Math Specialist Initiatives and Future Directions (Oregon)


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Ask about who is here… teacher, math coach/specialist, district leaders, higher education
  • Conferences in 2010 and 20112010 – 11 states attending and 2 states each sending 1 member2011 – 9 states attending
  • We’ve looked at our data in different ways:Change in MCP vs non-MCP schools (this slide); andIndividual schools (previous slide).Which leads to looking for explanations for inconsistencies that emerged when looking at individual schools – which we will talk about later.
  • 37.5 hour per week average contracted expectation (7.5 hours per day)In addition, EMS spent over 4 hours per week on work-related tasks, including coaching, for which they received no financial compensation.EMS are not positioned in all schools in these districts, so assessment expectations are probably a reflection of a local school response to district pressures, and not a district-level assignment.Time in meetings was consistent within districts and differed between districts.During first year there was a second coaching/leadership course and for about half of Cohort 1, master’s degree completion carried over into Year 2 (with action research project).But all EMS need to continue learning and professional interaction/reading after placement.Most EMS volunteered for morning and afternoon bus duty (40-55 minutes per day)
  • So we looked at the 5 schools with the highest growth rate; and the 5 schools with the lowest growth rate to see what the coaches did in those schools
  • And these are absent in the least successful schoolsData sources: Looked at coach data (site visit reports, facilitator reports, weekly logs, coach content and pedagogy scores, administration participation.Data were form the 5 most improved (highest rate of growth) MCP schools and the 5 least improved (lowest rate of growth) MCP schools (out of 100+ schools).School Leadership examples: Building Leadership Team; School Improvement Team; Intervention Assistance Team.
  • Math Specialist Initiatives and Future Directions (Oregon)

    1. 1. A History of Mathematics Specialists 1981 1989 NCTM Board recommends mathematics specialist endorsements on teaching credentials. National Science Board Commission recommends mathematics specialists in grades 4-6. Arithmetic Teacher, John Dossey, Elementary School Mathematics Specialists: Where are They? Everybody Counts, National Research Council 2000 Principles & Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM 2001 Adding It Up, National Research Council 2001 Mathematical Education of Teachers, CBMS 2003 2008 Johnny Lott’s NCTM Presidential Message, The Time Has Come for Pre-K-5 Mathematics Specialists Teaching Children Mathematics, Reys & Fennell, Who Should Lead Mathematics Instruction at the Elementary School Level? A Case for Mathematics Specialists NCTM/NCATE Program Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists (initial certification) Skip Fennell’s NCTM Presidential Message, We Need Elementary School Mathematics Specialists NOW National Mathematics Advisory Panel 2010 Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists, AMTE 1983 1984 2003 2003 2006 -McGatha, 2010
    2. 2. Mathematics Specialist Specialization: Background, Initiatives, and Current Directions Oregon Math Leaders Annual Conference McMinnville, Oregon Nicole Miller Rigelman Portland State University
    3. 3. Overview of Session  Rationale for the use of Mathematics Specialists and their impact  Overview of the national EMS Initiatives  Resources supporting EMS certification and program development  Oregon’s story  Progress and and future direction through the ―certification‖ process  What research says about the influence of math specialists
    4. 4. Challenge: Strengthening the expertise for teaching mathematics in schools
    5. 5. Why Math Specialists? ―Teacher‐leaders can have a significant influence by assisting teachers in building their mathematical and pedagogical knowledge.…Teacher‐leaders’ support on a day‐to‐day basis ranging from conversations in the hall to in‐classroom coaching to regular grade‐level and departmental seminars focused on how students learn mathematics — can be crucial to a teacher’s work life.‖ - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000
    6. 6. Why Math Specialists? ―A single mathematics education leader can have an incredible impact on the development and effectiveness of others.… Leaders in mathematics education at all levels of the school or district organization … are crucial for ensuring attainment of high ‐quality school mathematics programs‖ - National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, 2008
    7. 7. Why Math Specialists? “the use of teachers who have specialized in elementary mathematics teaching could be a practical alternative to increasing all elementary teachers’ content knowledge (a problem of huge scale) by focusing the need for expertise on fewer teachers” (p. 44). - National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008
    8. 8. Common Core State Standards  Some content shifts to earlier grades  Focus on conceptual understanding  Focus on “mathematical  Problem Solving Tools  Reasoning  Justification  Modeling practices” • Strategic Use of • Precision • Structure • Generalization
    9. 9. What do Math Specialists do? They work in different settings and are asked to do a variety of tasks:  Coach/mentor other teachers  Serve as a teacher leader/coordinator  Teach multiple classes of elementary students (e.g., one teacher teaching all the 4th graders math)  Teach special groups of students (remedial, enrichment, pull-out or in-class)  Plan and provide professional learning opportunities for teachers
    10. 10. State Certification for EMS Arizona Maryland Rhode Island California Michigan South Dakota Georgia Missouri Texas Idaho North Carolina Utah Kentucky Ohio Virginia Louisiana Oklahoma Several other states are in the final stages of adding EMS certification …. Arkansas and Pennsylvania
    11. 11. Charge of the AMTE EMS Initiative With funding from The Brookhill Foundation:  Develop guidelines for EMS program development and state certification.  Use the national leverage of AMTE (and other partnering organizations) to advocate for more states to offer EMS certification/endorsement.
    12. 12. Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists A Reference for Teacher Credentialing and Degree Programs
    13. 13. MS Program Guidelines Prerequisites:  Teacher licensure  At least three years of successful experience in teaching mathematics Components:  24 quarter hours (16 semester hours) spanning all of the program components outlined in the standards.  Includes supervised mathematics specialist practicum – working with a range of students and teachers.
    14. 14. Areas of Knowledge/Expertise for Math Specialists  Content Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics  Pedagogical Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics  Leadership Knowledge and Skills
    15. 15. Mathematical Content Knowledge  Specialized mathematics knowledge for teaching.  Deep understanding of mathematics. 1 Based on recommendations in Mathematics Education of Teachers Report (2001 and 2012) and Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) Report (2007).
    16. 16. Pedagogical Mathematics Knowledge  Learners and learning  Teaching  Curriculum and assessment
    17. 17. Leadership  Professional Resources  Communication  Policy  Professional development  Equity
    18. 18. EMS State Certification Conference  Who are EMS professional?  What difference are they making?  How does a state get started with certification and program development?  What resources are available?  What are next steps?
    19. 19. Oregon’s Math Specialist Task Force Team members:  Mark Freed, Oregon Department of Education  Linda Samek, George Fox University  Kathy Cheval, Salem Keizer School District  Lora Nordquist, Bend La-Pine School District  Cheryl Beaver, Western Oregon University Ex-Officio Member:  Nicole Rigelman, Portland State University
    20. 20. Oregon’s MS Action Plan  Goal 1: Establish MS Certification in Oregon  Goal 2: Establish Preparation Programs for EMS
    21. 21. Goal 1: Establish MS Certification  Step 1: Develop standards  Review other state EMS certification stories & AMTE standards  MS endorsement to a license  Model after reading specialist / school social worker  Elementary, middle, and high
    22. 22. Goal 1: Establish MS Certification  Step 2: Gather letters of support from various influential bodies  E.g. Superintendents, Principals, Deans, Business, Legislators, ODE, Teachers groups (e.g. OCTM, OMEC, TOTOM, etc.)  Step 3: Present proposal at November meeting of TSPC  This is followed by a public review period  Step 4: Proposal voted on at April TSPC meeting
    23. 23. Goal 2: Design Preparation Program for MS  Step 1: Secure funding for meetings  Step 2: Hold a planning retreat with representatives from institutions across Oregon (summer 2012)  What is the Content? Format? Who will teach the courses? What should the Field Experience look like? Assessment issues?  Look at models from other states  READ Oregon & PrISM  Step 3: Implement programs
    24. 24. Future Steps  Find funding for first cohort  Find sustainable funding and programs
    25. 25. What difference to math specialists make?
    26. 26. Virginia Math Specialists: Year by Year Scale Score Performance Significant difference in student achievement between schools with and without an EMS, but this was NOT evident in the first year of placement of an EMS at any grade (in either cohort). The pattern of achievement was: o An increase in scores in Year 1, o Followed by a greater increase in scores in Year 2, o Followed by an even greater increase in scores in Year 3. The size of the increases in Years 2 and 3 drive the statistically significant effect. - Campbell, 2010
    27. 27. Difference between Students’ Mean Achievement Scores on SOL’s (Cohort 1 EMS versus Control Schools) Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Year 1 (2006-07) 6.8 12.3 6.34 Year 2 (2007-08) 10.4 15.4* 19.6* Year 3 (2008-09) 16.5 13.3 20.3* Across 2006-09 10.71* 13.68** 15.25** - Campbell, 2010
    28. 28. Achievement Comparison, MCP Cohort I Schools Findell, Brosnan & Erchick (2008) 100 2007 Percent Proficient 80 60 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 2006 Percent Proficient 80 100
    29. 29. Ohio MCP Achievement Results  For one academic year in the program, for all grade levels combined (grades 3-8), the average relative change for students achieving the proficient level or higher was 4.65% greater for MCP-coached schools than non-coached schools. (Zollinger, Brosnan, Erchick, and Bao, 2010).  Southern Elementary, Southern Ohio, Appalachian population: Grade 3 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grade 4 59.5 36.1 77.4 63.9 79.7 84.3 59.1 66.7 80.8 82.4 82.0 79.7 Grade 5 Grade 6 Not given 29.5 53.2 15.2 40.0 66.0 85.9 57.4 57.8 58.7 75.0 96.2 Grade 7 Grade 8 58.9 51.2 64.6 51.0 93.3 94.3 43.9 52.8 59.5 73.3 75.0 83.0
    30. 30. Specialists' Knowledge of Mathematics for Teaching 85% Cohort 1 80% 75% 70% Cohort 2 65% 60% 55% Pre-Course Post-Course First Year of Experience Second Year Third Year of of Experience Experience
    31. 31. Pre-Course Post-Courses First Year of Second Year Experience of Experience Third Year of Experience
    32. 32. Pre-Course Post-Courses First Year of Second Year Experience of Experience Third Year of Experience
    33. 33. Mean Hours per Contracted Week EMS Activity Cohort 1 Cohort 1 Cohort 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Cohort 2 Year 1 Coaching Teachers and Teams 8.21 4.91 4.84 3.83 Preparing for Coaching/Teaching 4.43 4.65 4.69 4.43 Supporting Assessment 3.98 5.06 5.14 4.69 Independently Teaching Students 1.13 1.65 1.69 1.35 Supporting School Math Program 1.88 1.58 1.91 1.91 Performing School-based Duties 2.44 3.45 3.9 3.68 Materials Mgmt/Communication 3.64 4.13 4.43 4.28 Attending Meetings 3.45 2.55 2.51 3.56 Engaging in Personal Prof. Activity 4.95 5.51 4.09 5.4 Non-educational Activity (e.g., lunch, travel, all-school event) 3.38 4.05 4.24 4.43
    34. 34. How MCP Coaches (Are Expected to) Spend Their Time In a Typical Week Brosnan & Erchick (2009) 1/2 Direct work with the teacher, in the classroom 1/5 Working with data (teacher data, student achievement tests, student open problem solving analysis) About 1/6 Reflection and planning About 1/6 Building level Professional development and other school activities (committees, community relations, etc.)
    35. 35. Achievement, Teacher Growth, and Pursuing Consistent Success  Inconsistencies in the student achievement data in the MCP as noted earlier, led to…  Analysis of the teacher understanding of student thinking and knowledge of instructional decisions, which led to…  Disaggregating teacher data by having worked with a coach or not, which led to…  Raising a question about what led to the higher achieving schools’ success.
    36. 36. Coaching Characteristics in the Most Improved MCP Schools Alignment with MCP Protocol • One coach per building. • Co-teaching/teaming more often than modeling; and with 3-4 teachers at a time. • Few non-coaching activities. • Consistent pre- and postconferences. • Provide embedded PD Leadership • Consistent attendance and • Participation in school leadership participation in MCP PD. at the building level. • Promotes expected role of coach. Administrative • Strong administrative support to Support implement the program. • Principal understanding of MCP goals, pedagogy, MCP model. Professional • Average and above average Knowledge measures on content, pedagogy and Coaching • High comfort level with the Role program. • Analyzes student work and assessment data with teachers. • Pursues implementing MCP model. Focus on MCP Instructional Principles • • • Student thinking. Mathematical knowledge. Questioning techniques. • • Using process standards. Using rich problems.