Riverpoint Advanced Math Partnership Project

1. Riverpoint Advanced Math Partnership Project Riverpoint Partnership for Math and Science

2. Riverpoint Advanced Math Partnership • Who are we? A group of high school, college and university faculty from 7 school districts, 2 community colleges and 2 universities • What is our mission? We are committed to improving student success in college mathematics classes. • What do we do? Work in collaborative teams to research, plan, design, compare, analyze, reflect, discuss, debate and persevere.

3. The Issue • College mathematics course placement • More than 20% of students entering college (including some who have taken upper level high school math classes) are placed into developmental math courses (no college credit). • This number rises to almost 50% of students entering a two-year college.

4. The Issue • Success in developmental courses • Only 30% of the students placed into developmental math classes successfully complete the courses, thus allowing them to move into the required credit bearing courses. • This effectively bars them from completing a college education.

5. 2007-2009 Goals and Activities • Teams of high school and college math faculty • College Readiness Standards (process strands, content strands and Student Attributes) • Design CRS-based tasks, lessons and assessments • Formative assessment of student work • Analysis of assessment implications • Implement change in classrooms. • Reading, research and reflection

6. Learning Together

7. Learning Together

8. Learning Together

9. Learning Together

10. Outcomes – Tasks and Lessons • Creation and comparison of standards-based “ramp” tasks across sectors. • Use of formative assessment to guide design of tasks/lessons to extend mathematical thinking. • Development, implementation and assessment of “gourmet” lessons.

11. Outcomes - Assessment • All participants (high school, college and university) gave common tasks aligned to the College Readiness Standards (CRS). • Tasks were evaluated using a holistic, standards-based rubric. • Resulting understandings and misunderstandings were common across institutions and levels.

12. Outcomes - Engagement • Participants engaged, committed and enthusiastic about the work. • Participants increasingly willing to share reflections about their own practice including opening their classrooms to others. • Group inquiry into roots and solutions of surprisingly common problems.

13. Current Funding • Received second HECB grant. • $848,740 over three years. • Applying for SAFECO grant to fund summer math camps.

14. Current Work • Representatives from WSU, EWU, SCC, SFCC, Spokane Schools, Central Valley Schools, Mead Schools, Gonzaga Preparatory School, West Valley Schools, East Valley Schools, Cheney Schools and Chewelah Schools. • Two Cohorts: • Continuing group: 32 participants • New group: 30 participants • Administrators from each school • Connections to school goals and initiatives

15. Teacher Plans • 3-day summer institutes focused on mathematical content for teaching • 2009 Algebra and Functions • 2010 Geometric Thinking • 2011 Probability and Statistics • 4 workshops/year focused on pedagogy and student work • 3 classroom observations/year • In-school team meetings • Online dialogue

16. Administrator Commitment • Annual Overview Meeting • School and team goals • Familiarity with CRS and PEs • Identify high quality teaching practices and benchmarks to guide observations • Connect with other administrators • Connections to School Team and the RAMP Project throughout the year. • Ongoing support from RAMP facilitators • Development of RAMP administrator community

18. Questions?