EVOLUTION OF A CONTINUUM OF MATHEMATICS LEADERSHIP

1. DeAnn Huinker, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Henry Kranendonk, Milwaukee Public Schools National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics San Diego, California April 19, 2010 EVOLUTION OF A CONTINUUM OF MATHEMATICS LEADERSHIP Charting the Course to Formative Assessment Practices in a Large Urban District

2. Student Achievement in Mathematics STAY THECOURSE STEADY

3. Session Goals • Examine the roadmap used by a large urban district to chart a course to student learning gains in mathematics, the Continuum of Work for Mathematics. • Consider change as a developmental process for individuals, schools, and districts.

4. Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership (MMP) Fall 2003 • Awarded a 5-year Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Partnership grant through the National Science Foundation

5. Mathematics Framework Distributed Leadership Teacher Learning Continuum Student Learning Continuum

6. Milwaukee Public Schools • Summer 2003 Approximately 100,000 students (pre-K to 12) Approximately 200 schools • Fall 2009 Approximately 85,000 students Approximately 190 schools Approximately 5700 classroom teachers

7. Prior to the MMP (Before 2003) • Inconsistency across and within schools for math • De-centralization issues • schools operated independently of central office • principal as primary leader in setting direction for school’s implementation of mathematics • Lack of sustained professional development • Pedagogy more an “emotional state of mind” than based on sound instructional practices.

8. Early Years of the MMP(2003–2004) District Vision of Mathematics Grade Level Learning Targets in Mathematics

9. Early Years of the MMP(2003–2004) School Learning Team New school leadership position, the Math Teacher Leader (MTL) LiteracyCoach Math Teacher Leader Principal Other Key Teachers District Mathematics Leadership IHE Faculty Mathematics & Math Education Established district leadership team, new position, Math Teaching Specialists (MTS)

10. Early Years of the MMP (2004 – 2005) • Developed common “Classroom Assessments Based on Standards” (CABS) • Established monthly MTL professional development • MTL emerged as an accepted leader of math within schools for teachers and principals

11. MMP Continuum Years (Spring 2005 – Present) • Principles of formative assessment as key to MTL leadership • Three MMP “pillars” for MTL development • Mathematics Content • Formative Assessment • Leadership • Evolvement of the “MMP Learning Team Continuum of Work for Mathematics” as a roadmap for implementing the MMP

12. MMP Continuum of Work for Mathematics

14. School Self-Assessment Report

16. Stage 1: Learning Targets Understand importance of identifying and articulating big ideas in mathematics to bring consistency to a school’s math program. • Learning Targets are 8-10 statements of mathematics for focused study at a grade level. • Aligned to State standards. Grade 6 Apply, explain, and evaluate strategies to estimate, compare, and compute fractions, decimals, and percents using a variety of methods (e.g., mental computation, technology, manipulatives) with and without context.

17. Stage 1: Learning Targets Understand importance of identifying and articulating big ideas in mathematics to bring consistency to a school’s math program. • School Professional Work • Teachers develop an awareness of district learning targets for each mathematics strand. • Teachers discuss what each target means and can articulate math learning goals students are to reach. • Teachers examine the development of mathematical ideas across grade levels.

18. Examples: Stage 1 Learning Targets

19. Stage 2: Align State Framework & Math Program Develop meaning for the math embedded in the targets and alignment to State standards and descriptors and to the school’s math program. District Math Learning Targets State Standards& Assessment Descriptors School Math Program

20. Stage 2: Align State Framework & Math Program Develop meaning for the math embedded in the targets and alignment to State standards and descriptors and to the school’s math program. • School Professional Work • Teachers examinealignment of state descriptors to targets. • Teachers identify the depth of knowledge in the descriptors. • Teachers study how the mathematical ideas in the descriptors are developed in the school’s math program. • For each lesson, teachers inform students of the math learning goals in terms that students understand.

21. Examples: Stage 2 Alignment

22. School Self-Assessment Guide

23. Estimate percent of teachers at each position. Where are You, Your School, or District? • Make notes on each stage descriptor. • THEN share and discuss as a small group.

24. Stage 3: Common Classroom Assessments (CABS) Provide a measure of consistency of student learning based on standards/descriptors and targets. CABS Classroom AssessmentsBased onStandards Selected/developed/adapted by teams of teachers and IHE mathematics faculty. Aligned to district targets and state standards and descriptors. Aligned to district pacing guides for adopted math programs.

25. CABS Example: Paxolai’s Purchase Paxolai purchases a video game that costs $45.00. She uses two coupons when she buys the video game. The first coupon gives 25% off of the regular price. The second coupon is for $5.00 off the price of any video game. When the clerk rings up Paxolai’s purchase, he takes the $5.00 off first and then applies the 25% discount. How much does Paxolai pay for the video game? Would the price that Paxolai paid for the video game have increased, decreased, or stayed the same if the clerk had taken the 25% discount first and then taken off the $5.00 coupon? Grade 7

26. Grade 7 Learning Target: Number & Operations • Explain comparisons and operations on real numbers and use proportional reasoning (including ratios and percents) to solve problems with and without contexts. Wisconsin Assessment Framework: Descriptors • Number & Operations: Concepts • Analyze and solve problems using percents. Mathematical Processes • Communicate mathematical ideas and reasoning in a variety of ways (e.g. using words, numbers, symbols, pictures, charts, tables, diagrams, graphs, and models). • Solve and analyze routine and non-routine problems.

27. CABS Assessment Overview After working through the assessment, reflect on what you expect students to do. Description of Assessment: School: Grade Level:

28. Stage 3: Common Classroom Assessments (CABS) Provide a measure of consistency of student learning based on standards/descriptors and targets. • School Professional Work • Teachers select and study common CABS to use at a grade level. • Teachers identify math expectations assessed through CABS. • Teachers identify potential student misconceptions. • Learning Team and teachers examine student WKCE and Benchmark Assessment/CABS data to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses for focusing teaching and learning.

29. Examples: Stage 3 Common CABS

30. Stage 4: Student Work on CABS Examine student work to monitor achievement and progress toward the targets and descriptors. Name a fraction that is between 1/2 and 2/3 in size. Justify how you know your fraction is between 1/2 and 2/3.

32. Stage 4: Student Work on CABS Examine student work to monitor achievement and progress toward the targets and descriptors. • School Professional Work • Teachers collaborate in grade-level meetings to discuss student work and implications for classroom practice. • Teachers meet in cross-grade meetings to discuss common expectations of student learning & implications for school practice. • Learning Team monitors and discusses student learning on CABS results from across the school, shares observations with staff, and uses data for Educational Plan.

33. Examples: Stage 4 Student Work on CABS

34. Estimate percent of teachers at each position. Where are You, Your School, or District? • Make notes on each stage descriptor. • THEN share and discuss as a small group.

35. Stage 5: Descriptive Feedback on CABS Use student work to inform instructional decisions, and to provide students with appropriate descriptive feedback.

36. Motivational/EvaluativeFeedback Examples Very nice diagrams. You developed representations of the fractions to make your selection of 7/12 as a fraction between 1/2 and 2/3. ------- Your answer of 7/12 is correct. You receive full credit for your work.

37. Descriptive Feedback Examples • Explain your decision of dividing the rectangles into equal sections of 6ths and then 12ths. •  ------- • I’m impressed with your representations of 1/2 and 2/3 to help you. Your rectangles appear to grow in size. Do the 6 shaded sections and the 8 shaded sections in your last rectangle still represent the same fractions? Draw the next representation you would use to represent the fractions. How are you deciding the number of sections to create in the rectangles?

38. Stage 5: Descriptive Feedback on CABS Use student work to inform instructional decisions, and to provide students with appropriate descriptive feedback. • School Professional Work • Teachers collaborate to write students descriptive feedback on Benchmarks and on common CABS from the curriculum guides. • Students use feedback to revise work and improve learning. • Teachers use feedback to adjust and differentiate instruction. • Learning Team monitors successes and challenges of writing descriptive feedback, and identifies professional learning needs of teachers.

39. Examples: Stage 5 Descriptive Feedback CABS

40. Discuss Stage 5 as a Small Group • In ways do you use descriptive feedback or how might you begin to use more descriptive feedback with students? • What might be some benefits of providing students with opportunities to use descriptive feedback to revise their work?

41. K-8 Schools at Each Stage Impact

42. High Schools at Each Stage Impact

43. Student Proficiency on WKCE Mathematics

44. MMP Continuum

45. Building the capacity of schools stage by stage along the “MMP Continuum” for continuous improvement toward student success with challenging mathematics.

46. Thank you. MMP website • www.mmp.uwm.edu DeAnn Huinker • huinker@uwm.edu Henry Kranendonk • hkranendonk@earthlink.net This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 0314898.