1 / 45

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

Carol Fry Bohlin California State University, Fresno STEPSS (Visalia Unified School District) (carolb@csufresno.edu). Session purpose/overviewSpeaker introductionsModerated question and answer period. Diane M. Spresser National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia (dspresse@nsf.gov) . Any o

kyna
Télécharger la présentation

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 Bohlin California State University, Fresno STEPSS (Visalia Unified School District) (carolb@csufresno.edu) Session purpose/overview Speaker introductions Moderated question and answer period

    3. Diane M. Spresser National Science Foundation Arlington, 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-80s through early 1990s 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

    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

    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 Alignment of professional 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 System LSC 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 Evaluation Key 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

    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 Merlino The Greater Philadelphia Secondary Mathematics Project http://www.gphillymath.org (merlino@lasalle.edu) The Phases of Systemic Change

    23. Phases of Systemic Change Within 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--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)

    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