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

2 Evaluation Goals  Help the MMP better serve its constituents and improve its effectiveness  Serve the broader mathematics education community through documentation and dissemination of MMP activities

3 Presentation Overview 1. District Trends 2. Student Achievement 3. Learning Teams 4. Distributed Leadership

4 1.District Trends Quantity of PD Consistency in math instruction Engaging in activities to align curriculum to learning targets Engaging in activities using CABS and student work samples Engaging in activities to gauge student progress Talking about teaching & learning of mathematics with others Spring 2006Spring 2007 Engagement

5 School Math Focus Consistent curriculum + Teachers working together + PD perceived as valuable Predicts Strong Math Focus

6 Supportive Learning Teams Predicts Supportive Learning Teams MTL perceived as supportive + Curriculum aligned to targets + Learning Team focused on mathematics + Teachers working together + PD perceived as valuable

7 Supportive MTL Predicts Supportive MTLs PD perceived as valuable + MTS perceived as supportive + Teachers working together + Learning Team focuses on math - Less engaged in activities designed to align curriculum to targets Schools with a supportive MTL likely aligned curriculum to targets last year

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

9 2. Student Achievement Are student achievement gains greater in schools that have more fully embraced MMP principles?

10 Analytical Approach: HLM Use Student Achievement Data from MMP Online Survey Results from 2006 to explain variability in Student Achievement in 2006

11 Sources of Variability in Student Achievement Scores Variability In Student Achievement In % Student 19% School 12% MMP Alignment 79% Other 52% Student Achievement In % Other 4 th Grade 9% LT Quality

12 Sources of Variability in Student Achievement Scores Variability In Student Achievement In % Student 24% School 10% MMP Alignment 90% Other 58% Student Achievement in % Other 7 th Grade

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

14 Authoritarian Directive leader Little discussion Reporting out 3. Learning Teams Participatory Active discussion Consensus building Planning Key Observation: to what degree are LT meetings about learning versus school administration?

15 Characteristics of High &Low Rated Learning Teams—Team Functioning  Focus on learning  Distributed leadership  Positional authority is less important  Multiple views are represented and heard  Multiple segments of the school are represented  Written agenda, note taker, facilitator  Explicit action items  Participants have hi knowledge and skill levels  Focus on administration  Principal does all the talking  A few individuals dominate the discussion  No agenda or team is easily distracted from the agenda  Little follow-through on assignments  No clear action items High Low

16 Characteristics of High & Low Rated Learning Teams—MMP Issues  Consistent curriculum  Math is addressed alongside and in combination with other subjects  Coherent within grades and across grades  MTL clearly in charge with respect to math  Attention to CABS; reference to MMP courses; reviewing student work  Variation in curriculum  Math not addressed at the meeting  No clear math leader— i.e., hard to tell who the MTL is  Confusion about the MMP and CMF High Low

17 3. Conclusions  Schools focused on ‘learning’ during learning team meetings are better positioned to demonstrate strong results  While the participatory approach may be preferred, some schools may need directive leadership as they work to improve

18 4. Distributed Leadership HighLow Tight Network MTL Central Many Links to MTL MTS Inside Many Links to MTS Loose Network MTL Not Central Few Links to MTL MTS Outside Few Links to MTS

19 Low Student Achievement: 2006: 20% Proficient 4-year trend: -4%

20 High Student Achievement: 2006: 50% Proficient 4-year trend: +7%

21 4. Conclusions  The MTL and MTS network positions are good indicators of MMP impact within school-based networks  Distributed leadership really begins to take hold when teacher communication networks are tightly webbed

22 Overall Conclusions  There is support for the argument that schools that have more fully adopted MMP principles are demonstrating stronger outcomes—though there is still a lot of work to do.  No single factor—e.g., alignment, distributed leadership or learning team performance—is sufficient for success, but all may be necessary

23 Overall Conclusions  Schools that are performing well do many of the things MMP promotes well, and realize synergy between many of these activities and principles  MMP impact, though, is not being felt in all schools—there is tremendous variability in MMP adoption and progress across the district

24 Future Considerations  Important considerations for sustaining MMP work Creating Distributed Leadership in a school takes time—and communication is critical Last year the Learning Team was perceived as the most important actor for improving mathematics teaching and learning. This year, in schools that report high levels of math focus, that responsibility seems to be dispersed throughout the school.

25 Future Considerations  Important considerations for sustaining MMP work MTL role may be shifting from focal point to facilitator—we see growth in the number of staff primarily responsible for helping the school focus on improving mathematics teaching and learning MTS role may be more important than ever—schools using the MTS appear further down the path