|
1
|
- Carol Fry Bohlin
- Diane Spresser
- F. Joseph Merlino
- Lucy West
|
|
2
|
- Session purpose/overview
- Speaker introductions
- Moderated question and answer period
|
|
3
|
- Any opinions expressed are those of the presenter and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the National Science Foundation.
|
|
4
|
- National reports in mid-80’s
through early 1990’s highlighted deficiencies in mathematics education
and called for curricular reforms “aimed at ensuring all students the
opportunity to acquire a dynamic form of mathematical literacy which
will enable them to participate as informed citizens and productive
workers in a rapidly changing technological society” (NSF, 1991).
|
|
5
|
- 1991 NSF 91-105
- Statewide Systemic Initiatives
in Science,
- Mathematics, and Engineering
Education
- 1993 NSF 93-67
- Urban Systemic Initiative
- 1994 NSF 94-34
- Rural Systemic Initiative
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
- NSF 98-53
- Special Solicitation Local
Systemic
- Change through Teacher
Enhancement in Science, Grades 6-12
- NSF 00-99 Elementary, Secondary, and Informal
Education - Program Announcement
- Student Achievement
- Pilot LSC Projects
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
- Shared comprehensive vision; active partnerships among stakeholders
- Long-term professional development-minimum 100 hours-for all teachers of
science or mathematics at targeted grade levels, with emphasis on the
enhancement of disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical skills
|
|
10
|
- Implementation of exemplary, comprehensive SMT instructional materials
for use in all classrooms to impact all students at the targeted grade
levels
- Alignment of professional development, instructional materials, and
school policy and practice
|
|
11
|
- Framework for data collection provided by NSF
- Required cost share/commitment of resources on behalf of districts
- Maximum request for award determined by total number of teachers
participating in 100/130 hours of professional development
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
- Identify program goals
- List core evaluation questions
- Create data collection matrix
- Develop instruments/procedures
- Pilot and revise instruments/procedures
- Projects collect data and incorporate into their reports
- HRI prepares cross-site technical report
|
|
15
|
- What is the overall quality of the LSC professional development
activities?
- What is the extent of school and teacher involvement in LSC activities?
- What is the impact of the LSC professional development on teacher
preparedness, attitudes, and beliefs about mathematics and science
teaching and learning?
|
|
16
|
- What is the impact of the LSC professional development on classroom
practices in mathematics and science?
- To what extent are the district and school contexts becoming more
supportive of the LSC vision for exemplary mathematics and science
education?
- What is the extent of institutionalization of high quality professional
development systems in the LSC districts?
|
|
17
|
- Professional Development Observations
(5-8 per year)
- Teacher Questionnaires (300 if one subject; 450 if two subjects)
- Principal Questionnaires (population)
- Classroom Observations (10 per subject)
- Individual Teacher Interviews (10; not conducted baseline data
collection year)
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
- The Phases of Systemic Change
|
|
23
|
- Initiating 6-18 months
- Implementing 3-5 years
- Enhancing 2-3 years
- Sustaining ?
- Larger System Issues
|
|
24
|
- Initiating change is essentially an act of persuasion.
- The process starts with central office administrators and continues with
district mathematics supervisors, department heads, and principals.
- Various options are discussed with accompanying cost implications.
- A decision to commit to change must be made by the administration before
approaching teachers or school board members.
- Teachers and school board members are engaged on parallel tracks.
|
|
25
|
- The teacher change process begins with a six-hour protocol where teachers identify (a)
learning goals for their students, (b) current student progress vis-ŕ-vis these learning goals, and
(c) obstacles to attaining their goals.
- Selected obstacles (e.g., student motivation) are then deconstructed.
- One-two mini-lessons are conducted with the teachers.
- Teachers assent to try a replacement unit.
|
|
26
|
- Reconceptualizing
- Professional Development
|
|
27
|
- 23,076 students
- 1,200 teachers
- 84 school based administrators (Principals and Assistant Principals)
- 16 mathematics coaches
- 52 teacher leaders
|
|
28
|
- 42 schools:
- 23 Pre K- 5th Grade
- 5 Pre K-8th Grade
- 9 Middle Schools 6th –8th
Grades
- 4 High Schools 6th- 12th
Grades
- 1 High School 9th-12th
Grades
- School size varies (range: 250-1500 students)
|
|
29
|
- Ethnic make-up
- 0.3% American Indian or Alaskan
Native 33.7% Asian (most speak
Mandarin or Cantonese)
- 20.1% Hispanic
- 12.7% Black/African American
- 33% White
- 0.2% Unknown
|
|
30
|
- Languages/dialects spoken by students:
more than 100
- Students qualifying for free or reduced
lunch: 60%
- 8% overall budget on professional development in literacy, mathematics
and science education.
|
|
31
|
- On-site, in classroom, coaching (Content Focused Coaching)
- Curricula specific workshops (3 per year per grade)
- Theme based workshops (e.g. fractions through the grades)
- Technology workshops
- Lesson Study
- Inter-visitations within and among schools (Collaboration Sites)
|
|
32
|
- Accredited Mathematics Courses
- Accredited Mathematics Methods Courses
- Study groups and planning clusters
- Professional Conferences
- Principals’ Meetings (monthly-focus on tchg/lrng)
- On-site, all staff meetings (monthly-focus tchg/lrng)
- Grade level or department meetings--math focus
- Institutes on classroom observation (Lenses on Learning)
- Institutes focused on analyzing students’ mathematical thinking (DMI)
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
- Alignment between curriculum, assessment and pedagogy
- Common curriculum across schools and grades
- Curriculum builds from year to year--less need for repetition
|
|
44
|
- Large majority of teachers using adopted materials (Investigations, CMP,
MMOW)
- Planning now focuses on content and on student prior knowledge
- Planning now focuses on student understanding--partial knowledge,
confusions, misconceptions
- Collaborative planning happens regularly
|
|
45
|
- Lesson study is a common format in short and long term among teacher
leaders
- Inter-visitations among teachers within and across schools common
occurrence
- Skill level in observation of lessons improved with use of lenses on
learning
- Principals and staff developers collaborate on long and short term
planning for capacity
|
|
46
|
- Literacy and science staff developers beginning to use content focused
coaching
- Common language and tools across the district leading to more coherence
in student experiences
- Classroom discourse includes student-to-student discussion of important
mathematical ideas
|