Making a Difference in 2010-11 Heidi A. Ramírez, PhD Chief Academic Officer Milwaukee Public Schools
Making a Difference in 2010-11 Heidi A. Ramírez, PhD Chief Academic Officer Milwaukee Public Schools.
Jan 03, 2016
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Making a Difference in 2010-11
Heidi A. Ramírez, PhDChief Academic Officer
Milwaukee Public Schools
Milwaukee Public Schools is significantly out-performed by other Wisconsin schools and nearly all other large, urban school districts
•In reading and math•Across most domains/competencies•Across grade levels•Across student sub-groups
Reading
3
NAEP Reading Grade 4 ─ Overall Percent At or Above Basic: 2009
Det
roit Cle
vela
nd
Milw
auke
e
Ph
ilad
elp
hia
Fres
no
Los
An
gele
s
Bal
tim
ore
Cit
y
Ch
icag
o
Dis
tric
t o
f C
olu
mb
ia (
PS)
Atl
anta
Larg
e C
ity
Ho
ust
on
San
Die
go
Bo
sto
n
New
Yo
rk C
ity
Jeff
erso
n C
ou
nty
(K
Y)
Au
stin
Nati
on
al P
ub
lic
Mia
mi-
Dad
e
Ch
arlo
tte
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Per
cen
t
4
NAEP Reading Grade 8 ─ Overall Percent At or Above Basic: 2009
De
tro
it Fre
sno
Dis
tric
t o
f C
olu
mb
ia (
PS)
Mil
wa
uke
e
Cle
vela
nd
Ba
ltim
ore
Cit
y
Los
An
gele
s
Ph
ila
de
lph
ia
Ch
ica
go
Atl
an
ta
Ne
w Y
ork
Cit
y
Larg
e C
ity
Ho
ust
on
San
Die
go
Bo
sto
n
Jeff
ers
on
Co
un
ty (
KY
)
Ch
arl
ott
e
Au
stin
Mia
mi-
Da
de
Na
tio
na
l Pu
bli
c
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Pe
rce
nt
5
WKCE Reading Trends by Grade GroupPercent of Students at/above Proficient
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grade 10
MPS is making little progress in improving literacy achievement across grades
In many areas, MPS student performance has been stagnant or regressing
WKCE Reading Trend by Subgroup - Grades 3-5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
All Students Black Hispanic White SpEd ELL FRL State
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ Overall Percent At or Above Basic: 2009
Det
roit
Cle
vela
nd
Dis
tric
t o
f C
olu
mb
ia (
DC
PS)
Fres
no
Milw
auke
e
Ph
ilad
elp
hia
Los
An
gele
s
Ch
icag
o
Atl
anta
Bal
tim
ore
Cit
y
Larg
e C
ity
Jeff
erso
n C
ou
nty
(K
Y)
San
Die
go
New
Yo
rk C
ity
Bo
sto
n
Mia
mi-
Dad
e
Nati
on
al P
ub
lic
Ho
ust
on
Au
stin
Ch
arlo
tte
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Pe
rce
nt
Bas
ic
Mathematics
NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 ─ Overall Percent At or Above Basic: 2009
Det
roit
Milw
auke
e
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a (D
CPS)
Clev
elan
d
Bal
tim
ore
City
Fres
no
Los
Ang
eles
Atl
anta Ch
icag
o
Phila
delp
hia
Larg
e Ci
ty
Jeff
erso
n Co
unty
(KY)
New
Yor
k Ci
ty
Mia
mi-
Dad
e
Bos
ton
San
Die
go
Hou
ston
Nati
onal
Pub
lic
Char
lott
e
Aus
tin
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Perc
ent
Bas
ic
In others areas, MPS non-disabled students perform at the same levels as students with disabilities nationally, including large cities
African-American Students-Math
Students with Disabilities-Math
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ White-BlackPercent At or Above Basic: 2009
46
5559
63
8691 90 90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milwaukee Wisconsin Large City National Public
Perce
nt Ba
sic
White
Black
NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ Students with DisabilitiesPercent At or Above Basic: 2009
64
89
75
84
31
60
45
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milwaukee Wisconsin Large City National Public
Perce
nt Ba
sic
SD
Not SD
NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ White-BlackPercent At or Above Basic: 2009
46
5559
63
8691 90 90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milwaukee Wisconsin Large City National Public
Perc
ent B
asic
White
Black
NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Significant achievement gaps persist
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ National School Lunch ProgramPercent At or Above Basic: 2009
77
9387
91
54
7366
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milwaukee Wisconsin Large City National Public
Perc
ent B
asic
NSLP Eligible
NSLP Non-Eligible
NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ Students with DisabilitiesPercent At or Above Basic: 2009
64
89
75
84
31
60
45
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milwaukee Wisconsin Large City National Public
Perc
ent B
asic
SD
Not SD
NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 ─ Students with DisabilitiesPercent At or Above Basic: 2009
43
84
64
76
6
45
24
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milwaukee Wisconsin Large City National Public
Perc
ent B
asic
SD
Not SD
NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
SPI Point Gap by Objective - Current 7th Grade Cohort
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Fall 2005 Grade 3 Fall 2006 Grade 4 Fall 2007 Grade 5 Fall 2008 Grade 6 Fall 2009 Grade 7
Mathematical Processes Number Operations and Relationships Geometry
Measurement Statistics and Probability Algebraic Relationships
Many MPS Math Courses Lack Rigor
Too few MPS students are college- ready
How do we accelerate progress for all students?
Focus on what happens inside of classroomsFocus on standards/learning intentionsClear framework/vision of effective instructionExplicit, aligned support and materialsImproved access to rigorous coursework
Leverage expertise and capacity of Milwaukee Math Partnership and Math Teacher Leaders
Frameworks for Skillful TeachingMarzanoHunterSaphierDanielsonCHPUC (Characteristics of High Performing Urban Classrooms)
Framework for Teaching
Planning and PreparationClassroom EnvironmentInstructionProfessional Responsibilities
(Danielson, 1996, 2007)
Planning and Preparation
Selecting instructional goalsDemonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogyDemonstrating knowledge of studentsDemonstrating knowledge of resourcesDesigning coherent instructionAssessing student
learning
Overarching ObjectivesObjectivesHigh Expectations based on Learning TargetsHigh Expectations for AllLearning Goals, Track Progress, Celebrate SuccessPlanningCurriculum Design Lessons organized in a Cohesive UnitStrategic Instructional ChoicesAssessmentRoutine use of variety of AssessmentsSpace, Time, Routines
Classroom Environment
Creating an Environment of Respect and RapportEstablishing a Culture of LearningManaging Classroom ProceduresManaging Student BehaviorsOrganizing Physical Space
Class climatePersonal relationship buildingEffective relationships w/ StudentsActive Engagement of Student LearnersEngage StudentsCultural ResponsivenessRules & ProceduresAdherence to Rules & ProceduresRoutinesDisciplineMomentum, AttentionSpace, Time
Instruction
Communicating clearly and accuratelyUsing questioning and discussion techniquesEngaging students in learningProviding feedback to studentsDemonstrating flexibility and responsiveness
High Expectations based on Learning TargetsObjectives ●ClarityInteract w/ New KnowledgeDeepen Understanding of New KnowledgeTest Hypotheses about New KnowledgeEngage StudentsPrinciples of LearningModels of TeachingStrategic instructional ChoicesActive Engagement of Student LearnersCultural Responsiveness
Professional Responsibilities• Reflecting on
Teaching• Maintaining
Accurate Records• Communicating with
families• Contributing to the
school and district• Growing and
developing professionally
• Showing professionalism
• Impassioned, Engaged Adult Learners
• Partnerships w/ Families & Community
• Collaboration w/ Colleagues
What have we learned from these?Teaching is complex; can’t be reduced to a checklist of behaviors or strategies for every classroom, content area, grade, learning objective, student Effective teachers have rich repertoires of professional practice and are skilled at “making the match”
Effective teachers have more than one way to handle a given teaching situation
Matching depends on the situation, group, goal, and individual student
Skillful teachers are made, not born A variety of district and school conditions and supports affect teacher development -- principals and other school leaders have both great potential and responsibility to help them develop
It can be easy to recognize:•Well-organized teachers•Effective classroom managers •Engaging teachers•Teachers who know their content•Teachers who keep good records•Teachers who use “research-based
strategies”
But skillful/effective teachers –those that “make the match” often take more time to recognize, support, and develop
What will you do this year to support skillful teaching?
Related Documents
