Math: Achieving Equity for CA’s Kids Samantha Tran, Senior Managing Director, Education, Children Now

Today’s Presentation Why? Who? What If? Why this work? Why now? What are the math outcomes for kids in California, especially children of color? Who? What if we could eradicate these inequities? What would it take to learn from each other and go to scale? What If?

Why? Slide for Lupita - Cecelia working on bullets for this slide.

CA STEM Interest by Self-Identified Ethnicity

Brain Research

Who? Slide for Lupita - Cecelia working on bullets for this slide.

Flashlight: Data Sets Us on the Path of Inquiry This level of data can’t tell us why or what to do about it

California is home to more than 9 million children, 6 million in K-12 With 12% of the nation’s children, the well-being of California kids has a big impact on the well-being of children nationally.

International Studies Tell Confusing Story for US schools – TIMSS and PISA

California Participated in Prior TIMSS – Performing Relatively Poorly Countries/Regions Outscoring California in Math Rep of Korea, Singapore, Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Quebec, Israel, Finland, Ontario, US Average, Slovenia, England, Alberta, Hungary, Australia, Lithuania, Italy Countries/Regions Scoring Below California in Math New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Sweden, Ukraine, Dubai, Norway, Armenia, Romania, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Lebanon, Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Georgia, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Chile, Iran, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Palestinian National Authority, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syrian Arab Rep, Morocco, Oman, Ghana

US Much More Competitive on TIMSS than PISA PISA 2015 (OECD Countries) TIMSS 2015 Countries/Regions Outscoring US in Math Singapore, Hong Kong (China), Macau (China), Chinese Taipei, Japan, B-S-J-G (China), Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Estonia, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Norway, Austria, New Zealand, Vietnam, Russian Federation, Sweden, Australia, France, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Portugal, Italy, OECD average, Iceland, Spain, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Israel Singapore, Rep. of Korea, Chinese Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong-CHN, Japan, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Canada, Ireland Countries/Regions Below US in Math Croatia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Turkey, Republic of Moldova, Uruguay, Republic of Montenegro, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Albania, Mexico, Georgia, Qatar, Costa Rica, Lebanon, Colombia, Peru, Indonesia, Jordan, Brazil, Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Kosovo, Algeria, Dominican Republic England-GBR, Slovenia, Hungary, Norway, Lithuania, Israel, Australia, Sweden, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Bahrain, Georgia, Lebanon, Qatar, Iran, Thailand, Chile, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia

California Ranks Near Bottom on National Tests California’s Ranking Among 50 States and District of Columbia All Students Low Income Students Non–Low  Income Students Achievement Gap 4th grade 48th 51st 39th 49th 8th grade 41st 45th 34th 38th

NAEP Math – Even Our Higher Performing Subgroups Not Very Competitive Nationally   4th grade 8th Grade Percent Proficient CA State Ranking White 48% 32nd 43% 20th Asian 54% 21st of 31 states 56% 20th of 30 states Non-Low Income 51% 42nd 45% 31st Children of College Graduates N/A 26th of 48 states

SBAC Math results by race/ethnicity and income (All grades 2016) Figure by Education Trust-West

A Snap Shot of 8th Grade Math Performance 8th graders who meet or exceed state standards in math

SBAC Math - Second Year Results Show Progress, Potential Concern about Growing Gaps Group of Students Percent Met Standard or Above Percentage Point Change from Prior Year All Students 37 +4 Race/Ethnicity   Asian 72 +3 Black/African American 18 +2 Latino/Hispanic 24 White 53 Student Subgroups English Learner 12 +1 Economically Disadvantaged 23 Special Disability 11

What If? Slide for Lupita - Cecelia working on bullets for this slide.

The Math in Common® Initiative Five-year initiative supporting 10 school districts in implementing the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M) Goals: Accelerate CCSS-M implementation Identify promising practices/lessons learned that can inform educator, district, and policy-making activities in areas including: Standards implementation Professional development Educator, site, and district capacity-building Planning and budgeting Governance and accountability

Early Insights How Districts are Building Capacities to Effect Change Professional learning – comprehensive systems of support and learning rather than one-time trainings. Communities of practice – promoting shared understanding and development of solutions. District and school-site authority – carefully balancing to maximize benefits. Instructional materials and curriculum – critical to instructional shifts; educators require significant guidance to select and use them effectively. Principals as instructional leaders – building principals’ capacity to support change in classroom practice.

Early Learnings Related to Principals Significant demands of CCSS-M: LCAP, communication, technology and assessment, finding substitutes, stretched central office staff. Simultaneously, other demands for leaders as some districts shift away from centralized PD toward more site-located, classroom-based teacher learning: Increasing support for teacher learning - via shared (PLCs) and individual (workshops/ online) activities Increasing exposure/ input to classroom implementation (eg, math understanding; effective feedback) To enable focus on attaining instructional vision, districts developing systematic processes/tools to support principal classroom observation and feedback.

Impact of Instructional Supervision – Long Beach Side by side school comparison of what effective principals have done to impact their schools – specifically student achievement. Schools on the left had principals directly involved in providing feedback to teachers and attending department meetings Schools on the right were focused less on supervision and more on other areas due to perceived need at site, or the principal delegated supervision completely to the AP In this district, there seems to be something to highlight about principals’ involvement in goal setting and feedback and providing high levels of instructional support. We have similar data from another district.

Early Positive Systemic Outcomes We have three other districts that are showing systemic impacts on student achievement. In the next couple of months we’ll be exploring some of the connections between the districts’ theory of change and outcomes. We expect to be in front of the group in earnest in Spring 2017.

Q & A