1. Math: Achieving Equity for CA’s Kids
Samantha Tran, Senior Managing Director, Education, Children Now

2. Today’s Presentation Why? Who? What If? Why this work? Why now?
What are the math outcomes for kids in California, especially children of color?
Who?
What if we could eradicate these inequities? What would it take to learn from each other and go to scale?
What If?

3. Why?
Slide for Lupita - Cecelia working on bullets for this slide.

6. CA STEM Interest by Self-Identified Ethnicity

7. Brain Research

8. Who?
Slide for Lupita - Cecelia working on bullets for this slide.

9. Flashlight: Data Sets Us on the Path of Inquiry
This level of data can’t tell us why or what to do about it

10. California is home to more than 9 million children, 6 million in K-12 With 12% of the nation’s children, the well-being of California kids has a big impact on the well-being of children nationally.

11. International Studies Tell Confusing Story for US schools – TIMSS and PISA

12. California Participated in Prior TIMSS – Performing Relatively Poorly
Countries/Regions Outscoring California in Math
Rep of Korea, Singapore, Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Quebec, Israel, Finland, Ontario, US Average, Slovenia, England, Alberta, Hungary, Australia, Lithuania, Italy
Countries/Regions Scoring Below California in Math
New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Sweden, Ukraine, Dubai, Norway, Armenia, Romania, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Lebanon, Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Georgia, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Chile, Iran, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Palestinian National Authority, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syrian Arab Rep, Morocco, Oman, Ghana

13. US Much More Competitive on TIMSS than PISA
PISA 2015 (OECD Countries)
TIMSS 2015
Countries/Regions Outscoring US in Math
Singapore, Hong Kong (China), Macau (China), Chinese Taipei, Japan, B-S-J-G (China), Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Estonia, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Norway, Austria, New Zealand, Vietnam, Russian Federation, Sweden, Australia, France, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Portugal, Italy, OECD average, Iceland, Spain, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Israel
Singapore, Rep. of Korea, Chinese Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong-CHN, Japan, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Canada, Ireland
Countries/Regions Below US in Math
Croatia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Turkey, Republic of Moldova, Uruguay, Republic of Montenegro, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Albania, Mexico, Georgia, Qatar, Costa Rica, Lebanon, Colombia, Peru, Indonesia, Jordan, Brazil, Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Kosovo, Algeria, Dominican Republic
England-GBR, Slovenia, Hungary, Norway, Lithuania, Israel, Australia, Sweden, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Bahrain, Georgia, Lebanon, Qatar, Iran, Thailand, Chile, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia

14. California Ranks Near Bottom on National Tests California’s Ranking Among 50 States and District of Columbia
All Students
Low Income Students
Non–Low 
Income Students
Achievement Gap
4th grade
48th
51st
39th
49th
8th grade
41st
45th
34th
38th

15. NAEP Math – Even Our Higher Performing Subgroups Not Very Competitive Nationally
4th grade
8th Grade
Percent Proficient
CA State Ranking
White
48%
32nd
43%
20th
Asian
54%
21st of 31 states
56%
20th of 30 states
Non-Low Income
51%
42nd
45%
31st
Children of College Graduates
N/A
26th of 48 states

17. SBAC Math results by race/ethnicity and income (All grades 2016)
Figure by Education Trust-West

18. A Snap Shot of 8th Grade Math Performance
8th graders who meet or exceed state standards in math

19. SBAC Math - Second Year Results Show Progress, Potential Concern about Growing Gaps
Group of Students
Percent Met Standard or Above
Percentage Point Change from Prior Year
All Students 37 +4
Race/Ethnicity
Asian 72 +3
Black/African American 18 +2
Latino/Hispanic 24
White 53
Student Subgroups
English Learner 12 +1
Economically Disadvantaged 23
Special Disability 11

20. What If?
Slide for Lupita - Cecelia working on bullets for this slide.

21. The Math in Common® Initiative
Five-year initiative supporting 10 school districts in implementing the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M)
Goals:
Accelerate CCSS-M implementation
Identify promising practices/lessons learned that can inform educator, district, and policy-making activities in areas including:
Standards implementation
Professional development
Educator, site, and district capacity-building
Planning and budgeting
Governance and accountability

22. Early Insights How Districts are Building Capacities to Effect Change
Professional learning – comprehensive systems of support and learning rather than one-time trainings.
Communities of practice – promoting shared understanding and development of solutions.
District and school-site authority – carefully balancing to maximize benefits.
Instructional materials and curriculum – critical to instructional shifts; educators require significant guidance to select and use them effectively.
Principals as instructional leaders – building principals’ capacity to support change in classroom practice.

23. Early Learnings Related to Principals
Significant demands of CCSS-M: LCAP, communication, technology and assessment, finding substitutes, stretched central office staff.
Simultaneously, other demands for leaders as some districts shift away from centralized PD toward more site-located, classroom-based teacher learning:
Increasing support for teacher learning - via shared (PLCs) and individual (workshops/ online) activities
Increasing exposure/ input to classroom implementation (eg, math understanding; effective feedback)
To enable focus on attaining instructional vision, districts developing systematic processes/tools to support principal classroom observation and feedback.

24. Impact of Instructional Supervision – Long Beach
Side by side school comparison of what effective principals have done to impact their schools – specifically student achievement.
Schools on the left had principals directly involved in providing feedback to teachers and attending department meetings
Schools on the right were focused less on supervision and more on other areas due to perceived need at site, or the principal delegated supervision completely to the AP
In this district, there seems to be something to highlight about principals’ involvement in goal setting and feedback and providing high levels of instructional support. We have similar data from another district.

25. Early Positive Systemic Outcomes
We have three other districts that are showing systemic impacts on student achievement.
In the next couple of months we’ll be exploring some of the connections between the districts’ theory of change and outcomes.
We expect to be in front of the group in earnest in Spring 2017.

26. Q & A