Mathematics Study Part 3: Achievement in Kentucky Schools ...

Office of Education Accountability

Legislative Research Commission

Mathematics Study Part 3: Achievement in Kentucky

Schools, Successful Practices, and Continuing Challenges

Research Report No. 369 Part 3

Prepared by

Marcia Ford Seiler, Director; Deborah Nelson, Ph.D.; Ken Chilton, Ph.D.; Al Alexander; Brenda Landy; Sabrina Olds; Keith White, Ph.D.; and Pam Young

Mathematics Study Part 3: Achievement in Kentucky Schools, Successful Practices, and Continuing Challenges

Project Staff Marcia Ford Seiler, Director

Deborah Nelson, Ph.D. Ken Chilton, Ph.D. Al Alexander Brenda Landy Sabrina Olds Keith White, Ph.D. Pam Young

Research Report No. 369

Legislative Research Commission

Frankfort, Kentucky

lrc.

Accepted December 7, 2009, by Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee

Paid for with state funds. Available in alternative form by request.

Legislative Research Commission Office of Education Accountability

Foreword

Foreword

In December 2008, the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee directed the Office of Education Accountability to undertake a three-part review of mathematics performance in Kentucky schools. This report is presented in three parts. Part 3 identifies factors associated with high student mathematics achievement and continuing challenges confronting the state as it strives to improve the achievement of all students.

The Office of Education Accountability would like to thank the teachers, school administrators, and district administrators who provided site visit data. OEA would also like to thank staff of the Kentucky Department of Education, the Kentucky Center for Mathematics, the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation, and the Council on Postsecondary Education for their assistance in completing this report. Finally, OEA would like to thank the researchers, professional development providers, and mathematics consultants who shared their experience working in schools across the state.

Robert Sherman Director

Legislative Research Commission Frankfort, Kentucky December 2009

i

Legislative Research Commission Office of Education Accountability

Contents

Contents

Summary...................................................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1 Overview and Background.........................................................................................1 Description of This Study ..........................................................................................2 How the Study Was Conducted..................................................................................2 Organization of the Report.........................................................................................2 State and Federal Funding for Mathematics Programs................................................3 Mathematics Achievement Fund ....................................................................4 Kentucky Center for Mathematics ..................................................................4 Kentucky Center for Mathematics Evaluation Data.............................5 Committee for Mathematics Achievement......................................................5 Teachers' Professional Growth Fund ..............................................................6 Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science ................................................6 Mathematics Science Partnership Grants ........................................................6 Improving Educator Quality Grants................................................................7 Continuing Grants for Mathematics Programs............................................................7 Appalachian Mathematics and Science Partnership ........................................8 AdvanceKentucky ..........................................................................................9 General Electric College-bound District Program .........................................10 Additional Sources of Support .................................................................................10 Kentucky Department of Education..............................................................10 Educational Cooperatives .............................................................................11 Statutes and Regulations Relevant to Issues Raised in this Report............................12 New Standards .............................................................................................12 Curriculum Development .............................................................................13 Role of KDE and the Kentucky Board of Education in Curriculum ...13 Role of School Boards and School Councils in Curriculum...............13 Graduation Requirements .............................................................................13 Assessment ..................................................................................................14 Additional School Council Responsibilities..................................................14 Accelerated Learning ...................................................................................15 Professional Development ............................................................................16 Building-level Professional Staff ......................................................16 Instructional Leaders.........................................................................16

Chapter 2: Supporting Mathematics Achievement: Successful Practices and Continuing Challenges.............................................................................................17 Site Visit Methodology ............................................................................................18 Differences in Mathematics Proficiency Rates by School Level and Student Poverty............................................................................................18 Sample .........................................................................................................21 Data .............................................................................................................22 Limitations ................................................................................................... 22 Summary of Site Visit Findings ...............................................................................23

iii

Contents

Legislative Research Commission Office of Education Accountability

Culture.....................................................................................................................24 Group Accountability ...................................................................................25 Teachers' Accountability for Practice ...............................................25 Teachers' Accountability for Colleagues...........................................26 Administrators' Accountability to Teachers ......................................27 Reinforcement of Expectations .........................................................27 Student Accountability .................................................................................28 School Climate.............................................................................................29

Curriculum and Assessment.....................................................................................29 District or School Curriculum Documents ....................................................30 Limitations of State Curriculum Documents .....................................30 Curriculum-aligned Assessments..................................................................30 Interim Assessments.....................................................................................31 Grades and Credit Recovery.........................................................................32 Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Data Analysis.....................33 Influence of Test Content and Format on Instruction.........................33

Acceleration............................................................................................................. 33 Extra Support for Struggling Students ..........................................................34 Use of EPAS Data To Support Struggling Students ......................................35 Limited Use of Explore and PLAN ...................................................35 Accelerated Learning Based on ACT Data ...................................................36 Extra Support for High Achieving Students..................................................36

Professional Development .......................................................................................36 Commitment to Professional Learning..........................................................37 Factors Associated With Commitment to Professional Learning...................38 Instructional Support.........................................................................38 Workshops and Conferences.............................................................39 School Schedules..............................................................................39 Compliance With State Requirements...............................................40

Feeder Schools Performing Above State Averages...................................................40 Common Challenges................................................................................................41

Regional Differences in the Supply of Mathematics Teachers.......................41 Weak Mathematics Foundational Knowledge...............................................41

Concerns of Site Visit High School Teachers....................................41 Related Research ..............................................................................42 Content Coverage Can Undermine Mastery ......................................42 Teaching Methods Do Not Support Conceptual Understanding.........43 Insufficient Attention to Mental Computation ...................................43 Importance of Calculators and Mental Computation..........................44 Need for Additional Research on Relationships Between Calculator Use and Computational Fluency ......................................44 School and District Efforts To Build Computational Fluency............45 Effective Use of Special Education Teachers................................................45 Tendency of Administrators To Focus More on Reading Than on Mathematics ............................................................................................47

iv

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download