Math Work Group → Meetings → Summaries
The charge of the K–12 Mathematics Work Group is to explore the complex issues surrounding mathematics teaching and learning in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) and develop recommendations on ways to improve student achievement in mathematics systemwide. The first meeting of the K–12 Math Workgroup was focused on building community among the representatives of various stakeholders. The group agreed to ground rules for the meeting and how they would work together to achieve the outcomes of the group.
The process for establishing a timeline, meeting dates, and how the group would complete their work was shared. The group agreed that it was important to review data, utilize experts and conduct work in the context of research, data, and best practices to identify the problem and then develop recommendations and related action plans.
The work group engaged in a brainstorm session to identify issues to bring back for further review and clarification at the next meeting.
New members were introduced to the group and the ground rules and processes were reviewed. A chart of issues identified at the last meeting was shared with the group. The issues were organized into 7 categories: Acceleration Practices; Curriculum; Teacher Preparation and Development; Expectations; Classroom Practices; School Structures; Other. The group was asked to review and discuss if anything was missing or miscategorized.
The Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs presented a review of Math feedback gathered in a variety of venues including Math Forum, M-STAT, Elementary Principals’ Action Team (EPAT), K-12 Office of School Performance, Deputy’s Leadership Team, and MCCPTA Curriculum Committee. Based on the Math feedback, the group was asked to review the issues chart, look for issues that weren’t already reflected, add to the existing categories and report out to the whole group.
The workgroup heard an update on the communication plan for the findings of this workgroup. It was shared that as the group continues their work, a common language will be developed and shared with work group members to share with their constituents. Information will also be posted in the Bulletin, used in Quick Notes, and sent to principal and work group members to be used as appropriate.
As an action item from the previous meeting, the issues had been combined and clarified and restructured into interests. The interest statements were presented to the group for review and feedback to ensure that the meaning of the statements had not been lost during the revisions into interests.
The group was presented with a problem statement based on the issues discussed during earlier meetings and asked to share comments and provide written feedback to refine the statement. A revised process timeline was reviewed.
In the first steps toward building a shared awareness, national and international mathematics performance data was shared. The group also read the introduction of Helping Children Learn Mathematics to see how it relates to the work of the work group.
After welcomes and introductions, the ground rules and expectations for communication within the work group and to constituents were revisited and clarified to ensure that process agreements for the work group were clear. A revised problem statement based on feedback from the previous meeting was presented and the work group was asked to review and provide written feedback for consideration. The Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs facilitated a jigsaw of several documents to build shared awareness of MCPS curriculum. Time was provided for small group interaction to review the documents, craft summaries, and share with the whole group. All documents were provided to all participants at the end of the meeting. Opportunities for question and answer regarding small group sharing were provided and all unanswered questions will be responded to through a FAQ. The work group engaged in future agenda setting and brainstormed questions they would like to explore further as they continue their work.
The work group continued to build a shared awareness of what it means to be successful in mathematics by examining the national and state content and process standards of mathematics developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the five strands of mathematical proficiency set forth by the National Research Council in Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. An important clarification was that standards establish assessment measurements for grade level expectations and that the five strands are all interconnected and must all work together for students to be mathematically proficient.
The group also began examining grade level expectations as well as best practices and instructional resources that support the development of mathematical proficiency. Work group members met as stakeholder representative teams to prioritize interests for further research. Team members will begin working in research cohorts to develop research questions and conduct work in the context of research, data, and best practices to identify the problem and then develop recommendations and related action plans that address earlier identified interests.
Staff members from the MCPS Office of Shared Accountability (OSA), along with members of the workgroup planning team, joined each research cohort to facilitate the development of valid research questions. During the meeting, participants received materials and resources to support a common understanding of “What Makes a Good Research Question?” as well as common structures for completing literature reviews and communicating and sharing information amongst the research cohorts.
Utilizing the guidelines for “What Makes a Good Research Question?” and the expertise of the OSA researchers, the cohorts were also provided time to brainstorm initial research questions based on their interests. Each small group shared their initial brainstorm with the whole group providing an opportunity for everyone to benefit from the thinking of the whole group and ensure that all voices were heard.
The planning team also provided all workgroup members with articles and research related to the interest areas previously identified by the workgroup. It was shared these references were not all inclusive, nor required reading, only a starting point as research cohorts begin refining research questions and seeking additional information to identify best practices and formulate recommendations.
The research cohorts used feedback from the OSA researchers to refine their initial research questions and shared with the whole group. Cohorts also worked in small groups to establish meeting dates and structures to support communication and decision-making to facilitate effective work processes.
Honoring the expectation that the K–12 Mathematics Workgroup would have opportunities to engage in discussions and utilize national research and experts, the planning team provided a preview of the May 7 meeting which will feature nationally recognized mathematics educator, Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell. Currently Professor of Education at McDaniel College and President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Dr. Fennell is widely published in professional journals and textbooks related to elementary and middle-grade mathematics education and has also authored chapters in yearbooks and resource books published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In addition, he has played key leadership roles with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Research Council for Mathematics Learning, the Maryland Mathematics Commission and the United States National Commission for Mathematics Instruction.
The K–12 Mathematics workgroup participated in a discussion forum following a presentation from Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell, nationally recognized mathematics researcher. The presentation highlighted national issues and issues from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; the importance of K–12 mathematics in building foundational skills; and the impact of advisory councils, Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat, references to math instruction and Singapore curriculum, and performance on standardized tests.
Dr. Fennell also identified four priorities for K–12 Mathematics—Curriculum, Equity, Linking Research and Practice, Professional Development, and Advocacy.
Members were provided the opportunity to have a Q&A with Dr. Fennell and reflect in their cohorts, the implications of his content on the work ahead, specific to their cohort and to the K–12 workgroup. During whole group sharing, the common implication shared was the significance of possible shifts in the voluntary state curriculum and its impact on the timeline of this group’s work.
The next meeting of the K–12 Mathematics Workgroup will feature Steve Leinwand. He is an expert in methodology of teaching mathematics in K–12 and curriculum development. His expertise is around teaching, learning and assessment. He is a former member of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board of the National Research Council and is past president of the 2,600 members National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. He has served on the National Assessment Item Development Panel and chaired NCTM Professional Development and Status Advisory Committee. Mr. Leinwand is also the author of Sensible Mathematics: A Guide for School Leaders.
The workgroup members reviewed past work, including the early interests and original draft research questions. The importance of keeping focused on those things that were identified as interests and ensuring the research is answering the essential pieces was mentioned. A draft template for final presentation of the research was presented and feedback for improvement was offered. Any feedback that was not mentioned during the meeting should be sent to meeting facilitators. The template will be revised based on the feedback and presented again at the next meeting.
Each research group had individual work time and reported out to the body as a whole on each individual group’s progress. Many groups reported focus, clarification, or revision of research questions. Groups were encouraged share if they come across research that would add value to a different research group’s work. Individual groups will submit the group’s revised questions to allow the facilitators to see how the revisions should be used for the next meeting.
The workgroup members were reminded that this is the time to “get moving” so that we can stay on track with the original timeline to do visioning, conduct the gap analysis, and develop recommendations. The pace of progress is dependent on the work of the group members. Workgroup members received information concerning the stakeholder outreach that is beginning. Workgroup leaders are relying on the stakeholder representatives who are members of this workgroup, but the workgroup also is soliciting response to several guiding question from all schools and various groups. Any workgroup member with a group which should be a part of this outreach is encouraged to contact Nicky or Sherwin. Finally, workgroup members received a revised reporting template that was changed based on feedback provided at the September 10 meeting and information regarding an upcoming video conference opportunity with Bill Schmidt.
Each research group had individual work time and several reported current state to the body as a whole, receiving feedback and engaging in discussion to clarify points. The Research Area: Classroom/Instructional Practices: The Implemented Curriculum volunteered to present its findings to the next workgroup meeting.
The workgroup members were provided information on the focus groups that have been held and the ones that are scheduled. The total comments will be analyzed and presented to workgroup members for consideration as the subgroups finish identifying their key findings. Workgroup members were reminded to use their judgments and anchor those judgments with data in order to arrive at key findings. The goal is to reach consensus within the math workgroup – and be able to work together to create positive change.
Each research group had individual work time and the Research Area Classroom/Instructional Practices: Implemented Curriculum presented its key findings. Their research found that the most critical factor is a highly skilled and knowledgeable teacher and what s/he does every day with students in the classroom. The workgroup centered its key findings on commitment to students, knowledge and pedagogy, and management of learning environments. The workgroup also listed its next steps as planned in preparation for finalizing and submitting their findings.
The workgroup members saw a videotaped presentation by William Schmidt, professor at Michigan State University and the National Research Coordinator and Executive Director of the National Center which oversees U.S. participation in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Dr. Schmidt proposed any examination of mathematics should focus on three principals: coherence, rigor, and focus. When available members of the workgroup participated in a teleconference with Dr. Schmidt, the recommendation Dr. Schmidt gave for “What should MCPS do right now?” were-
Workgroup members discussed Dr. Schmidt’s comments and reflected that his comments illustrate what a complex task the workgroup is attempting to accomplish. Parallels were drawn between current work and the revision of the literacy curriculum when Dr. Weast first arrived in MCPS. The workgroup is looking at numeracy learning in the same way. It is complex and difficult but not beyond capacity.
Next week two workgroups will present and each workgroup’s written findings are due to stay on track to develop the vision and recommendations within the established time frame.
The workgroup members heard a presentation by a panel of educators from The University of Maryland at College Park (Dr. Daniel Chazan, Dr. Lawrence Clark, and Dr. Whitney Johnson). The panel members spoke regarding current issues in mathematics education and on issues related to educating mathematics teachers. Workgroup member had the opportunity to ask questions of the Panel members and heard the Panel members’ perspectives on questions being addressed by the research in many of the research areas.
Each Research Group presented a status check on its progress toward completion of the written findings from research. These findings are due to Nicky and Sherwin.
Each Research Group will present its findings at the December 10, 2009, workgroup meeting and receive feedback from the membership. This will lead the workgroup into developing the vision for the teaching and learning of mathematics in MCPS, the gap analysis between findings/vision and the current state, and the workgroup’s recommendations.
A copy of the research groups’ key findings and related research was distributed so that all work group members could review and determine if the interest of the constituency they represent is included. Work group member were reminded that the work is still in process and were complimented on the respect they have afforded the process. This is important for the progress yet to come.
The work group members had time imbedded in the meeting to review the findings of their research in preparation for presentation to the work group as a whole. Four of the five research groups presented their findings: Curriculum: The Assessed Curriculum, Teacher Preparation and Development: Teaching for Mathematical Proficiency, Curriculum: The Written Curriculum, and Acceleration Practices: Mathematics Targets and Acceleration. Work group members asked clarifying questions and offered recommendation for improvement of the findings. The research group for the research area Classroom/Instructional Practices: The Implemented Curriculum presented on October 15.
The work group as a whole does not meet again until February, but each research group is tasked to meet once during January to determine adjustments needed to the findings; ensure all initial interests have been addressed and, if they have not been addressed, determine next steps to ensure they are addressed; and to begin task of visioning as it relates to their research and the interests they represent.
The meeting began with a reconnection review to focus work group members back to the task at hand. The members were given the list of issues identified when the group began over a year ago. Members were asked to review individually and in their research groups to ensure all of the issues were addressed by the completed research. The work group does not want to get to the end of the process and hear it missed covering an interest that was identified early on.
More than half of the meeting was spent in discussion of all of the research reports. In small groups consisting of at least one member of each research team, team members gave collaborative feedback to research teams that is intended to ensure all issues have been addressed. Next the research groups reconvened to discuss the questions and concerns raised by the feedback and to determine next steps. While a research group may choose to act or not to act on the feedback, it is important that all perspectives were heard. The appropriate action for the feedback is determined by the research group members.
The work group will reconvene on February 10 to begin the visioning phase. The next few months will be the critical culmination to all of the hard work that has been done to date.
Unfortunately the date was not optimal for a number of the work group members, and only 23 of the 43 work group members were able to attend. Attending work group members were asked to review mathematics achievement data using the ORID (Observe, Reflect, Interpret, and Decide) method. Observations included the expected frustration of the racial gap in achievement, but it also was noted that there was the least separation in middle school achievement. Work group members noted that it was more difficult to interpret data from middle and high school due to less consistent grading practices, although most of the data have improved over time showing that growth is pervasive.
The majority of the discussion centered on questions the group still had and the data members felt it was needed to answer their questions. Sherwin will see what data can be provided, but a central question was posed: How do work group members expect more data to help them move the process forward? There is a critical need for the work group to move beyond superficial levels of the data—to look at race implications, acceleration, and teacher success. Members admonished themselves that the work was not about the members of the work group, but about students.
At the next meeting the group will review additional data and begin the work of visioning. Research teams should be determining how to apply the feedback they received – whether in revising their original report or in the work from this point forward.
The next meeting is on Thursday, March 25, 3:30-5:30 p.m., at MCAAP.
Additional specific MCPS data that was requested at the March 4th meeting was provided to the group with time to make observations and draw inferences. The observations, decisions, and recommendations of this group will be grounded in the findings and research that have been done.
Work began on the vision for K–12 Mathematics with each research group reviewing vision models from various sources, as well as the research group reports that had been revised based on previous input. Each research group identified citations (from the research reports or from the models) to be considered while constructing the vision for this group’s work.
Each work group member is asked to look at team findings before the next meeting and jot down (on paper, index card, etc.) his/her individual citations for what needs to be in the vision. The vision will drive the recommendations and the recommendations are this work group’s goal.
The next meeting is Thursday, April 8, 3:00-5:00 p.m., at MCAAP.
During the majority of today’s meeting participants received a presentation by Dixie Stack, Director of Curriculum, and Donna Watts, Coordinator for Mathematics and STEM Initiatives, both from the Maryland State Department of Education. The presentation focused on the Common Core Standards and the steps Maryland is taking toward adoption as well as the steps that will be needed after adoption to align state curricula and assessments to the new core standards. The presentation included information on the Race to the Top application and on Maryland’s expanded focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). At the end of the presentation work group member had the opportunity to participate in a brief question and answer session.
Following the state presentation, select work group members reported out regarding the cross-walk of the current Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) curricula and the Common Core Standards in which they had participated. This all-day meeting (the "cross-walk"), facilitated by staff in the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs, was held to examine the alignment between MCPS's current curriculum and the Common Core Standards. One reporting work group member summed it up as “It is not math content that is different, it is math content differently.” The changing standards present a challenge to the work group but not a roadblock. Work group members must wrestle with the content that is known and allow for change.
The next work group meeting May 7, 2010 at MCEA will be an all-day session for intensive work on the vision and recommendations.