Sharing in Leadership for Student Success
DeAnn Huinker & Kevin McLeod, UWM
Beth Schefelker, MPS
18 April 2008

National Science Foundation (NSF)
Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program
◦
◦
◦
◦

Comprehensive Projects (12)
Targeted Projects (28)
Institute Projects (12)
Research, Evaluation, & Technical Assistance (25)
Cohort 2, Comprehensive K-12 Mathematics
◦ $20 million over 5 years
◦ 2003–2008 (Currently in Year 5)

Partnership-driven

Teacher quality, quantity, and diversity

Challenging courses and curricula

Evidence-based design and outcomes

Institutional change and sustainability
Mathematics
Framework
Distributed
Leadership
Teacher Learning
Continuum
Student Learning
Continuum
Learning Teams
in each school
established.
Comprehensive
Math Framework
(CMF) developed.
2002
Math Teacher
Leader (MTL)
position begins,
joins Learning
Team.
Significant increase
math achievement
fall 2005 to 2006.
Math Teaching
Specialist position
begins.
2003
NSF funds the MMP.
CMF disseminated.
MPS math learning
targets developed.
2004
2005
MMP designs
model classroom
assessments.
Aligns targets to
State Assessment
Framework.
Math gap between
district and state
narrows.
2006
Community plan
provides focus &
accountability for the
next five years.
MPS funds $5 million
to expand MTL role.
2007
MMP focuses on
formative assessment
and descriptive
feedback.
Revises math
textbook adoption
process.
2008
2009
Governor budgets
$10 million for MPS
math.
MPS budgets $3
million to sustain
implementation of
the MMP initiatives.
5+7=
+8
3
6 ?
4
1. A parallelogram is a rectangle.
2. A square is a rectangle.
3. A trapezoid is a rhombus.
School-based
Learning Team
Math
Teacher
Leader
Principal
Other Key
Teachers
Literacy
Coach
Math Teacher Leaders are “key” for
focusing their Learning Teams and
schools on mathematics.
Learning Team
Math
Teacher
Leader
District
Mathematics
Leadership
(MCS, MTS, TIR)
Principal
Literacy
Coach
Other Key
Teachers
IHE Faculty
Mathematics &
Math Education
Math Teacher Leader
 Maintains
classroom responsibilities.
 Focuses
the school on mathematics
through the Learning Team.
 Brings
best practices in math to school.
 Supports
school-based professional
learning.
 Links
school to district leadership and
IHE expertise.
Monthly strands:

Mathematics content knowledge.

Leadership skills.

District alignment—math framework,
learning targets, state standards and
descriptors, common classroom
assessments, descriptive feedback.
Stage 1
Learning Targets
Stage 2
Align Targets to
State Framework
Stage 3
Classroom
Assessments
Stage 4
Student Work
Stage 5
Descriptive
Feedback
Understand
importance to
identify and
articulate big
ideas in math to
bring consistency
to a school’s
math program.
Develop meaning
for the math
embedded in the
targets and
alignment to state
standards school’s
math program.
Provide a measure
of student learning
with common
classroom
assessments based
on standards and
targets.
Examine student
work to monitor
achievement
and progress
toward the
targets.
Use student work
to inform
instruction and
provide students
with descriptive
feedback.
Tools
• Grade level
lists, 9-11 big
ideas per grade
(targets).
• Horizontal list of
targets by
content across
grades.
Tools
• Target-state
descriptor sheets.
• Thinking Levels
Framework.
Tools
• CABS Clarification
Statements.
• Assessing the
Assessments Guide
• Model CABS
Tools
• Protocol for
analysis of
student work
• DVD of the
protocol in use
Tools
• Feedback Types
worksheet
• Everyday
Rubric
• Student
Feedback
Summary sheets
n
Year 1
2003-04 101
Year 2
97
2004-05
Year 3
2005-06 89
Year 4
2006-07
89
Stage 1
Learning
Targets
Stage 2
Stage 3
Align Targets to
Classroom
State Framework Assessment
s
Stage 4
Student
Work
Stage 5
Descriptive
Feedback
38%
53%
9%
0%
1%
18%
34%
38%
5%
4%
13%
26%
41%
18%
2%
1%
9%
25%
43%
23%
Engagement
Spring 2005
Spring 2007
Quantity of PD
2.81
3.01
Consistency in math instruction
2.85
3.06
Engaged in activities to align curriculum
to learning targets
2.63
3.42
Engaged in activities using CABS and
student work samples
2.79
3.60
Engaged in activities to gauge student
progress
2.98
3.17
Talked about teaching & learning of
mathematics with others
3.16
3.72
17
Consistent curriculum
+
Teachers working together
+
Predicts
Strong
Math
Focus
PD perceived as valuable
18
Are student achievement gains
in mathematics greater in schools
that have more fully embraced
MMP principles?
19
WKCE Student Achievement Data from 2005
+
MMP Online Survey Results from 2006
to explain variability in
WKCE Student Achievement in 2006
(Thus, the impact of Year 3 MMP)
20
Grade
4
Grade
5
Grade
6
Grade
7
Grade
8
Variance due to
MMP Alignment
12%
9%
4%
10%
7%
Variance due to
Learning Team Quality
for mathematics
9%
5%
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Total variance explained
by school level factors
19%
22%
22%
24%
21%
Low
1
High
2
Loose Network
MTL Not Central
Few Links to MTL
MTS Outside
Few Links to MTS
3
4
5
Tight Network
MTL Central
Many Links to MTL
MTS Inside
Many Links to MTS
22

Maps identify
◦ MTL
◦ MTS
◦ Teachers
◦ Principal

Statistics
◦ Network density (%)
◦ In-Degree
(z-score)
◦ Literacy Coach
◦ Others in school
◦ Others outside
23
School
G
Sample
Average
SD
Median
n
11
Total Named
42
Network
density
6.1%
Density in
school
7.5%
MTL Role-In Degree
9.52
MTS Role-In Degree
1.19
21.9
8.0
22
57.1
16.7
51
6.3%
2.6%
5.7%
12.2%
5.0%
11.4%
18.84
6.9
17.56
2.69
3.7
0.92
Student Achievement:
2006: 20% Proficient
4-year trend: -4% 24
School
F
Average
SD
Median
n
13
21.1
6.8
19
Total Named
31
54.0
17.6
48
Network
density
7.2%
6.7%
2.6%
6.2%
Density in
school
11.7%
17.6%
9.6%
15.4%
MTL Role-In Degree
3.33
13.81
7.2
13.07
MTS Role-In Degree
2.50
5.31
4.9
3.75
25
School
A
Sample
Average
SD
Median
n
22
Total Named
43
Network
density
11.7%
Density in
school
20.1%
MTL Role-In Degree
30.61
MTS Role-In Degree
4.40
21.9
8.0
22
57.1
16.7
51
6.3%
2.6%
5.7%
12.2%
5.0%
11.4%
18.84
6.9
17.56
2.69
3.7
0.92
Student Achievement:
2006: 50% Proficient
4-year trend: +7% 26
School
B
Average
SD
Median
n
23
21.1
6.8
19
Total Named
55
54.0
17.6
48
Network
density
11.4%
6.7%
2.6%
6.2%
Density in
school
31.1%
17.6%
9.6%
15.4%
MTL Role-In Degree
28.24
13.81
7.2
13.07
MTS Role-In Degree
18.52
5.31
4.9
3.75
27
28


The MTL and MTS network positions are
good indicators of MMP impact within
school-based networks.
Distributed leadership really begins to
take hold when teacher communication
networks are tightly webbed.
29

Preservice Teacher Math Preparation
◦ MATC
◦ UWM

Teacher Professional Development
◦ UWM-MMP courses & workshops
◦ MMP School Action Plans



Assessment Pilots: K-7, 8-9, HS
Transition to College Mathematics
Textbook Selection Process






MPS Action (Strategic) Plan
MPS Mathematics Functional Plan
MPS DIFI Plan
Governor’s MPS Mathematics Initiative
Proposal submitted for MMP Phase II
Other grant proposals
MMP website
◦ www.mmp.uwm.edu
DeAnn Huinker
◦ huinker@uwm.edu
Kevin McLeod
◦ kevinm@uwm.edu
Beth Schefelker
◦ schefeba@milwaukee.k12.wi.us