“past, present, & future” milwaukee mathematics partnership
DESCRIPTION
“Past, Present, & Future” Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership. Sharing in Leadership for Student Success. MPS Principal Breakfast Milwaukee Public Schools 23 April 2008. Mathematics Framework. Distributed Leadership. Teacher Learning Continuum. Student Learning Continuum. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Sharing in Leadership for Student Success
MPS Principal BreakfastMilwaukee Public Schools23 April 2008
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
5 + 7 = + 8
€
6 ÷3
4= ?
1. A parallelogram is a
rectangle.
2. A square is a rectangle.
3. A trapezoid is a rhombus.
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
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%
11
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
12
Consistent curriculum
+
Teachers working together
+
PD perceived as valuable
PredictsStrongMathFocus
13
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
14
Maps identify
◦ MTL
◦ MTS
◦ Teachers
◦ Principal
◦ Literacy Coach
◦ Others in school
◦ Others outside
Statistics
◦ Network density (%)
◦ In-Degree(z-score)
15
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%
16
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
17
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%
18
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
19
20
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.
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 ????????
MMP website◦www.mmp.uwm.edu
DeAnn Huinker◦[email protected]
Kevin McLeod◦[email protected]
Henry Kranendonk◦[email protected]