Transcript GE – Atlanta Public Schools Professional Development

Urban Mathematics
Education Leadership
Academy
May 19, 2009
Dottie Whitlow, Ph. D. and the
Atlanta Public Schools team
Atlanta Public Schools
UMELA Team
Dottie Whitlow, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mathematics & Science
Arica Johnson, Ed. D Program Administrator, Mathematics & Science
Linda S. Smith
Master Instructional Coach, Mathematics
Neva Rose
Program Director, Georgia Tech CEISMC
Mesha Greene
Model Teacher Leader, SRT 1
Craig Ogden
Model Teacher Leader, SRT 2
Kathy Griffin
Model Teacher Leader, SRT 3
Diamond Jack
Model Teacher Leader, SRT 4
Raquel Rimpola
Model Teacher Leader, Math, Office of HS
Kami Benson Luigs
Program Leader, GE
2/
GE /
July 17, 2015
Atlanta Public Schools
Demographics
Student population
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
Multiracial
Asian
American Indian/Alaskan
49,142
86%
8%
4%
0.93%
0.59%
0.3%
Students eligible for free & 76.14%
reduced meals
Teachers
School facts
Traditional schools
Elementary
Middle Schools
Single gender
High Schools
95
57
17
2
19
Non-traditional
2
Charter Schools
7
Adult learning centers
1
Total APS learning sites105
+3,200
Superintendent tenure: 10 years
Beverly L. Hall, Ed.D. – 2009 National Superintendent of the Year
3/
GE /
July 17, 2015
Atlanta Public Schools
Vision for 2012 math and science
Atlanta Public Schools’ strategic plan is to
create a 21st Century mathematics and
science educational experience that
provides APS students with the necessary
knowledge, skills and abilities to allow them
to become competitive in the global market
place.
4/
GE /
July 17, 2015
Atlanta Public Schools
Math & Science initiative
Aligned
Curriculum & Resource
Materials
Quality
Professional Learning
Experiences
APS
21st Century Learning
Experience
Enhanced Leadership
Capacity
Deep Data Use for
Assessment & Instruction
Standards-based
Classroom Instruction
Deep Teacher
Capacity
5/
GE /
July 17, 2015
APS’ math and science PD design considers 4
interconnected outcomes
Increasing science & math content
knowledge
Building a professional learning community
Increasing pedagogical content knowledge
Developing leadership
6/
GE /
July 17, 2015
Adapted from Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson in Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics
APS’ math & science PD design
Context
Critical
Issues
Commit to
vision and
standards
EVAULATE
Knowledge &
Beliefs
Analyze
student
learning &
other data
Set Goals
Plan
Do
Strategies
Professional Development is like an …
… because it covers all
7/
GE /
July 17, 2015
How do we know the PD is working?
‘House of PD’
Reflect deeply on teaching and learning
Practicing teaching
Translate new knowledge into practice
Building knowledge
Developing awareness
Scope of Evaluation
1. Participants’
reactions
2. Participants’
learning
3. Organization
support & change
4. Participants’ use
of new knowledge
or skills
5. Student learning
outcomes
Each PD strategy is evaluated … some strategies
are evaluated more deeply than others
Adapted from Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson in Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics
taken from T. Guskey in Evaluating Professional Development
8/
GE /
July 17, 2015
How are we evaluating Layer 1?
Reflect deeply on teaching and learning
Developing
Translate new knowledge into practice
Awareness
Building knowledge
Practicing teaching
Developing awareness
APS PD action
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
District-wide focused training
Math Misconceptions
Vertical planning teaming
Department planning teaming
District-wide coaching conversations
Reflective teacher model intro May 2008
Math I Professional Learning Community
(PLC)
Level of
evaluation
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
APS PD action
Level of
evaluation
–New Teacher Orientation training
2
–Quarterly math & science SRT trainings 1
–Noyce Foundation content coaching
3
–Science leadership training
2
2
9/
GE /
July 17, 2015
How are we evaluating Layer 2?
Reflect deeply on teaching and learning
Building
Translate new knowledge into practice
knowledge
Building knowledge
Practicing teaching
Developing awareness
APS PD action
–District-wide focused training
–Science leadership series
–Spelman partnership
–GE summer conference
–NASA, APQC
–Urban Math Education Leadership
Academy
–GA Tech CEISMC GIFT
–Math I PLC
Level of
evaluation
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
APS PD action
–Summer Science academies
–Science labs and materials
–Math Solutions
–NSTA sci-paks and sci-objects
–PLCs (robotics, integrated science,
physics)
–GSTA, NSTA, GCTM, NCTM
–Benjamin Banneker Series
–Quarterly math & science SRT
trainings
–Exemplars math training
Level of
evaluation
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
10 /
GE /
July 17, 2015
How are we evaluating Layer 3?
Reflect deeply on teaching and learning
Translate new
Practicing teaching
knowledge into
Translate new knowledge into practice
practice
Building knowledge
Developing awareness
APS PD action
–District focused training
–APS Coaching Foundation
–Carnegie and Agile Mind
–8th grade math curriculum improvements
–Noyce Foundation content coaching
–National Advisory Panel
–Math I & II supplements
–Science framework and task enhancements
–Data conversations/ data talks PLC
Level of evaluation
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11 /
GE /
July 17, 2015
How are we evaluating Layer 4?
Reflect deeply on teaching and learning
Practicing
Translate new knowledge into practice
teaching
Building knowledge
Practicing teaching
Developing awareness
APS PD action
–District-wide focused training
–APS Coaching Foundation
–Noyce Foundation content coaching
–Reflective teacher model introduction May 2008
–PLCs (all esp. data conversations/data talks)
–Math Solutions
Level of evaluation
2
3
2
2
2
3
12 /
GE /
July 17, 2015
How are we evaluating Layer 5?
Reflect deeply on teaching and learning
Reflect deeply
Practicing teaching
on teaching and
Translate new knowledge into practice
learning
Building knowledge
Developing awareness
APS PD action
–District-wide focused training
–APS Coaching Foundation
–Science Leadership series
–PLCs (all)
Level of evaluation
2
3
2
2
13 /
GE /
July 17, 2015
Partnerships & resources
Partners
Georgia Tech CEISMC
Georgia State University
University of Texas – The Dana Center
GE & GE Foundation
Panasonic Foundation
Noyce Foundation
University of Georgia
Spelman College (SMSEA)
University of California Santa Cruz
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
NCTM / NCSM
Resources
(Susan Loucks-Horsley, et al) Designing Professional Development for
Teachers of Science and Mathematics
•(Van De Walle) Elementary and Middle School Mathematics
•(Mary Kay Stein, et al) Implementing Standards-Based Mathematics
Instruction 1st edition
•(Robert Ashlock) Error Patterns in Computation
•(Kasser, Mundry, Stiles and Loucks-Horsley) Leading Every Day
•(Tom Guskey) Evaluating Professional Development
•GDOE website www.georgiastandards.org
•Urban Mathematics Leadership Network
•WestEd
14 /
GE /
July 17, 2015
Challenges / Opportunities
•Building the foundation of APS
Coaching Model among APS
instructional leaders (eg, common
language and practice)
•Efficient use of planning days – we
always can improve
•Follow-up and monitoring of PD
opportunities
•Channel energy re Math &
Science Initiative
•Embedding and supporting all
district initiatives seamlessly
15 /
GE /
July 17, 2015