1 / 46

Effective Models for Designing and Implementing Standards-based Reform of K-12 Mathematics

Effective Models for Designing and Implementing Standards-based Reform of K-12 Mathematics. Carol Fry Bohlin Diane Spresser F. Joseph Merlino Lucy West. Carol Fry Bohlin California State University, Fresno STEPSS (Visalia Unified School District) ( carolb@csufresno.edu).

becerrac
Download Presentation

Effective Models for Designing and Implementing Standards-based Reform of K-12 Mathematics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effective Models for Designing and Implementing Standards-based Reform of K-12 Mathematics Carol Fry Bohlin Diane Spresser F. Joseph Merlino Lucy West

  2. Carol Fry BohlinCalifornia State University, FresnoSTEPSS (Visalia Unified School District)(carolb@csufresno.edu) • Session purpose/overview • Speaker introductions • Moderated question and answer period

  3. Diane M. SpresserNational Science FoundationArlington, Virginia(dspresse@nsf.gov) Any opinions expressed are those of the presenter and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Science Foundation.

  4. National reports in mid-80’s through early 1990’s highlighted deficiencies in mathematics education and called for curricular reforms “aimed at ensuring all students the opportunity to acquire a dynamic form of mathematical literacy which will enable them to participate as informed citizens and productive workers in a rapidly changing technological society” (NSF, 1991).

  5. Systemic Background 1991 NSF 91-105 Statewide Systemic Initiatives in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education 1993 NSF 93-67 Urban Systemic Initiative 1994 NSF 94-34 Rural Systemic Initiative

  6. Local Systemic Change (LSC) Sequence NSF 94-73 Special Solicitation Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement, Grades K-8 NSF 95-145 Special Solicitation Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement in Mathematics, Grades 7-12

  7. Local Systemic Change (LSC) Sequence (cont.) NSF 98-53 Special Solicitation Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement in Science, Grades 6-12 NSF 00-99 Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education - Program Announcement Student Achievement Pilot LSC Projects

  8. Goals • Reform S/M/T Education in the Context of Entire Schools and School Systems • Empower Teachers to Bring About Change • Improve Instruction of all Teachers at Grade Level • Implement Exemplary Instructional Materials • Create Cost Effective Strategies

  9. Components of all LSC Projects • Shared comprehensive vision; active partnerships among stakeholders • Long-term professional development-minimum 100 hours-for all teachers of science or mathematics at targeted grade levels, with emphasis on the enhancement of disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical skills

  10. Components of all LSC Projects (cont.) • Implementation of exemplary, comprehensive SMT instructional materials for use in all classrooms to impact all students at the targeted grade levels • Alignmentofprofessional development, instructional materials, and school policy and practice

  11. Components of all LSC Projects (cont.) • Framework for data collection provided by NSF • Required cost share/commitment of resources on behalf of districts • Maximum request for award determined by total number of teachers participating in 100/130 hours of professional development

  12. LSC Program Logic

  13. LSC Projects by Cohort

  14. Core Evaluation SystemLSC Design • Identify program goals • List core evaluation questions • Create data collection matrix • Develop instruments/procedures • Pilot and revise instruments/procedures • Projects collect data and incorporate into their reports • HRI prepares cross-site technical report

  15. Core Evaluation - Key Questions • What is the overall quality of the LSC professional development activities? • What is the extent of school and teacher involvement in LSC activities? • What is the impact of the LSC professional development on teacher preparedness, attitudes, and beliefs about mathematics and science teaching and learning?

  16. Core EvaluationKey Questions (cont.) • What is the impact of the LSC professional development on classroom practices in mathematics and science? • To what extent are the district and school contexts becoming more supportive of the LSC vision for exemplary mathematics and science education? • What is the extent of institutionalization of high quality professional development systems in the LSC districts?

  17. Core Evaluation Activities • Professional Development Observations (5-8 per year) • Teacher Questionnaires (300 if one subject; 450 if two subjects) • Principal Questionnaires (population) • Classroom Observations (10 per subject) • Individual Teacher Interviews (10; not conducted baseline data collection year)

  18. Lessons Likely to Have a Positive Impact on Students, by Teacher Participation in LSC Professional Development

  19. Lessons Using LSC-Designated Instructional Materials

  20. Highly-Rated Lessons, by Adherence to LSC-Designated Materials

  21. Highly-Rated Lessons, by Use of LSC-Designated Materials and Treatment

  22. F. Joseph MerlinoThe Greater Philadelphia Secondary Mathematics Projecthttp://www.gphillymath.org(merlino@lasalle.edu) The Phases of Systemic Change

  23. Phases of Systemic ChangeWithin School Districts • Initiating 6-18 months • Implementing 3-5 years • Enhancing 2-3 years • Sustaining ? Larger System Issues

  24. Initiating Change • Initiating change is essentially an act of persuasion. • The process starts with central office administrators and continues with district mathematics supervisors, department heads, and principals. • Various options are discussed with accompanying cost implications. • A decision to commit to change must be made by the administration before approaching teachers or school board members. • Teachers and school board members are engaged on parallel tracks.

  25. Initiating Change (cont.) • The teacher change process begins with a six-hour protocol where teachers identify (a) learning goals for their students, (b) current student progress vis-à-vis these learning goals, and (c) obstacles to attaining their goals. • Selected obstacles (e.g., student motivation) are then deconstructed. • One-two mini-lessons are conducted with the teachers. • Teachers assent to try a replacement unit.

  26. Lucy West Community School District 2 New York City(Lucywest18a@aol.com) Reconceptualizing Professional Development

  27. Demographics of Community School District 2 • 23,076 students • 1,200 teachers • 84 school based administrators (Principals and Assistant Principals) • 16 mathematics coaches • 52 teacher leaders

  28. Demographics of Community School District 2 • 42 schools: • 23 Pre K- 5th Grade • 5 Pre K-8th Grade • 9 Middle Schools 6th–8th Grades • 4 High Schools 6th- 12th Grades • 1 High School 9th-12th Grades • School size varies (range: 250-1500 students)

  29. Demographics of Community School District 2 • Ethnic make-up • 0.3% American Indian or Alaskan Native 33.7% Asian (most speak Mandarin or Cantonese) • 20.1% Hispanic • 12.7% Black/African American • 33% White • 0.2% Unknown

  30. Demographics of Community School District 2 • Languages/dialects spoken by students: more than 100 • Students qualifying for free or reduced lunch: 60% • 8% overall budget on professional development in literacy, mathematics and science education.

  31. Professional Development Menu • On-site, in classroom, coaching (Content Focused Coaching) • Curricula specific workshops (3 per year per grade) • Theme based workshops (e.g. fractions through the grades) • Technology workshops • Lesson Study • Inter-visitations within and among schools (Collaboration Sites)

  32. Professional Development Menu • Accredited Mathematics Courses • Accredited Mathematics Methods Courses • Study groups and planning clusters • Professional Conferences • Principals’ Meetings (monthly-focus on tchg/lrng) • On-site, all staff meetings (monthly-focus tchg/lrng) • Grade level or department meetings--math focus • Institutes on classroom observation (Lenses on Learning) • Institutes focused on analyzing students’ mathematical thinking (DMI)

  33. Differentiated Professional Development New to Curriculum Committed New Teachers New to Curriculum Compliant Experienced with Curriculum Experienced using different Curriculum Teacher Leader Staff Developer Content Phobic Flexible Pedagogy Teacher Directed Child Centered PedagogicalContent Knowledge One Way Researched Based Math Specific On Site CFC in Classroom Grade Levels All Staff Lesson Study Elem. Middle High Workshops Unit Specific Topic Based C P K C P K C K C C P K P K C P K C P C P K Courses Summer Inst. Conferences Collaboration Sites Elem. Middle C C P C P C P

  34. Professional Development On Site Collaboration Administrators • Principal’s Conferences • Content • Standards • Testing • Lesson Planning • Observation • Lenses on Learning • Content • Observation / Evaluation • Teacher Support • Goals and Objectives • Scheduling for PD • Individual • Grade-level • All Staff • Site Specific Workshops • Co-observation • Parent Events

  35. District Trend: Current Grade 5

  36. Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Standards in Grade 4

  37. Grade 4: Students Not Approaching Standards (Level 1)

  38. Percent of Students Scoring in Levels 3 & 4: Grade 8

  39. District Trend: Students Meeting Standards by Grade

  40. Third Grade Addition Facts

  41. Fourth Grade Addition Facts

  42. Fifth Grade Multiplication Facts

  43. Professional Improvements • Alignment between curriculum, assessment and pedagogy • Common curriculum across schools and grades • Curriculum builds from year to year--less need for repetition

  44. Professional Improvements • Large majority of teachers using adopted materials (Investigations, CMP, MMOW) • Planning now focuses on content and on student prior knowledge • Planning now focuses on student understanding--partial knowledge, confusions, misconceptions • Collaborative planning happens regularly

  45. Professional Improvements • Lesson study is a common format in short and long term among teacher leaders • Inter-visitations among teachers within and across schools common occurrence • Skill level in observation of lessons improved with use of lenses on learning • Principals and staff developers collaborate on long and short term planning for capacity

  46. Professional Improvements • Literacy and science staff developers beginning to use content focused coaching • Common language and tools across the district leading to more coherence in student experiences • Classroom discourse includes student-to-student discussion of important mathematical ideas

More Related