1. Bridgeport Public Schools Ricardo Rosa, Director of Mathematics Rebecca Feola, Grant Coordinator

2. DISTRICT PROFILE Number of Schools:34 Number of Students:21,722 % eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch: 95% % designated as English Language Learners: 10% Number of Teachers:1,423

3. STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

4. ACHIEVEMENT GAP According to the NCLB Act for the 2007-2008 academic year, 82% of students should demonstrate proficiency in mathematics. Only 57 % of Bridgeport students are currently meeting standards set by this law in K-8 (At/Above Proficiency)

5. DISTRICT INITIATIVES Instructional Coaches 27 full-time Coaches, only 15% hold a certification in Mathematics Curriculum Mapping Formative assessments (grades 3-8) Data Driven Decision Making (DDDM)

6. Bridgeport Instructional Coaching Project The overarching goal of this project is to train a cadre of teacher leaders that will provide classroom embedded professional development for teachers.

7. Bridgeport Instructional Coaching Model (BIC) PURPOSE: To provide training for numeracy coaches in: 1)Content 2)Content-related pedagogy 3)Coaching theory/practice

8. MSP PROJECT GOAL #1: To create and conduct a Teacher Leadership Academy which will improve student achievement in mathematics by training Bridgeport’s numeracy coaches to upgrade effectiveness of mathematics teachers in grades 6-8 at their schools. Content Academy Content Content- related pedagogy Strategy/Practices Mathematical explorations Technology College-level, interactive seminars Indicator Pre-Post tests Ongoing Reflections Focus GroupCoaches’ SurveyOutcomes Summative (survey)

9. Goal #1 of MSP Project: GOAL To create and conduct a Teacher Leadership Academy which will improve student achievement in mathematics by training Bridgeport’s numeracy coaches to upgrade effectiveness of mathematics teachers in grades 6-8 at their schools. Strategies/Practices College-level seminars in math content with guided practice opportunities and content-specific hands- on learning. Mathematical explorations to promote deeper understanding of the content Incorporate technology to enhance further learning (e.g. graphing calculator, geometer sketchpad, power point) Indicators Pre-Post tests to measure content knowledge gains Workshop reflections to determine ongoing effectiveness of the training Focus Group Coaches Survey Outcomes Coaches increased knowledge of critical math content (58 %) Reflections indicate coaches broadening their approaches to solving problems that differ from their traditional methods Coaches reported a positive impact in their Professional Development 67% of coaches indicated increased understanding of Year 1 content topics

10. MSP PROJECT GOAL #2: To design, implement, and monitor an effective and comprehensive instructional coaching program in all of Bridgeport’s school. Implement CoachingStrategy/Practices Workshops for Principals Interactive sessions flexible, 9-week coaching cycles Lab Site Case studies Indicator % of coaches who spend 60% or more of their time working with teachers Outcomes Coaching Theory Coaching Model Coaching Model

11. Goal #2 of MSP Project: GOAL Design, implement, and monitor an effective and comprehensive instructional coaching program in all of Bridgeport’s schools Strategies/Practices Interactive seminars on leadership and principles of coaching Case studies which present challenging and specific situations coaches will confront Lab Sites Indicators Coaches maintain record of the amount of time they spend working directly with teachers (i.e. co- planning, modeling, co- teaching, conferencing) using PDAs Workshops for Principals Implement flexible, 9-week coaching cycles Evaluation of Lab Sites implementation Fidelity Assessment Scale-Adherence Fidelity Assessment Scale-Competence Focus Group Coaches Survey Outcomes Percent of coaches spending 60% of their time working with teachers increased by 11% (i.e. 14% to 25%) Fidelity Assessment Scale (Adherence) Year 2 72% of coaches stated that their principal has established school structures for them to meet with teachers

12. Next Steps Measure coaches’ ability to effectively implement Bridgeport’s Instructional Coaching Model with fidelity and competence. Compare the achievement of students in classes where teachers work closely together with a coach versus others that did not receive services.

13. LABSITE A Lab-Site will be defined as a learning center, conducted at a designated school, where 3-4 coaches will get together 4 times throughout the academic year to implement instructional coaching with the assistance of other coaches Purpose: vehicle for support through direct observation of coaching in action. The implementation of the lab sites will allow coaches to polish the tools of their craft with the help of other “critical friends” colleagues and allow other coaches to view coaching sessions and learn from the feedback provided by their peers.

14. Fishbowl Learning: The fishbowl is when an exemplar group demonstrates to their onlookers what effective coaching would look like and the steps that should be followed.

15. LABSITE ROLES PARTICIPATING COACH CLASSROOM TEACHER FACILITATOR OBSERVERS Curriculum Specialists Numeracy Coaches Building Administrators Director of Mathematics

16. BRIDGEPORT LABSITE PROTOCOL PURPOSE: To allow coaches to polish the tools of their craft with the help of their colleagues. To allow coaches to view part of a coaching sessions and learn from the feedback provided by peers.

17. STEP 1: Introduction (2-3 minutes) Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals and reviews ground rules, guidelines and schedule.

18. STEP 2: Discussion of Lab site Purpose and Focusing Question (10 minutes) During this part the leading coach will facilitate information about the lesson as well as the teacher. The information provided by the leading coach will include particulars about the lesson itself as well as prior work done between the coach and teacher. Presenting coach describes background of the prior session with this teacher. He/she provides an overview of the lesson and or classroom if needed and poses their focusing question. Presenting coach will also define or describe his/her role during the lesson. Participants are silent.

19. STEP 3: Clarifying Questions (5 minutes) Participants have an opportunity to ask further clarifying questions that may arise from their reflection. (i.e. questions that involve more than a very brief, factual answer). Presenting coach will answer questions. Facilitator judges which questions more properly belong in the Debriefing section of this process (step 7) (i.e. questions that involve more than a very brief, factual answer).

20. STEP 4: Viewing of Lesson (60 Minutes) All members of the team will view lesson. Participants will take notes to provide feedback in the focusing questions.

21. STEP 5 Post-Conference (30 Minutes) (Coverage for the classroom teacher is needed during this step) Coach and teacher confer about session. They will discuss the various issues that arrived as well as those discussed on the Pre- conference stage of the coaching cycle Participants will observe silently during conversation and take notes to present during the debriefing stage. The Post-Conference should lead to a Pre-Conference of the coaching cycle by highlighting the steps for upcoming sessions NOTE: The coach and teacher reflect individually after the Post-Conference

22. STEP 6: Pause to Reflect ( 5 minutes) Participants reflect individually about the lesson and clarifying question.

23. STEP 7: Debriefing (15 minutes) Participants share feedback while the presenting coach is silent. The focus of the feedback and conversation will be around the focusing question. Facilitator may remind participants of the presenting coach’s focusing question (step 2).

24. STEP 8: Response by Presenting Coach (10 minutes) Presenting coach speaks to those comments/questions he or she chooses to provide by the group. Facilitator may intervene to focus, clarify etc. Participants are silent.

25. STEP 9: Conclusion (10 minutes) Facilitator leads an open discussion of the experience the group has shared: What was effective? What concerns did the process raise? “How did the protocol experience compare with what you expected?” - the group discusses any positive reactions, frustrations, or misunderstandings participants have experienced. More general discussion of the protocol may develop. The session concludes with acknowledgement of and thanks to the presenting teacher

26. CONTACT US rrosa@bridgeportedu.net rfeola@bridgeportedu.net

27. Disclaimer “The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in these presentations are not intended as an endorsement of the U.S. Department of Education.”