ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD AGENDA ITEM Item Title: Item Type: Background: Goals: Fiscal Analysis: Amount (Savings) (Cost): Department Budget: Recommendation: Evaluation of District Math Initiative Information AlamedaUnified School Districthas embarked on a K-12 mathematics initiative to strengthen and develop our mathematics instruction. Phil Gonsalves and Drew Kravin, Mathematics Coordinators from the West Contra Costa County Office of Education, embrace the District's theory of action around the use of formative assessments to mitigate instruction. Tonight staff will be sharing an evaluation and overview of AUSD's math initiative tonight to explain the District's work in this regard. Raise the bar Not Applicable Not Applicable This item is presented for information only. AUSD Guiding Principle: #1 - All students have the ability to achieve academic and personal success. #2 - Teachers must challenge and support all students to reach their highest academic and personal potential. Submitted By: Sean McPhetridge, Assistant Superintendent ATTACHMENTS: Name: PP_Evaluation_of_District_Math_Initiative_03-13-12.ppt Description: Evaluation of District Math Initiative
AUSD Math Initiative Report on AUSD s Focus on Math Spanning Grades K to Algebra 1 March 13, 2012
AUSD Math Initiative Components: 1. Coaching 2. Professional development for K-Algebra 1 teachers 3. K-5 and 6-12 administrators: sessions on math content and best practices during AUSD Instructional Leadership meetings led by Phil Gonsalves 4. Summer Math Programs for struggling students: Pg 2 o4 th graders entering 5 th grade (one week) o5 th graders entering 6 th grade (one week) oat-risk 7 th & 8 th graders entering Algebra 1 (four weeks) oat-risk 8 th & 9 th graders entering Geometry (four weeks)
Coaching 2008-2009: Fifteen 4 th and 5 th grade teachers who attended the SIMI 2 Summer Institute were supported by one coach; no middle school coach; part time high school coach 2009-2010: Thirty 4 th and 5 th teachers who attended the SIMI 2 Summer Institute were supported by two coaches; 1 middle school and 1 high school coach 2010-2011: ALL AUSD 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th grade teachers are supported by 4.5 math coaches; 1 middle school and 1 high school coach Pg 3
Component 1: Coaching 2011-1212 Elementary Schools: 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th grade teachers have access to a trained and supported Math Coach. Middle Schools: 6 th, 7 th and Algebra 1 math teachers have a math coach. Some support is also provided to middle school Geometry teachers. High School: Algebra 1 teachers have a coach. Some support is also provided to high school Geometry teachers. Pg 4
Component 1: Coaching 2011-1212 Coaches collaborate on lesson planning and provide feedback after classroom visits, demonstrations of model lessons and materials support. Coaches provide after school professional development sessions for teachers as well as Saturday sessions two times this year. Coaches also work on and monitor pacing guides, proofing math benchmarks and creating study guides before assessments. Pg 5
Component 2: Professional Development This school year 2011-2012, we have greatly increased the amount of professional development for teachers in AUSD, both after school and half or full day at sites. All math teachers in grades K-Algebra 1 will have 4 opportunities to participate in paid after school professional development to learn math best practices and engage in professional dialogue with colleagues. Pg 6
Staff Development Days 2011-2012 Date Grades Site(s) Staff Names Aug. 23 2/3 Haight/Paden Jim, Therese Aug. 23 4/5 Haight/Paden Katherine, Aimée Aug. 23 2/3 Otis/Edison Katherine Aug. 23 4/5 Otis/Edison Aimée Aug. 23 2/3 Washington Therese Aug. 23 4/5 Washington Jim Pg 7
After School PD Sessions 2011-2012 Date Grades Staff Names Participant Numbers Jan. 10 3-5 Katherine, Aimée, Jim, Therese 44 teachers, 11 schools Jan. 19 K-2 Katherine, Aimée, Jim, Therese 47 teachers, 10 schools Jan. 24 K-5 (Washington) Therese, Jim, Aimée 12 teachers, 5 Paraprofessionals, 1 school Jan. 24 6-7 Eric, Hilda 9 teachers, 3 schools Jan. 31 Algebra Eric, Hilda 15 teachers, 5 schools Feb. 7 6-7 Eric, Hilda 8 teachers, 4 schools Feb. 23 K-2 Katherine, Aimée, Jim, Therese 19 teachers, 9 schools Feb. 28 Algebra Eric, Hilda 13 teachers, 5 schools March 1 3-5 Katherine, Aimée, Jim, Therese 32 teachers, 11 schools March 13 6-7 Eric, Hilda March 22 K-2 Katherine, Aimée, Jim, Therese March 27 Algebra Eric, Hilda March 29 3-5 Katherine, Aimée, Jim, Therese April: TBA Pg 8 K-2, 3-5, 6-7, Alg1
Component 2: Professional Development On the evaluations, teachers responded on a scale of 1-5 (1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) to the following: I deepened and/or refreshed my mathematics content knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5% 48% 47% Pg 9
Component 2: Professional Development On the evaluations, teachers responded on a scale of 1-5 (1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) to the following: I learned and/or reviewed some useful teaching strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 4% 40% 56% Pg 10
Component 2: Professional Development Response from evaluations about what was helpful or worked well: Vocabulary used and many ways to show answers Everything! Loved the progression and step by step ideas The methodical method that taught multiple methods Number line, bar models, equivalency of one Modeling hands on is a great refresher plus is a great lead in to what was covered. Examples were clear and easy to understand I appreciate the review of strategies and learning 2 new ones Even though I ve attended several math PDs in recent years, I appreciate that I learned new things You trys and partner talk helped me work through my misunderstandings and internalize the methods It was helpful learning about warm-ups. I m planning to use them in class more frequently. Pg 11
Component 2: Professional Development In addition to the previously listed professional development opportunities, sites have had professional development activities tailored to their site-specific needs: Benchmark and data analysis Parent University Night Site-specific math content and best practices with Phil Gonsalves Pg 12
Benchmark & Data Analysis Meetings Date School Grade Level(s) Staff Names Nov. 29 Paden 3 Katherine, Therese Dec. 2 Paden 4 Jim, Aimée Dec. 12 Lum 3 Jim, Katherine Dec. 13 Lum 4 Jim, Katherine Dec. 14 Lum 5 Jim, Katherine Dec. 14 Paden 5 Jim, Aimée Jan. 10 Edison 4 Jim, Aimée Jan. 10 Edison 5 Katherine, Aimée Jan. 24 Edison 3 Katherine, Therese Jan. 24 Washington 2/3 Jim Jan. 24 Washington 4/5 Aimée Jan. 26/27 Haight K/1/3 Therese Jan. 26/27 Haight 2/4/5 Aimée Pg 13
Parent University Nights Date School Staff Names Oct. 20 Lum Katherine, Aimée, Therese, Eric Nov. 3 Ruby Bridges Katherine, Aimée, Therese, Jim Jan. 9 Edison Katherine, Aimée, Therese, Jim Jan. 31 Bay Farm Jim, Therese Feb. 2 Otis Katherine, Aimée, Therese, Eric March 8 Paden/Washington TBA March 29 Lincoln Pg 14
Site-Specific PD Support Date School Description Staff Names Dec. 1 Bay Farm ELAC Therese Jan. 23 AHS Math Dept. Meeting PD Phil/Hilda Jan. 24 Paden Grade 4 Intervention Jim Jan. 25 EHS Math Dept. PD Phil/Hilda Jan. 31 Paden Grade 4 Intervention Jim March 2 AHS Math Dept. PD Phil/Hilda Pg 15
Component 3: Administrator Professional Development Phil Gonsalves has come to the district instructional leadership meetings 5 times this year to provide PD in the following areas: o Content Focus: increase participant math content knowledge o Pedagogy: model best practices for math classes o Learning Walks: lead administrators through classrooms to help calibrate instructional standards o Define classroom look-fors Pg 16
Component 4: Summer Programs Math summer programs provide support for struggling students to master skills and concepts for success in the next grade: Math Summer Camps Pg 17 4 th graders entering 5 th grade one week 5 th graders entering 6 th grade one week Math Achievement Academy (MAA) 7 th and 8 th graders going into Algebra 1 8 th and 9 th graders going into Geometry
Elementary Math Camps 2010: 57 students participated in math summer camps for 4 th graders entering 5 th grade. Programs ran two times for one week each. 2011: 84 students participated in summer math camps for 4 th graders entering 5 th grade and 5 th graders entering 6 th grade. Programs ran three times for one week each. The AUSD MAA program is provided at no cost to the district. AUSD provides space as well as clerical and placement support. Pg 18
AUSD Summer 2011 Summer 5-Day Mathematics Camp 8 Percent Growth on Pre/Post Assessment 7 6 Number of Students 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 45% 55% 60% Percent Growth from Pre to Post Assessment Key Point: The participating students average percentage growth from Pre- to Post-Assessment was 26%. Pg 19
AUSD Summer 2011 Summer 5-Day Mathematics Camp 20 Pre/Post Assessment Growth by Student Out of 20 Problems 18 16 14 12 10 8 Pre Assessment Post Assessment Number Correct Pg 20 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Individual Student (n = 32) Key Point: With 15 hours of intensive teaching, students improved their understanding of fractions.
MAA (Math Achievement Academy) 2010: Cohort I was composed of 40 AUSD incoming 9 th grade students. They completed the 5-week summer 2010 Algebra Institute. 2011: 31 students from Cohort 1 continued in the Geometry Institute; Cohort 2 consisted of 61 students starting the Algebra Institute. The MAA program is provided at no cost to the district. AUSD provides space as well as clerical and placement support. Pg 21
Mathematics Achievement Academy Algebra Number Correct Out of 35 Problems Pg 22 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Class Average Pre/Post Assessment 41% 58% 37% 53% Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 (n = 34) Class 2 (n = 32) Pre Assessment Post Assessment Key Point: Students attending MAA Algebra 1 classes increased performance by 16-17%.
Mathematics Achievement Academy Algebra #1 0.08 0.07 Histogram of Pre-Score, Post-Score Normal Variable Pre-Score Post-Score Densit ty 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Mean StDev N 14.35 5.493 34 20.17 6.265 30 0.00 4 8 12 16 20 Data 24 28 32! Pg 23
Mathematics Achievement Academy Algebra #2 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 Histogram of Pre-Score, Post-Score Normal Variable Pre-Score Post-Score Mean StDev N 12.81 4.987 32 18.58 5.579 24 Density y 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 8 16 Data 24 32! Pg 24
Mathematics Achievement Academy Geometry Number Corre ect Out of 35 Problems Pg 25 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Class Average Pre/Post Assessment 44% 28% 28% 57% Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 (n = 20) Class 2 (n = 22) Pre Assessment Post Assessment Key Point: Students attending MAA Geometry classes increased performance by 16-29%.
Mathematics Achievement Academy Geometry #1 Class Distribution Normal Teacher: Raher Alameda High School - Alameda USD 0.16 0.14 Test Type PostTest PreTest Density 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 Mean StDev N 15.29 2.555 14 9.789 3.473 19 0.04 0.02 0.00 4 8 12 Test Scores 16 20 Geometry! Pg 26
Mathematics Achievement Academy Geometry #2 Class Distribution Normal Teacher: Jennie Bliss Alameda High School - Alameda USD 0.08 0.07 Test Type Post Test Pre Test Density 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 Mean StDev N 20.07 5.496 15 9.818 5.885 22 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 8 16 Test Scores 24 32 Geometry!!! Pg 27
Criteria for Program Evaluation This year AUSD used the following criteria for evaluation of ACOE Math Initiative effectiveness: Comparison of state, county and district scores in elementary school math CST percent proficient over past five years. Growth over five years of grades 2-5 math CST percent proficient with focus on 4 th and 5 th grades where coaching has been most intensive. Middle school math CST percent proficient growth over past five years. Algebra 1 CST percent proficient growth over five years. Analysis of math benchmark tests, K through Algebra 1. Pg 28
ES CST Math 2007-2011: 2011: 2 nd Growth by Grade Level over 5 years nd 5 th th Grade 100% 71.5 75 79 80% 62.5 67 66 71 55.5 59.5 60% 40% 20% 0% State County AUSD 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Key Point: AUSD continues to be ahead of the State and County averages in math performance on the CSTs. Although a SIMI 2 grant started in 2008-2009 no longer exists, AUSD Math Initiative provides coaching and professional development. Pg 29 n 1,777,000 n 63,000 n 2800
AUSD CST Standards Math by Grade: 2007-20112011 Percent Proficient in Elementary School 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 72 73 77 75 79 80 74 78 82 79 65 69 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Key Point: Elementary school math CST scores have been on the rise or holding above 80%. As discussed last year, more professional development is being offered to K-2 teachers, and more direct coaching support for primary grades would reinforce consistent teaching practice in the district. Pg 30 n2011 730 n2011 730 n2011 650 n2011 690
CST CA Standards Math: Middle School Comparing 6 th and 7 th Grade Percent Proficient by State, County & AUSD 100% 80% 57 64 42 49 53 47 53 39 43 50 57 61 60% 43 48 53 41 47 37 40% 20% 0% Gr 6 n 430,000 Gr 7 n 400,000 Gr 6 n 14,600 Gr 7 n 12,700 Gr 6 n 450 State County AUSD Gr 7 n 300 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Key Point: AUSD 6 th graders continue to perform ahead of the state and county on CSTs. In 2011, AUSD scores at 6 th and 7 th grade dropped, possibly because of the reshuffling of students to the Academy of Alameda (scores not included). Math teachers for 6 th and 7 th graders continue to receive coaching support and will have 4 after school paid professional development sessions this year. Pg 31
CST in Algebra by Grade Percent Proficient from 2008 to 2011 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% State County AUSD State County AUSD State County AUSD State County AUSD State County AUSD 2008 2009 2010 2011 Key Point: AUSD Algebra 1 performance is higher than the state at the middle school level and is mostly in step with the state at the high school. Our 7 th and 8 th grade scores had a big jump in 2011. Pg 32 Alg 7 Alg 8 Alg 9 Alg 10 Alg 11
Benchmark Assessments Comparing Benchmark 1 percent proficient over two years 100% 80% 60% 40% Benchmark 1 2010-11 20% Benchmark 1 2011-12 0% Key Point: In our second year of using adopted math materials and new common math assessments, most grade levels showed improvement in percent proficient from last year to this year. Pg 33
Summary AUSD students, teachers and administrators continue to benefit from our ongoing focus on mathematics. This work has improved awareness of math grade level standards, has helped teachers with effective and innovative instructional techniques, and has supported a culture of math collaboration and success. The heart of the AUSD math initiative is its practitioner-based coaching model that encourages active collaboration between teachers while providing structures to guide the conversation about implementing best practices in mathematics. The Math Initiative model emphasizes supporting adults to increase their understanding of mathematics while incorporating multiple methods for student learning and articulating best practices across grade levels and schools. Pg 34