Welcome To The November MTL Meeting

Please move as close to the center of the auditorium when selecting your seats.

2

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

Program EvaluationYear 7 Results

Carl HanssenHanssen Consulting, LLC

November 2010 MTL Meeting

3

Where are we?

MMP efforts have been ongoing since 2003

This is the 6th year we have been conducting the evaluation

NSF and MPS Evaluation Efforts have become integrated

4

MMP Support

Original & Phase II funding from NSF Started in 2003-04 Currently in 8th year Focus on research and evaluation

MPS & State of Wisconsin Provides funding for released MTL positions Support for MTS Positions Funding for Evaluation

5

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 success factors

6

Key Evaluation Question

What are the critical factors or conditions promoted by the MMP that are related to student achievement?

7

Agenda

1. Released and non-Released MTLs

2. MMP Involvement

3. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching

4. Social Network Analysis

5. Breakout Discussion

6. Upcoming Evaluation Activities

8

1. Released v. non-Released MTLs

Key question:

How does achievement differ in schools with released and non-released MTLs?

Examine attainment and value added

Pre-released MTLs

9

First year released MTLs

10

Second year released MTLs

11

Findings

There was an initial bias toward providing underperforming schools with a released MTL

Over time, the position appears to have been effective for helping close the gap between low and high performing schools

In the most recent year, there is no statistical differences in quadrant membership between schools with and without released MTLs

12

Small Group Discussion

What other factors might help explain these findings?

How has having a released MTL (or not having a released MTL) made a difference in your school?

13

14

2. MMP Involvement

Key Question:

Is there a relationship between involvement in MMP activities and student achievement?

Critical Challenge:

Quantifying ‘involvement’

15

Involvement Factors

MTL Meeting Attendance Course Enrollment Action Planning Textbook Adoption HS Algebra and Geometry Labs

Not all factors were present ineach year (05-06 through 08-09)

16

Cumulative Involvement—Schools Serving Grade 10

These data are then converted to z-scoresAnd schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High

17

Schools with Grade 10 Students

Involvement % ProficientNone (n=13) 11.2%Low (n=4) 20.5%Medium (n=22) 23.3%High (n=6) 38.6%

18

Cumulative Involvement—Schools Serving Grades 6-8

These data are then converted to z-scoresAnd schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High

19

Schools With Grade 6-8 Students

Involvement % ProficientNone (n=13) 31.7%Low (n=13) 38.3%Medium (n=54) 46.1%High (n=11) 49.4%

20

Cumulative Involvement—Schools Serving Grades 3-5

These data are then converted to z-scoresAnd schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High

21

Schools With Grade 3-5 Students

Involvement % ProficientNone (n=6) 44.6%Low (n=17) 48.3%Medium (n=80) 52.8%High (n=16) 53.6%

Findings

Initial results suggest that involvement is a predictor of student achievement—most notably between the no-involvement and other groups.

22

Small Group Discussion

In what ways does involvement in MMP activities translate to improved teaching and learning at the classroom level?

What other factors might help explain these results?

23

3. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT)

Key Question:

What is the relationship between teacher MKT and student achievement?

Predict Fall WKCE scores for teachers’ prior year students

24

Teacher MKT Over Time

25

Distribution of 2008-09 Scores

26

WKCE Scores Fall 2009

27

HLM Results

28

56.6 43.4Students

Teachers89.3 10.7

Teachers

MKT

After controlling for grade level, teacher MKTaccounts for 4.6% of variability in WKCE scores

Small Group Discussion

What strategies can MTLs use to improve teacher MKT?

How can the MTSs support these efforts?

29

4. Social Network Analysis

Key Question:

How have school-based networks changed over time?

Social Network Analysis conducted in 112 schools in Spring 2009

30

31

SNA Key

Maps identify

MTL or MTS or Teachers Principal Literacy Coach Others in school Others outside

school

Statistics

Network density In-School density MTL In-Degree MTL Betweeness MTS In-Degree Principal In-Degree

Benefit—a graphical AND statistical description ofschool-based networks.

Density Changes

32

2009

2010Networks are becomingless dense

MTL In-Degree

33

Hi

Lo

Hi MTL Betweeness

34

Hi MTS In-Degree

35

Hi Principal In-Degree

36

Principal

Findings

Strong networks manifest multiple characteristics—high density, MTL In-Degree & Betweeness, MTS In-Degree, and Principal In-Degree

The Release MTL Position may be eroding some characteristics of strong networks

37

Small Group Discussion

In Social Network terms, how would you describe your school?

How can MTLs and MTSs support the creation of strong distributed leadership in schools?

38

BREAKOUT DISCUSSION

39

Final Thoughts

There is no simple answer to the question of what drives student achievement

However…schools that demonstrate strong results tend to exhibit many of the positive conditions discussed today

40

6. Next Steps

1. Teacher MKT Monthly sessions January – May Central Services Sign up starting in December More information forthcoming

2. MMP Online Survey—May 20113. SNA Survey—May20114. MTL Survey—April 2011

41