Mathematics Curriculum Alignment in the Portland Public Schools Peg Hillman Melissa Labbe ...

393 Pages·2012·13.41 MB·English

Mathematics Curriculum Alignment in the Portland Public Schools

Peg Hillman
Melissa Labbe

Mathematics Content Area Teacher Leaders
Portland Public School Department

June 2013

1
Table of Contents

Proposal Abstract/Executive Summary...........................................................................4

Summary of Recommendations.......................................................................................4

Data Analysis/Current Status of Schools.........................................................................9

Outline of Curriculum Across Grade Levels...................................................................18

Specific Course Objectives............................................................................................25

Implementation Timeline................................................................................................28

Staffing and Supervisory Responsibilities......................................................................30

Instructional Materials....................................................................................................32

Multi-year Budget Implications.......................................................................................32

Procedure for Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................33

Direction for Future Curriculum Review.........................................................................35

References.....................................................................................................................36

2
Appendices

A. Board Procedure IGA-R
B. The Workshop Model of Instruction
C. Sample Assessment Grid (Grade 3)
D. Middle School Implementation Timeline
E. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
F. Student Centered Learning
G. Math and ELA Combined Implementation Timeline
H. Content Area Teacher Leaders Workflow and Timeline
I. External Audit: Public Consulting Group
J. 2006-2012 Mathematics Trends: Elementary School
K: 2006-2012 Mathematics Trends: Middle School
L: 2006-2012 Mathematics Trends: High School
M. K - 12 Common Core Survey Data
N. Standards For Mathematical Practice
O. K-12 Summary of Professional Development 2010-2013
P. Assessment Timeline
Q. Key Instructional Shifts
R. Summary of Elementary Program Review
S. PPS Demographic Data

3
Proposal Abstract/Executive Summary

Portland Board of Public Education Procedure IGA-R: Curriculum Planning and Review
(Appendix A) codifies the process by which curriculum (course of study) is to be
reviewed and revised on a five year cycle. Accordingly, 2 teachers were released from
their teaching duties to facilitate this process as Mathematics Content Area Teacher
Leaders (CATL). This team worked with stakeholder groups including the Curriculum
Review Team (CRT), Curriculum Advisory Council (CAC), Math Task Force (MTF),
Portland Education Association (PEA), district and school administrators, and the public
to develop and revise recommendations about curriculum and instruction in the Portland
Public Schools.

As specified in IGA-R, the Curriculum Review Team is responsible for making
recommendations in the context of a report to be presented to the Superintendent, or
his designee, and then forwarded to the Board for approval. As a result of the process
described in “Curriculum Planning and Review Process,” the Math Curriculum Review
Team makes the following recommendations:

Grades K - 5
Instructional Programming and Practice: Elementary schools will continue to utilize
the workshop model for instruction (Appendix B) to deliver a CCSS aligned program.
With the highest transiency rate at the K-5 level narrowing the scope of programs
offered across the district will serve to reduce the number of gaps in student knowledge
should students transfer between schools.

Discontinue AIMSweb Testing: Teachers charged with administering the AIMSweb
battery of assessments question its value for informing instruction and find that it takes
an excessive amount of time away from instruction. The Children’s Progress Academic
Assessment and NWEA, however, provides teachers with more useful data (Appendix
C). Consequently, the Curriculum Review Team recommends the discontinuation of
AIMSweb testing in favor of implementation of the NWEA system.

Core Subject Expertise: Currently, elementary teachers are highly qualified as
generalists and have varying degrees of expertise in Math. Building level plans for
professional development in math should therefore be structured so that teachers have
the opportunity to develop subject area expertise and to collaborate effectively. These
plans should be responsive and flexible and should be developed in accordance with
capacity in individual buildings.

4
Grades 6 - 9
Instructional Programming and Practice: Given the newness of the middle school
program it is recommended that the implementation plan (Appendix D) be revised to
extend Y2 of the initial plan for two additional years. During that time teachers will utilize
the workshop model for instruction and develop strategies for addressing students
arriving below grade level. Given the team structure at all three middle schools
integration of mathematics skills and concepts across content areas is recommended.

Grades 9 - 12
Common Core Professional Development: Although additional professional
development around the Common Core State Standards (Appendix E) is necessary at
all grade levels, the need is most pressing in Portland’s high schools. Consequently, the
goal of upcoming professional development offerings should be to increase high school
teachers’ understanding of-- and ability to implement--the standards.

Instructional Programming and Practice: Student centered learning (Appendix F) is
at the center of all 3 models being implemented at the high schools. While high school
teachers currently do not utilize the workshop model there is no reason to discontinue
the effective practices (Daniels et al.) it includes. Members of the Curriculum Review
Team therefore advocate implementing the workshop model in Mathematics courses
grades 9 - 12.

As students prepare the enter the world of work or pursue post-secondary options they
will require an ability to both quantify and qualify their observances and experiences.
While some of the concepts can be addressed in our current sequence of programming-
-Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry--a more indepth understanding can be obtained by
including a fourth discipline of Mathematics study, Statistics and Probability. A move
toward implementing a structure of programming that allows for the acquisition of these
concepts and skills is one that will complete the implementation of CCSS and provide
students with a comprehensive math education.

District
Common Core Professional Development: As implied above, Portland teachers
have differing levels of understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Teachers
have interacted with the standards in a variety of contexts and through a variety of
experiences and the lack of a common message has hindered full and consistent
understanding. The Curriculum Review Team therefore recommends continuing and
standardizing professional development in the CCSS for all district teachers and
administrators.

5
Workshop Model Professional Development: In Best Practice, Zememan, Daniels,
and Hyde identify the workshop model as “[p]robably the single most important teacher
structure to be developed in literacy education.” Several elementary teachers employ
this model already, but moving toward workshop model teaching in Mathematics will
require a significant shift in practice and pedagogy for many others. In order to empower
teachers to implement the workshop model successfully, focused professional
development will be necessary.

Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress: Portland has
administered the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress assessment in grades 3-9 for
several years, and test administration has been relatively consistent through grade 8.
Technological limitations and unclear communication have limited consistent
implementation at the high school level, though, and high school teachers have not had
sufficient training to use the data effectively. In effort to standardize the use of NWEA
MAP to inform instruction and serve as a universal screening and progress monitoring
tool, the Curriculum Review Team recommends that the test be administered two to
three times per year in grades 3-10 and that teachers receive training in how best to use
the data.

6
Implementation

The implementation of the aforementioned recommendations will require substantial
support from the district in the way of professional development. A carefully designed
school-based implementation plan should take into account the individual needs of a
building based on educational model (International Baccalaureate, Talent Development,
etc), needs of unique populations, schedule structure, and capacity to support ongoing
professional collaboration. The district implementation plan will provide a common
structure from which individual schools can customize support and resources as needed
(Appendix G).

Curriculum Planning and Review Process
In September 2012 a Mathematics Curriculum Review Team (CRT) was established in
accordance with IGA-R. The stated purpose of the CRT was “to improve student
achievement, maintain education excellence and to incorporate current research in the
areas of curriculum and instruction.”

The CRT included representation from each grade level, K through 12, and consisted of
teachers, administrators, and Content Area Teacher Leaders (CATL). The special
education, multilingual, adult education and gifted and talented departments were also
represented at each meeting. The CRT was facilitated by the Math Content Area
Teacher Leaders, who were designated by a hiring committee that included the district’s
Chief Academic Officer (CAO), No Child Left Behind/Title 1 coordinator, the Portland
Education Association’s Chief Negotiator, and teachers form the elementary, middle
and high schools. In addition to leading Curriculum Review Team meetings throughout
the curriculum review process, the CATL met frequently with a variety of focus groups
representing different grade levels.

The work from the CRT was presented regularly to the CAO and periodically to the
Superintendent. In December 2012 the Superintendent appointed the Curriculum
Advisory Council (CAC). This council consisted of community members as was
approved by the Portland Board of Public Education.

In January 2013 the CATL began meeting regularly with the Curriculum Advisory
Council. This group reviewed the work and the outcomes of the CRT and the focus
groups, made recommendations, gathered resources, and assisted with further
research.

In May the CATL met again with the Superintendent and the CAO--as well as several
department heads and academic leaders--to share preliminary recommendations,
gather suggestions, and hear concerns.
7
In May these preliminary recommendations were also shared with administration from
each district school, in an effort to refine the recommendations and generate support for
implementation. Additionally, the CATL held three public forums in May in an effort to
increase awareness around the new CCSS and how these standards will affect student
learning.

Throughout the curriculum review process, the CATL consulted regularly with
Consortium for Educational Change to ensure that current research in both content and
procedure were being addressed.

A graphic representation of the Curriculum Planning and Review process may be found
in Appendix H.

8
Data Analysis and Current Status of Schools

In 2012, Portland hired an outside consulting group, Public Consulting Group (PCG) to
conduct an external audit (Appendix I). The results of that audit stated that “In this
changing world, those who understand and can do mathematics will have significantly
enhanced opportunities and options for shaping their futures. Mathematical competence
opens doors to productive futures.... All students should have the opportunity and the
support necessary to learn significant mathematics with depth and understanding.” (p.
6) And that “While there is some question as to the level of alignment between the
curriculum and the tests, these data are unambiguous: too many Portland students
are not learning enough mathematics.” (p. 40)

Key findings reveal that “student performance levels are not evenly distributed
across the district. At the elementary level in particular, there are very large
differences among schools. For example, the percent of grade 5 students (2011)
scoring proficient or above in mathematics varies from 31% to 82% across
elementary schools. Analysis of student performance across the middle schools
and high schools also reveals differences in performance levels among schools.
Furthermore, when performance trends are examined using the results on the
NECAP mathematics test, some schools with relatively low performance made
great strides in raising the performance of their students, while others have
remained stagnant or even lost ground.” (p.2)

Though the district saw an overall growth (6%) in students in grade 3 showing
proficiency with the standards, as measured by the NECAP, through 2011, 53% to 56%,
there was a decrease of 7% in 2012, 49%. Students in grade 4 continue to show growth
in the number of students scoring proficient and above on the NECAP, from 50% in
2009 to 59% in 2012. Proficiency scores for grade 5 students fluctuated from 2009 to
2012, with the percentage of students proficient and above remaining the same in 2009
and 2012, 56% (Appendix J).

The middle schools saw less disparity in scores across the schools than the elementary
schools. As a district, students scoring proficient or above in grade 6 fluctuated from
2009 through 2012 with a gain of 3% in 2012 over 2009, 55% to 58%. Notably there
was a drop of 7% from 2010 to 2011, 59% to 52% and an increase of 6% from 2011 to
2012, 52% to 58%. The percent of grade 7 students meeting the standards rose from
52% in 2009 to 59% in 2011, but dropped back to 52% in 2012. Grade 8 saw an overall
increase in the percent of students scoring proficient and above of 4% from 2009
through 2012, 57% to 61% (Appendix K).

The PSAT™ is given to all grade 10 students. Using the cutoff score from the College
Board, less than one third of the tenth graders at Deering and Portland students are
college ready. 50% of the tenth graders at Casco Bay are college ready according to
College Board.
9
Beginning in the spring of 2006, all eleventh grade students take the Maine High School
Assessment (Appendix L) which consists of the SAT™ plus a state-developed science
test. The data reflects that overall less than 50% of the students in grade 11 are college
ready according to proficiency levels determined by the state of Maine.

Portland Education Association Culture and Climate Survey: Winter 2011-2012
The September 1, 2011 - August 30, 2014 Agreement between the Portland Board of
Public Education and the Portland Education Association includes the following article:

19(B) Culture and Climate. Because the Board and the Association believe that
a collaborative culture and climate in the district and in the schools create the
conditions necessary to improve student learning, a PPS and PEA designed
culture and climate survey will be distributed to educators once per year to inform
this ongoing conversation. The results of the survey will be shared with educators
in a timely manner in order to develop and implement district and building plans
to improve collaboration at both levels. The issues in this section are understood
by both parties to be matters of educational policy subject to change at the
discretion of the Board and are not subject to the grievance procedure, but are
subject to a meet and consult requirement.

The most recent Portland Education Association/Portland Public Schools Culture and
Climate Survey was developed by a team from the PEA in the spring and fall of 2011,
and revisions were made after consultation with the Portland Administrators Association.
The survey was completed by 575 Portland teachers on January 18, 2012. The results
were then compiled to identify district-level trends and were disaggregated by school in
order to establish specific goals in the service of creating a collaborative culture and
climate at both the school and district levels.

The results of the survey provided valuable perceptions data in the needs assessment
completed by the Content Area Teacher Leadership Team. Key concerns identified in
the PEA/PPS Culture and Climate Survey include a lack of communication, a lack of
consistency, and the inadequacy of resources.

Communication and Consistency
The vast majority of teachers who completed the survey disagreed with the statement
that “The district fosters communication between different schools in the district.” Of 564
teachers who responded to this question (not all teachers responded to all questions),
70% either disagreed or strongly disagreed, and only 4% agreed. Teachers, furthermore,
do not agree that “The district creates ways for everyone to have voice.” Fifty-two
percent of respondents disagree with this statement, while only 18% agree. The
perception, then, is that district schools operate in relative isolation from one another
and there is little meaningful opportunity for teachers to be involved in decision making
processes.
10