-site specialists, principal on-site specialists, 

principal mentoring, and/or other monitoring 

and support programs. In addition, the legislation created the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to manage and monitor the 

implementation of the legislation. The South 

Carolina State Department of Education (SDE) 

reports school ratings and report card results to 

the EOC (SDE, 1998a).

The Office of Curriculum and Standards is the 

SDE department responsible for developing, 

revising, and disseminating the curriculum 

standards for mathematics and science. Subject area coordinators in the SDE coordinate 

the standards development and revision processes, provide leadership to educators and 

parents in the implementation of the standards, 

and serve as liaisons between the SDE and the 

science and mathematics communities. Their 

leadership is evident in the current mathematics and science standard documents.

In the fall of 1997, the Governor’s Performance 

and Accountability Standards for Schools 

(PASS) commission recommended the adoption 

of grade-level standards in science to the State 

Board of Education (SBE). The document submitted to the SBE articulated these grade-level 

standards and aligned them with the South 

Carolina science academic achievement standards (Gateway standards) approved by the 

SBE in November 1996. At this time, districts, 

schools, and the public reviewed the document 

and offered feedback to the Board for its consideration. In January 1998, the Board adopted 

a revised version of the science grade-by-grade 

standards. To illustrate the connections across 

grade levels, the grade-by-grade standards 

and the Gateway standards were combined, reorganized, and reformatted. This 

document is called South Carolina Curriculum Standards and provides user-friendly 

technical assistance guides for teachers 

and schools to help students meet a more 

rigorous set of academic expectations. 

The science curriculum standards were 

revised again in 2000 (amended 2001 for 

K−8). The revised standards organize the 

study of science into four areas: inquiry, 

life science, earth science, and physical 

science (SDE, 2000−2002). 

Mathematics Standards

The 1998 South Carolina Mathematics Curriculum Standards were a natural product of 

the process initiated by the curriculum frameworks and subsequent Gateway standards. 

These 1998 standards were 

reviewed by internal and external expert panels and by parents and community members 

who made recommendations 

that led to the South Carolina 

Mathematics Curriculum Standards 2000. These standards 

were even more closely aligned 

with NCTM standards than previous versions and clearly specified “what should be taught 

and learned by all students in 

a grade and what should be 

assessed” by classroom teachers and the state at each grade 

level. This document was 

updated in January 2001 and is considered 

fully aligned with NCTM’s Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (SDE, 2000b).
96 

Testing

In the late nineties, the PACT (The Palmetto 

Achievement Challenge Tests), a rigorous 

testing program designed to measure the 

achievement levels of South Carolina students, 

replaced the Basic Skills Assessment Program 

(BSAP), which only measured the ability of students to meet minimum achievement levels. 

The PACT was developed by South Carolina 

teachers, college and university faculty, and 

professional test writers and, in April 1999, was 

administered to students in grades 3 through 

8 in English/language arts and mathematics 

(SDE, 2001). PACT science tests were fieldtested statewide for grades 3 through 8 in 

spring 2001, implemented in 2001−2002, and 

are scheduled to be administered annually 

beginning in 2002−2003. The PACT exit exams 

for mathematics and English/language arts are 

scheduled for implementation as a requirement 

for graduation for tenth-graders in 2003−2004. 

Plans for a PACT science exit exam are currently on hold (SDE, 2001−2002b).

End-of-course (EOC) examinations in mathematics were field-tested in spring 2002 and will 

be administered annually thereafter. Tech-prep 

students who have completed two years of 

mathematics tech will take the Algebra I EOC. 

Science anticipates EOC field-testing in 2003 

(SDE, 2003).

Graduation Requirements

Students who enrolled in the ninth grade in the 

1997−1998 school year encountered a new, 

more demanding set of graduation requirements. Total requirements increased from 20 

to 24 with the addition of extra mathematics 

and science credits, a computer course, and 

an eighth elective. Although foreign language 

is not required for graduation, two years are 

required for admission to most four-year institutions in South Carolina (SDE, 2003).

Programs 

Supporting 

Mathematics AND 

Science Reform

Statewide Systemic Initiative

The South Carolina Statewide Systemic Initiative (SC SSI) began in 1993 with joint funding 

from the NSF and SDE. It was the result of an 

educational reform plan organized by educators 

at all levels in close collaboration with business 

and industry and establishes objectives and 

resources to transform the teaching of mathematics and science.

Through a statewide infrastructure of 13 

regional centers or hubs, the SSI delivered content and pedagogy-specific professional development to mathematics and science teachers 

and district administrators. Through innovative 

professional development programs, like the 

Curriculum Leadership Institute, STEMS, Cluster School Leadership Academies, and Leader 

1,2,3, hub staff identified key teachers in their 

regions who could provide mathematics and 

science leadership at their schools with support 

from training and resources provided by the 

hub (SC SSI, 1997).

The SC SSI received a second five-year grant 

from NSF, and its Phase II plan was designed 

to aggressively pursue three remaining challenges: reaching all schools, teachers, and 

children; distributing exemplary curriculum 

materials and people resources equitably; and 

narrowing socioeconomic status (SES), ethnic, 

gender, and program-specific performance 

gaps for all children (SDE, 1998b). To reach 

these goals, the SC SSI developed project 
97

DATA (Drive Action Through Assessment), an 

initiative that provides tools and professional 

development to move districts toward datadriven decision making. Through project DATA, 

hub staff provided extensive on-site and electronically based technical assistance to schools 

to strengthen their abilities to align standardsbased curricula with high-quality instructional 

practices and the state’s new assessment program. Several counties in South Carolina also 

benefit from participating in the Coastal Rural 

Systemic Initiative (RSI) grant from NSF. 

Professional Organizations

Mathematics and science teachers in South 

Carolina rely heavily on their state professional 

organizations for information and support. 

In addition to its newsletter and website, the 

South Carolina Science Council (SC2) hosts 

an annual conference that offers an agenda of 

innovative instructional strategies and timely 

information on current educational issues. Likewise, the South Carolina Council of Teachers 

of Mathematics (SCCTM) supports its members 

with similar offerings, including a bi-annual 

mathematics conference held jointly with its 

North Carolina affiliate, NCCTM.

Developing 

AND Keeping 

Effective 

Teachers

The EIA of 1984 required that districts submit 

a five-year strategic plan; Act 135 strengthened 

this mandate by including staff development as 

a required component of the strategic plan. Districts now must incorporate 10 days annually 

for staff development—five at the district level 

and five at the school level. State commitment 

to more rigorous professional development 

was reinforced in 1993 with the establishment 

of the ADEPT (Assisting, Developing, and Evaluation of Professional Teaching) program.

Assisting, Developing, and Evaluation of 

Professional Teaching (ADEPT) Program

In 1993, the SDE announced its plan for professional development through a program called 

ADEPT. Just as South Carolina’s Curriculum 

Frameworks define what children should 

know and be able to do, the state’s teacher 

evaluation system (ADEPT) defines what 

teachers should know and be able to do. 

The ADEPT standards provide a blueprint 

for designing appropriate professional preparation programs, focusing assistance for 

novice members of the profession, designing assessments that may be used to make 

decisions about continued practice of the 

profession, and designing strategies for 

promoting continued professional growth 

and development. ADEPT encourages the 

improvement of student learning by focusing 

on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and commitment to continuous professional growth. The 

program measures teachers’ skills in the following performance areas: long-range and 

short-range instructional planning, use of a 

variety of instructional strategies and classroom 

assessments, high expectations for all students, 

classroom management, maintaining a suitable learning environment, content expertise, 

and attention to duties outside the classroom. 

The ADEPT model reaches beyond classroom 

observations; the evaluation includes samples 

of teacher and student work and is used to provide feedback to teachers as part of an ongoing 

professional development plan. These strategies and performance areas are aligned with 

the state frameworks and the National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards (SDE, 2003).
98 

Initial Certification

In the past, teacher certification required a 

passing grade on the National Teacher Examination, a test of basic teaching principles and 

content knowledge. The NTE has since been 

replaced by the PRAXIS II, and now, to receive 

a South Carolina teaching certificate, all candidates have to make passing scores on subject-specific PRAXIS II tests that measure their 

knowledge and abilities in the subject they 

choose to teach. In addition, they have to make 

a passing score on the PRAXIS II test of general 

knowledge either after student-teaching or during the first year in the classroom.

The SBE requires that teacher candidates 

score at the 50th national percentile on the 

national PRAXIS II examinations, which is 

significantly higher than South Carolina’s past 

requirements for passing scores. Under the 

state’s previous standard on the NTE general 

knowledge exam, all candidates scoring 

above the 5th national percentile passed 

(SDE, 2003).

Recruitment

The South Carolina Teacher Cadet Program 

enhances teacher recruitment. Launched in 

1986, the primary goal of the program is to 

encourage academically able students who 

possess exemplary interpersonal and leadership skills to consider teaching as a career. 

Today more than 130 high schools and 19 

partner colleges are involved, serving nearly 

2,100 academically able high school juniors 

and seniors. Cadets enroll in a yearlong 

course on teaching and study cognitive learning, child development, education history, and 

pedagogy. They engage in seminars, group 

projects, and discussions with educators. They 

observe classrooms, teach practice lessons, 

and tutor other students. In 1993, about onefourth of the Cadets who had been high school 

seniors in 1988 were certified to teach in South 

Carolina, many of them in high-need rural areas 

and in critical shortage fields. A diverse group, 

Cadets have been reported to be much more 

likely to plan to remain in teaching than other 

beginning teachers. Cadets say their experience helped them “better prepare themselves 

for college and for teaching.” Nearly 60% of current Cadets claim that they are more likely to 

become a teacher as a result of the program 

(South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, 

2000−2002). 

The South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, housed at Winthrop University, promotes 

the teaching profession by providing leadership in placing and retaining qualified teachers 

especially in underserved areas. The Center 

provides support for National Board Certification candidates, sponsors the South Carolina 

Teachers Forum, and has become a national 

model for school, district, and state teacher 

recruitment initiatives.

South Carolina’s EIA of 1984 established a 

Teacher Loan Program as a mechanism for 

attracting young and qualified students to the 

teaching field, as well as providing support 

for lateral-entry and career-change applicants. 

Through the program, student loans are cancelled if an applicant teaches in a critical-need 

area. In 2001, South Carolina listed both mathematics and science as critical-need subject 

areas (SDE, 2003).

Focusing on Equity

Teacher-Specialist-on-Site

South Carolina has made a bold commitment 

to raising the performance of low-performing 

schools by establishing the Office of School 

Quality in the State Department of Education 

and funding the department’s Teacher Specialist 

On-Site program (TSOS), an initiative designed 

to help teachers improve classroom practices 

and utilize effective instructional strategies. As 
99

a component of the Education Accountability 

Act of 1998, the TSOS program selects and 

trains exemplary teachers and assigns them to 

low-performing schools and districts and professional development leaders. The specialists 

are assigned to one school where they work 

with school and district leaders to develop and 

implement strategic plans to improve instruction in the school. At the school site, the specialists demonstrate model lessons, serve as 

mentors and coaches, and identify professional 

development needs of the staff. 

The TSOS program was implemented in 1999 

and by 2001, 146 specialists were serving in 

50 schools in 19 districts across the state. The 

specialists’ regular salaries are supplemented 

by 50% of the southeastern average as projected by the State Budget and Control Board. 

The Teacher Specialists On-Site Program offers 

exemplary educators an unprecedented opportunity for continued professional growth and 

development, while at the same time providing 

much-needed leadership and expertise at the 

building level, where teachers need and benefit 

from the greatest support (SDE, 2001−2002c).

Curriculum-Specialist-on-Site

Two similar programs also support the presence of curriculum specialists in needy 

schools—the Curriculum-Specialist-on-Site program affiliated with the SSI hubs and the educational specialist program supported by the 

Milken foundation. The SSI Curriculum Specialists are expected to work collaboratively with 

the school faculty and staff in implementing 

strategic plans, assessing student performance, 

and supporting instructional practices and curriculum practices necessary to improve student 

achievement. 

African American Student

Achievement Program

The African American Student Achievement 

Program (AASAP) works out of SDE to address 

issues associated with the achievement gap 

between African American and White students in South Carolina’s public 

schools. Through the work of a 

statewide advisory committee, 

the program has produced a 

report of 19 recommendations 

targeting specific strategies for 

closing the gap. These strategies and the work of the committee were featured at South 

Carolina’s first Closing the Gap 

Conference in August 2002 (SDE, 

2001−2002d).

Highlights 

AND

Challenges

The state’s biggest challenge is recruiting and 

retaining high-quality teachers in the most 

needy schools. The General Assembly has created significant financial incentives for teachers 

who teach in critical subject areas or in highneed schools. In supporting mathematics and 

science, the SDE and the SSI hubs are providing programs and resources that support higher 

content standards, increased parental involvement, better-prepared teachers, accountability, 

and equity. The state’s strength lies in the joint 

focus on reform by its key players: the SDE, the 

state legislature, and the South Carolina Statewide Systemic Initiatives.
100

South Carolina Web Resources

Organization Web Location

South Carolina State Department of Education www.myscschools.com

South Carolina State Systemic Initiative www.scssi.org

South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control.

www.scdhec.net

South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment www.scctr.org

South Carolina Science Council www.scssi.scetv.org/sc2

South Carolina Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics

www.scctm.org

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium 

at SERVE

www.serve.org/Eisenhower
101

APPENDIX B: 

State-Longitudinal 

NAEP Data FROM

1990−2000

Disaggregated 

by Race/

Ethnicity

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

This appendix presents six bar charts (Figures 6 through 

11) derived from Figures 3 and 4, representing six southeastern states (see regional section). These figures further illustrate how much progress each SERVE state has 

made, from 1990 to 2000, toward narrowing the eighthgrade mathematics achievement gap, according to the 

results of the 2000 NAEP test. According to the NAEP 

results, each state has generally made tremendous 

progress in student achievement over the past decade. 

In addition, each state’s minority populations improved 

their NAEP scores, but they are still not at parity with 

majority students. 
102
103

Figure 6. Percentage At or Above Basic Proficiency in Grade 8 

Mathematics for Alabama, 1990−2000, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2000. 

Figure 6 provides an in-depth look at the 10-year trend in Alabama of the three student sub-groups 

reported in NAEP data. After a three-point dip in 1992 for both Black and Hispanic students, scores 

began an upward trend in 1996 for both of these sub-groups. 

Scores of White students continued a steady increase across the 10-year period, with an impressive 

10-point gain in 1996 (from 1992). Hispanic students also demonstrated a large gain (11 points) in 

1996 (from 1992); while Black students’ scores rose that year, they did not recover to the level of the 

1990 scores. While all scores improved from 1990 to 2000, the 15-point gain by White students actually widened the achievement gap between White and Black students (34 points in 1990 to 43 points 

in 2000) and White and Hispanic students (37 points in 1990 to 38 points in 2000).

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA

FROM 1990−2000

Alabama

1990 1992 1996 2000

52

18 15

53

15 12

63

17

23

67

24

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White

Black

Hispanic
104 

Figure 7. Percentage At or Above Basic Proficiency in Grade 8 

Mathematics for Florida, 1990−1996, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1996.

(Florida did not participate in NAEP 2000.)

Figure 7 depicts the six-year trend in Florida of the three student sub-groups reported in NAEP data. 

The small gains by Hispanic students and the even smaller gains by Black students were offset by 

impressive and continuous gains by White students.

Because of Florida’s large Hispanic population, there is enough data to reveal that there are two 

widening achievement gaps in the state—White-Black and Hispanic-Black. From 1990 to 1996, 

the White-Black achievement gap increased from 37 to 51 points, and during the same time, the 

Hispanic-Black gap increased from 14 to 18 points.

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA

FROM 1990−2000

Florida

1990 1992 1996

54

17

31

64

22

33

72

21

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White

Black

Hispanic
105

Figure 8. Percentage At or Above Basic Proficiency in Grade 8 

Mathematics in Georgia, 1990−2000, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2000. 

Figure 8 provides the 10-year trend in Georgia of the three student sub-groups reported in NAEP data 

(2000). The 11-point gain by White students over the 10-year period was paralleled by a 5-point gain 

by Black students and a 14-point gain by Hispanic students. Additionally, Hispanic students steadily 

gained on and then surpassed Black students in the percentage of students at or above basic proficiency during this period.

In effect, Black and Hispanic students shifted positions relative to each other from 1990 to 2000. 

From 1990 to 2000, White students more than doubled the overall gain by Black students (11 points 

to 5 points), and Hispanic students almost tripled the gain by Black students (14 points to 5 points). 

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA

FROM 1990−2000

Georgia

62

25

20

63

24 24

68

24

36

73

30

34

1990 1992 1996 2000 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White

Black

Hispanic
106 

Figure 9. Percentage At or Above Basic Proficiency in Grade 8 

Mathematics for Mississippi, 1992−2000, by Race/Ethnicity 

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2000.

Figure 9 above indicates the eight-year trend in Mississippi of the three student sub-groups reported 

in NAEP data. Over the eight-year period shown, sub-group gains were as follows: White students—6 

points, Black students—6 points, and Hispanic students—5 points. 

There were no dramatic gains by any sub-group, and the relative positions between and among 

the groups remained the same. By 2000, only one-third as many Black students scored at or above 

basic proficiency as White students (20% compared to 59%), and only one-fourth as many Hispanic 

students did the same (15% compared to 59%). All three sub-groups had the lowest scores among 

the six SERVE states.

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA

FROM 1990−2000

Mississippi

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

53

14

10

56

16

11

59

20

15

1992 1996 2000

White

Black

Hispanic
107

Figure 10. Percentage At or Above Basic Proficiency in Grade 8 

Mathematics for North Carolina, 1990−2000, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2000. 

Figure 10 shows the trend in North Carolina of the three student sub-groups reported in NAEP data. 

North Carolina made NAEP headlines in 2000 with the impressive gains shown by all sub-groups, 

the most remarkable being the 47-point gain by Hispanic students. While Black students’ scores rose 

24 points, by far the greatest gain in the SERVE states, the gap widened between White and Black 

students, from 32 points in 1990 to 41 points in 2000.

Even with the gains, twice as many White students as Black students scored at or above proficiency. 

For every nine students at or above proficiency, one would find four White students, two Black students, and three Hispanic students. By 2000, the gap between Hispanic and Black students (15 

points favoring Hispanics) was the greatest among the SERVE states, while the gap between Hispanic and White students (26 points favoring Whites) was the smallest.

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA

FROM 1990−2000

North Carolina

0

20

40

60

80

100

50

18

10

57

2423

69

31

41

83

42

57

1990 1992 1996 2000

White

Black

Hispanic
108

Figure 11. Percentage At or Above Basic Proficiency in Grade 8 

Mathematics for South Carolina, 1992−2000, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2000. 

Figure 11 provides an in-depth look at the eight-year trend in South Carolina of the three student subgroups reported in NAEP data. While White and Black students’ scores rose steadily, Hispanic students’ scores rose dramatically. Hispanic students more than doubled their representation (from 15% 

to 34%) in the at or above basic proficiency scores over this period. 

An eight-point gain by both White and Black students over the eight years maintained the achievement gap at 39 points, the lowest Black-White gap (along with Mississippi) by 2000 within the SERVE 

states. South Carolina was the only SERVE state with a statewide systemic initiative operating during 

the entire time these data were collected.

APPENDIX B: STATE-LONGITUDINAL NAEP DATA

FROM 1990−2000

South Carolina

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

64

25

15

65

28 26

72

33 34

1992 1996 2000

White

Black

Hispanic
109

APPENDIX C:

Southeast Eisenhower 

Regional Consortium @ SERVE’s 

Regional Coordinating Board 
110
111

APPENDIX C:

Southeast Eisenhower 

Regional Consortium @ 

SERVE’s Regional 

Coordinating Board 

Alabama

Jane Mobley

Teacher

Booker T. Washington Magnet School

Montgomery, AL

Sheila Mosley

Elementary Supervisor Curriculum/

Instruction

Mobile County Public School System

Mobile, AL

Jim Pruitt

Manager, Education Program Department

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, AL

Florida

Henry A. Ferrer

Regional Superintendent

Region I, Miami-Dade County Public Schools

Hialeah, FL

Toni Sindler

Principal

North Fort Myers Academy for the Arts

North Fort Myers, FL

Marsha Winegarner

K−12 Science Program Specialist

Florida Department of Education

Tallahassee, FL 
112 

Georgia

Brian L. Gerber

Associate Professor, Science

Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA

Linda M. Mitchell

Director of Assessment

Gwinnett County Public Schools

Lawrenceville, GA

Payton Williams, Jr.

Retired Georgia Department of Education

Atlanta, GA

Mississippi

William McHenry

Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs

Institutions of Higher Education

State of Mississippi

Jackson, MS

Tenette Y. Smith

Field Coordinator

Delta Rural Systemic Initiative

Mississippi Department of Education

Jackson, MS

Tom Williams

Professor of Education

Mississippi College

Clinton, MS

North Carolina

Everly E. Broadway

Math Coordinator

Durham Public Schools

Durham, NC

Earl St. Julian Jones, Jr.

Mechanical Engineer

E.I. DuPont, Inc.

Fayetteville, NC

Cyndi Osterhus

Director, Horizons Unlimited and Staff 

Development

Horizons Unlimited

Salisbury, NC
113

South Carolina

Earlena C. Lowery

Assistant Professor

South Carolina State University

Orangeburg, SC

Yvette Barnes

Mathematics Teacher Specialist

Allendale Fairfax Middle School

Fairfax, SC

Albert G. Hayward

Associate Professor of Science

South Carolina State University

Orangeburg, SC

Norma R. Settlemyre

Teacher

Rawlinson Road Middle School

Rock Hill, SC

John Tully

Community Relations

Michelin North America

Greenville, SC

References

115

117

References

Alabama State Department of Education. 

(2000). Alabama education statistics: A 

summary. Retrieved September 10, 2002, 

from www.alsde.edu

Alabama State Department of Education. 

(2001). Alabama education quick facts 

2001. Retrieved September 10, 2002, from 

www.alsde.edu

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science. (1994). Blueprints for reform. New 

York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science. (2000). Middle grades mathematics 

textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.project2061.org/tools/textbook/

matheval/default.htm

American Federation of Teachers. (2001). 

Making standards matter. Retrieved 

November 11, 2002, from www.aft.org/

edissues/standards/MSM2001/Index.htm

American Federation of Teachers. (2001). 

Standards-based system website. Retrieved 

November 22, 2002, from www.aft.org/

edissues/standards/SBS/Index.htm

Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development. (2002). Statement on teacher 

quality. Retrieved July 12, 2002, from 

http://webserver2.ascd.org/web/focus/

statement-on-teacher-quality.cfm

Banilower, E. (October 2000). Local systemic 

change through teacher enhancement: A 

summary of project efforts to examine the 

impact of the LSC on student achievement. 

Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. 

Barkley, M. (1999, August 15). Demand soars 

for teachers. Greensboro News & Record, 

F1. 

Berry, B., & Buxton, J. B. (2000). Teaching 

quality in the Southeast: A call for regional 

action. Retrieved November 26, 2002, from 

www.teachingquality.org/resources/pdfs 

Blank, R. K., & Pechman, E. M. (1995). State 

curriculum frameworks in mathematics and 

science: How are they changing across the 

states? Washington, DC: CCSSO, Policy 

Study Associates. 

Board of Regents of the University System 

of Georgia. (2002). Teacher quality action 

plan. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.usg.edu/p16/tq/tqap

Broad, M. (1999, September 12). Who is going 

to teach the children of North Carolina? 

Greensboro News & Record, H3.

Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (2001). Making change: 

Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta 

Kappan, 83(1), 73−77.

The College Board. (1999). Reaching the top: A 

report of the National Task Force on Minority 

High Achievement. Retrieved July 12, 2002, 

from www.collegeboard.com/repository/

reachingthe_3952.pdf

Collins, D. (1997). Achieving your vision of 

professional development. Greensboro, NC: 

SERVE Regional Educational Laboratory.

Corcoran, T. B., Shields, P. M., & Zucker, A. A. 

(1998, March). The SSI’s and professional 

development for teachers. Menlo Park, 

CA: SRI International. Retrieved July 12, 

2002, from www.sri.com/policy/cehs/

publications/edpub/ssi/ssiprfdv.pdf
118 

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1999). 

State indicators of science and mathematics 

education 1999. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). 

Key state policies on K−12 education: 2000. 

Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2001). 

Ensuring the education rights of all children. 

Retrieved November 29, 2002, from 

www.ccsso.org/priority2001.html

Council of Chief State School Officers. 

(2001). State indicators of science and 

mathematics education 2001. Retrieved 

September 21, 2002, from www.ccsso.org/

SciMathIndicators01.html

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). 

Interstate new teacher assessment and 

support consortium. Retrieved November 

26, 2002, from www.ccsso.org/intasc.html

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995a). Inequality and 

access to knowledge. In J. Banks & C. 

McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research 

on multicultural education (pp. 465−483).

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995b). Changing 

conceptions of teaching and teacher 

development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 

22(4), 9−26. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality 

and student achievement: A review of 

state policy evidence. Center for the Study 

of Teaching and Policy, University of 

Washington. 

Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas 

of a progressive black educator. Harvard 

Educational Review, 56, 379−385.

Duval County Public Schools. (1999). USI 

goals. Retrieved November 29, 2002, from 

www.educationcentral.org/acadprog/

Goals.htm

The Education Future Center. (2002). 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.dlt.ncssm.edu/efc

Education Trust. (2001). Education Watch 

online: State and national data. Retrieved 

July 24, 2002, from www.edtrust.org 

Education Trust. (2001). Thinking K−16, 5(2), 4.

Fanelli, C. Personal Communication, January 

29, 2003.

50states.com. (2002). Mississippi. Retrieved 

June 22, 2002, from www.50states.com

Florida Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). No more 

excuses: What businesses must do to help 

improve Florida’s schools. (Report).

Florida Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher 

Preparation. (2002). Retrieved November 

29, 2002, from www.fcetp.org 

Florida Department of Education. (2000). Equity 

in education. Retrieved June 24, 2002, from 

www.firn.edu/doe/eeop/equity.html

Florida-Georgia Alliance for Minority 

Participation. (2002). Retrieved November 

29, 2002, from http://fig.cox.miami.edu/

Programs/fgamp.htm

Florida Governor’s Office. (2000−2001). A+ Plan 

for Education. Retrieved November 29, 

2002, from www.myflorida.com/myflorida/

government/governorinitiatives/aplusplan/

index.html

Fordham Foundation. (1998, March). State 

mathematics standards: An appraisal of 

mathematics standards in 46 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Japan (Fordham 

Report, Vol. 2 No 3). Retrieved July 17, 

2002, from www.fordhamfoundation.org/

standards/math/math.htm#Mississippi.
119

Fordham Foundation. (1999). The quest 

for better teachers: Grading the states. 

Retrieved June 24, 2002, from 

www.edexcellence.net/better/quest/

tqfbt.htm#Florida 

Fordham Foundation. (2000). The state of 

state standards. Retrieved September 10, 

2002, from www.edexcellence.net/library/

soss2000/2000soss.html 

Friends Education Network. (2002). 

Mississippi. Retrieved June 22, 2002,

from http://infoplease.com.

Geography Home Page. Retrieved July 23, 

2002, from http://geography.about.com

Georgia Department of Education. 

(1999−2002). Georgia learning connections. 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.glc.k12.ga.us

Georgia Department of Education. (2000). 

Summary of HB 1187: The A+ Education 

Reform Act of 2000. Retrieved November 

11, 2002, from www.doe.k12.ga.us/

communications/releases/

hb1187summary.html

Georgia Student Finance Commission. (2002). 

HOPE scholarships. Retrieved November 

11, 2002, from www.gsfc.org/HOPE/

Index.cfm

Georgia Youth Science and Technology 

Centers. (2002). Retrieved November 

11, 2002, from www.spsu.edu/gystc/

home.html

Gratz, D. (2001). Student achievement: What is 

the problem? Education Week, 21(1), 80, 62. 

Hawk, P., Coble, C. & Swanson, M., (1985). 

Certification: It does matter. Journal of 

Teacher Education, 36(3), 13–15.

Haycock, K., & Ames, N. (2000). Where are 

we now? What is the challenge for middle 

grades education? Unpublished manuscript. 

Plenary Address. National Education 

Research Policy and Priorities Board’s 

Conference on Curriculum, Instruction, 

and Assessment in Middle Grades: Linking 

Research and Practice, July 24−25, 2000.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: 

Language, life, and work in communities 

and classrooms. New York: Cambridge 

University Press.

Hirsh, S. (2001). We’re growing and changing. 

Journal of Staff Development, 22(3).

Horry County Schools. Retrieved September 

21, 2002, from www.hcs.k12.sc.us

Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New 

minds for a changing world. Science 

Education, 82, 407–416.

Jackson Public Schools. (2002a). 

Comprehensive Partnerships for Math 

and Science Achievement (CPMSA). 

Retrieved July 17, 2002, from 

www.jackson.k12.ms.us/departments/

curriculum/NSF/CPMSA/cpmsa.htm

Jackson Public Schools. (2002b). Urban 

Systemic Program. Retrieved July 17, 

2002, from www.jackson.k12.ms.us/

departments/curriculum/NSF/USP/usp.htm

Johnson, R. S. (1996). Setting our sights: 

Measuring equity in school change. Los 

Angeles: The Achievement Council.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1989). A tale of two 

teachers: Exemplars of successful 

pedagogy for black students. A paper 

presented at presented at the Educational 

Equality Project Colloquium Celebrating 

Diversity: Knowledge, Teachers, and 

Teaching, New York, 1989.
120 

LEARN NC. (2002). Retrieved November 11, 

2002, from www.learnnc.org

Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of 

Japanese professional development. An 

invited address to the Special Interest 

Group on Research in Mathematics 

Education. American Educational Research 

Association Meeting, New Orleans, April 

28, 2000.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & 

Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional 

development for teachers of science and 

mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 

Press.

Mississippi Department of Education. (1999). 

Senate Bill 2156: The Mississippi Student 

Achievement Act of 1999. Retrieved August 

3, 2000, from www.mde.k12.ms.us/

accred/SB2156.doc

Mississippi Department of Education. 

(2000, September 15). Graduation 

requirements. Retrieved July 16, 2002, from 

www.mde.k12.ms.us/public/1hf%2D1.htm

Mississippi Department of Education. (2001a). 

Mississippi report card 2000-01: Report on 

Mississippi Public School Districts. Retrieved 

July 10, 2002, from www.mde.k12.ms.us/

account/rc02/PDF/RC02INTR.PDF 

Mississippi Department of Education. 

(2001b). Mississippi state frameworks. 

Retrieved January 19, 2001, from 

http://marcopolo.mde.k12.ms.us/

frameworks.html

Mississippi Department of Education. (2002a). 

Mississippi Department of Education 

2002 annual report, school-year 2000-01. 

Number of public schools 1982-83 through 

2000-01. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from 

www.mde.k12.ms.us/account/2002report/

TOC02.htm

Mississippi Department of Education. (2002b). 

Guidelines for Mississippi educators’ 

licensure. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from 

www.mde.k12.ms.us/license/mseducatorli

censurek12guidelines.pdf

Morton, M. (2001). A brief history of 

South Carolina, South Carolina State 

Library. Retrieved July 23, 2002, from 

www.state.sc.us/scsl/brfhist.html

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E. J., 

Gregory, K., Garden, R., O’Connor, K., 

Chrostowski, S., & Smith, T. (1999). 

Findings from IEA’s repeat of the Third 

International Mathematics and Science Study 

at the eighth grade. Retrieved July 12, 2002, 

from http://isc.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/

T99i_Math_ExSum.pdf 

National Alliance of Business. (2001). Work 

America 18(1).

National Board of Professional Teaching 

Standards. (2002). Retrieved November 22, 

2002, from www.nbpts.org 

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. (1996). Pursuing 

excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade 

mathematics and science teaching, learning, 

curriculum, and achievement in international 

context. Retrieved July 12, 2002, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/timss

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. (2000). Pursuing 

excellence: Comparisons of international 

eighth-grade mathematics and science 

achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 

and 1999. Retrieved July 12, 2002, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/timss

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. (2002). National 

Assessment of Educational Progress: 

The nation’s report card. Retrieved July 

12, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard
121

National Center for Improving Student 

Learning and Achievement in Mathematics 

and Science (NCISLA). (2002). 

Retrieved November 29, 2002, from 

www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla 

National Commission on Education Excellence, 

U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A 

nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Commission on Mathematics and 

Science Teaching for the 21st Century, U.S. 

Department of Education. (2000). Before it’s 

too late. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Consortium for Specialized Secondary 

Schools of Mathematics, Science, and 

Technology. (2002). Retrieved November 

21, 2002, from www.ncsssmst.org

National Council of Accreditation of Teacher 

Education. (1998). NCATE program 

standards. Retrieved November 26, 

2002, from www.ncate.org/standard/

programstds.htm 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 

(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards 

for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 

(2000). Principles and standards for school 

mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Education Goals Panel. (1999). 

National education goals report: Building 

a nation of learners, 1999. Retrieved May 

15, 2000, from www.negp.gov/reports/

99rpt.pdf 

National Research Council. (1995). National 

science education standards. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1998). A 

report on the evaluation of the National 

Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic 

Initiatives (SSI) programs. Prepared by SRI 

International, Menlo Park, CA, under NSF 

Contract No. SED-9255371.

National Science Foundation. (2001). Rural 

Systemic Awards for fiscal year 2001. 

Retrieved May 19, 2001, from 

http://ehr.nsf.gov/esr/programs/rsi#elig

National Science Foundation. (2002). Student 

and teacher research institute—the Delta 

experience. Retrieved July 14, 2002, 

from www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/

showaward?award=9731286

National Science Foundation. (2003). Math and 

science partnerships. Retrieved April 11, 

2003, from www.her.nsf.gov/msp

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved 

June 24, 2002, from www.nsf.gov

National Science Teachers Association. (2000). 

NSTA releases nationwide survey of science 

teacher credentials, assignments, and job 

satisfaction. Retrieved November 29, 2002, 

from www.nsta.org/369

Nelson-Barber, S. (Ed.). (1989). Thinking 

out loud: Proceedings for the teacher 

assessment project forum on equity in 

teacher assessment. Stanford, CA: Stanford 

University Press.

Nelson-Barber, S., & Meier, T. (1990). 

Multicultural context a cey factor in 

teaching. Academic Connections. The 

College Board. 

North Carolina Center for the Advancement of 

Teaching. (2002). Retrieved November 11, 

2002, from www.nccat.org

North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources. (2002). 

Retrieved September 15, 2002, from 

www.enr.state.nc.us

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 

(1999, March 5). How are North Carolina 

Public Schools really doing? Education 

News. Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.dpi.state.nc.us/news/gnews.html
122 

North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction. (1999, September 27). North 

Carolina wins state of the year award for 

education initiatives. Education News. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.ncpublicschools.org/news/99-00/

092799.html

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 

(1999, November 23). Department of 

Public Instruction earns recognition for 

quality improvement. Education News. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.ncpublicschools.org/news/99-00/

112399.html

North Carolina School of Science and 

Mathematics. (2002). Retrieved November 

11, 2002, from www.ncssm.edu

North Carolina State Board of Education, 

Department of Public Instruction. 

(1999−2000). Mathematics curriculum. 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/

mathematics

North Carolina State Board of Education, 

Department of Public Instruction. 

(1999−2002). North Carolina testing 

program. Retrieved November 11, 

2002, from www.ncpublicschools.org/

accountability/testing/policies

North Carolina State Board of Education, 

Department of Public Instruction. 

(2000−2001). Science curriculum. 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/science/

index.html

North Carolina State Board of Education, 

Department of Public Instruction. (2002). 

About DPI. Retrieved November 11, 2002, 

www.dpi.state.nc.us/about_dpi

North Carolina State Board of Education, 

Department of Public Instruction. (2002). 

No Child Left Behind: Summary of key 

provisions. Retrieved July 12, 2002, 

from www.ncpublicschools.org/esea/

summary.html

Princeton Review. (2002). Testing the 

testers 2002: An annual ranking of state 

accountability systems. Executive 

summary. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from 

http://dev.review.com/stateStudymsg.cfm

Professional Standards Commission. (2001). 

Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation 

Program (GATAPP). Retrieved November 

11, 2002, from www.gapsc.com/GATAPP/

home.asp

Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama. 

(1999). How Alabama’s public school 

teacher compensation compares. 

Retrieved September 10, 2002, from 

http://parca.samford.edu/report38.html 

Public School Forum of North Carolina. 

(1995). A state of disconnectedness: An 

examination of mathematics and science 

instruction in the North Carolina Public 

Schools. Raleigh, NC: Author. 

Quality Counts ’98: The urban challenge. 

(1998). Education Week on the Web. 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.edweek.org/sreports/qc98

Quality Counts ’99: Rewarding results, 

punishing failure. (1999). Education Week 

on the Web. Retrieved September 10, 2002, 

from www.edweek.org/sreports/qc99

Quality Counts 2002: Building blocks for 

success. (2002). Education Week on the 

Web. Retrieved on November 22, 2002, 

from www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02
123

Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., Council of the 

Great City Schools, Council of the Great City 

Colleges of Education. (2000). The urban 

teacher challenge: Supply and demand in 

the Great City Schools. Retrieved November 

26, 2002, from www.rnt.org/quick/utc.pdf

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science 

for all Americans. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Snyder, T. (1999). Digest of Educational 

Statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment. 

(2000−2002). Teacher cadets. Retrieved 

September 21, 2002, from www.scctr.org/

teachercadet.asp

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(1998a). SC Education Accountability Act of 

1998. Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/sde/ednews/1998/

98accact.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(1998b). State Department of Education 

earns $5.85 million math and science 

grant. Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/sde/ednews/1998/

nsfgrant.htm

South Carolina State Department of 

Education. (1998c). State Board of 

Education recommends higher passing 

scores for exams that test new teachers. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/sde/ednews/1998/

praxis.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2000a). Quick facts about South Carolina 

Public Schools. Retrieved September 

21, 2002, from www.myscschools.com/

reports/fact00.htm

South Carolina State Department of 

Education. (2000b). Curriculum standards. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.sde.state.sc.us:80/sde/educator/

crindex.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2000−2002). Science standards. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/offices/cso/

Science/Sciencest.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2001). Results of spring 2001 high school 

exit examination. Retrieved September 

21, 2002, from www.myscschools.com/

Reports/exit2001/index.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2001−2002a). An overview: South Carolina 

Public Schools. Retrieved September 21, 

2002 from www.myscschools.com/tracks/

Parents/structure.htm 

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2001−2002b). Office of Assessment. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002 from 

www.myscschools.com/offices/

assessment

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2001−2002c). Teacher specialist program. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002 from 

www.sde.state.sc.us/offices/sq/tsos

South Carolina State Department of 

Education. (2001−2002d). AASAP. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/offices/ssys/

youth_services/aasap

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2003a). Report card on our success. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/sde/test123/

commhstd.htm
124 

South Carolina State Department of 

Education. (2003b). South Carolina 

high school graduation requirements. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.myscschools.com/sde/bts/

gradreq.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2003c). ADEPT. Retrieved September 21, 

2002, from www.myscschools.com/sde/

reports/adept.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2003d). Critical needs teaching areas. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.sde.state.sc.us:80/sde/educator/

critneed.htm

South Carolina State Department of Education. 

(2003e). Critical needs teaching areas. 

Retrieved September 21, 2002, from 

www.sde.state.sc.us:80/sde/educator/

critneed.htm

South Carolina Statewide Systemic Initiative. 

(1997). Retrieved September 21, 2002, 

from www.scssi.org

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. (2002).

Recruiting teachers for hard-to-staff schools. 

Retrieved November 26, 2002, from 

www.teachingquality.org 

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. (2002). 

Title II in the Southeast. Retrieved November 

26, 2002, from www.teachingquality.org/

title2/title2.htm

Southeast Regional Consortium at SERVE. 

Academy Evaluation Data, 1996−1999.

Southeast Regional Consortium at SERVE. 

Academy Evaluation Data, 1996−2001. 

Southern Regional Education Board. (2002). 

Retrieved January 28, 2003, from 

www.sreb.org

Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five 

models of staff development for teachers. 

Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40–57.

Stennis Space Center. (2002). Teaching. 

Retrieved July 14, 2002, from 

wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov

Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning 

gap. New York: Simon and Shuster. 

Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching 

gap. New York: The Free Press. 

Systemic Research, Inc. (2001). Academic 

excellence for all urban students: Their 

accomplishments in science and 

mathematics. An evaluative study of NSF’s 

Urban Systemic Initiatives.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Alabama quick 

facts from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Retrieved September 10, 2002, from 

http://quickfacts.census.gov 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Mississippi quick 

facts. Retrieved July 1, 2001, from 

www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/

28000.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). 

Designing effective professional 

development: Lessons from the Eisenhower 

Program. Executive Summary. Retrieved 

on February 10, 2003, from www.ed.gov/

teacherquality/eisenhower/exeecsum/

implications.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2000a,b,c). 

Before it’s too late: A report to the nation 

from the National Commission of 

Mathematics and Science Teaching for 

the 21st Century. Jessup, MD: Education 

Publication Center, U.S. Department of 

Education.
125

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting 

the highly qualified teachers challenge. 

Retrieved July 12, 2002, from www.ed.gov/

offices/OPE/News/teacherprep/

AnnualReport.pdf 

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child 

Left Behind website. Retrieved November 

22, 2002, from www.nclb.gov

University of North Carolina. (2002). NC Teach. 

Retrieved November 11, 2002, from 

www.ga.unc.edu

University of North Carolina. (2002). UNC 

Mathematics and Science Education 

Network. Retrieved November 11, 2002, 

from www.unc.edu/depts/msen

University of South Florida. (n.d.). Florida 

Coalition for Improving Mathematics and 

Science Education. Retrieved June 24, 

2002, from http://web.usf.edu/~sl/CSL/

CIMS_index.html 

University of Southern Mississippi. (1999). 

J. L. Scott Marine Education Center & 

Aquarium. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from 

www.aquarium.usm.edu/geninfo.htm

Valverde, G., & Schmidt, W. (1997). Refocusing 

U.S. math and science education. Issues 

in Science and Technology. Retrieved 

November 26, 2002, from www.nap.edu/

issues/14.2/schmid.htm

Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., Overstreet, C. M., 

& Soar, E. H. (2002, March). Local systemic 

change through teacher enhancement: Year 

seven cross-site report. Chapel Hill, NC: 

Horizon Research, Inc. 


A Landscape Paper

A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast:

This document was conceptualized to offer perspective on mathematics and science 

reform in the Southeast. The intent was to provide a panoramic view of mathematics and 

science reform in each SERVE state (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and, ultimately, a synthesis of mathematics and science reform 

in the Southeast region. 

Since 1992, the Consortium has been in the midst of reform in the Southeast region. The 

view we present here reflects not only the rich experiences with our clients but also our 

own reflections on reform.

Over the last decade, two common notions have framed reform in mathematics and science: setting high standards for all students and designing action plans for achieving 

those standards. With these two ideas in mind, a framework for thinking about mathematics and science reform was created based on systemic reform literature and reform experiences in schools

Our hope is that the region will continue to move forward. The teaching and learning of 

mathematics in our schools is a critical matter for the future of our nation. The past efforts 

coupled with efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act may be yet another tool 

to move us closer to achieving our goal—a high-quality education for all children.