Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

1
Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

• Program Evaluation
• Year 4 Results
• Carl Hanssen
• Hanssen Consulting, LLC
• Cindy Walker
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• MPA Partners Meeting
• December 14, 2007

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
Presentation Overview

• District Trends
• Student Achievement
• Learning Teams
• Distributed Leadership

4
District Trends
Spring 2006
Spring 2007
3.01
2.84

• Quantity of PD
• Consistency in math instruction
• Engaging in activities to align curriculum to
  learning targets
• Engaging in activities using
• CABS and student work samples
• Engaging in activities to
• gauge student progress
• Talking about teaching learning of mathematics
  with others

3.06
2.88
3.42
3.17
3.60
3.25
Engagement
2.88
3.17
3.72
2.99
5
School Math Focus
Consistent curriculum
Teachers working together
PD perceived as valuable
Strong Math Focus
Predicts
6
Supportive Learning Teams
MTL perceived as supportive
Curriculum aligned to targets
Learning Team focused on mathematics
Teachers working together PD
perceived as valuable
Supportive Learning Teams
Predicts
7
Supportive MTL
PD perceived as valuable MTS
perceived as supportive Teachers
working together Learning Team
focuses on math - Less engaged in
activities designed to align curriculum to targets
Supportive MTLs
Predicts
Schools with a supportive MTL likely aligned
curriculum to targets last year
8
1. Conclusions

• Across the district, schools are reporting higher
  levels of involvement with MMP and more
  frequently engaging in activities that the MMP
  encourages and promotes
• There seems to be an increase in the number of
  school staff who are responsible for helping the
  school focus on improving mathematics teaching
  and learning
• Dispersed throughout schools with quality LTs and
  MTLs

9
2. Student Achievement

• Are student achievement gains greater in schools
  that have more fully embraced MMP principles?

10
Analytical Approach HLM

• Use Student Achievement Data from 2005
  MMP Online Survey Results
  from 2006 to explain variability
  inStudent Achievement in 2006

11
Sources of Variability in Student Achievement
Scores
12 MMP Alignment
4th Grade
9 LT Quality
19 School
79 Other
Variability In Student Achievement In 2006
52 Student Achievement In 2005
81 Student
48 Other
12
Sources of Variability in Student Achievement
Scores
7th Grade
10 MMP Alignment
24 School
90 Other
Variability In Student Achievement In 2006
58 Student Achievement in 2005
76 Student
42 Other
13
2. Conclusions

• Schools that report having greater alignment
  between math curriculum and learning targets are
  more likely to attain higher student achievement
  gains in mathematics
• Learning team influence, in terms of increasing
  student achievement in mathematics, seems to be
  greatest in the lower grades

14
3. Learning Teams
Authoritarian Directive leader Little
discussion Reporting out
Participatory Active discussion Consensus
building Planning
Key Observation to what degree are LTmeetings
about learning versus schooladministration?
15
Characteristics of High Low Rated Learning
TeamsTeam Functioning
High
Low

• Focus on learning
• Distributed leadership
• 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 hi 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 action items

16
Characteristics of High Low RatedLearning
TeamsMMP Issues
High
Low

• Consistent curriculum
• Math is addressed alongside and in combination
  with other subjects
• Coherent within grades and across grades
• MTL clearly in charge with respect to math
• Attention to CABS reference to MMP courses
  reviewing student work

• Variation in curriculum
• Math not addressed at the meeting
• No clear math leaderi.e., hard to tell who the
  MTL is
• Confusion about the MMP and CMF

17
3. Conclusions

• Schools focused on learning during learning
  team meetings are better positioned to
  demonstrate strong results
• While the participatory approach may be
  preferred, some schools may need directive
  leadershipas they work to improve

18
4. Distributed Leadership
High
Low
Loose Network MTL Not Central Few Links to
MTL MTS Outside Few Links to MTS
Tight Network MTL Central Many Links to MTL MTS
Inside Many Links to MTS
19
Low
Student Achievement 2006 20 Proficient 4-year
trend -4
20
High
Student Achievement 2006 50 Proficient 4-year
trend 7
21
4. Conclusions

• 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 aretightly
  webbed

22
Overall Conclusions

• There is support for the argument that schools
  that have more fully adopted MMP principles are
  demonstrating stronger outcomesthough there is
  still a lot of work to do.
• No single factore.g., alignment, distributed
  leadership or learning team performanceis
  sufficient for success, but all may be necessary

23
Overall Conclusions

• Schools that are performing well do many of the
  things MMP promotes well, andrealize synergy
  between many of these activities and principles
• MMP impact, though, is not being felt in all
  schoolsthereis tremendous variability in
  MMPadoption and progress across the district

24
Future Considerations

• Important considerations for sustaining MMP work
• Creating Distributed Leadership in a school takes
  timeand communication is criticalLast year the
  Learning Team was perceived as the most important
  actor for improving mathematics teaching and
  learning.This year, in schools that report high
  levels of math focus, that responsibilityseems
  to be dispersed throughout the school.

25
Future Considerations

• Important considerations for sustaining MMP work
• MTL role may be shifting from focal point to
  facilitatorwe see growth in the number of staff
  primarily responsible for helping the school
  focus on improving mathematics teaching and
  learning
• MTS role may be more importantthan everschools
  using the MTSappear further down the path