Findings and Progress Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

1
Findings and ProgressMilwaukee Mathematics
Partnership

• Sharing in Leadership for Student Success

DeAnn Huinker Kevin McLeod, UWM Beth
Schefelker, MPS 18 April 2008
2
Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

• National Science Foundation (NSF) Math and
  Science Partnership (MSP) Program
• Comprehensive Projects (12)
• Targeted Projects (28)
• Institute Projects (12)
• Research, Evaluation, Technical Assistance (25)
• Cohort 2, Comprehensive K-12 Mathematics
• 20 million over 5 years
• 20032008 (Currently in Year 5)

3
MSP Projects Key Features

• Partnership-driven
• Teacher quality, quantity, and diversity
• Challenging courses and curricula
• Evidence-based design and outcomes
• Institutional change and sustainability

4
Distributed Leadership
Mathematics Framework
Student Learning Continuum
Teacher Learning Continuum
5
(No Transcript)
6
Percent of MPS Students Proficient or Advanced
on the WKCE Mathematics (MMP Years 1-3 Impact)
7
(No Transcript)
8
What goes in the box?

• 5 7 8

9
Write a story problem

10
Always true, Sometimes true Never true

• 1. A parallelogram is a rectangle.
• 2. A square is a rectangle.
• 3. A trapezoid is a rhombus.

11
School-basedLearning Team
Math Teacher Leader
Literacy Coach
Principal
Other Key Teachers
Math Teacher Leaders are key for focusing their
Learning Teams and schools on mathematics.
12
(No Transcript)
13
Math Teacher Leader

• Maintains classroom responsibilities.
• Focuses the school on mathematics through the
  Learning Team.
• Brings best practices in math to school.
• Supports school-based professional learning.
• Links school to district leadership and IHE
  expertise.

14
Math Teacher Leader Seminars

• Monthly strands
• Mathematics content knowledge.
• Leadership skills.
• District alignmentmath framework, learning
  targets, state standards and descriptors, common
  classroom assessments, descriptive feedback.

15
MMP Learning Team Continuum
Stage 1 Learning Targets Stage 2 Align Targets to State Framework Stage 3 Classroom Assessments Stage 4 Student Work Stage 5 Descriptive Feedback
Understand importance to identify and articulate big ideas in math to bring consistency to a schools math program. Develop meaning for the math embedded in the targets and alignment to state standards schools math program. Provide a measure of student learning with common classroom assessments based on standards and targets. Examine student work to monitor achievement and progress toward the targets. Use student work to inform instruction and provide students with descriptive feedback.
Tools Grade level lists, 9-11 big ideas per grade (targets). Horizontal list of targets by content across grades. Tools Target-state descriptor sheets. Thinking Levels Framework. Tools CABS Clarification Statements. Assessing the Assessments Guide Model CABS Tools Protocol for analysis of student work DVD of the protocol in use Tools Feedback Types worksheet Everyday Rubric Student Feedback Summary sheets
16
Percent of Schools at Each Stage of the
Continuum for Mathematics
n Stage 1 Learning Targets Stage 2 Align Targets to State Framework Stage 3 Classroom Assessments Stage 4 Student Work Stage 5 Descriptive Feedback
Year 1 2003-04 101 38 53 9 0 1
Year 2 2004-05 97 18 34 38 5 4
Year 3 2005-06 89 13 26 41 18 2
Year 4 2006-07 89 1 9 25 43 23
17
District Trends Significant Change
Spring 2005
Spring 2007
3.01
2.81

• Quantity of PD
• Consistency in math instruction
• Engaged in activities to align curriculum to
  learning targets
• Engaged in activities using CABS and student work
  samples
• Engaged in activities to gauge student progress
• Talked about teaching learning of mathematics
  with others

3.06
2.85
3.42
2.63
3.60
2.79
Engagement
2.98
3.17
3.72
3.16
18
School Math Focus
Consistent curriculum
Teachers working together
PD perceived as valuable
Strong Math Focus
Predicts
19
Student Achievement

• Are student achievement gains in mathematics
  greater in schools that have more fully embraced
  MMP principles?

20
Analytical Approach HLM

• WKCE Student Achievement Data from 2005 MMP
  Online Survey Results from 2006to explain
  variability inWKCE Student Achievement in 2006
  
• (Thus, the impact of Year 3 MMP)

21
School-level Predictors of Student Mathematics
Achievement
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Variance due to MMP Alignment 12 9 4 10 7
Variance due to Learning Team Quality for mathematics 9 5 n.s. n.s. n.s.
Total variance explained by school level factors 19 22 22 24 21
22
MMP Distributed LeadershipSocial Network Analysis
Low
High
1
2
3
4
5
Tight Network MTL Central Many Links to MTL MTS
Inside Many Links to MTS
Loose Network MTL Not Central Few Links to
MTL MTS Outside Few Links to MTS
23
Analysis

• Maps identify
• MTL
• MTS
• Teachers
• Principal
• Literacy Coach
• Others in school
• Others outside

• Statistics
• Network density ()
• In-Degree(z-score)

24
Low
Student Achievement 2006 20 Proficient 4-year
trend -4
25
(No Transcript)
26
High
Student Achievement 2006 50 Proficient 4-year
trend 7
27
(No Transcript)
28
Distributed Leadership Student Mathematics
Achievement
29
Some Conclusions

• The MTL and MTS network positions are good
  indicators of MMP impact within school-based
  networks.
• Distributed leadership really begins to take hold
  when teacher communication networks are tightly
  webbed.

30
And so much more.

• Preservice Teacher Math Preparation
• MATC
• UWM
• Teacher Professional Development
• UWM-MMP courses workshops
• MMP School Action Plans
• Assessment Pilots K-7, 8-9, HS
• Transition to College Mathematics
• Textbook Selection Process

31
Support Direction for Next Steps

• MPS Action (Strategic) Plan
• MPS Mathematics Functional Plan
• MPS DIFI Plan
• Governors MPS Mathematics Initiative
• Proposal submitted for MMP Phase II
• Other grant proposals

32

• MMP website
• www.mmp.uwm.edu
• DeAnn Huinker
• huinker_at_uwm.edu
• Kevin McLeod
• kevinm_at_uwm.edu
• Beth Schefelker
• schefeba_at_milwaukee.k12.wi.us