Effective Models for Designing and
Implementing Standards-based
Reform of K-12 Mathematics
Carol Fry Bohlin
Diane Spresser
F. Joseph Merlino
Lucy West
Carol Fry Bohlin
California State University, Fresno
STEPSS (Visalia Unified School District)
(carolb@csufresno.edu)
 Session
purpose/overview
 Speaker introductions
 Moderated question and answer period
Diane M. Spresser
National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia
(dspresse@nsf.gov)
Any opinions expressed are those of the
presenter and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the National Science Foundation.
National reports in mid-80’s through early
1990’s highlighted deficiencies in
mathematics education and called for
curricular reforms “aimed at ensuring all
students the opportunity to acquire a
dynamic form of mathematical literacy
which will enable them to participate as
informed citizens and productive workers
in a rapidly changing technological
society” (NSF, 1991).
Systemic Background
1991 NSF 91-105
Statewide Systemic Initiatives in Science,
Mathematics, and Engineering Education
1993 NSF 93-67
Urban Systemic Initiative
1994 NSF 94-34
Rural Systemic Initiative
Local Systemic Change (LSC)
Sequence
NSF 94-73
Special Solicitation Local Systemic
Change through Teacher Enhancement,
Grades K-8
NSF 95-145
Special Solicitation Local Systemic
Change through Teacher Enhancement in
Mathematics, Grades 7-12
Local Systemic Change (LSC)
Sequence (cont.)
NSF 98-53
Special Solicitation Local Systemic
Change through Teacher Enhancement in
Science, Grades 6-12
NSF 00-99 Elementary, Secondary, and
Informal Education - Program
Announcement
Student Achievement
Pilot LSC Projects
Goals
 Reform
S/M/T Education in the Context of
Entire Schools and School Systems
 Empower Teachers to Bring About Change
 Improve Instruction of all Teachers at
Grade Level
 Implement Exemplary Instructional
Materials
 Create Cost Effective Strategies
Components of all LSC Projects

Shared comprehensive vision; active
partnerships among stakeholders

Long-term professional development-minimum
100 hours-for all teachers of science or
mathematics at targeted grade levels, with
emphasis on the enhancement of disciplinary
knowledge and pedagogical skills
Components of all LSC Projects (cont.)
 Implementation
of exemplary,
comprehensive SMT instructional
materials for use in all classrooms to
impact all students at the targeted grade
levels
 Alignment
of professional development,
instructional materials, and school policy
and practice
Components of all LSC Projects (cont.)

Framework for data collection provided by NSF

Required cost share/commitment of resources on
behalf of districts

Maximum request for award determined by total
number of teachers participating in 100/130
hours of professional development
LSC Program Logic
Supportive Context
High Quality
for Teaching
Professional
Development
Appropriate
curriculum,
assessment, materials Empowered Teachers
management
Time for teachers to
Improved Instruction
plan, collaborate
Support from
Improved Student
administrators
Knowledge,
Support from parents
Attitudes, and Skills
and community
Sustainable
Professional
Development
System
Capacity
Structures
Resources
LSC Projects by Cohort
COHORT AWARDS
SCI
MATH
K-8
6-12
1
7
7
7
2
16
14
6
16
3
20
5
15
11
12
4
12
6
6
9
3
5
13
7
6
7
7
6
9
6
4
8
1
7
7
3
5
6
3
Core Evaluation System
LSC Design
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Identify program goals
List core evaluation questions
Create data collection matrix
Develop instruments/procedures
Pilot and revise instruments/procedures
Projects collect data and incorporate into
their reports
HRI prepares cross-site technical report
Core Evaluation - Key Questions
 What
is the overall quality of the LSC
professional development activities?
 What is the extent of school and teacher
involvement in LSC activities?
 What is the impact of the LSC
professional development on teacher
preparedness, attitudes, and beliefs about
mathematics and science teaching and
learning?
Core Evaluation
Key Questions (cont.)
What is the impact of the LSC professional
development on classroom practices in
mathematics and science?
 To what extent are the district and school
contexts becoming more supportive of the LSC
vision for exemplary mathematics and science
education?
 What is the extent of institutionalization of high
quality professional development systems in the
LSC districts?

Core Evaluation Activities
 Professional
Development Observations
(5-8 per year)
 Teacher Questionnaires (300 if one
subject; 450 if two subjects)
 Principal Questionnaires (population)
 Classroom Observations (10 per subject)
 Individual Teacher Interviews (10; not
conducted baseline data collection year)
75
Lessons Likely to Have a Positive Impact on
Students, by Teacher Participation in LSC
Professional Development
65
63
Percent of Lessons
59
49
46
50
40
41
63
47
40
30
29
25
0
View
math/science
as dynamic
Understand
math/science
concepts
Capacity to do
own inquiries
Ability to
apply
learning
Selfconfidence in
math/science
Interest in
math/science
75
Lessons Using LSC-Designated
Instructional Materials
Percent of Lessons
60
50
32
25
0
Untreated Teachers
Treated Teachers
75
Highly-Rated Lessons, by
Adherence to LSC-Designated
Materials
Percent of Lessons
61
52
50
25
19
0
Low
Medium
High
Highly-Rated Lessons, by Use of
LSC-Designated Materials and
Treatment
Percent of Lessons
75
50
50
41
30
25
21
0
Not Using LSC Materials
Using LSC Materials
F. Joseph Merlino
The Greater Philadelphia Secondary
Mathematics Project
http://www.gphillymath.org
(merlino@lasalle.edu)
The Phases of Systemic Change
Phases of Systemic Change
Within School Districts
 Initiating
 Implementing
 Enhancing
 Sustaining
Larger System Issues
6-18 months
3-5 years
2-3 years
?
Initiating Change





Initiating change is essentially an act of persuasion.
The process starts with central office administrators
and continues with district mathematics supervisors,
department heads, and principals.
Various options are discussed with accompanying cost
implications.
A decision to commit to change must be made by the
administration before approaching teachers or school
board members.
Teachers and school board members are engaged on
parallel tracks.
Initiating Change (cont.)
The teacher change process begins with a six-hour
protocol where teachers identify (a) learning goals
for their students, (b) current student progress
vis-à-vis these learning goals, and (c) obstacles to
attaining their goals.
 Selected obstacles (e.g., student motivation) are
then deconstructed.
 One-two mini-lessons are conducted with the
teachers.
 Teachers assent to try a replacement unit.

Lucy West
Community School District 2
New York City
(Lucywest18a@aol.com)
Reconceptualizing
Professional Development
Demographics of Community
School District 2
23,076 students
 1,200 teachers
 84 school based administrators (Principals
and Assistant Principals)
 16 mathematics coaches
 52 teacher leaders

Demographics of Community
School District 2

42 schools:
» 23 Pre K- 5th Grade
» 5 Pre K-8th Grade
» 9 Middle Schools 6th –8th Grades
» 4 High Schools
6th- 12th Grades
» 1 High School
9th-12th Grades

School size varies (range: 250-1500
students)
Demographics of Community
School District 2

Ethnic make-up
» 0.3% American Indian or Alaskan Native 33.7%
Asian (most speak Mandarin or Cantonese)
» 20.1% Hispanic
» 12.7% Black/African American
» 33% White
» 0.2% Unknown
Demographics of Community
School District 2
Languages/dialects spoken by students:
more than 100
 Students qualifying for free or reduced
lunch: 60%
 8% overall budget on professional
development in literacy, mathematics and
science education.

Professional Development Menu
 On-site, in classroom, coaching (Content Focused
Coaching)
 Curricula specific workshops (3 per year per grade)
 Theme based workshops (e.g. fractions through the
grades)
 Technology workshops
 Lesson Study
 Inter-visitations within and among schools
(Collaboration Sites)
Professional Development Menu
 Accredited Mathematics Courses
 Accredited Mathematics Methods Courses
 Study groups and planning clusters
 Professional Conferences
 Principals’ Meetings (monthly-focus on tchg/lrng)
 On-site, all staff meetings (monthly-focus tchg/lrng)
 Grade level or department meetings--math focus
 Institutes on classroom observation (Lenses on
Learning)
 Institutes focused on analyzing students’
mathematical thinking (DMI)
Differentiated Professional Development
New
Teachers
New to
Curriculum
Committed
New to
Curriculum
Compliant
Experienced
with
Curriculum
Experienced using
different
Curriculum
Teacher
Leader
Staff
Developer
Content
Phobic
Flexible
Pedagogy
Teacher Directed
Child Centered
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
One Way
On Site
CFC in Classroom C P K
Grade Levels
C PK
C P
All Staff
Courses
Summer Inst. C
Conferences C P
Researched Based
Math Specific
Lesson Study
Elem. C P K
Middle C P K
C P K
High
Workshops
Unit Specific C
K
Topic Based C P K
Collaboration Sites
Elem.
C P
Middle C P
Administrators
Professional Development
•Principal’s Conferences
•Content
•Standards
•Testing
•Lesson Planning
•Observation
•Lenses on Learning
•Content
•Observation / Evaluation
•Teacher Support
On Site Collaboration
•Goals and Objectives
•Scheduling for PD
•Individual
•Grade-level
•All Staff
•Site Specific Workshops
•Co-observation
•Parent Events
District Trend: Current Grade 5
Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Standards
in Grade 4
Percent of Students Scoring in Levels 3 and 4
Grade 4
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
78.1%
75.8%
75.9%
66.7%
69.1%
65.0%
51.8%
49.7%
46.2%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1999
2000
2001
District 2
New York City
New York State
Grade 4: Students Not Approaching Standards
(Level 1)
Percent of Students Scoring in Levels 3 & 4: Grade 8
Percent of Students Scoring in Levels 3 & 4 Grade 8
70.0%
60.0%
60.1%
55.7%
52.4%
50.0%
40.0%
53.9%
53.2%
49.8%
District 2
40.4%
37.9%
39.4%
District 26
New York City
30.0%
22.6%
22.8%
20.0%
New York State
22.8%
10.0%
0.0%
1999
2000
2001
District Trend: Students Meeting Standards by Grade
Third Grade Addition Facts
Fourth Grade Addition Facts
Fifth Grade Multiplication Facts
Professional Improvements
Alignment between curriculum, assessment
and pedagogy
 Common curriculum across schools and
grades
 Curriculum builds from year to year--less
need for repetition

Professional Improvements
Large majority of teachers using adopted
materials (Investigations, CMP, MMOW)
 Planning now focuses on content and on
student prior knowledge
 Planning now focuses on student
understanding--partial knowledge,
confusions, misconceptions
 Collaborative planning happens regularly

Professional Improvements
Lesson study is a common format in short
and long term among teacher leaders
 Inter-visitations among teachers within and
across schools common occurrence
 Skill level in observation of lessons
improved with use of lenses on learning
 Principals and staff developers collaborate
on long and short term planning for capacity

Professional Improvements
Literacy and science staff developers
beginning to use content focused coaching
 Common language and tools across the
district leading to more coherence in student
experiences
 Classroom discourse includes student-tostudent discussion of important
mathematical ideas
