Baldwin Road Junior High School Math Department Leadership Meeting Presentation March 20, 2008

Commonality Where It Matters Step !" #Sand$% The sequencing and pacing of curriculum was determined by each individual classroom teacher. &ssential 'uestions" What does learning look like? What is our common expectation of quality? Product" Exit Exams Teachers wrote all of the multiple choice and constructed response items themselves. This process occurred prior to the first administration of the Ohio Achievement Test. Results" Students scores were low. . !ow well do the assessment items match the verbs of the grade level indicators and"or benchmarks? #. $o teachers spiral the essential learning targets throughout the year? %hould they? &. %ince a common sequence of learning was not followed' was there one way that produced higher results? (. Are students placed in the appropriate math classes? What criteria are we using to place students? What should the criteria be? ). !ow does their reading impact how well they perform in mathematics? %ome questions were answered. . The assessment items did not all match the level of difficulty of the verbs. We needed to revise our process of assessment writing. #. *enerally' most teachers do +OT spiral the essential learning targets. ,n fact' the essential learning targets were not determined. &. There was not one way that produced the -best. results. With nothing in writing' this was a difficult conversation to have. (. We needed more information to address this question. We needed to review which screeners were the best predictors. The first area we addressed was enriched coursework. ). /eading greatly impacts mathematics. We decided to create lists of must know vocabulary terms for mathematics. %tudents lack math literacy. Step 2 #Ben% ,ndicators were clustered by quarter. &ssential 'uestions"

What is the prerequisite knowledge needed to effectively teach all indicators? Once we have them in order' can we begin to group them into quarters?

Product" Sequencing for 7th and 8th grade math indicators, resulting in our common quarterly assessments (summative of what was learned that quarter) $one during the 0dward 1ames workshops' all the indicators were cut up and began to be physically grouped together. All groupings were discussed and debated to try and think from a student2s point of view. After all indicators were sequenced' sequence was tied to the 3 th grade text book to try and help incoming teachers. Results" Students egan to show im!rovement. Students met the state indicator for mathematics" +ew questions were raised. . What is the connection between how students performed on the OAT and how they performed on the quarterly assessments? #. $o we all agree that this was the best sequence and pacing of curriculum? &. $oes this sequence"pacing best meet the needs of our students in enriched coursework? %ome questions were answered. . The connection was not clear. We saw a need to spiral the indicators. #. The sequence and pacing needed further review from the entire math department. &. We continue to spiral back to grade level indicators with students in enriched courses4 however' we don2t think our current assessment system best meets the needs of these students.

Step ( #&lisa% BRJH Math Department Proposal 5roposal was born out of6 7 a desire to determine our own professional development 7 a need to collaborate with our peers 7 knowing it is time to act and use data to inform instruction &ssential 'uestions" !ow do we foster students2 problem solving skills?

!ow should we spiral the curriculum? What are the -power indicators. we expect mastery learning from all students? !ow can we support mathematical vocabulary development? !ow can we share technology? !ow can we improve students2 constructed responses? !ow can we use data from quarterly assessments to inform daily instruction?

Products" #o! $% &ndicators 8sed released tests' the work of 1. 9urke' as well as our content knowledge Short 'ycle (ssessments ()ormative) : in total One question from each indicator ;urrently use differently and track data differently Test format is similar to OAT 'lustering &ndicators 0xtended 9en and 1amie2s work ;luster indicators around main math topics <more generic than benchmarks= Working to determine a common sequence >acilitate sharing and discussion $iscussion?focusing too much on indicators rather than benchmarks? *oca ulary %hared research articles on vocabulary development $iscussed common student misconceptions Will continue work?vocabulary for each cluster with possible confusion Results We will start off the next year on the same page' more easily able to discuss best practices and student understanding ,n addition to unanswered questions we started with' more questions are being raised6 . *@,2s vs. 9enchmarks? What should be prioritiAed? What drives the pacing? #. !ow do we balance the skill work with problem solving that encompasses multiple indicators? &. %tudent *roupings for struggling math students <,05 students and regular education studentsB what does the research say?= (. What rich activities can we utiliAe that will fill the gaps for kids? !ow do we effectively explore them in our classes? ). !ow do we increase student motivation and self7efficacy? )ur *e+t Steps . #. &. (. ;ompile model lessons with teacher notes and possible student samples /eevaluate past year2s work AnalyAe data for next year2s Cth graders DD @ook forward to next year with a focus on how to help the most struggling students in math DD

7 7 7 7 7

;lass grouping ;lass structure 0ssential understandings 9ridging learning gaps ,mproving motivation

To do this' we need the help and support of each other.