1 / 21

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership. School Based Partnerships: Using Social Network Analysis to Measure Progress Towards Distributed Leadership Carl Hanssen Hanssen Consulting, LLC DeAnn Huinker University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee MSP Learning Network Conference Washington, DC January 2008.

wynonna-romero
Download Presentation

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership School Based Partnerships: Using Social Network Analysis to Measure Progress Towards Distributed Leadership Carl Hanssen Hanssen Consulting, LLC DeAnn Huinker University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee MSP Learning Network Conference Washington, DC January 2008

  2. Agenda • Context • Methods • Results • Conclusions

  3. 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

  4. Student Achievement Distal Outcomes Classroom Practice Teacher Content & Pedagogical Knowledge Proximal Outcomes Teacher Involvement Learning Team Effort School Buy-in MMP Activities New Courses Math Faculty Involvement District Buy-in UWM Buy-In MATC Buy-In MPA Ownership MMP Evaluation Logic Model

  5. Focus for this study Student Achievement Classroom Practice Teacher Involvement Distributed Leadership Learning Team Efforts School Buy-in

  6. Method • 20 Schools from 2006 & 2007 • Purposefully selected for diversity in • School Type • Geography • Student Achievement • MMP Involvement

  7. SNA Survey • Open survey approach • Teachers & administrators • Provide names of individuals with whom you communicated with about mathematics • Demographics • Other data • School staff lists • Student achievement resultsin terms of % proficient

  8. Maps identify MTL MTS Teachers Principal Literacy Coach Others in school Others outside Statistics Network density (%) In-Degree(z-score) Analysis

  9. 1a. 2006

  10. 1b. 2007

  11. 2a. 2006

  12. 2b. 2007

  13. 3a. 2006

  14. 3b. 2007

  15. 4a. 2006

  16. 4b. 2007

  17. 5. 2007

  18. MMP Distributed Leadership Continuum Low High 1 2 3 4 5 Tight Network MTL Central Many Links to MTL MTS Inside Many Links to MTS Loose Network MTL Not Central Few Links to MTL MTS Outside Few Links to MTS

  19. Distributed Leadership &Student Achievement This is the same school 2 years in a row!

  20. Overall Conclusions • There is support for the argument that schools that have more fully adopted MMP principles are demonstrating stronger outcomes — distributed leadership is one manifestation of MMP adoption. • Creating distributed leadership in a school takes time—and communication is critical • There is tremendous variabilityacross MPS in the extent to which schools have adopted MMPprinciples and ideas

  21. Conclusion • No single factor—e.g., distributed leadership, teacher MKT, learning team performance—is sufficient for success, but all may be necessary • Schools that are performing well do many of the things MMP promotes well, andrealize synergy between manyof these activities and principles

More Related