1. DeAnn Huinker, UW-Milwaukee MMP Principal Investigator 26 August 2008 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0314898. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

2.  Funded Projects across the Country ◦ Comprehensive Projects (12) ◦ Targeted Projects (28) ◦ Institute Projects (12)  Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership Comprehensive K-12 Mathematics Project ◦ $20 million ◦ 2003–present

3. Distributed Leadership Student Learning Continuum Teacher Learning Continuum Mathematics Framework

4. Implement and utilize the Comprehensive Mathematics Framework to lead a collective vision of deep learning and quality teaching of challenging mathematics across the Milwaukee Partnership.

5.  No district math framework  No learning targets  No State Assessment Framework or descriptors  No district CABS (classroom assessments)  No Benchmark Assessments or Readiness Exam  No math curriculum guides  No common high school syllabi  Many textbook programs across the district Then … 2003

6. Now… 2008 CABS & Benchmarks Curriculum Guides, K- 10 HS course syllabi Common textbooks CABS & Benchmarks Curriculum Guides, K- 10 HS course syllabi Common textbooks

7. ***Significant Trends***  Consistency in math instruction—what & how  Aligning curriculum to learning targets  Using CABS and student work to inform practice  Studying WKCE/benchmark data on student progress  Engagement in talking with other teachers about the teaching and learning mathematics MMP Annual Survey, Spring 2008

8. Institute a distributed mathematics leadership model that engages all partners and is centered on school- based professional learning communities.

9.  No Math Teacher Leaders !!  No assessment pilot, textbook implementation, transition, or benchmark leaders…!!  No Math Teaching Specialists!!!  No formal UWM “math” partnership!!!!  Learning Teams not focused on mathematics. Then … 2003

10. IHE Faculty Mathematics & Math Education Now… 2008 District Mathematics Leadership (MCS, MTS) Learning Team Other Key Teachers Principal Literacy Coach Math Teacher Leader Focus on the “Continuum” of Work for Mathematics Funding for Math Action Plans 204 MTLs 60 Gr 8-9 204 MTLs 60 Gr 8-9

11. Stage 1 Learning Targets Stage 2 Alignment of State Framework & Math Program Stage 3 Common Classroom Assessments Stage 4 Student Work on CABS Stage 5 Descriptive Feedback on CABS Understand importance of identifying and articulating big ideas in mathematics to bring consistency to a school’s math program. Develop meaning for the math embedded in the targets and alignment to state standards and descriptors and to the school’s math program. Provide a measure of consistency of student learning based on standards/descriptor s and targets. Examine student work to monitor achievement and progress toward the targets and descriptors. Use student work to inform instructional decisions, and to provide students with appropriate descriptive feedback. Tools Grade level lists of 9-11 big ideas per grade (the targets) Horizontal list of targets by content across grades Tools Target-descriptor alignment worksheets WKCE Depths of Knowledge Framework Curriculum Guides Tools Curriculum Guides District Model CABS Depths of Knowledge worksheet CABS Assessment Overview worksheet WKCE and Benchmarks student data Tools MMP Protocol for Analysis of Student Work DVD of MMP Protocol CABS Class Summary Report form School Educational Plan Tools Types of Feedback sheet Descriptive feedback worksheets CABS Class Feedback Summary worksheet

12. Year 1 2003-04 101 38%53%9%0%1% n Stage 1 Learning Targets Stage 2 Alignment State & Program Stage 3 Common CABS Stage 4 Student Work Stage 5 Descriptiv e Feedback Year 5 2007-08 109 2%12%22%41%23% Year 4 2006-07 109 11%26%39%18%6% Year 3 2005-06 89 13%26%41%18%2% Year 2 2004-05 97 18%34%38%5%4%

13. n Stage 1 Learning Targets Stage 2 Alignment State & Program Stage 3 Common CABS Stage 4 Student Work Stage 5 Descriptive Feedback Year 4 2006-07 20 50%25% 0% Year 5 2007-08 20 5%30%40%20%5%

14. Build and sustain the capacity of teachers, from initial preparation through induction and professional growth, to understand mathematics deeply and use that knowledge to improve student learning.

15.  No MTL meetings  No Assessment Pilots or Transition meetings  No Math Actions Plans or Mini-Grants  No UWM-MMP courses  No high school labs or rigor sessions Then … 2003

16. Now… 2008 Monthly MTL meetings, school-based professional math learning, UWM courses, high school labs, and more … Focused on learning …. mathematics content, leadership skills, instructional strategies, formative assessment, descriptive feedback, networking, and much more …

17. Years 1 & 2 Content Focus: Number & Operations

18. 5 + 7 = + 8 Year 3 Content Focus: Algebraic Reasoning

19. Year 4 Content Focus: Measurement & Geometry

20. Nine teachers reported their years of experience as follows: 7, 5, 5, 4, 6, 8, 7, 6, 6 Arrange cubes to represent this data set. What is the median? What is the mean? Year 5 Content Focus: Statistics & Probability Rearrange the cubes to represent another sample of 9 teachers that had the same median years of experience, but a different mean of fewer yearsthe mean?

21. **Teacher Learning**  Significant increases for MTLs on Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching assessments!!!  Over 2000 enrollments in 79 sections of UWM-MMP courses in 5 years (~ $700,000 tuition waived)  About 65,000 hours of math PD for 2800 teachers in each of three years; mean of 20 hours per teacher.

22. Ensure all students, PK-16, have access to, are prepared and supported for, and succeed in challenging mathematics.

24. 24 Are student achievement gains in mathematics greater in schools that have more fully embraced MMP principles? YES

25. Math Focus Proficiency School Math Focus versus WKCE Proficiency Fall 2007

26. Math Focus Percentage Point Change School Math Focus versus 3-Year WKCE Percentage Point Increase

27.  Governor’s MPS Mathematics Initiative  NSF carry-over funds for MMP  NSF support for MMP Phase II  MPS Action (Strategic) Plan  MPS Mathematics Functional Plan  MPS DIFI Plan  Math Fellows Project  Other grant projects (e.g., GKT)

28. 28 Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership Build the capacity of schools for continuous improvement toward student success with challenging mathematics.

29. www.mmp.uwm.edu