Some Questions Asked Ratings for the frequency of interactions with all teachers at their school on a 5-point scale (1=Rarely or never, 2=Every few months, 3=Every few weeks, 4=Weekly, 5=Daily)

1. “How often do you talk to staff to look at results from state, district, or classroom assessments? 2. “How often do you talk to staff about grading students’ work?” 3. “How often do you talk to staff about ideas for supporting challenging students (behavior problems or academic difficulties)?” 4. “How often do you talk to staff about instructional strategies or designing lessons?”

This study compares three cohorts of teachers in a quasi-experimental design with a time-delay control group to address the research questions. The research design includes two “treatments” or interventions. The PLC treatment consists of training for peer coaches, department chairs and administrators in the evidence-based key features of high quality PLCs, as well as a unifying conceptual framework of instructional delivery. PLCs are analyzed using Social Network Analysis (SNA) and the TASEL-M PLC Checklist.

Achievement data will be obtained from district records, and will consist of end-of-term mathematics grades, district benchmark test data, curriculum-embedded assessments, and state standardized test scores. Scales – TASEL-M2 will employ both standard and emerging methodologies in the refinement and development of self-report measures designed to assess teacher efficacy, teacher self-regulation, and school culture. Standard methodologies include psychometric analyses to assess scale reliability and validity (e.g., internal consistency estimates, confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory).

Scaling up the implementation of programs from Phase I of TASEL-M, Phase II is now working with one district’s secondary schools, including mathematics teachers in the eight Intermediate Schools and seven Comprehensive High Schools. Substantive policy and programmatic changes were made in this district to enhance student achievement such as: eliminating a two-year Algebra course as a result of research, both external and internal; addressing an equity issue in Hispanic student enrollment in advanced mathematics courses; and creating a multi-strategy professional development plan.

STEM Faculty engage in implementing content-deepening experiences for teachers in collaboration with Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) by observing, supporting, and presenting focused content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) lessons. STEM Faculty learn strategies to use with community college and university developmental mathematics courses through this collaboration. Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) demo lessons, lesson design, co-planning, lesson delivery, and reflection through Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) provides an effective vehicle to support all mathematics teachers in learning content, pedagogy, and specific instructional strategies to raise achievement levels for their students. Through consistent delivery of mathematics content, student achievement will increase.

Mathematics Institutes were held during the summer with two weeks of PLC work in an environment ‘absent’ of grades/tests. Each day, two hours was spent teaching students and then two hours for teacher collaboration to reflect and then re-teach specific content with a focus on student learning. Mathematics TOSAs facilitated professional development, taught classes, and collaborated with 36 mathematics teachers.

Summer Mathematics Academy – Each site spent 60 teacher-hours reviewing data, setting goals, and developing common assessments and/or lesson plans. They developed a work plan and objectives based on the needs of their students and teachers. Site administrators participated in the process and supported action plans, etc.

Social network analysis is used to determine the effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and to describe ways in which successful PLCs differ from those who have yet to truly adopt a professional community. PLCs were analyzed using Social Network Analysis (SNA). A school with considerably more training in PLC functioning showed a much stronger network structure with greater tie density (64% of all potential connections between teachers within the math department, almost two thirds were on a weekly or daily basis) than a school that was functioning as a PLC in name only (27%, or just over a quarter of all potential connections). In both schools presented, coaches appear to play a large role in the interactions among teachers. Student achievement data for these schools is analyzed for possible correlation to strength of the PLC.

1. Cohesiveness for Project Leadership Team – the Year1 evaluation report noted that the partners were operating somewhat independently, rather than as a team. The result was some misunderstanding about various roles of key players and partner institutions. Some of this was resolved through the natural process of working through misunderstandings and expectations during monthly Project Leadership Team (PLT) meetings, but major progress was made through special meetings between the IHE partners and TOSAs to clarify responsibilities and develop a timeline for fulfilling responsibilities. Monthly meetings between the TOSAs and Faculty Partners began in Year 2 to help clarify expectations and roles for Faculty Partners working with TOSAs.

2. Phase II was challenged in getting Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in place, district–wide. The challenge is being addressed during Year 2 by preparing Mathematics department chairs and coaches to use district allocated collaboration time to effectively support PLC development for schools new to the project and to sustain PLCs for schools that were part of Phase I. Mathematics department chairs and coaches serve as PLC facilitators at their respective schools.

3. STEM Faculty engagement – During Year 1 STEM faculty struggled with their role in the project and the TOSAs were unsure how to make use of the expertise the Faculty Partners brought to the project. Part of the first year was used to familiarize STEM faculty with the project design, the district coaches, and Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs). STEM faculty met at the University, separate from the PLT meetings, which were held at the school district. During Year 2, the Faculty Partners and TOSAs began meeting together, one month at the university, and the next month at the school district to plan together to deliver specific Strategy Workshop sessions around content based on student achievement data (district benchmarks and CST data).

California State University, Fullerton Dr. Paul DeLand, PI Dr. David Pagni, Co-PI STEM Faculty Dr. Scott Anin Dr. Gerald Gannon Dr. Patrick Kimani Dr. HeeJeong Lim

Orange County Department of Education Dr. Dianne DeMille, Co-PI Cognitive Coaching, & Adaptive Schools Dr. Deborah Granger

Dr. Sheri McDonald

University of California, Irvine Dr. AnneMarie Conley, Co-PI & Research

Santa Ana Community College MaryAnne Anthony, Co-PI, & STEM Faculty

Garden Grove Unified School District Kelly McAmis, Co-PI Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) Sahra Tanikawa, Director Ellen Fujii Susan Theran Hon Shiu Costello

“Student Success” is Achieved for Secondary Mathematics When schools . . . •   Narrow the achievement gap in algebra for targeted sub-groups •   Increase the numbers of students enrolled in advanced mathematics courses •   Increase student achievement incrementally •   Eliminate a two-year Algebra course •   Address equity for Hispanic student enrollment in advanced mathematics courses •   Increase graduation rates •   Increase number of students entering STEM fields after graduation