THE DRAGON CONNECTION March 2008

Who are we?  Jefferson City Schools  Small, rural school district 60 miles north of Atlanta, 18 miles north of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia  4 schools with 2500 students  28% free/reduced lunch  28% minority  84% graduation rate  70% growth in 5 years 2

What is happening in the state of Georgia? The state of Georgia is in the process of rolling out a standards-based curriculum (Georgia Performance Standards) in all subject areas in two-year stages (year one: learning the standards, year two: implementing the standards  studying mathematics GPS, grades 3-5 and 8  implementing mathematics GPS, grades K-2 and 7, first year  studying mathematics I and accelerated mathematics I, grade 9 GPS  implementing mathematics GPS, grades 3-5 and 8, first year  studying mathematics II and accelerated mathematics II, grade 10 GPS  implementing mathematics I and accelerated mathematics I, grade 9 GPS, first year  implementing mathematics GPS, grades K-8 3

What is the focus of the Jefferson City Schools' project?  mathematics content development for 46 teachers grades 3-8  student achievement in mathematics  mathematics content development and pedagogy grades 3-12  student achievement in mathematics  continue mathematics content development and pedagogy grades 3-12  student achievement in mathematics 4

What was the evaluation model? Program Logic Model Rick West - Evaluator Inputs Resources Personnel Partners Activities Pro. Development Retreat Content instruction Lesson Study Collaboration Book Study Standards training Outputs Support Assess. Strategies Content Knowledge Instructional Knowledge Lesson plans Community Outcomes Short-term Long-term Impacts: Student goals Teacher goals 5

What resources?  Higher Education staff in the mathematics department at the University of Georgia (years one and two)  Evaluator - College of Education, Learning and Performance Support Laboratory (year one)  Evaluator - independent (year two)  Graduate student - College of Education mathematics education department (year two)  Graduate student - College of Education mathematics education department (years one and two)  Mathematics Coach - 50% time from the GMSP grant (year two)  DOE workshops - Georgia Department of Education staff  External consultant  RESA consultant  Consultants from Connected Mathematics Program in Michigan  Consultants from Everyday Mathematics  Administration from Jefferson City Schools - principals, assistant principals, instructional lead teachers, associate superintendent  Teachers - 50 teachers grades 3-12  Students students  PLU credit for participation  Title I, Title IIa, PRISM funds  InterMath - GPS course  DOE workshop  planning time  material allocation 6

What activities?  3-day summer institute (Year 1 and 2)  8, 2-hour workshops on content development (Year 1)  Diary of professional development process (Year 1 and 2)  14 one-hour sessions to plan, implement, and assess specific lessons 7

What will we see?  Teachers effectively planning and executing GPS  Developed training model integrating content knowledge to the teacher's classroom  Increased understanding for students of how mathematics applies to the real world 8

What were the results?  Improved teacher knowledge base  growth of.55 in Number, growth of.22 in Algebra, and growth of.32 in Geometry between the group means on the pre- and post-test  significant growth in Number and Geometry  Improved student achievement  decreased by 3% in each grade band the students in "does not meet expectation"  increased "exceeding expectations" by 3%  Maintained 100% of JCS teacher as highly qualified  Created a sustainable learning community of mathematics teachers and replicable training process for future years 9

What are the challenges ?  Being responsive to the unique needs of each teacher group - need an evaluator per group as they meet  The LMT is not appropriate for all groups - good for middle school teachers but too advanced for elementary and too easy for high school teachers 10

How to increase MSP projects using experimental or quasi experimental designs?  Need more and better teacher content assessments  Need more longitudinal studies (5 years)  Not reasonable to expect change in one year 11

Evidence of student achievement?  Student test scores for objective measures-could use more qualitative information here to see the how and why of test score change  The standardized state tests keep changing each year so it is hard to make comparisons 12

What was the evaluation model? The evaluation model represented a responsive, management-oriented approach emphasizing objective information for decision-making and qualitative feedback for making improvements. Unique professional development for each grade level band (3-5, 6-8, 9-12) required unique measures attached with observations for all grade levels. 13

How to report evidence of effectiveness? Focus on communication  Formative feedback to teachers and system administrators  Summative/technical feedback to grant administrators  Reconcile standards-driven instruction rather than publisher-driven instruction 14

What is next?  Stronger vertical articulation between schools  Better understanding of what students know and understand  Better understanding of what teachers know and understand  Better understanding of how to successfully implement standards-based classrooms  Better understanding of how to differentiate instruction as the curriculum changes and the course of study becomes more rigorous 15

For information contact: Dr. Sherrie Gibney-Sherman Associate Superintendent for Instruction Jefferson City Schools 575 Washington Street Jefferson, Georgia

The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in this presentation are not intended as an endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education 17