Ivan Cheng and Ken Berry
California State University Northridge
ARCHES California P-16
Collaboration and Student Success Conference
June 20, 2007

Agenda
•
Background
•
What we did
 ARCHES collaborative
 The SITTE model


Principles of SITTE
 Process of SITTE
• What’s next
 DREAMS project
Ongoing work
 Building the pipeline for career technology
 What more is needed?

Background
•
In 2000, successful completion of first year algebra became a high school graduation requirement in California.
•
Algebra success rate in high schools is low in Los Angeles Unified School
District.
• Failure in algebra “triggers dropouts more than any single subject” according to former Superintendent
Roy Romer.

Background
•
What is the algebra that students need?
< discussion and sample >
•
Each year, approximately 1200 Ph.D.s are awarded in mathematics.
•
Each year there are approximately 3.8 million ninth graders.
•
This means only 0.03% of the student population go on to study advanced math.

Background
“To improve their mathematics instruction, teachers must be able to analyze what they and their students are doing and consider how those actions are affecting students’ learning.”
NCTM Principles and Standards , p. 18

Background
“Teachers learn well just as students do
— by studying, doing, and reflecting; by col-laborating with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work; and by sharing what they see.
”
Darling-Hammond (1999), p. 12

Background
•
A business term for describing the improvement process
•
Refers to the number of standard deviations required to achieve “3.4 defects per million opportunities
(DPMO)”
•
For 3.8 million ninth graders each year, this means fewer than 13 will fail!!!

Background
•
Process focuses on specific projects.
•
Each project focuses on specific outcomes with decisions driven by evidence.
•
Each project limited to specific timeframe.
• Supported by “green belts,” “black belts,” and “champions.”

What We Did
•
Los Angeles Unified School District
•
California State University Northridge
•
Los Angeles Mission College
•
Project GRAD Los Angeles
•
Economic Alliance of the San Fernando
Valley

What We Did
•
Designed a pilot project based on research from the Inter-session
Teaching and Training (ITT) project in
2004
•
Implemented Student Improvement
Through Teacher Empowerment
(SITTE) pilot projects in 2006

What We Did
•
Professional development aligned with district instructional guidance systems
•
Professional development situated in the context of actual classroom teaching
•
Daily collaborative lesson planning during summer school or inter-session
•
Reflecting on and refining lessons based on ongoing recognition of student thinking

What We Did
•
Consideration of the local school context
• Use of teachers’ knowledge to generate solutions to their students’ learning needs
•
A focus on student learning rather than teacher improvement
•
A well defined time frame for the work
•
The availability of resources rather than mandated strategies or curricula

What We Did
Professional Development as a Lever

What We Did

What We Did

What We Found
What happens when teachers are provided the social space in which they can engage in collaborative inquiry while actually teaching?

What We Found
•
Teachers demonstrated an awareness of student thinking
–
Acquaintance with alternative solutions
–
Watchfulness of student misconceptions
–
Attentiveness to student attitudes
–
Responsiveness to student reasoning
–
Expectation of trajectories in student thinking
•
Teachers applied their knowledge of student thinking
–
Guiding principles for lesson design
–
Greater use of inquiry lessons

What We Found
•
Teachers demonstrated flexibility and resourcefulness
–
Departing from the textbook
–
Designing lessons based on student learning needs
•
Teachers exhibited a sense of efficacy and confidence to find instructional solutions
–
Attitudes about students
–
Attitudes about self
•
Teachers demonstrated interdependence and teamwork
–
During SITTE
–
After SITTE

What We Found
Comparisons by Subject (Algebra 1A)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
74.6
61.1
39.6
A B C D Fail
Spring 2004 Inter-session 2003/2004 ITT Algebra 1A

What We Found
Comparisons by Calendar Track
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70.5
48.3
A B C D
Summer 2005 Fall 2005 Winter 2006
Fail
47.6

What We Found
Comparisons with Same Teachers
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
63.7
67.8
A B C D
Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Summer 2006
Fail
37.9

What’s Next?
•
Summer program for at-risk middle school students
•
Students are provided pre-algebra instruction, study skills, robotics, field trips, and food
•
Teachers are paid to teach and engage in professional development daily using the SITTE model

What’s Next?
•
Robotics program through Los Angeles
Mission College
•
Students receive college credit; Mission
College generates FTES
•
Curriculum provides context for studying mathematics
•
Builds rigor, relevance, and relationships

What’s Next?
•
Math teachers continue working with students from summer class
•
Ongoing professional development to infuse robotics into curriculum
•
Additional grant funding to scale up work to change culture and help teachers become “collaboration ready”

What’s Next?
•
Partner with businesses to provide jobs and internships
•
Create a pipeline of opportunities through rigor, relevance, and relationships
•
Provide a future for students by cultivating dreams

What’s Next?
<discussion>

Summary
It’s Done For Teachers, Not To
Teachers
Professional development must be focused on what
teachers want to help them improve student learning.
It Takes Teamwork
Professional development requires a collaborative effort for teachers to find what works for them where they’re at.
It’s About Time
Inter-session (or summer school) provides the place and time where teachers can work as a team to find solutions to their own professional needs.

Thank You
Ivan Cheng icheng@csun.edu
www.csun.edu/~icheng
Ken Berry ken.bery@csun.edu
ARCHES California P-16
Collaboration and Student Success Conference
June 20, 2007