1. Every Day Every Child: A Partnership for Research with Elementary Math and Science Instructional Specialists Kim Markworth, PI Western Washington University NCTM Research Conference 2016

2. Elementary Content Specialization ECS: Elementary organizational structures in which full-time classroom teachers instruct two or more classes of students in mathematics (or another content area)

3. Research Questions What ECS models are being implemented in elementary classrooms for math and science at participating school districts? What characteristics define these models? How do characteristics related to math and science content specialization compare with self- contained models? What factors may support continuation or jeopardize involvement in ECS?

4. ECS Models Team Teaching Science as a Special Within-gradeBetween-grade Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E Model F

5. Sample of EMS and ESS 34 EMS and ESS, including 9 double participants: Primary (grades 1-2): 8.8% Intermediate (grades 3-5, or 4-6): 85.3% Between grade levels, primary and intermediate: 5.9%

6. Within-grade Team Teaching Models Model A Team of 2 teachers 2 classes of students shared Specialization in 1 content area Students move to the other classroom for instruction in reading or science

7. Within-grade Team Teaching Models Model B Team of 2 teachers 2 classes of students shared Specialization in 2 content areas Students move to the other classroom for instruction in 2 content areas Dual Language Program (Gomez and Gomez)

8. Within-grades Team Teaching Models Model C Team of 3 teachers 3 classes of students shared Specialization in 1 content area Students move to two other classrooms for instruction in 2 content areas EMS specialize in math, but teach minimal additional content to “homeroom” students

9. Within-grades Team Teaching Models Model D Team of 3 teachers 3 classes of students shared Specialization in 1 content area Students move to two other classrooms for instruction in 2 content areas Note: Science/Social Studies combination

10. Between-grades Team Teaching Model E Team of 2-3 teachers 2-3 classes of students shared Teachers prepare for 2-4 unique classes each day, although there are shared content areas Students move to 1-2 other classrooms for instruction in other content areas

11. If it’s all team teaching, so what? Different organizational structures for ECS afford different opportunities, and challenges. The opportunities and challenges may impact both teachers’ practice and students’ learning.

12. Factors Related to ECS Number of Content Areas Number of “Preps” Potential Number of Transitions between Classrooms Number of Students

13. Almost the same, with the exception of E and F Impacts on teachers’ abilities to: –Plan and implement quality instruction –Know and teach to standards –Develop and investigate resources Content Areas and Preps

14. Planning Time EMS MSelf-Contained M Minutes spent planning for math instruction per week 270*159* Minutes of common planning time with other math teachers per week ǂ 21*75* Minutes of after-school instructional planning with other math teachers per week 2328 ǂ Shift in the nature of the collaboration

15. Planning Time EMS MSelf-Contained M I have enough time to plan for all of the subjects I teach. 2.92*1.41* I have enough time to plan for my math instruction. 3.25*2.34* I have enough time to investigate available math instructional materials beyond what my district has provided. 2.211.65 I have enough time to meet with other teachers about math instruction. 2.832.94 1 – Strongly Disagree 6 – Strongly Agree

16. Transitions Potential Issue: Increased transitions between classrooms has a negative impact on instructional time.

17. Transitions and Time in Instruction ECS M Self- Contained M M by ECS Model ABCDE Total minutes of between-classroom transition time per day 2729 24.025.437.832.326.3 Total minutes of within-classroom transition time per day 1115 11.710.89.08.511.0 Minutes spent per class of students in mathematics instruction per week 361331 326.7376.8300.0397.5340.0

18. Number of Students Potential Issues: Knowing the “whole child” (Heathers, 1961) Meeting the social and emotional needs of elementary students Developmental appropriateness

19. Number of Students One significant difference: I know the strengths and weaknesses of each of my students in English Language Arts. –EMS Mean: 4.13 –Self-Contained Mean: 5.41

20. Instead…. Amy: There’s three of us on the team. I think that’s helpful for students that maybe don’t necessarily bond with the one teacher…. If there’s something going on, sometimes they feel safer with one teacher over the other to talk to them it seems. Melia: There’s been students we’ve been concerned about – not just academically but really concerned about their behavior, not they’re active and disruptive but more like socially concerned and then we’ve been able…are you seeing this in your classroom as well?… I can think of three students that we have all had a pulse on much more this year in the first three months of school that I think we’ve been connected with.

21. Factors Influencing Initial Engagement Survey Rank Factor 1 Teacher preference for certain subjects 2 (tie) Rigorous demands on teachers 2 (tie) Academic needs of students 4 (tie) New standards (Common Core, NGSS) 4 (tie) Support from teachers in grades 3-5 6 (tie) Standardized test scores 6 (tie) School administration support 6 (tie) Published research 9 Social & emotional needs of students 10 Prior experience with specialization

22. Factors Supporting Continued ECS Survey Rank Factor 1 Rigorous demands on teachers 2 (tie) Support from teachers in grades 3-5 2 (tie) New standards (Common Core, NGSS) 4 Successful prior experience with specialization 5 School administration support 6 Teacher preference for certain subjects 7 Academic needs of students 8 Improved standardized test scores 9 Parent support 10 Social & emotional needs of students

23. Factors Putting ECS at Risk Survey Rank Factor 1 Change in classroom teachers due to retirement, reassignment, etc. 2 Teacher preference for self-contained classrooms 3 (tie) Low standardized test scores 3 (tie) Lack of school administration support 5 Lack of support from teachers in grades 3-5 6 District administration 7 Lack of parent support 8 Challenging prior experiences with specialization 9 Rigorous demands on teachers 10 Academic needs of students

24. Why not ECS? Survey Rank Factor 1 Social & emotional needs of students 2 Rigorous demands on teachers 3 (tie) Support from teachers in grades 3-5 3 (tie) Teacher preference for certain subjects 3 (tie) Fluctuating student numbers in the school 6 (tie) School administration support 6 (tie) Support from specialist teachers (P.E., Music, Library, Art) 6 (tie) Academic needs of students

25. Thank you! Kim Markworth Western Washington University Kimberly.Markworth@wwu.edu

26. References & Resources Heathers, G. (1961). Field research on elementary school organization and instruction. Journal of Educational Sociology, 34(8), 338-343. McGatha, M. B. (2009). Mathematics specialists and mathematics coaches: What does the research say? Retrieved from http://nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research_News_and_ Advocacy/Research/Clips_and_Briefs/Research_brief_13_coaches. pdf http://nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research_News_and_ Advocacy/Research/Clips_and_Briefs/Research_brief_13_coaches. pdf McGatha, M. B., Davis, R., & Stokes, A. (2015). Impact of mathematics coaching on teachers and students. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Research-and-Advocacy/Research-Brief-and- Clips/Impact-of-Mathematics-Coaching-on-Teachers-and-Students/ http://www.nctm.org/Research-and-Advocacy/Research-Brief-and- Clips/Impact-of-Mathematics-Coaching-on-Teachers-and-Students/ Reys, B. J., & Fennell, F. (2003). Who should lead mathematics instruction at the elementary school level? A case for mathematics specialists. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(5), 277-282.