research practice partnerships chicago, april 30, 2014 michael sorum: deputy superintendent...
TRANSCRIPT
Research Practice PartnershipsChicago, April 30, 2014
Michael Sorum: Deputy SuperintendentLeadership, Learning and Student Support
Fort Worth Independent School District
When did we decide to work at scale? What are implicit or explicit ToA for change
at district? What level did we start? Why? How did starting at that level lead to
different challenges?
An evolving strong sense of the importance of context for meaningful large-scale research/partnerships◦ How can you learn from the mistakes or successes of
partnerships without understanding the context in which the work was done?
◦ Of course every district has its own context but no district is without context… I would venture…more commonalities than differences
Disingenuous to convey that work started with a conscious “decision” to engage in an at-scale partnership
Fort Worth Independent School District◦ 84,000 students: increasing by 1000 per year◦ 14% White◦ 23% African America n◦ 60% Hispanic◦ 33% English Language Learners◦ 8% Special Education◦ Rapid demographic changes throughout 1980s
White and African American numbers remained stable Hispanic population increased rapidly
Chronic underperformance of AA and H students Extremely traditional instructional practices
2003-2005:◦ District underwent severe budget cuts
10-15% of total operating budget Fund balance seriously depleted
85% of public school budgets are personnel Virtually all curriculum departments eliminated All support staff reassigned to campuses Change in state assessment from TAAS to TAKS
Significantly higher level
Capital Bond Project Fiasco◦ Extensive fraud and loss of public confidence
2005: New Superintendent◦ Partnered with University of Pittsburgh, Institute
for Learning◦ Conducted curriculum audit (Fenwick English)
Curriculum non-existent Implemented IRB process
Terminated numerous “research” projects◦ District used as a testing ground for products
that were subsequently “studied” Pending lawsuits due to “treatment” – “non-
treatment”
2006-2007 math textbook adoption year◦Selected Connected Math Program 2
(CMP2) 2006: IFL eventually succeeded in
introducing research lead and CAO◦ Work began in 2007
Schools reported to another “chief” Very challenging to get “leverage” on
principal time and professional development
If we provided teachers with high quality resources, highly skilled “at elbow” support (Lead Content Teachers) and a clear model of effective instructional practices, their behaviors would change and student achievement would improve
This ToA was common to all tested content areas for FWISD
Vanderbilt wanted to study the implementation of an ambitious and equitable instructional agenda (NSF funded)
Patience and perseverance of researcher◦ Convinced me (assured me) that their work would
not hinder District work but could in fact help Reluctant, passive participant but hopefully
unobtrusive—as was mathematics department
A third of our middle schools Extensive interviews of central office,
principals, teachers Observations of classrooms Assessment of teachers’ knowledge of the
pedagogy of mathematics
First year, Vanderbilt did ALL of the legwork and had to rope me into meetings to hear results◦ Not because I didn’t value the work but simply
over-extended—hiring staff, designing and writing a curriculum and delivery system, implementing a district-wide coaching model
After first year of reporting of results, my perspective changed dramatically
As a District—we were very focused on systemic implementation (ToA)◦ Significant “mirroring” of efforts across all content
areas Implementation of coaches Common curriculum with common format Expectations of principals and assistant principals to
be instructional leaders Expectations for departmental planning
Strong likelihood that findings within MIST schools would be very similar to findings in other schools in all content areas
Highlighted the cultural resistance to change ◦ Not only teachers! Central staff were a major
point a resistance—generally passive resistance Revealed the extent of lack of depth of content and
pedagogical knowledge of teachers—especially with respect to the strategies and skills that are best practices for their content area and student population
Revealed lack of administrative skill in coaching principals and teachers toward improving practice
Revealed lack of knowledge of effective instructional practices of leadership staff
Multiple initiatives: staff at ground level have difficulty seeing the related nature of multiple reform strategies◦ We’re “doing” PLCs and we’re “doing” rigorous
lesson planning and we’re “doing” effective strategies for ESL students and we’re “doing” inclusion
◦ In my mind these are all highly supportive of improving instruction—to some teachers and principals it was multiple initiatives
How to communicate better?
Converging urgency…◦ Federal and State accountability systems
Low ratings, low student achievement=highly supporting context for change
◦ Board expectation of change Ambitious agendas
Change teacher practices to improve student performance outcomes
MIST furthered our agenda to change teacher practices
Insightful, tenacious, and sensitive researchers
VPs were point of contact for mathematics departments. Finding was that teachers were not looking to principal for leadership◦ Prompted us to shift to principal
Revealed that the disconnect between School Leadership and Curriculum and Instruction was distracting from work◦ Merged the two departments under one leader
Does not “solve” all the problems, but simplifies the process
Coaches were ineffective, not sufficiently more “talented” than teachers, could not lead to improving teacher practice◦ Major redesign of instructional support model
Alignment with a MAJOR district initiative◦ Really it was more than an alignment, it was
forwarding and improving our agenda
Multiple factors but… Middle school mathematics scores have
steadily risen 20% of 8th graders are now taking Algebra I
and 5% geometry—passing state tests at 100% rate
Remaining 8th graders—could conjecture, the lower performing—scores have surpassed many urban peer districts and are our closest to state average—especially for subpops
Can assist with systemic “problem” that demands immediate response
Can garner strong external support Responds to need of Board to see
“immediate” change Provides lessons learned for scale work