1. THE DRAGON CONNECTION March 2008

2. Who are we?  Jefferson City Schools  Small, rural school district 60 miles north of Atlanta, 18 miles north of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia  4 schools with 2500 students  28% free/reduced lunch  28% minority  84% graduation rate  70% growth in 5 years 2

3. What is happening in the state of Georgia? The state of Georgia is in the process of rolling out a standards-based curriculum (Georgia Performance Standards) in all subject areas in two-year stages (year one: learning the standards, year two: implementing the standards. 2006-2007  studying mathematics GPS, grades 3-5 and 8  implementing mathematics GPS, grades K-2 and 7, first year 2007-2008  studying mathematics I and accelerated mathematics I, grade 9 GPS  implementing mathematics GPS, grades 3-5 and 8, first year 2008-2009  studying mathematics II and accelerated mathematics II, grade 10 GPS  implementing mathematics I and accelerated mathematics I, grade 9 GPS, first year  implementing mathematics GPS, grades K-8 3

4. What is the focus of the Jefferson City Schools' project? 2006-2007  mathematics content development for 46 teachers grades 3-8  student achievement in mathematics 2007-2008  mathematics content development and pedagogy grades 3-12  student achievement in mathematics 2008-2009  continue mathematics content development and pedagogy grades 3-12  student achievement in mathematics 4

5. What was the evaluation model? Program Logic Model Rick West - Evaluator (rickwest@gmail.com) Inputs Resources Personnel Partners Activities Pro. Development Retreat Content instruction Lesson Study Collaboration Book Study Standards training Outputs Support Assess. Strategies Content Knowledge Instructional Knowledge Lesson plans Community Outcomes Short-term Long-term Impacts: Student goals Teacher goals 5

6. What resources?  Higher Education staff in the mathematics department at the University of Georgia (years one and two)  Evaluator - College of Education, Learning and Performance Support Laboratory (year one)  Evaluator - independent (year two)  Graduate student - College of Education mathematics education department (year two)  Graduate student - College of Education mathematics education department (years one and two)  Mathematics Coach - 50% time from the GMSP grant (year two)  DOE workshops - Georgia Department of Education staff  External consultant  RESA consultant  Consultants from Connected Mathematics Program in Michigan  Consultants from Everyday Mathematics  Administration from Jefferson City Schools - principals, assistant principals, instructional lead teachers, associate superintendent  Teachers - 50 teachers grades 3-12  Students - 1800 students  PLU credit for participation  Title I, Title IIa, PRISM funds  InterMath - GPS course  DOE workshop  planning time  material allocation 6

7. What activities?  3-day summer institute (Year 1 and 2)  8, 2-hour workshops on content development (Year 1)  Diary of professional development process (Year 1 and 2)  14 one-hour sessions to plan, implement, and assess specific lessons 7

8. What will we see?  Teachers effectively planning and executing GPS  Developed training model integrating content knowledge to the teacher's classroom  Increased understanding for students of how mathematics applies to the real world 8

9. What were the results?  Improved teacher knowledge base  growth of.55 in Number, growth of.22 in Algebra, and growth of.32 in Geometry between the group means on the pre- and post-test  significant growth in Number and Geometry  Improved student achievement  decreased by 3% in each grade band the students in "does not meet expectation"  increased "exceeding expectations" by 3%  Maintained 100% of JCS teacher as highly qualified  Created a sustainable learning community of mathematics teachers and replicable training process for future years 9

10. What are the challenges ?  Being responsive to the unique needs of each teacher group - need an evaluator per group as they meet  The LMT is not appropriate for all groups - good for middle school teachers but too advanced for elementary and too easy for high school teachers 10

11. How to increase MSP projects using experimental or quasi experimental designs?  Need more and better teacher content assessments  Need more longitudinal studies (5 years)  Not reasonable to expect change in one year 11

12. Evidence of student achievement?  Student test scores for objective measures-could use more qualitative information here to see the how and why of test score change  The standardized state tests keep changing each year so it is hard to make comparisons 12

13. What was the evaluation model? The evaluation model represented a responsive, management-oriented approach emphasizing objective information for decision-making and qualitative feedback for making improvements. Unique professional development for each grade level band (3-5, 6-8, 9-12) required unique measures attached with observations for all grade levels. 13

14. How to report evidence of effectiveness? Focus on communication  Formative feedback to teachers and system administrators  Summative/technical feedback to grant administrators  Reconcile standards-driven instruction rather than publisher-driven instruction 14

15. What is next?  Stronger vertical articulation between schools  Better understanding of what students know and understand  Better understanding of what teachers know and understand  Better understanding of how to successfully implement standards-based classrooms  Better understanding of how to differentiate instruction as the curriculum changes and the course of study becomes more rigorous 15

16. For information contact: Dr. Sherrie Gibney-Sherman Associate Superintendent for Instruction Jefferson City Schools 575 Washington Street Jefferson, Georgia 30548 706.367.2883 sgsherman@jeffcityschools.org 16

17. The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in this presentation are not intended as an endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education 17