Milwaukee Mathematics PartnershipMilwaukee Mathematics Partnership Year 7 Annual Report 2009–2010...

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

Year 7 Annual Report

2009 – 2010

DeAnn Huinker Principal Investigator

August 2010

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership Year 7 Annual Report 2009–2010

1


Year 7 Annual Report

2009 – 2010

DeAnn Huinker Principal Investigator

August 2010

Contributors

Pandora Bedford Pam Buhr

Cynthia Cuellar Kimberly Farley Astrid Fossum

Jacqueline Gosz Carl Hanssen

Sharonda Harris Melissa Hedges

Rosann Hollinger Heather Jones

Eric Key

Henry Kranendonk Connie Laughlin

Laura Maly Kevin McLeod Mary Mooney

Lee Ann Pruske Alan Rank

Bernard Rahming David Ruszkiewicz

Beth Schefelker Meghan Steinmeyer

Cindy Walker

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0314898. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF).


2


Year 7 Annual Report 2009–2010

The Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership (MMP) has seen significant improvement in mathematics achievement for students in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), with substantial gains in achievement and gap reductions on the most recent state tests. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), and Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) have shared in the leadership for this student success as core partners to this unique collaboration among a large urban district, a four-year urban university, and a two-year technical college. The partners have remained steadfast and focused on their vision for challenging mathematics (shown below at right). Milwaukee Public Schools is the 33rd largest district in the nation and the largest in Wisconsin with 184 schools and enrollment for 2009-10 at 82,444 and the racial profile at 88% non-white. Enrollment percentages were: American Indian (1%), African American (57%), Hispanic (23%), Asian (5%), White (12%), and other racial/ethnic groups (3%). Further breakdown shows 19.2% were identified with special education needs, 9.5% were English Language Learners, and 81% qualify for free or reduced price meals—all increases from the previous year. MPS is a District Identified for Improvement under NCLB. The MMP targeted 146 schools in Year 7. This included regular and instrumentality-charter schools: 111 elementary (e.g., K-5, K-8), 8 middle, and 27 high schools (15 large high schools, 12 small high schools). Some of the district affiliated non-instrumentality and alternative/partnership schools also participated. “Dedicated” and “Legacy” were the words chosen to characterize Year 7 of the MMP. The dedication of the Math Teacher Leaders to improving the curricular, instructional, and assessment practices in their schools in order to enrich and strengthen students’ learning of mathematics is certainly a legacy of the MMP. This year, the Math Teacher Leaders worked more closely than ever at the heart of teaching—what happens in the classroom each day through the interactions of teachers and students embedded in the learning of mathematics. In reflecting upon seven years of work, the legacy of the MMP is yet to be determined, however, we have clearly established a cultural shift throughout the district in regards to the teaching and learning of mathematics and the expectations of a professional learning community for mathematics.


3

The discussion of Goal 1 highlights our continued focus on formative assessment principles and our work on the Common Core State Standards Initiative. For Goal 2, we highlight our continued release-time model for our Math Teacher Leaders and their development as leaders. For Goal 3, we summarize our content focus on rational numbers and proportional reasoning. For Goal 4, we present the continued gains in mathematics achievement and narrowing of achievement gaps.

Goal 1. Comprehensive Mathematics Framework Implement and utilize the comprehensive mathematics framework to lead a collective vision of deep learning and quality teaching of mathematics across the Milwaukee Partnership.

Our first goal draws attention to our continued efforts to generate a common vision of mathematics. We first highlight our focus on formative assessment through the work with our Math Teacher Leaders. Then we summarize the high school and middle school math labs that were offered this year for classroom teachers. We close this section with a discussion of our efforts at the national, state, and local levels in regards to the Common Core State Standards Initiative and the adoption of these standards for Wisconsin.

Formative Assessment: Putting the Pieces Together Formative assessment was truly the area that we as a school focused on this year. With the creation and implementation of WALT with learning intentions and success criteria, staff was given numerous opportunities and plenty of support as they worked to link the formative assessment principles to classroom practices. Our Learning-at-a-Glance data showed that the majority of classrooms were using WALT. Students went from saying that they were learning math to articulating the specific big ideas and skills they were learning. ---MTL We have focused on examining student work to determine what students know and what needs to be taught. There has been a shift from “covering the content” to making sure that students are learning the content. ---MTL We have worked hard to implement WALT both with the learning intentions and the success criteria. Teachers are now asking students what success looks like, what should the criteria be for success. Students are beginning to be able to articulate what goo work looks like and how they are going to show understanding. This is a step towards student self-assessment. ---MTL

The journey that started last year with the explicit articulation of ten principles of formative assessment (see Figure 1) continued throughout this school year. Teachers and teacher leaders were familiar with the principles of formative assessment but still struggled with seeing their impact on students. They wondered how the principles contributed to student learning and how best to link them to their classroom practices. Thus, a goal this year was to help the Math Teacher Leaders “put together” the pieces of the work of the MMP that have evolved over the years. Some of these pieces included aligning curriculum with learning targets and Wisconsin State descriptors, classroom assessments based on standards (CABS), constructed response math items given as part of the district benchmark assessments, protocol for analyzing and discussing student work, descriptive feedback, and WALT—learning intentions and success criteria (Clarke, 2001).


4

Ten Principles of Formative Assessment

Teacher and Student Articulation of Math Learning Goals (1) Prior to teaching, teachers study and can articulate the math concepts students will be learning. (2) Teachers use student-friendly language to inform students about the math objective they are expected to learn during the lesson. (3) Students can describe what mathematical ideas they are learning in the lesson. (4) Teachers can articulate how the math lesson is aligned to district learning targets, state standards, and classroom assessments, and fits within the progression of student learning.

Teacher Focus on Using Assessment Information to Guide Teaching (5) Teachers use classroom assessments that yield accurate information about student learning of math concepts and skills and use of math processes. (6) Teachers use assessment information to focus and guide teaching and motivate student learning.

Student Focus on Using Assessment Information to Move Learning (7) Feedback given to a student is descriptive, frequent, and timely. It provides insight on a current strength & focuses on one facet of learning for revision linked directly to the intended math objective. (8) Students actively and regularly use descriptive feedback to improve the quality of their work. (9) Students study the criteria by which their work will be evaluated by analyzing samples of strong and weak work. (10) Students keep track of their own learning over time (e.g., journals, portfolios) and communicate with others about what they understand and what areas need improvement.

Figure 1. Principles of Formative Assessment

At the MTL Kickoff (August 2009), the teacher leaders read the article “Linking Principles of Formative Assessment to Classroom Practice” (Huinker & Freckmann, 2009). This article assisted in solidifying the components of the formative assessment principles. It also showed their link to classroom practice and to the role students should play in their own learning. The kickoff set the stage for our work in formative assessment for the rest of the year. Table 1 shows a list of the topics for this strand at the monthly MTL seminars. Table 1. Formative Assessment Strand Sessions for Math Teacher Leaders

Month Topic

Aug PRIME Leadership Framework, Alignment of the principles of formative assessment to the MMP Continuum of Professional Work for Mathematics

Oct PRIME Leadership Framework—Teaching and Learning Principle

Dec Exploring Cognitive Demand Part 1

Jan Exploring Cognitive Demand Part 2

Feb Exploring Cognitive Demand: Making Connections to the Assessment Principles

Mar Developing questions to access student’s background knowledge, push students’ thinking, and summarize the important mathematics. (Focus on Part 2 of the MMP lesson planning template)

Apr Developing questions to summarize the important mathematics in the lesson as a whole class discussion. Emphasis on making questions to tie back to learning intentions and success criteria.

May Exploring differences and similarities of learning intentions and success criteria.

Last year the teacher leaders began studying the National Council of Supervisors (NCSM, 2009) PRIME leadership framework. PRIME stands for “Principles and Indicators for Mathematics Education.” The teacher leaders reviewed the stages of leadership with emphasis on leadership of self before moving to leadership of others. Then our focus was on understanding the connections between their work as math teacher leaders and the teaching and learning principle from the PRIME framework. Some of the key points included: (1) It all goes back to the teaching and learning of meaningful mathematics in the classroom, (2)


5

Classroom instruction is the key to learning, (3) The planning for instruction and instructional practices must align with well-articulated goals, instruction, and assessment, and (4) Assessment and instruction are highly intertwined. The new topic introduced to the teacher leaders this year was “cognitive demand” (Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000). It was defined as the kind and level of thinking required of a student in order to successfully engage with and solve a task. The teacher leaders engaged in activities that furthered their understanding of the cognitive demand of mathematical tasks. For example, they were given a number of task cards and they had to determine the cognitive demand level of the task as: • Low level: Memorization tasks • Low level: Procedures without connections to understanding, meaning, or concepts tasks. • High level: Procedures with connections to understanding, meaning, or concepts tasks. • High level: Doing mathematics tasks The cognitive demand of learning is influenced by the task itself, but also by “the classroom activity that surrounds the way in which those problems are set up and actually carried out by teachers and students” (Stein et al., 2000). The teacher leaders studied the impact on cognitive demand as it unfolds during instruction from setup to implementation. The set up phase is when teachers communicate their expectations to students—what to do, how to do it, and with which resources. The implementation phase extends from the time students begin to work through the final outcome of student learning. The goal was to avoid factors that would lead to the decline of the cognitive demand of the mathematical task during instruction but to work to maintain the cognitive demand at a higher level. While teachers generally believe that what happens during instruction affects learning, they are not always aware of the impact of specific instructional decisions. This year we raised the consciousness of the teacher leaders of instructional factors that lower the level of cognitive demand of learning. If students are continually exposed to mathematical tasks with a low cognitive demand or if tasks begin at higher levels but then decline as a result of teacher instructional actions, student performance will not improve nor will they develop the conceptual understanding needed to apply their knowledge to unfamiliar tasks. The final sessions with the MTLs revisited our lesson plan template that was introduced last year. This tool was key tool bringing together the pieces of formative assessment with daily classroom instruction. We more formally refer the tool as the template for “Lesson Planning with Formative Assessment Principles” or more generally as the WALT lesson plan (see Figure 2). Our focus last year was mainly on the Part 1; this year we devoted time to building understanding and skill on the Part 2 which focuses on questioning to support student exploration of the task. The templates asks teachers to prepare questions to access student background knowledge, push student thinking, and summarize the important math in the lesson. The formulating of questions was also connected to maintaining a higher level of cognitive demand.


6

Lesson Planning with Formative Assessment Principles Part 1: Selecting and Setting Up a

Mathematical Task Part 2: Supporting Student

Exploration of the Task Part 3: Summarizing the

Mathematics This part contains four critical components that need to be considered when selecting and setting up a mathematical task.

In this section, construct three questions that will develop the mathematics of the lesson. Be sure to consider the Depth of Knowledge to develop the questions. These questions could be used with students individually or in small groups.

In this section, construct a question that focuses on orchestrating a whole group discussion of the task that uses different solution strategies produced by the students that highlight the mathematics of the lesson.

1. Important Mathematics to Develop:

2. Learning Target and Descriptors:

3. Lesson Objective in Student Friendly Language: We are learning to...

4. Success Criteria: We know we are successful if...

Q1. Access background knowledge:

Q2. Develop understanding of the mathematics by pushing student reasoning:

Q3. Summarize the important math in the lesson. This should tie back to the success criteria.

Summarize the important mathematics in the lesson as a whole class discussion. This should tie it back to the success criteria.

Figure 2. MMP Lesson Plan Template

This year we continued to explicitly make connections among the MMP initiatives and classroom practices and to further integrate formative assessment practices into the daily instruction of teachers and the ongoing learning of students. The teacher leaders were asked to reflect as a Leader of Self (PRIME leadership cycle) on the stage of their own development in regards to the three main topics from the assessment strand—principles, questioning, and cognitive demand (see Table 2). Overall more teacher leaders indicated they themselves were implementing the principles of formative assessment and that they better understood cognitive demand. In regards to questioning, the results essentially remained unchanged. Table 2. As Leader of Self, in what stage do you feel you are for each topic? (Feb n=69; May n=33)

Awareness Knowledge Understanding Implementing Feb May Feb May Feb May Feb May

Formative Assessment Principles 9% 3% 9% 12% 38% 27% 43% 55%

Questioning 3% 6% 25% 21% 42% 42% 30% 30%

Cognitive Demand 7% 6% 29% 30% 42% 52% 19% 12%

Our work will continue to address these three topics in the future in order to move more of the teacher leaders to the implementing stage as a leader of self, so that they are prepared to be a leader of others in these areas. In particular, we envision more work with the third category of formative assessment principles in which students are empowered to use assessment information to monitor their own learning. Students need to become more involved in the learning and assessment processes that will inform them of their strengths and weakness. For example, students can be involved in the conversation and discussion about proficient and non-proficient student work. The teacher leaders will also continue to utilize the lesson planning with formative assessment template and work on developing good questions to access students’ background knowledge, push students’ thinking, and summarize the important mathematics in the lesson.


7

Math Labs for High School Teachers We ran three series of labs during the year—Algebra, Geometry, and Advanced Algebra. Each series of labs met six times through the school year, approximately once each month, for a total of 18 full-day labs. The topics of focus at each of these labs is listed in Table 3. This proved to be an intensive schedule, so we built three teams of facilitators which included mathematics faculty from both UWM and Marquette University and district Math Teaching Specialists. The Algebra team included Kevin McLeod (UWM), Laura Maly (MPS), and Marta Magiera (Marquette). The Geometry team included Gary Luck (UWM), Mary Mooney (MPS), Bill Mandella (UWM). The Advanced Algebra team included Kevin McLeod (UWM), Gary Luck (UWM), Dan Lotesto (MPS), and Mary Mooney (MPS). Table 3. High School Math Labs Month Algebra Topics Geometry Topics Advanced Algebra Topics Oct Relationship between recursion

and linearity Constructing Perpendicular Bisectors

Overview of Discovering Advanced Algebra; Quadratic expressions and functions

Nov Slope as the graphical representation of rate of change

Properties of Parallelograms Functions and Transformations

Dec Inequalities Transformations: More than meets the eye

Inverse Functions and Logarithms

Feb Exponential Models Art or Math: Tessellations Applications of Linear Equations and Inequalities

Mar Probability and counting techniques

Volume and Surface Area Trigonometric Functions

Apr Discovering Algebra – Author Presentation

Right Triangles (as opposed to wrong triangles)

Meet the Author: Data Collection and Modeling using CBRs (Guest facilitator: Jerry Murdock)

The Algebra and Geometry labs were expanded this year to full day sessions; last year they were only half-day sessions. The morning sessions included content activities that stemmed from investigations in the district textbooks, Discovering Algebra and Discovering Geometry, and were extended by the university mathematics faculty. During the afternoon, teachers worked in small groups on lesson planning using WALT (We are learning to...) and LESA (Launch-Explore-Summarize-Apply). Last year we attempted to have participants bring student work samples to analyze. We did not get the buy-in we were hoping for, so this year we turned to a focus on transferring their content learning in the labs to their lesson planning using WALT and LESA instead. We spent significant time having teachers determine the big math idea in each lesson and then write a learning intention and success criteria in student friendly language (i.e., WALT). Unexpectedly, this was very time consuming and difficult for teachers. After taking time to debrief these statements (time which many teachers complained about, but that we determined to be important), the groups then worked on a classroom lesson “plan” in the form of Launch, Explore, Summarize, and Apply (LESA). This is where many teachers exchanged tips on what works in their classroom, and often times included short technology demonstrations from teachers. The Advanced Algebra sessions were new this year and were offered to support the adoption of a new textbook program, “Discovering Advanced Algebra.” The Advanced Algebra labs were held as part of the district Saturday Academy program. Participants could choose to


8

attend just the morning session, which focused on content development, or both a morning and afternoon session to allow time for collaborative planning, similar to the other labs. Overall the labs were a great success with about 25 participants at each of the algebra and geometry labs and about 13 participants at each advanced algebra lab. The labs provided a sustained learning opportunity for teachers to study the mathematics they were teaching with university mathematics faculty. Then they had opportunities for collaborative planning as they considered how to transfer that learning into their teaching. During the last lab session in each series, participants were asked to reflect on and respond to the following prompt: How has attending the Labs over the course of this year affected your classroom instruction? • I think the #1 value of the labs is the collaboration between teachers concerning the

investigations. I take much of what I discover here back to try with my students. • I’ve learned to slow down and anticipate common mistakes made by typical ninth grade students. • I didn’t realize that perpendicular bisectors would show up throughout the entire book! I can now

plan accordingly. • I am starting to understand how using constructions

can help students understand proofs. • It has given me a variety of ideas for teaching in

different ways. These labs have helped me focus my lesson planning on what the kids are learning, doing, and what the big math ideas are in each section.

• It refreshes my motivation to be creative and to create higher level thinking activities and lesson plans that are interesting and engaging. They have helped me be a better teacher! I now know and have experienced the potential of a classroom environment.

Math Labs for Middle School Teachers Being at the labs forces me to think of the math as a learner rather than as a teacher and gives me new perspective on the misunderstandings learners may have—especially with fractions, decimals, and percents. ---Teacher I actually learned what it means to add and subtract integers and why the rule applies. This definitely helped my teaching because I actually understood the concept and could explain it to my students! ---Teacher

The Grade 7-8 Math Labs were offered for the first time during 2009-2010. The labs were taught by John Moyer (Marquette University), Connie Laughlin (UWM), Shunda Allen (MPS-MTL), and Jamie Elder (MPS-MTL). The two Math Teacher Leaders were asked to be instructors because of the classroom experiences they brought to the lesson planning and presentation of the lessons and also to promote distributed leadership using teacher leaders in prominent positions. There were six full-day labs spaced throughout the school year, approximately one per month. The three main goals for every lab were: • To promote teaching significant mathematics, using hands-on labs and Mathscape. • To look forward to high school and reach a level of teaching and learning that will

prepare students for success in high school. • To collaboratively design lesson plans and assessments.


9

Topics for the labs were chosen to supplement and enhance the most commonly taught topics taught in middle school mathematics (see Table 4). The topics were chosen to coincide with the pacing guide for the Glencoe Mathematics series, which is the most common middle school adoption in the district. Rather than choose activities from the Glencoe books, we tried to use corresponding lessons from the Mathscape series. Mathscape is an underused resource that schools who adopted the Glencoe series received at the time of adoption. In many schools, this resource has been sitting unused, despite the quality of tasks and lessons in the materials. At other times, activities were drawn from Connected Mathematics (CMP) modules (another district adopted math program which is used by some schools in the district) and from the Navigations books published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Table 4. Grades 7-8 Math Labs Month Topic Modules Activities

Oct Integers

Mathscape: Making Mathematical Arguments

Statements about signs, Rules to operate by, Number lines, Counter examples and cube combinations

Nov Variables and Equations

Navigations: Grades 6-8 Algebra Mathscape: Language of Algebra

Exploring Houses, Building Toothpicks Raising Funds, Comparing fundraisers

Jan Fractions, Decimals, and Percents

Mathscape: Buyer Beware CMP: Bits and Pieces II

Using Fraction strips, Hundredths Charts Number line models, In Between Game

Feb Ratio and Proportion

Mathscape: Buyer Beware Quilting Ratios, In the Mix, Half Time Refreshments, Can I Use a Proportion?

Mar Slope

Shell Centre Materials: Roads and Ramps

Bags of Sugar, Measuring Stairs, 12 Inch Tread, Handicapped Ramps, Phone Plans

May Probability

Mathscape: Chance Encounters Middle Grades Math Project (MGMP): Probability

Carnival Collection, Spin with the Cover Up Game, Mystery Spinner Game, Area Model and Free Throw problem

Every month, the majority of the time was spent working on activities and tasks that developed mathematics content. The last hour of each day was devoted to lesson planning and discussions about using their experiences and learning from the session in their own classrooms. The instructors constantly modeled using ideas of learning intentions and success criteria (WALT) and expected the teachers to use these ideas in their own planning.

MMP Involvement in the Common Core State Standards Movement As were many states throughout the country, Wisconsin was in the midst of revising its State standards in mathematics when the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative commenced. On June 2, 2010, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Evers, formally adopted the Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics for Wisconsin (Wisconsin DPI, 2010). Several representatives of the MMP and the IHE Math Network have been deeply involved this year with the Common Core State Standards movement at the national and state levels. Most notably, Henry Kepner, has been very involved during his tenure as President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In addition, Kevin McLeod, Henry Kranendonk, and DeAnn Huinker were involved in numerous conversations and reviews throughout the process at the national level and at the state level in Wisconsin. For example, we have been in regular conversation with the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) as they considered the adoption of the CCSS. This have included meetings of our


10

Standards Leadership Team, a state-wide stakeholders meeting in May, and numerous email and phone conversations. We are now working to develop materials and tools to provide direction for Wisconsin as districts across the state begin the transition to the CCSS. At our local level in regards to the Milwaukee Public Schools, we have also held sessions with our Math Teaching Specialists to review and discuss draft versions of the common core standards throughout this past year and submit written feedback from the district. With the release of the final document, Kevin McLeod has held some study sessions this summer with the Specialists to begin digging into the document and considering next steps for the MMP to provide leadership for the district in the transition to the common core standards. We realize that this will involve decisions regarding our well established district Learning Targets for mathematics, such as shall we keep them, toss them, or revise them. We also realize that our current curriculum pacing guides, course syllabi, and classroom assessments show alignment with the previous Wisconsin State standards and will need to be revised in light of Wisconsin’s adoption of the common core. To begin the transition to the CCSS, the MMP prepared a “Frequently Asked Questions” document that will be distributed at the initial principal meeting for the 2010-2011 school year and at the annual Math Teacher Leadership Kickoff being held on August 26, 2010. The following are four excerpts from the FAQ document showing our initial suggestions for the district transition to implementation of the common core standards. (1) What should our school do with the Learning Targets, CABS, and other documents that are aligned to the former standards? What about textbooks? There is no need to make any changes in your use of these documents for at least this first year. As curriculum and instruction are modified in the transition to the Common Core, district documents will be re-aligned as necessary so that we are prepared for the new state assessment in 2014. Similarly with textbooks; all of the board-adopted curricula can be successfully used in the initial years of the transition and there are no current plans to purchase new textbooks. Within a few years, curricula fully aligned to the CCSS (including the Standards for Mathematical Practice) will be developed and the district may consider purchasing one or more of those curricula at that time. In the meantime, beware of publishers offering a “quick fix” by re-ordering their existing material and claiming it is aligned to the Common Core. (2) What is the Math Department's plan to help the district learn about the CCSS? The Math Department will identify specific learning progressions that schools can study during this school year. The Math Department will provide your school’s Math Teacher Leader (MTL) with information about the CCSS at the monthly MTL meetings, and the MTL will be able to share this growing knowledge of the CCSS with their school staff throughout the year. As always, we encourage schools to be purposeful in how they use the MTL position to ensure sufficient and meaningful opportunities for the MTL to support teachers and students. Finally, we will set up a district-wide CCSS Study Committee, or even university credit-bearing courses on the CCSS.


11

(3) What should our school do now to implement the CCSS? Consider 2014 as a target date for full implementation of the CCSS in your school, and plan deliberately and thoughtfully. Work with district mathematics staff to implement a plan suited for your particular situation. We have the time to do this right! We recommend that the 2010-2011 school year be a year of study of the CCSS document; in the following year (2011-2012) consider aligning at least part of your curriculum with the CCSS. In 2012-2013 you can then complete the implementation, in good time for the new state assessment. (4) So this is a study year? This is a big document! What exactly should we study? Start by discussing, learning and internalizing the Standards for Mathematical Practice, and working to infuse them into your current curriculum. During the 2010-2011 year, district mathematics staff will identify Learning Progressions within the CCSS document. You can then choose one or more of these Learning Progressions for your school staff to study as the second phase of your implementation. As you study these learning progressions, make connections to what is currently happening in classrooms and then consciously focus on embedding the Standards for Mathematical Practice into the lessons and tasks you choose to use. The long-term goal is for high quality mathematical instruction in which the mathematical practices are evident in tasks with a high level of cognitive demand.

Goal 2. Distributed Leadership Institute a distributed mathematics leadership model that engages all partners and is centered on school-based professional learning communities.

The establishment of distributed leadership for mathematics across the Partners and across the district is a reason for our success. It has generated a responsibility for improving the mathematics learning of students, and of teachers, at many levels. We first comment on changes in the district leadership for mathematics. Then we provide an update on the continued implementation of a release-model for our Math Teacher leaders. Next we share progress of the schools along the MMP Continuum of Professional Work for Mathematics. Finally, we summarize this year’s leadership development of the Math Teacher Leaders.

District Leadership for Mathematics The MTS support is a critical piece to the puzzle. A full day every month of training is unheard of in most fields, but because of the MTSs, we have very thoughtfully planned training every month to help us do our jobs better so that we can help teachers do their jobs better so that students can learn and achieve. ---MTL My MTS has provided a directness with the teaching staff at my school that only an “outside math" person can do. I have seen her go head to head with math teachers about quality questioning of students that would have been not only uncomfortable for me but politically not helpful. My MTS has also smoothed administrative district, cluster, and school interactions that benefit the overall math program at my school without causing gears to grind to a halt. In an ego-rich environment, that is invaluable, not to mention – rare. ---MTL

In furthering our goal to promote distributed leadership, we were able to maintain our essential core group of ten district-wide Math Teaching Specialists. This was the second year in which we had a cadre of ten Math Teaching Specialists (previously, there had only been


12

six of these positions). In addition, the same ten people in these positions from 2008-2009 continued their work in 2009-2010. This provided a sense of continuity and stability, even though we experienced change and struggles in regards to other district leadership. A new model, though, was tried this year regarding the district-wide mathematics supervisor position. With the retirement of Henry Kranendonk as the district Mathematics Curriculum Specialist, the district has been searching for an individual to “fill his shoes” without success. (It was obvious, Henry is just irreplaceable!) The district chose to split the position among two individuals. Sharonda Harris, a previous Teacher-in-Residence, Math Teaching Specialist, and elementary teacher, had moved into the role of MMP Accountability Monitor for the 2008-2009 school year. She was asked to become the K-6 Mathematics Curriculum Supervisor. Dan Lotesto, a previous Teacher-in-Residence and high school mathematics teacher assumed the role of Grades 7-12 Mathematics Curriculum Supervisor. Even though these two individuals worked closely together throughout the school year and shared the responsibilities of supervision of mathematics in the district, it was not without its challenges. Needless to say, we will have another change for next year. Dan has decided to return to teaching high school mathematics, and Sharonda has been asked to serve as the K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Specialist. She began her new role this summer. In addition, the Milwaukee Public Schools now has a new Superintendent, Dr. Gregory Thornton, and a new Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Heidi Ramirez, as of July 1, 2010. The new administration is bringing new motivation, energy, and urgency to work throughout the district. As with most new administrations, some restructuring has occurred. The district is now separated into eight regional clusters, each with a Regional Executive Specialist. The MMP will work within this organization structure to support district-wide efforts and to support schools within each region. The MMP Leadership Team has had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Ramirez and has begun establishing plans and goals to not only continue the work of the MMP, but to also intensify our efforts to further boost student achievement.

Continued Release-time MTL Model This was our second full year of implementing a release-time Math Teacher Leader model. The same as last year, the MMP model is really a partial-release model. This ensures that the district’s most expert teachers remain engaged with students in mathematics instruction for at least 20% of their day. For the other 80% of their day, they remain in schools to assist all staff members in improving mathematics instruction. We believe that this model promotes teacher leadership in that it allows them to utilize their expertise yet maintains critical classroom credibility. We feel strongly that MTLs must maintain direct and regular contact with students and be responsible for student learning of mathematics, thus practicing “Leadership of Self” while becoming skilled in “Leadership of Others.” We were fortunate to continue receiving funds for a second year through the Wisconsin Office of the Governor to support our release-time MTL positions. The district received a special allocation of $9,650,000 specifically to support the work of the MMP in the Milwaukee Public Schools for the 2009-2010 school year. The district used this special allocation of funds along with some of its own district funds and ESEA funds to support 116 release-time MTL positions (115 of which are targeted MMP schools). Of the targeted MMP schools, 97 elementary and middle schools (e.g., K-5, K-6, 6-8) and 18 high schools had release-time MTLs. The remaining schools in the district do not have released-time positions. The other 31 targeted MMP schools had individuals identified as the Math Teacher Leaders,


13

but they also had full-time teaching responsibilities. These non-release MTLs attend the monthly MTL seminars and serve as a member of their school Learning Team. With the shift to a release-time position, many MTLs are reporting that they finally have the time to more strongly promote the vision and work of the MMP. For example, they note they can now work with other teachers regularly by meeting with grade-level groups or math committees and by modeling lessons in classrooms. In April, we asked teacher leaders and principals to reflect, in writing, on the value of having an MTL that was released. Here are just a few of the many powerful and moving statements we received. • The released MTL position has made a world of

difference in our school. Prior to the MTL position being released, our math program and instruction were in shambles and our test scores reflected that. We have been able to devote time to data, analyzing student work, assessments, instructional practices, math knowledge for teaching, and so on. We have changed so much throughout the course of the past 2.5 years (since the MTL was released) and we are beginning to see the results in the data—our student scores went up 13 percentage points on our WKCE this year alone! Although changes have begun happening, there is still a LONG way to go and a LOT to continue working on and improving. We've only just begun our journey and without the released position, I fear that we would not be able to continue the work that we as a school have started. ---MTL

• As a released MTL, I am able to see the how math is being taught at all grade levels and identify problems as well as successes. I have the time to plan strategies for improving instruction and assessment. I am also able to work with teachers on creating lessons that engage students in the mathematics they are learning. This year, I have been able to facilitate math grade-level planning sessions during the school day. These sessions have been extremely successful because I have been able to provide professional development to all the math teachers in my school. This is something that I could never have done as a full-time classroom teacher. ---MTL

• As a released MTL, I have been able to devote time and effort in bringing together math teachers at different grade levels to discuss and implement our curriculum. Without the extra time made available, there would have been very little communication between the “teachers in the trenches” and the research-based developments promoted by the MMP. I have been able to help teachers, not just getting this information, but also discussing and implementing the initiatives. My work as an MTL has also had a strong influence on my personal growth as a teacher, as I have been able to implement the various teaching strategies learned at the monthly meetings. This has then allowed me to model them for the other math teachers in my school. ---MTL

• I am fortunate to have the benefit of a released MTL. She has the flexibility to visit classrooms, observe instruction, and reflect with the teachers to improve instruction. She can watch the progression of the “Big Math Ideas” over the grade levels. She has planned and facilitated cross-grade level meetings which gave teachers the opportunity to see the math content their colleagues teach at prior and subsequent grade levels. Teachers have commented about the benefit of these discussions. They also are now teaching math concepts and big ideas rather than page numbers. My MTL was a driving force in getting teachers to post learning intentions which helps to focus the lesson for the teachers and the students. We are making progress in our math scores, but still have a long way to go. –Principal


14

• The role of the MTL is key to the successful academic gains at the district level (and in my school). In just 2.5 years at my school with a released MTL, we experienced “double” digits gains in our WKCE scores. The MTL is in the classrooms every day. She conducts grade-level meetings. The math dialogues never cease. Every teacher seems to enjoy teaching math. The MTL has built a math culture in the building. The district must do whatever it takes to have an MTL in everyone of our schools. It is the very least we can do for all of our students. ---Principal

In regards to the 2010-2011 school year, we are again expecting a special allocation of $9,650,000 from the state to continue the release-time MTL positions. The change for this coming year is in the state agency for administering those funds. As part of a state education bill passed in November 2009, the special allocation of funds will now be administered by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. This has provided us with a wonderful opportunity to increase our interaction and communication with DPI in regards to mathematics. In May, the MMP presented our work to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Cabinet. Our presentation team included Henry Kranendonk, Sharonda Harris, Kevin McLeod, and DeAnn Huinker. The MMP then prepared and submitted a proposal to the DPI for the special allocation of funds to continue supporting our work. We have been informed that the request has been approved, and so we will continue with a release-time Math Teacher Leader model for yet another year.

MMP Continuum: Making Progress on the Journey for School Reform The MMP Continuum is the backbone and roadmap of our efforts. It outlines the MMP initiatives and connects those initiatives to formative assessment strategies, along with our school improvement plan. The strongest influence the Continuum has had on our math teachers is that is provides us with coherence in our approach to improving student achievement, beginning with alignment and ending with analyzing student work as a school. This helps to bring the issue of math achievement to a school level concern, not only one of math teachers alone. ---MTL The MMP learning team continuum has helped me to grow as a teacher and has helped me to support good teaching and assessment practices in my fellow teachers. The stages in the continuum provide a focus for teachers and really allow them to see the connections between the overall goal of the MMP and the professional development and other support materials that have been provided to us. Each stage of the continuum helps the teacher to develop better pedagogy and has a positive influence on daily instruction.. --MTL

The MMP “Continuum of Professional Work for Mathematics” (see Table 5) continues to be an important tool for guiding and directing the work of Math Teacher Leaders in the schools. The Math Teaching Specialists held monitoring conferences at each of their cohort schools in September and again in February/March. The conferences included the MTS, the principal, and MTL, and sometimes additional key staff members. The Continuum was used a focal point for discussion in setting direction for the work of the MTL and the development of a school’s Math Action Plan. Each school used the MMP Continuum Self-assessment tool and rubric developed last year to again determine its current status and to plan for next steps. In April, we asked all Math Teacher Leaders to reflect on the work within their schools along this continuum. They were asked to indicate the placement of their schools at the end of the 2008–2009 school year, and current placement, towards the end of 2009–2010 school year. The results for the K-8 schools is shown in Table 6 and for the high schools in Table 7.


15

Table 5. MMP Continuum of Professional Work for Mathematics Stage 1:

Learning Targets

Stage 2: Align State

Framework and Math Program

Stage 3: Common Classroom Assessments (CABS)

Stage 4: Student Work on

CABS

Stage 5: Descriptive Feedback

on CABS

Understand importance of identifying and articulating big ideas in mathematics to bring consistency to a school’s math program.

Develop meaning for math embedded in targets and alignment to state standards and descriptors and to school’s math program.

Provide a measure of consistency of student learning based on standards/descriptors and targets.

Examine student work to monitor achievement and progress toward the targets and descriptors.

Use student work to inform instructional decisions, and to provide students with appropriate descriptive feedback.

A progression can be seen across the seven years of our work as many K-8 schools each year move further along on the continuum. This year showed more schools examining the student work on the CABS (stage 4) and providing students with descriptive feedback (stage 5). Table 6. Learning Teams Continuum of Work, Percent of K–8 Schools at Each Stage of Continuum

n

Stage 1. Learning Targets

Stage 2. Align State

Framework & Math Program

Stage 3. Common Class

Assessments (CABS)

Stage 4. Student Work

on CABS

Stage 5. Descriptive

Feedback on CABS

Year 1, 2003-04 101 38% 53% 9% 0% 1% Year 2, 2004-05 97 18% 34% 38% 5% 4% Year 3, 2005-06 89 13% 26% 41% 18% 2% Year 4, 2006-07 109 11% 26% 39% 18% 6% Year 5, 2007-08 113 20% 32% 32% 14% 2% Year 6, 2008-09 96 13% 25% 44% 15% 4% Year 7, 2009-10 96 3% 7% 26% 45% 19%

The high school MTLs have only been asked to reflect on and report on the work within their schools along this continuum since Year 4. A progression can be seen with more high schools further along on the continuum each year. This year has been particularly encouraging in that more schools are using common classroom assessments and are collaboratively examining the student work on the CABS. Table 7. Learning Teams Continuum of Work, Percent of High Schools at Each Stage of Continuum

n

Stage 1. Learning Targets

Stage 2. Align State

Framework & Math Program

Stage 3. Common Class

Assessments (CABS)

Stage 4. Student Work

on CABS

Stage 5. Descriptive

Feedback on CABS

Year 4, 2006-07 20 50% 25% 25% 0% 0% Year 5, 2007-08 22 26% 32% 21% 16% 5% Year 6, 2008-09 18 0% 50% 28% 11% 11% Year 7, 2009-10 18 6% 11% 56% 22% 6%

Math Teacher Leaders: Understanding Change & Learning to Lead It was valuable to learn about the process of change and how this can be applied to our work in schools. I am more aware of paying attention to ‘where people are’ in their teaching process and helping them to move from where they are. The practice conversation was so helpful. --MTL

As most Math Teacher Leaders (MTL) were in their second full year in a release-time position, we helped lead them in their journey of leading teachers in their individual schools.


16

We continued development and study of the PRIME Leadership Framework (NCSM, 2009) focusing on the principles for assessment and the principles for teaching and learning. We also moved into deepening the understanding of the stages of leadership action, particularly the meaning behind Stage 2 “Leadership of Others.” Taking a deeper look at how the NCSM defines Stage 2, we chose to focus the MTL professional development on strengthening their understanding of working with and leading among peers. Over the past year, the teacher leaders repeatedly asked for help in working with resistant colleagues and for practice with coaching strategies. This then became the focus of the leadership strand at the monthly MTL meetings. Each MTL was given a copy of Leading in a Culture of Change (Fullan, 2004) which was used to focus their year long development and study of leadership. The model of change that framed this work all year is shown in Figure 3. We developed seven leadership sessions (see Table 8). Planning for these sessions was a collaborative effort of the leadership strand team. The team first met to establish a year-long goal and outline a plan for the year. The team then met regularly to review and reflect on session goals and plan each meeting based on the increasing knowledge of the Math Teacher Leaders. The sessions were designed carefully for the teacher leaders to reflect on goals they were working toward in their own schools and whether or not they were successful in implementing changes in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In fact, we hoped to create some “productive disturbance” (Fullan, 2004, p. 161). As Fullan noted, “You can’t get there from here without amplifying and working through the discomfort of disturbances. With change there will be disturbance, and this means that there will be differences of opinion that must be reconciled. Effective leadership is guiding people through the differences; in fact, it is enabling differences to surface” (p.164). Table 8. Overview of Topics for MTL Leadership Development

Month Topic Oct Building Relationships (Emotional Intelligence, Resistance, Trust) Dec Moral Purpose and Understanding Change (Leadership Styles and Change, Change Process) Jan Creating and Sharing Knowledge (Accessing Tacit Knowledge, Creating a Culture of Sharing) Feb Making Coherence (Productive disturbance) Mar Connecting Fullan to work with Coaching Skills (Listening, nonverbals) Apr Learning to Lead Effectively: Part 1 May Learning to Lead Effectively: Part 2

Math Teacher Leaders showed evidence of growth from delving into the work of Michael Fullan, but had difficulty internalizing the components of the change framework. The

Figure 3. Model for Leadership (from Fullan, 2001)


17

conversations sometimes lacked the depth we had hoped for and that seemed necessary for true reflection on their work as leaders. We felt that we had make explicit references and examples of what leadership as an MTL looks and sounds like in order for them to truly understand how to make significant and lasting changes in their schools. The Math Teacher Leaders are at various stages of understanding, articulating, and applying Fullan’s change framework. However, they are eager to develop growth as leaders and to initiate change in their buildings, but it is a process. As Fullan discussed, it is “slow learning.” He noted that “the lessons for developing leaders in a culture of change are more tortoise-like than hare-like because they involve slow learning in context over time” (p. 185). Further, he comments that “the vital and paradoxical need for slow knowing, the importance of learning in context, and the need to have leaders at all levels of the organization in order to achieve widespread internal commitment” are all interrelated and all important. Thus, our work continues, slow and steady, yet acknowledging a need to ignite a sense of urgency or “productive disturbance” in improving student learning in mathematics across all levels of the district and community. As Fullan (2004) stated, “Sustainability includes transforming the system in a way that the conditions and capacity for continuous improvement become built in within and across the levels of reform” (p. 202). As we plan for next year, we intend to focus on (1) Continuation of study of understanding and working with and leading peers, (2) Study of coaching practices to enhance communication around formative assessment and the teaching and learning of mathematics, and (3) Focus on the Equity Principle in the PRIME Leadership Framework as a lens to enhance communication around mathematics initiatives.

Goal 3. Teacher Learning Continuum Build and sustain the capacity of teachers, from initial preparation through induction and professional growth, to deeply understand mathematics and use that knowledge to improve student achievement.

Our third goal focuses on teacher learning. We begin with a discussion of our content theme for the year through our work with the Math Teacher Leaders. Next we summarize the topics of emphasis for the embedded professional learning of teachers at the school sites. We close with a summary of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee courses that were offered for district teachers and administrators this past year.

Rational Numbers & Proportional Reasoning: Which is the Root Beer Table? The content sessions really help me understand the Math behind the Math! It helped me sure up my own abilities and clear up some misconceptions. ---MTL My math content always grows in these sessions. I was taught very procedurally so I get a lot out of the way content is studied in our sessions. I also learn a lot about student thinking and how to get at the deeper understanding. --MTL As always, the MMP causes me to consider math instruction in a way that is based on a meaning and concept building philosophy. As I share and model these strategies in classrooms, I receive very positive feedback related to student interest, enthusiasm, and increased achievement. --MTL

This was the first year that we had K-12 Math Teacher Leader (MTL) meetings. In the past, the K-8 and the high school MTLs met separately. This posed some organizational issues


18

with the increased number of MTLs and the increased grade range, but overall it was a success to have elementary, middle, and high school MTLs working together each month. As an MTL noted, it really felt like a K-12 district math effort this year. We also observed elementary teachers learning from and challenging high school teachers, and vice versa. Four broad goals were set for the year: • Develop conceptual understanding of rational numbers and proportional reasoning. • Develop an understanding of student misconceptions of rational numbers and identify

teacher moves needed to remediate and address the errors. • Support MTLs in linking content ideas to the curricular resources in their buildings. • Recognize levels of cognitive demand and transfer to classroom practice. Each session started with a conceptual-based experience that set a foundation for the continued study of rational numbers. Student work was integrated into almost every session to connect the content back to their work at teacher leaders and to support the underlying theme of developing Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT). The inclusion of student work was much appreciated by the MTLs as it provided them with a safe entre for discussion with teachers at their school while allowing MTLs to subtly develop teacher content knowledge. We also linked the sessions to the district curricular resources to help MTLs see how the ideas progressed across the grade levels they were supporting. We split the content sessions into a K-6 group and a Grades 7-12 group. Both groups had the same session goals and used most of the same tasks. The split allowed for further extension of ideas with the high school group and further depth and discussion with the elementary group. We utilized two main resources in our planning of these sessions, Teaching Fractions and Ratios for Understanding (Lamon, 2005), and Developing Essential Understandings of Ratios, Proportions, and Proportional Reasoning for Teaching Mathematics in Grades 6-8 (Lobato, Ellis, & Zbiek, 2010). The topics, key tasks, and rational number focus for each month are listed in Table 9. To provide a sense of our content sessions, we highlight in the following discussion our foray into expanding rational number interpretations and then moving from additive to multiplicative thinking in the study of proportional reasoning. Table 9. Rational Numbers and Proportional Reasoning Content Sessions in 2009-2010

Month Topic Rational Number Interpretation Key Tasks and Mathematical Ideas

Aug Draft of Revised Wisconsin Standards for Mathematics

Connecting proposed draft of the Wisconsin Standards to current assessment descriptors.

Oct Rational Numbers: How Much Is A Fair Share

Part-whole Quotient

Fractions as quotients. Mariah’s Kittens, item from the district benchmark assessment.

Dec Multiplying Fractions: Challenge of Computation vs. Conceptualization

Part-whole Operator

Extending the definition of multiplication of whole numbers to multiplication of fractions.

Jan Making Sense of Addition and Subtraction of Fractions

Measure Exploring addition and subtraction of fractions conceptually with fractions strips.

Feb Tracing The Development of Rational Number Experiences

Connecting study of rational numbers to current mathematics programs.

Mar Moving from Additive to Multiplicative Thinking: The Road to Proportional Reasoning

Ratio and Proportion

Which family has more? Using real-world situations to recognize the difference between additive and relative thinking.

Apr Investigating Ratios As Instructional Tasks


Analyzing nuances of explicit and implicit information on proportional reasoning.

May Looking At Student Work: Learning About Student Thinking


Leaky faucet tasks surfaced student approaches and misconceptions.


19

Rational Numbers In accordance to the MPS benchmark testing schedule, all third graders in September engaged in a constructed response task that challenged them to use their understanding of rational numbers. This constructed response item, known as Mariah’s Kittens, sparked a heated response from teachers throughout the district. The task was as follows: Mariah’s cat has 24 kittens. Mariah kept 1/4 of the kittens. How many kittens does Mariah have? Many teachers felt it was not an appropriate task for third grade students. Even though most students were not successful in solving the problem, it did fall within the limits of third grade experiences. After talking with teachers, we came to the conclusion that the poor performance was more concerned with instructional choices than with students’ abilities. First, teachers give students little exposure to models of fractions other than an area model in which a circle or a rectangle represents one whole unit. Second, study of fractions is often comprised of work with symbols and diagrams, while often void of any contextual situations. Our goal to develop a deeper understanding of rational number could not have come at a better time. The content team used this task to launch an exploration into fraction concepts, models for fractions, rational number interpretations, and operations with fractions. We asked the teacher leaders to review student work samples on Mariah’s Kittens task and surfaced possible roadblocks. Two of these samples are shown in Figure 4. Some students applied their whole number knowledge to the fraction ¼, viewing the numerator and denominator as separate values. Some students must have had limited exposure to a set model of fractions as they drew regions separated into fourths. Other students applied, meaninglessly, rote procedures to the numbers in the story with no connection to the context of the story.

Figure 4. Two Student Work Samples on Mariah’s Kittens Task

This then began a study of fractions as quotients, part-whole comparisons, measures, and operators. For example, we examined fractions as fair shares or quotients by sharing 3 apples among 4 people, and then using a set of task cards to explore situations such as sharing 5 objects among 4 people, sharing 6 objects among 4 people, and sharing 2 objects among 5 people. In other session we compared and modeled the following two multiplication situations to focus on the use of fractions as operators rather than as a specific quantity.

Julie is making the family dinner. She buys 4 packages of meat for the spaghetti. Each package weighs 5/8 lb. How many pounds of meat does she buy? I wanted to run 4 miles. I ran 5/8 of the distance before I stopped for water. How many miles did I run before I had to stop for water?

Looking back over the study of rational number, many significant insights were made by the


20

MTLs. The MTLs expanded their understanding of rational number interpretations with connections to real-world situations, and they gained confidence in using varied representations of fractions, including area, set, and linear models to represent fraction concepts and computations. However, perhaps the most important insights arose in some of the K-12 conversations in which is was noted that far too many high school students held some of the same misconceptions as the elementary and middle school students. This lead to conversations of the reasoning and understanding we hope students will develop as they first learn about fractions and which can then be further extended as they progress through school.

Proportional Reasoning: From Absolute to Relational Thinking Starting in March, the MTLs embarked on a study of proportional reasoning. Although, the idea of proportional reasoning is embedded in the K-6 curriculum, making the ideas explicit became important for the MTLs. We also noted that proportional reasoning could be considered a capstone of the elementary and middle school mathematics experience and as expected knowledge for students in high school. The first step in our plan to explore proportional reasoning was to help the MTLs discover the thinking they each employed when approaching a proportional reasoning situation. The root beer problem (shown in Figure 5) provided a context that pushed MTLs into reasoning with two types of thinking that could be used to answer the question, “Which table is the root beer table?” Some MTLs used absolute (additive) thinking by comparing the actual number of root beer bottles from Table B to Table A (i.e., 5 bottles is more than 4 bottles). Other MTLs used relational (multiplicative) thinking by comparing the amount of root beers to the total amount of beverages for each table (i.e, Table A is 4/5 and Table B is 5/10 root beer).

Which Table is the Root Beer Table? During dinner at a local restaurant, the five people sitting at Table A and the ten people sitting at Table B ordered the drinks shown below. Later, the waitress was heard referring to one of the groups as the “root beer drinkers.” To which table was she referring?

Table A

Table B Figure 5. Task to Prompt Absolute and Relational Thinking

What became interesting to the MTLs is that both types of thinking are correct when considering the reasoning used to justify an answer. This insight alone sparked many conversations about what is the “right” answer. Slowing down the thinking of the MTLs to really differentiate the two types or reasoning helped to make a connection to rational numbers and the meaning of ratios. Further exploration of real-life situations, helped MTLs become more flexible in indentifying the two types of thinking and the reasoning behind each. We posed the question, Which Family Has More Girls? after showing a picture of the Jones family which had 2 girls and 3 boys and the King family that had 2 girls and 2 boys. This tasks again raised disagreement. Many said they both have the same number of girls (absolute thinking), but then some individuals began to voice that in comparison to the total number of children the King family


21

would have more girls. Some MTLs wanted this question to be reworded so that it would lead to one specific solution. This proved interesting as we pushed them to move beyond the mind set of “getting an answer” to seeing a math task as having more than one answer and exploring the various questions that could be answered by the task. An MTL who used these same tasks with students commented:

The family problem and the root beer problem were a big hit with staff members and I presented them to our 4th and 5th grade classes. The students loved that it gave them a chance to stretch their thinking. They also felt very mathematical making comments like, “Well, it depends on how you look at the families and what you mean by MORE?” Several students still ask for more problems like the family problem. For a couple students, they claimed it was “the most fun I've had in math class this year.”

Then we extended this task to push the teacher leaders to consider the multiplicative nature of ratios and experience the kind of multiplicative reasoning students need to be using as they enter middle and high school. We asked them to keep the ratios of boys to girls the same, and first explore what would happen if the Jones Family grew to 50 and the King family grew to 40 children, and then explore growing both families to 100 children. Conversations at tables included, “Isn’t there a formula for this?” or “You see, all you have to do is set up a proportion.” What surfaced during this investigation was a growing sensitivity to considering both absolute and relative thinking, and emergence of considering the meaning of and how we work with ratios. For many grade 7-12 MTLs, deliberately slowing down the thinking process pushed them to consider different approaches to thinking as well as the mathematical understanding needed to explore this big idea.

Successes and Challenges Looking back over the content covered throughout the year, the content team realized we had moved the MTLs into a new realm of learning. We had taken them outside of their comfort level with grade level experiences and deepened their understanding of mathematics further than we had anticipated. The sessions not only benefitted K-6 teacher leaders, but the grades 7-12 leaders as well, in examining, deepening, and gaining sensitivity to foundational knowledge in the areas of rational numbers and proportional reasoning. A challenge this year proved to be the planning and facilitation component of the sessions. Accommodating the sheer number of teacher leaders during each meeting required us to divide the team into two K-6 and one Grades 7-12 sessions. Because the content sessions often ran simultaneously, we needed more facilitators to assist in delivering the content. A solution to this problem was to seek out two district MTLs who would be willing to plan and deliver sessions. The challenges of scheduling meetings with the MTLs during their work day, reviewing changes made to the session, and finalizing any last minute adjustments proved to be quite stressful for everyone. Both MTLs agreed that standing in front of their peers delivering a mathematics session was very stressful. It did give them a good perspective on the amount of studying and preparation required to put together a 90-120 minute session. The spring semester brought a format change to our meeting schedule. This change allowed us to relieve the MTLs from their work with our content team.


22

Another challenge laid in working with the high school MTLs and broadening their own understanding and knowledge of student learning across grades K-12. Some saw the content session as a session focused “my learning” versus a session that they could use in their work to support mathematics instruction for teachers and students in their schools. This had been an expectation for our elementary teacher leaders for years and they had developed an openness and eagerness to examining mathematical learning trajectories. We realized that the high school teacher leaders were really in just a beginning stage of becoming leaders. We often reminded and asked the high school, as well as the elementary, teacher leaders to not jump to formulas and procedures, but rather to consider the conceptual underpinnings of the mathematics and multiple ways to reasoning about and represent those mathematical ideas. As we embark on planning the content sessions for next year, we will keep these challenges in mind and seek ways to handle them more strategically.

School-based Professional Learning Emphases in Year 7 Much of the professional learning of teachers is embedded into their ongoing at their own school sites. This might include staff, committee, or grade level meetings and professional development sessions held during the day or afterschool. This school-based professional learning is often facilitated by the MTLs. Each MTL was asked to indicate which topics were given emphasis in the math related work in their schools this year (2009-2010). The results are shown in Table 10 for K-8 schools and in Table 11 for high schools.

Table 10. School-based Professional Development in K-8 Schools, 2009-2010 (Percent of schools)

Topic n Mean* Rating

(1) Not Yet

(2) Beginning

Conversations

(3) Some

Emphasis

(4) Major

Emphasis

Emphasis previous

years WALT: State and post math lesson goals or learning intentions in student-friendly language.

107 2.93 4% 28% 37% 29% 2%

Common CABS: Identify and give common math CABS at a grade level or for a specific course.

107 3.53 3 2 23 48 24

Teachers collaboratively examine student work from common math assessments and discuss next instructional steps (CABS, CR).

107 3.03 4 18 45 28 6

Teachers give students written descriptive feedback on math assessments (CABS, CR). 107 3.00 6 15 41 26 12

Analysis of Benchmark Assessment data and determine plans for next instructional steps. 107 3.60 1 6 22 63 8

Use of the WALT lesson planning template. 107 2.17 30 36 22 12 0 Use and maintain high cognitive demand of tasks during instruction. 107 2.30 27 27 31 13 2

Students monitor own learning through a portfolio system. 107 1.92 43 23 19 8 7 Teachers study math content to deepen their understanding. 107 2.59 13 25 46 12 4

Implementation of district-adopted mathematics textbook programs. 106 3.08 10 1 2 25 62

Use of the district mathematics curriculum pacing guides 107 2.92 10 7 18 23 43

*Mean rating based on emphasis in current year, value 1-4.


23

Of greatest emphasis across schools was analysis of district Benchmark Assessment data in mathematics (X=3.60) and use of common math CABS among teachers at a grade level (X=3.53). The next topics of greatest emphasis were implementation of district-adopted mathematics textbook program (X=3.08), teachers collaboratively examining student math performance on district benchmark assessments (X=3.03), and teachers giving students written descriptive feedback on math assessments (X=3.00). These topics speak to the increased efforts of the MTLs to engage teachers in moving toward greater consistency in student expectations for math learning by having them examine data, decide on common assessments for students, plan instructional lessons, and then set the stage for looking at the student responses together. Other topics also receiving strong emphasis were WALT, that is, the posting of student math learning goals, and use of the district curriculum guides.

Table 11. School-based Professional Development in High Schools, 2009-2010 (Percent of schools)

Topic n Mean* Rating

(1) Not Yet

(2) Beginning

Conversations

(3) Some

Emphasis

(4) Major

Emphasis

Emphasis previous

years WALT: State and post math lesson goals or learning intentions in student-friendly language.

19 2.61 11% 32% 37% 16% 5%

Common CABS: Identify and give common math CABS at a grade level or for a specific course.

18 3.24 6 6 44 39 6

Teachers collaboratively examine student work from common math assessments and discuss next instructional steps (CABS or CRs).

19 2.58 5 42 42 11 0

Teachers give students written descriptive feedback on math assessments (CABS or CRs).

19 2.79 0 32 58 11 0

Analysis of Benchmark Assessment data and determine plans for next instructional steps. 19 3.24 5 11 32 42 11

Use of the WALT lesson planning template. 19 1.84 42 32 26 0 0 Use and maintain high cognitive demand of tasks during instruction. 19 2.78 27 27 31 13 2 Students monitor own learning through a portfolio system. 19 1.65 58 11 16 5 11 Teachers study math content to deepen their understanding. 19 2.74 11 21 53 16 0 Implementation of district-adopted mathematics textbook programs. 19 3.56 0 11 16 58 16 Use of the district mathematics curriculum pacing guides 19 3.00 16 11 32 42 0

*Mean rating based on emphasis in current year, value 1-4.

Of greatest emphasis across high schools was implementation of district-adopted mathematics textbook program (X=3.56). This reflects the MMP emphasis, particularly in math labs and action plans of implementing the new textbooks— the second year for Discovering Algebra and Discovering Geometry and the first year of using Discovering Advanced Algebra. Also given strong emphasis, similar to grades K-8, was use of common CABS (X=3.24) and analyzing and using benchmark data (X=3.24), which reflects focus on the MMP Continuum. At both the K-8 and high school levels, the two topics of least emphasis, the WALT lesson planning template and portfolios, reflect the newness of these topics for teachers to consider.


24

This is understandable as the MTLs must first develop more ownership of these topics themselves before they are able to support colleagues in their schools in these areas. Even with the newness of these topics, we were encouraged at the amount of emphasis each was given across the district. This sets the stage for building on the awareness established this year and moving toward stronger implementation of these topics in the future.

UWM-MMP Courses for Teachers and Administrators The MMP continued to offer professional development courses for MPS teachers and administrators. The funding for the courses this year included two sources: funds from NSF through the MMP and funds from the Milwaukee Public Schools through an award to the UWM to support continuation of MMP initiatives, including offering courses for teachers and administrators. During Year 7, the MMP offered 13 courses with 273 participations from 107 different schools (see Table 12). This was approximately $131,000 in tuition waivers. Table 12. UWM-MMP Professional Development Courses, 2009–2010 and Summer 2010

Course or MMP district event Number of Participants

Number of Schools

Communication and Reasoning in Mathematics Part I (560-105) Spring 2010 27 20 Communication and Reasoning in Mathematics Part II (560-104) Spring 2010 16 14 Number & Computation: Addition & Subtraction (560-101) Spring 2010 22 17 Standards-based Mathematics: Early Number Relationships (560-102) Spring 2010 25 19 Standards-based Mathematics: Instructional Strategies (560-103) Spring 2010 13 9 Lenses on Learning: Instructional Leadership in Mathematics (579-101) Fall/Spring 23 14 Teacher Leadership in Mathematics (579-103) Fall/Spring 50 38 Teacher Narratives as Reflective Practice in Mathematics (579-102) Fall/Spring 7 6 Algebraic Relationships and Reasoning (560-173) Summer 2010 21 16 Making Sense of Statistical Studies (560-187) Summer 2010 16 13 Number and Computation: Multiplication and Division (560-176) Summer 2010 20 16 School Leadership in Mathematics (560-164) Summer 2010 8 8 Teaching Fraction Concepts and Computation (560-162) Summer 2010 25 22 Total Participations 273 212 Number of Distinct Schools across Courses 107

In addition, UWM in partnership with MPS obtained Wisconsin ESEA Title IIA funding and Wisconsin MSP Title IIB funding to support professional development programs in mathematics. The Title IIA funds support a three-year Math Fellows program under the direction of Dr. Kevin McLeod that began in summer 2008, in which K-8 teachers can add a mathematics minor onto their teaching license. This program offers the courses developed through the MMP for our preservice program to practicing teachers. This year, 25 participants completed a Geometry course in fall 2009, 31 participants completed Discrete Probability and Statistics in spring 2010, and 25 participants completed Intermediate Algebra in summer 2010. The Wisconsin MSP funds support a three-year project in which special education and general education teachers collaborate to increase their mathematics content knowledge and instructional practices in mathematics. The goal is to better meet the needs of students who struggle in mathematics, and to create a learning community in mathematics comprised of both special education and general education teachers. This year, 35 participants completed a course in supporting the needs of all learners in mathematics and 31 participants completed a foundation mathematics content courses for teachers.


25

Goal 4. Student Learning Continuum Ensure that all students from PK-16 have access to, are prepared and supported for, and succeed in, challenging mathematics.

All of our efforts work toward improving student learning and achievement in mathematics, our fourth goal. We begin with our continued good news in regards to the state testing results from November 2009 for district students in Grades 3-8 and 10, examining overall achievement and narrowing of achievement gaps. Then we summarize the postsecondary mathematics readiness exam results for MPS students in grades 10-12. We close with a look at the university math placement results of incoming freshmen students.

MPS Student Mathematics Achievement Continues to Rise

Overall District Results Students in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) have demonstrated a steady increase in math achievement on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), as well as a narrowing of the math achievement gap when compared to the state, as shown in Figure 6. Last year (November 2008) we saw a large gain from the previous year. We were pleased that not only was that gain maintained but overall MPS increased its performance on the state mathematics test by another 1.4 percentage points and further narrowed the gap with the state by 0.8 percentage points. Since 2005, MPS has shown a 10.3 percentage point gain in mathematics as compared to a 4.5 percentage point gain at the state level. MPS has also narrowed the district-state gap by 5.8 percentage points. However, we readily acknowledge that achievement is still too low and the gap at 28.5 percentage points is still too large.

Figure 6. WKCE Mathematics Percent of Students Proficient/Advanced

38.5% 42.4% 42.1%

47.4% 48.8%

72.8% 75.1% 74.7% 76.7% 77.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Nov. 2005 Nov. 2006 Nov. 2007 Nov. 2008 Nov. 2009

MPS Wisconsin

Gap 28.5 Gap 34.3 Gap 32.7 Gap 32.6 Gap 29.3


26

Grade Level Trends on the WKCE Grade level trends from November 2005 to November 2009 on the WKCE for MPS students are shown in Figure 7. These trends show overall increases at Grades 3-8. Table 13 displays the percentage point change for MPS and for Wisconsin. The greatest gain for MPS was at Grade 7 with an increase of 16.1 percentage points, which is twice the gain made at this grade level for the state. Grades 4 and 5 in MPS both had increases of 13.2 percentage points, compared to increases of 7.5 and 6.2, respectively, for the state.

Figure 7. MPS Grade Level Trends: WKCE Mathematics Percent Proficient/Advanced

Table 13. WKCE Mathematics Percentage Point Change, November 2005 to November 2009 Grade Milwaukee Public Schools Wisconsin

Grade 3 7.6 3.3 Grade 4 13.2 7.5 Grade 5 13.2 6.2 Grade 6 12.2 6.0 Grade 7 16.1 8.0 Grade 8 12.7 5.0 Grade 10 –2.4 –0.2 Combined Grades 10.3 4.5

The scores at Grade 10 reflect the challenges faced in MPS and throughout the country in raising student achievement at the high school level. The cultural shifts that are beginning to take hold at the elementary and middle school levels are making a difference in the mathematical lives of students and teachers and are reflected in the improved student WKCE achievement in mathematics. These shifts to effective mathematics instructional and assessment practices have been more difficult to make at the high school level, but a foundation has emerged in the past two years for movement.

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

2005-‐06 2006-‐07 2007-‐08 2008-‐09 2009-‐10

Gr 3

Gr 4

Gr 5

Gr 6

Gr 7

Gr 8

Gr 10


27

With the increased efforts to develop the MTL model at the high school level, the participation of released and non-released MTLs in monthly leadership seminars, the high school math labs, and the common textbook programs (Discovering Algebra, Geometry, and Advanced Algebra), we feel a strong foundation has been established for moving forward at the high school level. However, the challenges at the high school level are complex and have often involved more focus on structural and organizational changes and competing initiatives rather than substantial focus on teaching and learning. We are optimistic that the new administration will support a consistent, cohesive, and coordinated effort focused on the Common Core State Standards and our Comprehensive Mathematics Framework in order to improve student learning of mathematics at the high school level.

MPS Subgroup Trends In addition to a decrease in the achievement gap between the state and the district, the gaps have also narrowed for some subgroups within the district. Table 14 shows how achievement has increased for all racial and ethnic groups in MPS from 2005 to 2009. Over this time period, African American students have made a 11.7 percentage point increase and Hispanic students have made a 9.6 percentage point increase in proficiency, compared to a 8.2 percentage point increase by White students. Thus narrowing gaps within the district for students enrolled for a Full Academic Year (FAY). Table 14. MPS Proficiency Trends on the WKCE Mathematics by Race and Ethnicity (FAY)

Subgroup Enrolled in Tested Grades

Advanced + Proficient Total

Percentage Point Change from Previous Year

Percentage Point Increase from 2005

to 2009 Asian/Pacific Is. Nov 2005 1,798 58.7%

+8.4 Nov 2006 1,752 61.8% +3.1 Nov 2007 1,739 62.8% +1.0 Nov 2008 1,675 67.3% +4.5 Nov 2009 1,722 67.1% -0.2

African Am. Nov 2005 24,070 29.7%

+11.7 Nov 2006 22,995 33.3% +3.6 Nov 2007 21,588 33.5% +0.2 Nov 2008 19,779 39.0% +5.5 Nov 2009 19,008 41.4% +2.4

Hispanic Nov 2005 8,230 45.7%

+9.6 Nov 2006 8,281 49.5% +3.8 Nov 2007 8,260 48.5% -1.0 Nov 2008 8,284 55.1% +6.6 Nov 2009 8,030 55.3% +0.2

White Nov 2005 6,361 63.6%

+8.2 Nov 2006 6,033 67.7% +4.1 Nov 2007 5,735 67.8% +0.1 Nov 2008 5,507 70.8% +3.0 Nov 2009 5,426 71.8% +1.0

Table 14 displays the percent of students proficient by economic status, disability status, and English proficiency. All subgroups demonstrated increases in mathematical proficiency since November 2005, but the only gap to narrow was for students based on English proficiency. Although the special education students have improved in the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced, their improvement is still lagging substantially behind the achievement of students without learning disabilities.


28

Table 14. MPS Proficiency Trends on the WKCE Mathematics by Subgroups (FAY)

Subgroup Enrolled in Tested Grades

Advanced + Proficient Total

Percentage Point Change from Previous Year

Percentage Point Increase from 2005

to 2008 Economically Disadvantaged

Nov 2005 30,727 35.3%

+11.5 Nov 2006 31,559 39.1% +3.8 Nov 2007 29,676 38.9% -0.2 Nov 2008 27,905 44.7% +5.8 Nov 2009 27,783 46.8% +2.1

Not Economically Disadvantaged

Nov 2005 10,054 52.8%

+14.7 Nov 2006 7,811 60.9% +8.1 Nov 2007 7,956 60.7% -0.2 Nov 2008 7,634 65.2% +4.5 Nov 2009 6,691 67.5% +2.3

Limited English Proficient

Nov 2005 3,124 35.7%

+11.7 Nov 2006 3,480 41.3% +5.6 Nov 2007 3,796 40.9% -0.4 Nov 2008 3,901 48.0% +9.1 Nov 2009 4,038 47.4% -0.6

English Proficient

Nov 2005 7,657 40.0%

+11.2 Nov 2006 35,890 43.6% +3.6 Nov 2007 33,836 43.8% +0.2 Nov 2008 31,638 49.3% +5.5 Nov 2009 30,436 51.2% +1.9

Students with Disabilities

Nov 2005 7,381 19.5%

+7.2 Nov 2006 7,265 21.4% +1.9 Nov 2007 7,251 22.0% +0.6 Nov 2008 6,740 24.9% +2.9 Nov 2009 7,028 26.7% +1.8

Students without Disabilities

Nov 2005 33,400 44.1%

+12.9 Nov 2006 32,105 48.4% +4.3 Nov 2007 30,381 48.7% +0.3 Nov 2008 28,799 54.8% +6.1 Nov 2009 27,446 57.0% +2.2

MPS Postsecondary Readiness Test Results The district administered the postsecondary mathematics readiness test to all students in Grades 10, 11, and 12. This test was developed by the MMP and is based on the UW System placement test and the Accuplacer used at MATC. Its purpose was to provide some assessment of high school students’ mathematical knowledge in anticipation of pursuing postsecondary education. The original intent of the test was to serve more as a tool for counseling students regarding their learning and course decisions while still in high school, rather than as summative and broad-based assessment. The first district-wide administration of the readiness test occurred in January 2008, the second was in January 2009, and now the third in January 2010. Table 15 shows the results for the past two years. In essence, the overall results were unchanged across these two administrations of the test. This test will no longer be given to district students. It has served is purpose of beginning conversations about students preparedness for postsecondary mathematics. The district piloted administering the ACT to students in Grade 11 students and has now moved to requiring all Grade 11 students and previously non-tested Grade 12 students to take the ACT, which will serve a similar purpose to the readiness test. In addition, the district has also


29

identified a universal benchmark screener that will be first used in 2010-2011, Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). All Tier 1 and Tier 2 high schools are required to administer the MAP three times each year to high school students, and most of the of the remaining high schools have opted to test some or all of their high school students. Table 15. MPS Student Performance on the Postsecondary Math Readiness Test, January 2010

Items Students Pass Review Intervention 2010 Results n n n Percent n Percent n Percent

Basic Skills 25 11607 1837 15.8 2678 23.1 7092 61.1 Algebra 35 11607 304 2.6 869 7.5 10434 89.9 Geometry 10 11607 911 7.8 2251 19.4 8445 72.8 Combined 70 11607 477 4.1 1579 13.6 9551 82.3 2009 Results # # # % # % # %

Basic Skills 25 10402 1848 17.8 2422 23.3 6132 59 Algebra 35 10402 368 3.5 847 8.1 9187 88.3 Geometry 10 10402 810 7.8 1933 18.6 7659 73.6 Combined 70 10402 498 4.8 1486 14.3 8418 80.9

Transitioning to Postsecondary Mathematics: Placement Test Results The MMP has studied the transition of MPS high school graduates to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) and the Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC). Our goal remains to increase the number of freshman placed into mathematics credit courses at the postsecondary level, thus reducing the number of students in remedial math courses. Table 16 shows a comparison of MPS to non-MPS graduates on math placement levels of new freshmen for five years. Table 16. Mathematics Placement of MPS Graduates at UWM and MATC in Remedial Math Courses

Placement Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 MPS Non-MPS MPS Non-MPS MPS Non-MPS MPS Non-MPS MPS Non-MPS UWM Total 309 3465 269 3729 330 4180 299 3751 375 3667 Basic Mathematics 52% 11% 47% 11% 42% 11% 40% 10% 44% 13% Essentials Algebra 20% 14% 22% 19% 31% 25% 27% 29% 27% 26% UWM Remedial 72% 25% 69% 30% 73% 36% 68% 39% 71% 39% MATC Total 798 528 709 594 690 658 721 637 699 860 Basic Mathematics 72% 26% 74% 29% 75% 25% 73% 27% 66% 24% Essentials Algebra 20% 21% 20% 24% 19% 41% 20% 37% 23% 28% MATC Remedial 92% 47% 94% 53% 94% 66% 93% 64% 89% 52%

In fall 2009, 71% of MPS graduates entering UWM placed into remedial mathematics courses as compared to 39% of non-MPS graduates. At MATC, 89% of potential freshman from MPS schools placed into remedial mathematics courses as compared to 52% of non-MPS graduates. Although substantially higher proportions of MPS graduates require remedial math courses compared with non-MPS graduates, a substantial proportion of the latter also require remediation. The five-year trend does show a closing of the achievement gap between 2005 and 2009 (from 47 to 32 percentage points at UWM, and from 45 to 37 percentage points at MATC), but this decline appears to be due more to an increased need for remediation of non-MPS students than to improved placement of MPS graduates. There is a clear need for further work and study in this area.


30

Closing Comments A significant amount of evidence demonstrates that the consistent application of the ideas, principles, and practices of the Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership over the past seven years has led to improved math teaching and learning in the Milwaukee Public Schools. Over the years, the MMP has strengthen and refined its efforts to continue working towards its goals—increased the math achievement of MPS students, strengthened leadership for effective math teaching and assessment, and improved teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Each of the components of the MMP (MPS-UWM-MATC partnership, Mathematics Curriculum Specialist, Mathematics Teaching Specialists, and Mathematics Teacher Leaders) has played a vital role. To borrow a simile from the National Research Council (2001) report Adding It Up, each component of the MMP is like a strand in a rope. If the strands are each whole and tightly entwined, the rope is strong, but if even one strand frays or comes loose, the rope falls apart. In the final analysis, however, everything comes down to what actually happens in schools and classrooms, and so we leave the final words in this year’s report to some of Milwaukee’s best classroom teachers—our Mathematics Teacher Leaders.

As a released MTL (I love my job), I believe my school has been helped tremendously. Our WKCE scores have gone up and will continue to go up, because I am available to work with teachers and share all the wonderful things I have learned in the UWM courses, as well as our monthly MTL meetings. When we were not released, it was very hard to help teachers and students. I now can guide teachers and help them to have a deeper understanding of the big math ideas through modeling and team teaching, as well as providing math professional development in staff meetings, grade level meetings, and on a one-to-one basis, which helps promotes student achievement. Being released also helps me to continue to grow as a leader in my school, by being able to take UWM courses that will help me help the staff and students to achieve our math vision and goals. It is very important to keep the program running, if we are to reach our goals as a district in mathematics. ---MTL

This school has made steady increases in student math achievement. This K-5 school has made a 25.6 percentage point gain on the WKCE since November 2005 in mathematics; the school currently has 49.5% of its students as scoring as proficient or advanced on the WKCE.

Through the work of the MMP teachers have been supported in using formative assessment. In the last 5 years of this initiative student achievement at our school has increased and I attribute that to the work of the MMP. Our teachers are now receiving regular professional development in mathematics instruction, using common assessments, providing students with descriptive feedback regularly, sharing the learning intentions with students for every math lesson, and using best practices when teaching mathematics. Even though we still have lots of work to do, specifically with differentiating instruction and assisting our students that having learning disabilities, I believe that the work of the MMP has made a significant impact on our district and specifically the math achievement at our school. ---MTL

This school has experienced a cultural shift in the teaching and learning of mathematics as a result of the MMP. This K-8 school has made a 15.5 percentage point gain on the WKCE since November 2005 in mathematics; the school currently has 61.7% of its students scoring as proficient or advanced on the WKCE.


31

References Clarke, S. (2001). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing pupils’

learning in the primary classroom. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Huinker, D., & Freckmann, J. (2009). Linking principles of formative assessment to classroom practice. Wisconsin Teacher of Mathematics, 60(2), 6-11.

Lamon, S. (2005). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.

Lobato, J., Ellis, A., & Zbiek, R. M. (2010). Developing essential understandings of ratios, proportions, and proportional reasoning for teaching mathematics in grades 6-8. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (2008) Principles and indicators for mathematics education leaders. Denver, CO: Author.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards- based Mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010). Wisconsin adopts common core standards. [News release]. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpinr2010_75.pdf.

Milwaukee Mathematics PartnershipMilwaukee Mathematics Partnership Year 7 Annual Report 2009–2010...

Documents

Transcript of Milwaukee Mathematics PartnershipMilwaukee Mathematics Partnership Year 7 Annual Report 2009–2010...