Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE DRAGON CONNECTION
March 2008
Who are we?
Jefferson City Schools Small, rural school district 60 miles north
of Atlanta, 18 miles north of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
4 schools with 2500 students 28% free/reduced lunch 28% minority 84% graduation rate 70% growth in 5 years
2
What is happening in the state of Georgia?
The state of Georgia is in the process of rolling out a standards-based curriculum (Georgia Performance Standards) in all subject areas in two-year stages (year one: learning the standards, year two: implementing the standards.
2006-2007 studying mathematics GPS, grades 3-5 and 8implementing mathematics GPS, grades K-2 and 7, first year
2007-2008 studying mathematics I and accelerated mathematics I, grade 9 GPSimplementing mathematics GPS, grades 3-5 and 8, first year
2008-2009studying mathematics II and accelerated mathematics II, grade 10 GPSimplementing mathematics I and accelerated mathematics I, grade 9 GPS, first yearimplementing mathematics GPS, grades K-8
3
What is the focus of the Jefferson City Schools' project?
2006-2007 mathematics content development for 46 teachers grades 3-8 student achievement in mathematics
2007-2008 mathematics content development and pedagogy grades 3-12 student achievement in mathematics
2008-2009 continue mathematics content development and pedagogy
grades 3-12 student achievement in mathematics
4
What was the evaluation model?Program Logic Model
Rick West - Evaluator ([email protected])
Inputs
Resources
Personnel
Partners
Activities
Pro. Development
Retreat
Content instruction
Lesson Study
Collaboration
Book Study
Standards training
Outputs
Support
Assess. Strategies
Content Knowledge
Instructional Knowledge
Lesson plans
Community
Outcomes
Short-term
Long-term
Impacts:
Student goals
Teacher goals
5
What resources?
Higher Education staff in the mathematics department at the University of Georgia (years one and two)
Evaluator - College of Education, Learning and Performance Support Laboratory (year one)
Evaluator - independent (year two) Graduate student - College of
Education mathematics education department (year two)
Graduate student - College of Education mathematics education department (years one and two)
Mathematics Coach - 50% time from the GMSP grant (year two)
DOE workshops - Georgia Department of Education staff
External consultant
RESA consultant Consultants from Connected
Mathematics Program in Michigan Consultants from Everyday
Mathematics Administration from Jefferson City
Schools - principals, assistant principals, instructional lead teachers, associate superintendent
Teachers - 50 teachers grades 3-12 Students - 1800 students PLU credit for participation Title I, Title IIa, PRISM funds InterMath - GPS course DOE workshop planning time material allocation
6
What activities?
3-day summer institute (Year 1 and 2)
8, 2-hour workshops on content development (Year 1)
Diary of professional development process (Year 1 and 2)
14 one-hour sessions to plan, implement, and assess specific lessons
7
What will we see?
Teachers effectively planning and executing GPS
Developed training model integrating content knowledge to the teacher's classroom
Increased understanding for students of how mathematics applies to the real world
8
What were the results?
Improved teacher knowledge base growth of .55 in Number, growth of .22 in Algebra, and growth of .32 in
Geometry between the group means on the pre- and post-test significant growth in Number and Geometry
Improved student achievement decreased by 3% in each grade band the students in "does not meet
expectation" increased "exceeding expectations" by 3%
Maintained 100% of JCS teacher as highly qualified Created a sustainable learning community of mathematics teachers and
replicable training process for future years
9
What are the challenges ?
Being responsive to the unique needs of each teacher group - need an evaluator per group as they meet
The LMT is not appropriate for all groups - good for middle school teachers but too advanced for elementary and too easy for high school teachers
10
How to increase MSP projects using experimental or quasi experimental designs?
Need more and better teacher content assessments
Need more longitudinal studies (5 years) Not reasonable to expect change in one
year
11
Evidence of student achievement?
Student test scores for objective measures-could use more qualitative information here to see the how and why of test score change
The standardized state tests keep changing each year so it is hard to make comparisons
12
What was the evaluation model?
The evaluation model represented a responsive, management-oriented approach emphasizing objective information for decision-making and qualitative feedback for making improvements.
Unique professional development for each grade level band (3-5, 6-8, 9-12) required unique measures attached with observations for all grade levels.
13
How to report evidence of effectiveness?
Focus on communication Formative feedback to teachers and
system administrators Summative/technical feedback to grant
administrators Reconcile standards-driven instruction
rather than publisher-driven instruction
14
What is next?
Stronger vertical articulation between schools Better understanding of what students know and
understand Better understanding of what teachers know and
understand Better understanding of how to successfully
implement standards-based classrooms Better understanding of how to differentiate
instruction as the curriculum changes and the course of study becomes more rigorous
15
For information contact:
Dr. Sherrie Gibney-ShermanAssociate Superintendent for InstructionJefferson City Schools575 Washington StreetJefferson, Georgia 30548
16
The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in this presentation are not intended as an endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education
17
