CCSSM Implementation Plan: Improving Math Teaching at Scale Karen Prigodich, District Math Specialist Centennial School District, Portland North West Math Conference October 11, 2014

Improving Math Teaching at Scale Welcome! While you are waiting, use the survey at your seat to reflect: – Where are you and/or your district with regard to the Math Teaching Practices defined in NCTM’s Principles to Actions? – To what degree has your district considered the elements of the CCSSM Leadership Framework from NCSM’s It’s TIME?

Progress and Challenges Over 25 years of Standards-Based Math Reform: steady rise in the number of students scoring “proficient” or above in math on the NAEP true for all students, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or SES average mathematics scores on TIMMS for U.S. 4 th and 8 th grade students rose 23 and 17 points, respectively Mathematics achievement of U.S. students is at historically high levels

Progress and Challenges Significant challenges remain: Persistent achievement gaps between white & black, white & Hispanic students Pervasive opportunity gaps in the mathematics that students have the opportunity to learn Only 44% HS grads demonstrate college readiness in math PISA—US scores in decline, show some success with low- level skills items but struggle with mathematical modeling and reasoning We must move from “pockets of excellence” to “systemic excellence.” --Principles to Actions NCTM, 2014, p. 3

NCTM’s Vision of Ambitious Teaching Teachers support students to solve cognitively demanding tasks Press students to provide evidence for their reasoning and make connections between their own and their peers’ solutions Orchestrate whole-class discussions in which they build on students’ contributions to achieve their mathematical agendas for students’ learning Learning opportunities are distributed equitably

Five Key Components for Improving the Quality of Math Teaching at Scale ① Coherent instructional system ② Teacher networks ③ Mathematics coaching ④ School instructional leadership ⑤ District instructional leadership Instructional improvement at scale requires the coordination of all five components. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 13(2), 6–33.

1. Coherent instructional system Explicit goals for students’ mathematical learning Detailed vision for quality mathematics instruction that specifies high-leverage instructional practices Instructional materials/tools designed to support teachers’ development of practices District teacher professional development (formal and job-embedded) – Focuses on specified practices – Organized around instructional materials – Sustained over time School-based PLCs for teachers to discuss/rehearse/adapt practices introduced in PD Assessments aligned with goals for student learning Additional supports for struggling students

2. Teacher Networks Supported by coherent instructional system Trust Mutual accountability for student learning Access to expertise of others High-depth interactions: discussing different solution strategies to math tasks, analyzing student work Presence of accomplished teacher leader/coach essential

3. Mathematics Coaching Leadership in PLC meetings Co-teaching, joint planning, observing, joint analysis of lesson Foreground specific instructional practices focused on in professional development Model specific routines of interaction: e.g. Press teachers to identify math relationships students need to understand in a task. Coaches also need scaffolding, practicing these activities with district mathematics specialists

4. School Instructional Leadership Principals must be able to distinguish between strong and weak inquiry-oriented math lessons Distinguish between cognitively low- and high- demand math tasks Recognize key aspects of ambitious mathematics teaching Distributed model of school instructional leadership: Collaborative relationship w/Coaches – Coaches: supporting teachers’ learning – Principals: pressing/holding teachers accountable for developing intended instructional practices

5. District Instructional Leadership Shared goals and vision, but also agreement on what to hold school leaders, coaches, and teachers accountable for Instructional Improvement (improving quality of instruction) and Instructional Management (allocation of resources) need to be tightly coordinated Regular opportunities to collaborate together Learning perspective: Not about enforcing compliance but facilitating learning

Where are we now? What are our next steps? Discussion

Sources Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 13(2), 6–33. NCSM (2014). It's TIME: A Leadership Framework for Common Core Mathematics. Solution Tree: Bloomington, IN. NCTM (2014). Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA.