Findings and ProgressMilwaukee Mathematics Partnership

Sharing in Leadership for Student Success

DeAnn Huinker & Kevin McLeod, UWMBeth Schefelker, MPS18 April 2008

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

◦ 2003–2008 (Currently in Year 5)

MSP Projects: Key Features Partnership-driven

Teacher quality, quantity, and diversity

Challenging courses and curricula

Evidence-based design and outcomes

Institutional change and sustainability

Distributed Leadership

Student Learning Continuum

Teacher Learning Continuum

Mathematics Framework

Learning Teams in each school established.

Comprehensive Math Framework (CMF) developed.

Math Teacher Leader (MTL) position begins, joins Learning Team.

Math Teaching Specialist position begins.

Significant increase math achievement fall 2005 to 2006.

Math gap between district and state narrows.

Community plan provides focus & accountability for the next five years.

MPS funds $5 million to expand MTL role.

NSF funds the MMP.

CMF disseminated.

MPS math learning targets developed.

MMP designs model classroom assessments.

Aligns targets to State Assessment Framework.

MMP focuses on formative assessment and descriptive feedback.

Revises math textbook adoption process.

Governor budgets $10 million for MPS math.

MPS budgets $3 million to sustain implementation of the MMP initiatives.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent of MPS Students Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE Mathematics (MMP Years 1-3 Impact)

What goes in the box?

5 + 7 = + 8

Write a story problem

€

6 ÷3

4= ?

Always true,Sometimes true

Never true

1. A parallelogram is a

rectangle.

2. A square is a rectangle.

3. A trapezoid is a rhombus.

School-basedLearning Team

Other Key

Teachers

Principal

Literacy

Coach

Math Teache

r Leader

Math Teacher Leaders are “key” for focusing their Learning Teams and

schools on mathematics.

Learning Team

Other Key

Teachers

Principal

Literacy Coach

Math Teacher Leader

DistrictMathematics Leadership (MCS, MTS,

TIR)

IHE Faculty Mathematics

& Math

Education

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.

Math Teacher Leader Seminars

Monthly strands:

Mathematics content knowledge.

Leadership skills.

District alignment—math framework, learning targets, state standards and descriptors, common classroom assessments, descriptive feedback.

Stage 1Learning Targets

Stage 2Align Targets to State Framework

Stage 3Classroom

Assessments

Stage 4Student Work

Stage 5Descriptive Feedback

Understand importance to identify and articulate big ideas in math to bring consistency to a school’s math program.

Develop meaning for the math embedded in the targets and alignment to state standards school’s 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

MMP Learning Team Continuum

n

Stage 1Learning Targets

Stage 2Align Targets to

State Framework

Stage 3Classroom

Assessments

Stage 4Student

Work

Stage 5Descriptive 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%

Percent of Schools at Each Stage of the Continuum for Mathematics

17

District Trends: Significant Change

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

2.81 3.01

3.06

3.72

3.42

3.60

3.172.98

2.79

2.63

3.16

2.85

Spring 2005 Spring 2007

En

gag

em

en

t

18

School Math Focus

Consistent curriculum

+

Teachers working together

+

PD perceived as valuable

PredictsStrongMathFocus

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 2006

to explain variability in

WKCE Student Achievement in 2006

(Thus, the impact of Year 3 MMP)

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%

School-level Predictors of Student Mathematics Achievement

22

MMP Distributed LeadershipSocial Network Analysis

Low High

Loose NetworkMTL Not CentralFew Links to MTLMTS OutsideFew Links to MTS

Tight NetworkMTL Central

Many Links to MTL

MTS InsideMany Links to

MTS

1 2 3 4 5

23

Analysis Maps identify

◦ MTL

◦ MTS

◦ Teachers

◦ Principal

◦ Literacy Coach

◦ Others in school

◦ Others outside

Statistics

◦ Network density (%)

◦ In-Degree(z-score)

24

Low

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

G 11 42 6.1% 7.5% 9.52 1.19 Sample Average 21.9 57.1 6.3% 12.2% 18.84 2.69 SD 8.0 16.7 2.6% 5.0% 6.9 3.7 Median 22 51 5.7% 11.4% 17.56 0.92

Student Achievement:2006: 20% Proficient4-year trend: -4%

25

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

F 13 31 7.2% 11.7% 3.33 2.50

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

26

High

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

A 22 43 11.7% 20.1% 30.61 4.40 Sample Average 21.9 57.1 6.3% 12.2% 18.84 2.69 SD 8.0 16.7 2.6% 5.0% 6.9 3.7 Median 22 51 5.7% 11.4% 17.56 0.92

Student Achievement:2006: 50% Proficient4-year trend: +7%

27

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

B 23 55 11.4% 31.1% 28.24 18.52

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

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.

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

And so much more….

MPS Action (Strategic) Plan MPS Mathematics Functional Plan MPS DIFI Plan Governor’s MPS Mathematics Initiative Proposal submitted for MMP Phase II Other grant proposals

Support & Direction for Next Steps

MMP website◦www.mmp.uwm.edu

DeAnn Huinker◦huinker@uwm.edu

Kevin McLeod◦kevinm@uwm.edu

Beth Schefelker◦schefeba@milwaukee.k12.wi.us