1 milwaukee mathematics partnership program evaluation year 5 results carl hanssen hanssen...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership
Program EvaluationYear 5 Results
Carl HanssenHanssen Consulting, LLC
Cindy WalkerUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
October 2008 MTL Meeting
The Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership (MMP) is supported with funding from the National Science Foundation.
2
Evaluation Goals
Help the MMP better serve its constituents and improve its effectiveness
Serve the broader mathematics education community through documentation and dissemination of MMP activities
3
MMP Evaluation Logic ModelStudent
Achievement
Teacher Content& Pedagogical
Knowledge
Math FacultyInvolvement
Learning TeamEffort
SchoolBuy-in
TeacherInvolvement
NewCourses
DistrictBuy-in
MPA Ownership
MATCBuy-In
UWMBuy-In
ClassroomPractice
MMPActivities
ProximalOutcomes
DistalOutcomes
4
Agenda
1. Student Achievement
2. Learning Teams
3. Distributed Leadership
4. Conclusions
5. Next Steps
5
1. MMP Impact on Student Achievement
StudentAchievement
Learning TeamEffort
SchoolBuy-in
TeacherInvolvement
ClassroomPractice
6
MMP Impact on 2006 Student Achievement
Are student achievement gains greater in schools that have more fully embraced MMP principles?
7
Sep 04
Sep 05
Sep 06
Sep 07
Sep 08
MMP Online SurveySpring 2005
WKCEFall 2005
WKCEFall 2006
WKCEFall 2007
MMP Online SurveySpring 2006
MMP Online SurveySpring 2007
2004
-200
5S
cho
ol Y
ear
2005
-200
6S
cho
ol Y
ear
2006
-200
7S
cho
ol Y
ear
2007
-200
8S
cho
ol Y
ear
Data Collection Timeline
MMP Online SurveySpring 2008
8
Two cohorts of students
Cohort A Approximately 3,000 students Same school in grades
3-5 from 2005-2007
Cohort B Approximately 2,800 students Same school in grades
6-8 from 2005-2007
9
HLM Analysis
Consistent curriculum +Teachers working together +PD perceived as valuable
Predicts MathFocus
MathFocus
Predicts % of students proficient
MathFocus
Used as school-level predictorfor HLM analysis
10
HLM Results
Math focus was a predictor of initial math achievement scores AND of student learning rates
If your school scores 1 point higher on math focus, you can expect
Cohort A students to start 15 points higher and grow at a rate 7 points higher
Cohort B students to start 18 points higher and grow at a rate 7 points higher
11
HLM Results
Time
Sco
re
15-18 pt gapto start
Expected growth may be 30 pts
Growth would be30 + 14 points
School X: math focus score 3.5
School Y: math focus score 2.5
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3
12
2. Learning Teams
StudentAchievement
Learning TeamEffort
SchoolBuy-in
TeacherInvolvement
ClassroomPractice
DistributedLeadership
13
Twelve Case Study Schools
Diverse set of schools Grade levels
9 schools with K-5 students 6 schools with 6-8 students 2 high schools 10-12
Diverse demographics Minority students (30-90%) Special education (11-32%) Free/Reduced lunch (41-95%)
14
Case Study Data Collection
22 learning team or math department meeting observations
42 classroom observations
MKT Assessment for math teachers
SNA Survey for mathteachers and administrators
15
Key Trends from Learning Teams
Overall, meetings tended to focus more on ‘administration’ than ‘learning’ though higher performing teams retain more of an emphasis on learning
Contrast between LT meetings and math department meetings Math meetings more focused Math departments less team oriented
Transition to released MTL model Seamless transitions Identification of replacement teacher No release
16
Characteristics of High &Low Rated Learning Teams—Team Functioning
Less focus on administration
Positional authority is less important
Multiple views are represented and heard
Multiple segments of the school are represented
Written agenda, note taker, facilitator
Explicit action items Participants have high
knowledge and skill levels
Focus on administration Principal does all the
talking A few individuals
dominate the discussion No agenda or team is
easily distracted from the agenda
Little follow-through on assignments
No clear actions
High Low
17
Characteristics of High & Low RatedLearning Teams—MMP Issues
Consistent curriculum Math is addressed
alongside and in combination with other subjects
Coherent within grades and across grades
Math is discussed irrespective of presence of MTL
Reference to MMP work courses including formative assessment, descriptive feedback, benchmarks
Teachers operate autonomously
Math not addressed at the meeting
No clear math leader—MTL may be unsure of role
Confusion about the MMP and CMF
High Low
18
3. Distributed Leadership
Teachers and administrators in each school were asked to name individuals with whom they communicated about mathematics
This is a key indicator of distributed leadership
19
Mathematics Distributed Leadership Continuum
High Low
Tight NetworkMTL CentralMany Links to MTLMTS InsideMany Links to MTSLeadership is shared
among many
Loose NetworkMTL Not Central
Few Links to MTLMTS Outside
Few Links to MTSLeadership
responsibility of few
20
Low
Student Achievement:2007: 66% Proficient3-year trend: -9%
School n Total Named
Network density
Density in school
MTL Role--In Degree
MTS Role--In Degree
K 11 57 3.8% 13.7% 7.6 0.4
Average 23 66 4.8% 10.7% 16.5 3.4 SD 9.3 24 1.7% 2.5% 6.4 4.1 Median 23 64 4.1% 11.0% 15.0 1.4
21
Medium
Student Achievement:2007: 47% Proficient3-year trend: +15%
School n Total Named Network density
Density in school
MTL Role--In Degree
MTS Role--In Degree
A 22 38 7.8% 12.7% 28.4 0.7
Average 23 66 4.8% 10.7% 16.5 3.4 SD 9.3 24 1.7% 2.5% 6.4 4.1 Median 23 64 4.1% 11.0% 15.0 1.4
22
High
Student Achievement:2007: 53% Proficient3-year trend: +3%
School n Total Named Network density
Density in school
MTL Role--In Degree
MTS Role--In Degree
G 32 79 5.0% 12.1% 16.3 5.4
Average 23 66 4.8% 10.7% 16.5 3.4 SD 9.3 24 1.7% 2.5% 6.4 4.1 Median 23 64 4.1% 11.0% 15.0 1.4
23
Evolution of Distributed Leadership
1. MTL is active within the school
2. Teachers begin extensive collaboration
3. MTL & Teacher collaboration extends outside school (MTS may become heavily involved in the school)
4. MTL is used primarily as a resource
5. Teachers assume math leadership
24
4. Overall Conclusions
There is support for the argument that schools that have more fully adopted MMP principles are demonstrating stronger results.
There is tremendous variability in MMPadoption and progress across the district—though MMP impactappears more pervasive.
25
Overall Conclusions
Important considerations for sustaining MMP work
High levels of math focus have been shown to be related to higher student achievement. What are the indicators of math focus?
Creating Distributed Leadership in a school takes time—and communication is criticalbut helps promote math focus
26
Overall Conclusions
Important considerations for sustaining MMP work
MTL role may be shifting from focal point to facilitator—we see a shift in the perception of who is responsible for helping the school focus on improving mathematics teaching and learning
MTL release model presentsbenefits and challenges for sustaining MMP work
27
5. Evaluation 2008-09
MMP Online survey in May 2009 Continue HLM analysis for student
achievement 25-30 case study schools to participate
over 3 years—Sign up now! LT/Math meeting Observations SNA
Focus on different MTL release models Goal to implement SNA in most
schools across the district
28
Focus Question
What message will you be taking back about…
Your ongoing work with teachers to improve math in your school?
How your learning team can bemost effective?