Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

1. Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership Program Evaluation Year 4 Results Carl Hanssen Hanssen Consulting, LLC Cindy Walker University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee MPA Partners Meeting December 14, 2007

2. 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 activities

3. Presentation Overview • District Trends • Student Achievement • Learning Teams • Distributed Leadership

4. District Trends Spring 2006 Spring 2007 3.01 2.84 Quantity of PD Consistency in math instruction Engaging in activities to align curriculum to learning targets Engaging in activities using CABS and student work samples Engaging in activities to gauge student progress Talking about teaching & learning of mathematics with others 2.88 3.06 3.17 3.42 3.25 3.60 Engagement 2.88 3.17 2.99 3.72

5. School Math Focus Consistent curriculum + Teachers working together + PD perceived as valuable Strong Math Focus Predicts

6. Supportive Learning Teams MTL perceived as supportive + Curriculum aligned to targets + Learning Team focused on mathematics + Teachers working together + PD perceived as valuable Supportive Learning Teams Predicts

7. Supportive MTL PD perceived as valuable + MTS perceived as supportive + Teachers working together + Learning Team focuses on math - Less engaged in activities designed to align curriculum to targets Supportive MTLs Predicts Schools with a supportive MTL likely aligned curriculum to targets last year

8. 1. Conclusions • Across the district, schools are reporting higher levels of involvement with MMP and more frequently engaging in activities that the MMP encourages and promotes • There seems to be an increase in the number of school staff who are responsible for helping the school focus on improving mathematics teaching and learning • Dispersed throughout schools with quality LTs and MTLs

9. 2. Student Achievement Are student achievement gains greater in schools that have more fully embraced MMP principles?

10. Analytical Approach: HLM Use Student Achievement Data from 2005 + MMP Online Survey Results from 2006 to explain variability inStudent Achievement in 2006

11. Sources of Variability in Student Achievement Scores 12% MMP Alignment 4th Grade 9% LT Quality 19% School 79% Other Variability In Student Achievement In 2006 52% Student Achievement In 2005 81% Student 48% Other

12. Sources of Variability in Student Achievement Scores 7th Grade 10% MMP Alignment 24% School 90% Other Variability In Student Achievement In 2006 58% Student Achievement in 2005 76% Student 42% Other

13. 2. Conclusions • Schools that report having greater alignment between math curriculum and learning targets are more likely to attain higher student achievement gains in mathematics • Learning team influence, in terms of increasing student achievement in mathematics, seems to be greatest in the lower grades

14. 3. Learning Teams Authoritarian Directive leader Little discussion Reporting out Participatory Active discussion Consensus building Planning Key Observation: to what degree are LTmeetings about learning versus schooladministration?

15. Focus on learning Distributed leadership Positional authority is less important Multiple views are represented and heard Multiple segments of the school are represented Written agenda, note taker, facilitator Explicit action items Participants have hi knowledge and skill levels Focus on administration Principal does all the talking A few individuals dominate the discussion No agenda or team is easily distracted from the agenda Little follow-through on assignments No clear action items Characteristics of High &Low Rated Learning Teams—Team Functioning High Low

16. Consistent curriculum Math is addressed alongside and in combination with other subjects Coherent within grades and across grades MTL clearly in charge with respect to math Attention to CABS; reference to MMP courses; reviewing student work Variation in curriculum Math not addressed at the meeting No clear math leader—i.e., hard to tell who the MTL is Confusion about the MMP and CMF Characteristics of High & Low RatedLearning Teams—MMP Issues High Low

17. 3. Conclusions • Schools focused on ‘learning’ during learning team meetings are better positioned to demonstrate strong results • While the participatory approach may be preferred, some schools may need directive leadershipas they work to improve

18. 4. Distributed Leadership High Low Loose Network MTL Not Central Few Links to MTL MTS Outside Few Links to MTS Tight Network MTL Central Many Links to MTL MTS Inside Many Links to MTS

19. Low Student Achievement: 2006: 20% Proficient 4-year trend: -4%

20. High Student Achievement: 2006: 50% Proficient 4-year trend: +7%

21. 4. Conclusions • The MTL and MTS network positions are good indicators of MMP impact within school-based networks • Distributed leadership really begins to take hold when teacher communication networks aretightly webbed

22. Overall Conclusions • There is support for the argument that schools that have more fully adopted MMP principles are demonstrating stronger outcomes—though there is still a lot of work to do. • No single factor—e.g., alignment, distributed leadership or learning team performance—is sufficient for success, but all may be necessary

23. Overall Conclusions • Schools that are performing well do many of the things MMP promotes well, andrealize synergy between many of these activities and principles • MMP impact, though, is not being felt in all schools—thereis tremendous variability in MMPadoption and progress across the district

24. Future Considerations • Important considerations for sustaining MMP work • Creating Distributed Leadership in a school takes time—and communication is criticalLast year the Learning Team was perceived as the most important actor for improving mathematics teaching and learning.This year, in schools that report high levels of math focus, that responsibilityseems to be dispersed throughout the school.

25. Future Considerations • Important considerations for sustaining MMP work • MTL role may be shifting from focal point to facilitator—we see growth in the number of staff primarily responsible for helping the school focus on improving mathematics teaching and learning • MTS role may be more importantthan ever—schools using the MTSappear further down the path