Welcome To The November MTL Meeting

1. Welcome To The November MTL Meeting Please move as close to the center of the auditorium when selecting your seats.

2. Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership Program Evaluation Year 7 Results Carl Hanssen Hanssen Consulting, LLC November 2010 MTL Meeting

3. Where are we? • MMP efforts have been ongoing since 2003 • This is the 6th year we have been conducting the evaluation • NSF and MPS Evaluation Efforts have become integrated

4. MMP Support • Original & Phase II funding from NSF • Started in 2003-04 • Currently in 8th year • Focus on research and evaluation • MPS & State of Wisconsin • Provides funding for released MTL positions • Support for MTS Positions • Funding for Evaluation

5. 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 success factors

6. Key Evaluation Question What are the critical factors or conditions promoted by the MMP that are related to student achievement?

7. Agenda • Released and non-Released MTLs • MMP Involvement • Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching • Social Network Analysis • Breakout Discussion • Upcoming Evaluation Activities

8. 1. Released v. non-Released MTLs Key question: How does achievement differ in schools with released and non-released MTLs? Examine attainment and value added

9. Pre-released MTLs

10. First year released MTLs

11. Second year released MTLs

12. Findings • There was an initial bias toward providing underperforming schools with a released MTL • Over time, the position appears to have been effective for helping close the gap between low and high performing schools • In the most recent year, there is no statistical differences in quadrant membership between schools with and without released MTLs

13. Small Group Discussion • What other factors might help explain these findings? • How has having a released MTL (or not having a released MTL) made a difference in your school?

14. 2. MMP Involvement Key Question: Is there a relationship between involvement in MMP activities and student achievement? Critical Challenge: Quantifying ‘involvement’

15. Involvement Factors • MTL Meeting Attendance • Course Enrollment • Action Planning • Textbook Adoption • HS Algebra and Geometry Labs Not all factors were present in each year (05-06 through 08-09)

16. Cumulative Involvement—Schools Serving Grade 10 These data are then converted to z-scores And schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High

17. Schools with Grade 10 Students

18. Cumulative Involvement—Schools Serving Grades 6-8 These data are then converted to z-scores And schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High

19. Schools With Grade 6-8 Students

20. Cumulative Involvement—Schools Serving Grades 3-5 These data are then converted to z-scores And schools grouped as No-Low-Medium-High

21. Schools With Grade 3-5 Students

22. Findings • Initial results suggest that involvement is a predictor of student achievement—most notably between the no-involvement and other groups.

23. Small Group Discussion • In what ways does involvement in MMP activities translate to improved teaching and learning at the classroom level? • What other factors might help explain these results?

24. 3. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) Key Question:What is the relationship between teacher MKT and student achievement? Predict Fall WKCE scores for teachers’ prior year students

25. Teacher MKT Over Time

26. Distribution of 2008-09 Scores

27. WKCE Scores Fall 2009

28. HLM Results After controlling for grade level, teacher MKT accounts for 4.6% of variability in WKCE scores

29. Small Group Discussion • What strategies can MTLs use to improve teacher MKT? • How can the MTSs support these efforts?

30. 4. Social Network Analysis Key Question: How have school-based networks changed over time? Social Network Analysis conducted in 112 schools in Spring 2009

31. Maps identify MTL or MTS or Teachers Principal Literacy Coach Others in school Others outside school Statistics Network density In-School density MTL In-Degree MTL Betweeness MTS In-Degree Principal In-Degree SNA Key Benefit—a graphical AND statistical description of school-based networks.

32. Density Changes 2009 2010 Networks are becoming less dense

33. MTL In-Degree Hi Lo

34. Hi MTL Betweeness

35. Hi MTS In-Degree

36. Hi Principal In-Degree Principal

37. Findings • Strong networks manifest multiple characteristics—high density, MTL In-Degree & Betweeness, MTS In-Degree, and Principal In-Degree • The Release MTL Position may be eroding some characteristics of strong networks

38. Small Group Discussion • In Social Network terms, how would you describe your school? • How can MTLs and MTSs support the creation of strong distributed leadership in schools?

39. Breakout Discussion

40. Final Thoughts • There is no simple answer to the question of what drives student achievement • However…schools that demonstrate strong results tend to exhibit many of the positive conditions discussed today

41. 6. Next Steps • Teacher MKT • Monthly sessions January – May • Central Services • Sign up starting in December • More information forthcoming • MMP Online Survey—May 2011 • SNA Survey—May2011 • MTL Survey—April 2011