Starting BIG

1. Starting BIG Research Practice Partnerships Chicago, April 30, 2014 Michael Sorum: Deputy Superintendent Leadership, Learning and Student Support Fort Worth Independent School District

2. Framing Questions • When did we decide to work at scale? • What are implicit or explicit ToA for change at district? • What level did we start? Why? • How did starting at that level lead to different challenges?

3. Disclaimers… • An evolving strong sense of the importance of context for meaningful large-scale research/partnerships • How can you learn from the mistakes or successes of partnerships without understanding the context in which the work was done? • Of course every district has its own context but no district is without context… • I would venture…more commonalities than differences • Disingenuous to convey that work started with a conscious “decision” to engage in an at-scale partnership

4. Context • Fort Worth Independent School District • 84,000 students: increasing by 1000 per year • 14% White • 23% African America n • 60% Hispanic • 33% English Language Learners • 8% Special Education • Rapid demographic changes throughout 1980s • White and African American numbers remained stable • Hispanic population increased rapidly • Chronic underperformance of AA and H students • Extremely traditional instructional practices

5. Context • 2003-2005: • District underwent severe budget cuts • 10-15% of total operating budget • Fund balance seriously depleted • 85% of public school budgets are personnel • Virtually all curriculum departments eliminated • All support staff reassigned to campuses • Change in state assessment from TAAS to TAKS • Significantly higher level • Capital Bond Project Fiasco • Extensive fraud and loss of public confidence

6. Context • 2005: New Superintendent • Partnered with University of Pittsburgh, Institute for Learning • Conducted curriculum audit (Fenwick English) • Curriculum non-existent • Implemented IRB process • Terminated numerous “research” projects • District used as a testing ground for products that were subsequently “studied” • Pending lawsuits due to “treatment” – “non-treatment”

7. Context • 2006-2007 math textbook adoption year • Selected Connected Math Program 2 (CMP2) • 2006: IFL eventually succeeded in introducing research lead and CAO • Work began in 2007 • Schools reported to another “chief” • Very challenging to get “leverage” on principal time and professional development

8. Theory of Action • If we provided teachers with high quality resources, highly skilled “at elbow” support (Lead Content Teachers) and a clear model of effective instructional practices, their behaviors would change and student achievement would improve • This ToA was common to all tested content areas for FWISD

9. MIST: Middle School Mathematics and the Institutional Setting of Teaching • Vanderbilt wanted to study the implementation of an ambitious and equitable instructional agenda (NSF funded) • Patience and perseverance of researcher • Convinced me (assured me) that their work would not hinder District work but could in fact help • Reluctant, passive participant but hopefully unobtrusive—as was mathematics department

10. MIST • A third of our middle schools • Extensive interviews of central office, principals, teachers • Observations of classrooms • Assessment of teachers’ knowledge of the pedagogy of mathematics

11. MIST • First year, Vanderbilt did ALL of the legwork and had to rope me into meetings to hear results • Not because I didn’t value the work but simply over-extended—hiring staff, designing and writing a curriculum and delivery system, implementing a district-wide coaching model • After first year of reporting of results, my perspective changed dramatically

12. MIST • As a District—we were very focused on systemic implementation (ToA) • Significant “mirroring” of efforts across all content areas • Implementation of coaches • Common curriculum with common format • Expectations of principals and assistant principals to be instructional leaders • Expectations for departmental planning • Strong likelihood that findings within MIST schools would be very similar to findings in other schools in all content areas

13. Systemic Challenges Considerations of Scale Work • Highlighted the cultural resistance to change • Not only teachers! Central staff were a major point a resistance—generally passive resistance • Revealed the extent of lack of depth of content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers—especially with respect to the strategies and skills that are best practices for their content area and student population • Revealed lack of administrative skill in coaching principals and teachers toward improving practice • Revealed lack of knowledge of effective instructional practices of leadership staff

14. Systemic Challenges • Multiple initiatives: staff at ground level have difficulty seeing the related nature of multiple reform strategies • We’re “doing” PLCs and we’re “doing” rigorous lesson planning and we’re “doing” effective strategies for ESL students and we’re “doing” inclusion • In my mind these are all highly supportive of improving instruction—to some teachers and principals it was multiple initiatives • How to communicate better?

15. What made MIST work—as a partnership? • Converging urgency… • Federal and State accountability systems • Low ratings, low student achievement=highly supporting context for change • Board expectation of change • Ambitious agendas • Change teacher practices to improve student performance outcomes • MIST furthered our agenda to change teacher practices • Insightful, tenacious, and sensitive researchers

16. Systemic Findings • VPs were point of contact for mathematics departments. Finding was that teachers were not looking to principal for leadership • Prompted us to shift to principal • Revealed that the disconnect between School Leadership and Curriculum and Instruction was distracting from work • Merged the two departments under one leader • Does not “solve” all the problems, but simplifies the process

17. Systemic Findings • Coaches were ineffective, not sufficiently more “talented” than teachers, could not lead to improving teacher practice • Major redesign of instructional support model

18. What made MIST work? • Alignment with a MAJOR district initiative • Really it was more than an alignment, it was forwarding and improving our agenda

19. Did MIST Work? • Multiple factors but… • Middle school mathematics scores have steadily risen • 20% of 8th graders are now taking Algebra I and 5% geometry—passing state tests at 100% rate • Remaining 8th graders—could conjecture, the lower performing—scores have surpassed many urban peer districts and are our closest to state average—especially for subpops

20. Considerations for Starting at Scale • Can assist with systemic “problem” that demands immediate response • Can garner strong external support • Responds to need of Board to see “immediate” change • Provides lessons learned for scale work

21. Big or Small? • For FWISD, with subsequent smaller scale projects, it has been a challenge to provide researchers with consistent and engaged support • Much harder to rally the troops for a project that is not on everyone’s radar • This has pros and cons; important to consider both