Letter to Dept. of Education on proposed National Test in Mathematics

April 24, 1997

Marshall S. Smith
Acting Deputy Secretary
U.S. Department of Education
Washington DC 20202

Dear Dr. Smith:

The mathematical community recognizes the potential of President Clinton's National Test in Mathematics (NTM) proposal to improve American education. In order to make good on this potential, we, representing policy committees of the American Mathematical Society, are eager to work with you in earnest. The test is, at best, only a means to an end. It will require careful planning, consultation, and cooperation for this initiative to have the constructive impact hoped for.

With regard specifically to the draft RFP for construction of the test, we would like to emphasize the importance of broad-based input from professional mathematicians into this entire process. There are serious concerns, for example, regarding the nature and level of the content of the test. Decisions about this will have implications for the entire system of mathematics education. It is in everyone's interest for the test materials to be consistent with expert consensus within the mathematics and mathematics education communities.

The draft RFP does mention an advisory apparatus, of course. We are eager to work through this and other means to make the role of mathematicians in developing the test strong, visible, and meaningful. We would therefore appreciate further details -- in the RFP if possible -- specifying how professional mathematicians can most efficiently and effectively go about this in view of the fast pace of events. If it would be helpful, for example, for our organization to establish an advisory panel on our own that could be charged with reading background material relevant to NAEP, to eighth grade mathematics issues, and other material that you might recommend, we would be pleased to do so. In this way, such a panel could be prepared, as soon as it is possible, to comment on the test specifications, on the proposed advisory structures, and be positioned to provide input as appropriate to the NSF/Department of Education Working Group.

We would also like to be sure that mathematical participation will take place in activities beyond just the development of the test. Those contemplated by the joint NSF-DoED Working Group, for example, are of potentially even greater significance than the test itself. The content preparation of teachers, for example, is a particular concern for mathematicians. We would welcome suggestions for the best and most constructive means for the AMS to contribute to this process, perhaps in consultation with other organizations, such as MAA, MSEB, etc.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to discussing and participating in this important work with you.

Sincerely yours,

Hyman Bass
Chair, AMS Committee on Education

James Lewis
Chair, AMS Committee on Science Policy