CCSSM Implementation Plan: Improving Math Teaching at Scale

Slide1CCSSM Implementation Plan:Improving Math Teaching at Scale Karen Prigodich, District Math Specialist Centennial School District, Portland North West Math Conference October 11, 2014 kprigodich@gmail.com

Slide2Improving Math Teaching at ScaleWelcome! • While you are waiting, use the survey at your seat to reflect: – Where are you and/or your district with regard to the  Math Teaching Practices  defined in NCTM’s Principles to Actions ? – To what degree has your district considered the elements of the  CCSSM Leadership Framework from NCSM’s  It’s TIME?

Slide3Progress and Challenges Over 25 years of Standards-Based Math Reform: • steady rise  in the number of students scoring “proficient” or above  in math on the  NAEP • true for all students , regardless of gender, ethnicity, or SES • average mathematics scores on  TIMMS  for U.S. 4 th  and 8 th  grade  students   rose 23 and 17 points, respectively Mathematics achievement  of U.S. students is at  historically high levels

Slide4Progress and Challenges Significant challenges remain: • Persistent  achievement gaps  between white & black, white & Hispanic students • Pervasive  opportunity gaps   in the mathematics that students have the opportunity to learn • Only 44% HS grads demonstrate  college readiness  in math • PISA—US scores in decline,  show some success with low- level skills items  but struggle with mathematical modeling and reasoning We must move from  “pockets of excellence” to  “systemic excellence.” -- Principles to Actions  NCTM, 2014, p. 3

Slide5NCTM’s Vision of Ambitious Teaching• Teachers support students to solve  cognitively demanding tasks • Press students to provide  evidence for their reasoning  and  make connections  between their own and their peers’ solutions • Orchestrate  whole-class discussions  in which they build on students’ contributions to achieve their mathematical agendas for students’ learning • Learning opportunities are  distributed equitably

Slide6Five Key Components for Improvingthe Quality of Math Teaching at Scale ①  Coherent instructional system ②  Teacher networks ③  Mathematics coaching ④  School instructional leadership ⑤  District instructional leadership Instructional improvement at scale requires the coordination of all five components. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale.  Mathematics Teacher Education & Development ,  13 (2), 6–33.

Slide71. Coherent instructional system• Explicit goals  for students’ mathematical learning • Detailed vision  for quality mathematics instruction that specifies high-leverage instructional practices • Instructional materials /tools designed to support teachers’ development of practices • District teacher  professional development  (formal and job-embedded) – Focuses on  specified practices – Organized around  instructional materials – Sustained  over time • School-based  PLCs  for teachers to discuss/rehearse/adapt practices introduced in PD • Assessments  aligned with goals for student learning • Additional supports  for struggling students

Slide82. Teacher Networks• Supported by coherent instructional system • Trust • Mutual accountability  for student learning • Access to expertise of others • High-depth interactions : discussing different solution strategies to math tasks, analyzing student work • Presence of  accomplished teacher leader /coach essential

Slide93. Mathematics Coaching• Leadership in  PLC  meetings • Co-teaching , joint planning, observing, joint analysis of lesson • Foreground specific  instructional practices focused on in professional development • Model specific  routines of interaction : e.g. Press teachers to identify math relationships students need to understand in a task. • Coaches also need  scaffolding,  practicing these activities with district mathematics specialists

Slide104. School Instructional Leadership• Principals must be able to  distinguish between strong and weak  inquiry-oriented math lessons • Distinguish between  cognitively low- and high- demand  math tasks • Recognize key aspects of  ambitious mathematics teaching • Distributed model of school instructional leadership:  Collaborative relationship  w/Coaches – Coaches: supporting teachers’ learning – Principals: pressing/holding teachers accountable for developing intended instructional practices

Slide115. District Instructional Leadership• Shared  goals  and  vision , but also agreement on what to hold school leaders, coaches, and teachers  accountable  for • Instructional Improvement  (improving quality of instruction) and  Instructional Management (allocation of resources) need to be tightly coordinated • Regular opportunities to  collaborate  together • Learning perspective : Not about enforcing compliance but facilitating learning

Slide12Where are we now?What are our next steps? Discussion

Slide13Sources• Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale.  Mathematics Teacher Education & Development,  13(2), 6–33. • NCSM (2014).  It's TIME: A Leadership Framework for Common Core Mathematics . Solution Tree: Bloomington, IN. • NCTM (2014).  Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All.  Reston, VA.