Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAbraham Banks Modified over 9 years ago
1
Welcome To The November MTL Meeting Please move as close to the center of the auditorium when selecting your seats.
2
2 Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership Program Evaluation Year 7 Results Carl Hanssen Hanssen Consulting, LLC November 2010 MTL Meeting
3
3 Where are we? MMP efforts have been ongoing since 2003 This is the 6 th year we have been conducting the evaluation NSF and MPS Evaluation Efforts have become integrated
4
4 MMP Support Original & Phase II funding from NSF Started in 2003-04 Currently in 8 th year Focus on research and evaluation MPS & State of Wisconsin Provides funding for released MTL positions Support for MTS Positions Funding for Evaluation
5
5 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 success factors
6
6 Key Evaluation Question What are the critical factors or conditions promoted by the MMP that are related to student achievement?
7
7 Agenda 1. Released and non-Released MTLs 2. MMP Involvement 3. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching 4. Social Network Analysis 5. Breakout Discussion 6. Upcoming Evaluation Activities
8
8 1. Released v. non-Released MTLs Key question: How does achievement differ in schools with released and non- released MTLs? Examine attainment and value added
9
Pre-released MTLs 9
10
First year released MTLs 10
11
Second year released MTLs 11
12
Findings There was an initial bias toward providing underperforming schools with a released MTL Over time, the position appears to have been effective for helping close the gap between low and high performing schools In the most recent year, there is no statistical differences in quadrant membership between schools with and without released MTLs 12
13
Small Group Discussion What other factors might help explain these findings? How has having a released MTL (or not having a released MTL) made a difference in your school? 13
14
14 2. MMP Involvement Key Question: Is there a relationship between involvement in MMP activities and student achievement? Critical Challenge: Quantifying ‘involvement’
15
15 Involvement Factors MTL Meeting Attendance Course Enrollment Action Planning Textbook Adoption HS Algebra and Geometry Labs Not all factors were present in each year (05-06 through 08-09)
16
16 Cumulative Involvement— Schools Serving Grade 10 These data are then converted to z-scores And schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High
17
17 Schools with Grade 10 Students
18
18 Cumulative Involvement— Schools Serving Grades 6-8 These data are then converted to z-scores And schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High
19
19 Schools With Grade 6-8 Students
20
20 Cumulative Involvement— Schools Serving Grades 3-5 These data are then converted to z-scores And schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High
21
21 Schools With Grade 3-5 Students
22
Findings Initial results suggest that involvement is a predictor of student achievement—most notably between the no- involvement and other groups. 22
23
Small Group Discussion In what ways does involvement in MMP activities translate to improved teaching and learning at the classroom level? What other factors might help explain these results? 23
24
3. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) Key Question: What is the relationship between teacher MKT and student achievement? Predict Fall WKCE scores for teachers’ prior year students 24
25
Teacher MKT Over Time 25
26
Distribution of 2008-09 Scores 26
27
WKCE Scores Fall 2009 27
28
HLM Results 28 After controlling for grade level, teacher MKT accounts for 4.6% of variability in WKCE scores
29
Small Group Discussion What strategies can MTLs use to improve teacher MKT? How can the MTSs support these efforts? 29
30
4. Social Network Analysis Key Question: How have school-based networks changed over time? Social Network Analysis conducted in 112 schools in Spring 2009 30
31
31 SNA Key Maps identify MTL or MTS or Teachers Principal Literacy Coach Others in school Others outside school Statistics Network density In-School density MTL In-Degree MTL Betweeness MTS In-Degree Principal In-Degree Benefit—a graphical AND statistical description of school-based networks.
32
Density Changes 32 2009 2010 Networks are becoming less dense
33
MTL In-Degree 33 Hi Lo
34
Hi MTL Betweeness 34
35
Hi MTS In-Degree 35
36
Hi Principal In-Degree 36 Principal
37
Findings Strong networks manifest multiple characteristics—high density, MTL In-Degree & Betweeness, MTS In- Degree, and Principal In-Degree The Release MTL Position may be eroding some characteristics of strong networks 37
38
Small Group Discussion In Social Network terms, how would you describe your school? How can MTLs and MTSs support the creation of strong distributed leadership in schools? 38
39
BREAKOUT DISCUSSION 39
40
Final Thoughts There is no simple answer to the question of what drives student achievement However…schools that demonstrate strong results tend to exhibit many of the positive conditions discussed today 40
41
6. Next Steps 1. Teacher MKT Monthly sessions January – May Central Services Sign up starting in December More information forthcoming 2. MMP Online Survey—May 2011 3. SNA Survey—May2011 4. MTL Survey—April 2011 41
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.