THE AMOEBA OF SIMULTANEOUS RENEWAL
AND THE RESIDUE IT LEAVES BEHIND
JENNIFER M. BAY-WILLIAMS
Department of Elementary Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
M. GAIL SHROYER,
Department of Elementary Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
MELISA HANCOCK,
Teacher-in-Residence, Manhattan/Odgen School District, Manhattan, KS 66506
MICHAEL B. SCOTT
Department of Mathematics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Abstract
This paper outlines the premises of a K-16 simultaneous renewal model. This renewal model involves teachers, mathematics educators, and mathematicians and is based on data analysis of K-16 teaching and learning and K-12 mathematics achievement. Two case studies are used to illustrate how simultaneous renewal impacts all levels of schools. One case study focuses on the improvement in one elementary school and the other focuses on change in the teacher education program. Following the case studies is a discussion of the impact of the model on K-16 teaching and learning.
The Amoeba Of Simultaneous Renewal And The Residue It Leaves Behind
“The initial object of change is not the student, the classroom, or the system, it is the attitudes and conceptions of educators themselves” [1]
Teachers within a school are diverse, schools within a district differ significantly, and districts each take on their own culture. Attempting to address the needs across several district partners while simultaneously improving teacher preparation is a complex and nebulous proposal. The five partners of the Kansas State University Mathematics Teacher Preparation (KSU-MTP) Project include urban schools, rural schools, schools within a University community, and the University College of Education and Department of Mathematics. Each partner has a history and context that is unique. Creating a mathematics team that includes representatives from each with the goal of improving student learning means balancing planned professional development and improvement activities with those that emerge from school-based needs. Planned events for the mathematics team prompted unforeseen projects and initiatives in each partner’s home setting. At times, much activity was happening on a particular topic, such as implementation of standards-based curriculum, and then project activities moved in new directions, such as focusing on teacher content knowledge in geometry. “While schools and teachers approach change in a variety of ways, most experience the process as neither predictable nor orderly but often fitful and pragmatic” [2]. This is the amoeba-like movement of simultaneous renewal, an approach that is responsive to the culture of schools and the needs of students. The movement of an amoeba is not sporadic or disjointed; it moves slowly towards its intended destination, constantly changing its shape, responsive to the external environment and somewhat unpredictable to the observer. While there are boundaries around which the systemic reform occurs, the movement of the group, while together, is somewhat unpredictable. In this paper we discuss the premises for simultaneous renewal and the approach we took towards K-16 improvement in mathematics teaching and learning. Through two case studies, we illustrate the dynamics of planned and emergent professional development and improvement activities and their impact on K-12 schools and teacher education. We conclude with the residue that this process is leaving behind, as well as the new directions the partners are undertaking.
Simultaneous Renewal
Simultaneous renewal is grounded in two basic premises. First, is that lasting change at any level requires change at all levels. This means that if elementary schools have identified that teachers need to develop more effective instructional strategies, then the only way to accomplish this and sustain it is to provide professional development, change programs, and adapt courses so that current teachers in K-12 learn about effective instructional strategies and teacher education courses, field experiences, and content courses are designed so that pre-service teachers develop such skills before entering the teacher workforce. If teachers are not modeling effective instructional strategies, then pre-service teachers are not seeing what they look like in a real classroom. If practicing teachers are using effective instructional strategies and pre-service teachers are not learning about them, they will be unprepared for student teaching or first year teaching and then are at higher risk of leaving the profession.
The second premise is that a problem at any level is the joint responsibility of teachers, district leadership, mathematics educators, and mathematicians. “Collaborative inquiry is the process by which all relevant groups construct their understanding of important problems and potential solutions through asking questions, carefully analyzing all relevant data, and engaging in constructive dialogue with colleagues” [3]. In the example given above one can see that all those involved in K-12 education must participate in reaching the intended goal. If students learn mathematics in a mathematics department in a way that models effective teaching strategies, they begin to see how formulas can be developed, rather than stated. They see that “doing” mathematics is not imitating static steps, but a decision-making process in which various strategies might lead to the correct result. Methodology courses must explicitly address those instructional strategies that enable students to learn mathematics and model such practices. Teachers must use effective instructional strategies and administrators must provide the time and resources for teachers to learn strategies that are not already in their repertoire.
Simultaneous renewal is aligned with philosophies of systemic change. Ball argues that the state and national standards are not programs to be implemented, but are visions for improving mathematics. Her interpretation of systemic reform is much more interactive: “Rather than asking, ‘How might we help more teachers implement the reform?’ I want to ask, ‘How might we engage a wider community in developing and enhancing reform?”[4]. Efforts to reform education should be well planned, and well aligned. “Both horizontal and vertical structures must be considered. Anything less than a systematic approach will find the fabric of change unraveling at one end even as it is being woven at the other end” [5].
The systemic change warranted in simultaneous renewal is fundamental change. In this definition, the assumption is that the problems of change cannot be addressed within the given system, thus systemic change involves changing the system. The goal of systemic reform efforts is to replace the fragmented, multi-layered education system and align policy to a coherent system of instructional guidance [6]. Simultaneous renewal seeks to blur the lines between K-12 schools and higher education, to blur the boundaries of Colleges of Education and Departments of Mathematics, and to encompass all these educators in the responsibility of improving student learning.
Each of the two premises will be further illustrated through the two cases we share in this paper. Each case is an example of a collaborative effort to identify and prioritize the needs of K-12 students and the response of all stakeholders in attempting to meet those needs. The events described in the cases illustrate that while there is planned professional development to identify needs, the projects and professional development to meet those needs emerge in unpredictable ways. This is the amoeba of simultaneous renewal. Before sharing the cases, we discuss the project goals and the planned efforts to identify school needs.
Project Goals
KSU-MTP Project developed goals to guide the direction of simultaneous renewal. While each goal targets a different element of the K-16 continuum, each level supports the improvement of the other levels. Our goals included, (1) To enhance collaboration, coordination and alignment in the KSU mathematics teacher education program to address K-12 school needs while simultaneously improving teacher quality; (2) To extend, assess, and institutionalize a variety of recruitment initiatives aimed at increasing the number of students entering K-12 mathematics teacher education; (3) To collaboratively redesign KSU mathematics teacher preparation; (4) To provide enhanced and sustained professional development for all project participants; (5) To institutionalize a model induction program to provide mentoring for early career teachers to increase retention of qualified mathematics teachers in the profession. The following discussion focuses predominantly on simultaneous renewal to address goals 1, 3, and 4.
KSU-MTP Partners
While we all share common concerns of improving student achievement for all students, improving teacher quality, and aligning curriculum with standards, the challenges within each school differed significantly. Teachers in all partner schools faced challenges resulting from serious discrepancies on test scores for minorities, children from poverty, and students with limited English proficiency. Though common to all districts, the extent of the problem varied greatly. Kansas City, Kansas, located in an urban Empowerment Zone, struggles with tremendous poverty (67% disadvantaged), diversity, teacher turnover, and a rapidly expanding population with limited English proficiency. Geary County (59% disadvantaged) and Manhattan-Ogden (32% disadvantaged) are located in rural regions adjacent to the Ft. Riley Military Installation and near Kansas State University. Garden City is a fast growing rural community in western Kansas with a rapidly expanding population of English Language Learners. All partners needed to align mathematics teaching with National and State standards, including university courses aligned to the MET expectations.
Data-Driven Professional Development
Across teachers, schools, and districts, each individual has different notions about the need for change. There are teachers within the same school who believe the way students are learning mathematics is already the best it can be, while others believe that urgent change is needed. A careful study of data serves to (1) raise awareness that change is needed, (2) provide a rationale for change, and (3) provide a target for change (e.g., to raise student achievement and to align teaching with standards). National reports, such as the Adding it Up [7], How People Learn [8], and Principles and Standards for School Mathematics [9] provide compelling evidence that mathematics teaching must change, as well as guidance on how that change can occur and what effective teaching practices are. State data are important to teachers and schools, as high stakes tests are at the state level. Analyzing state standards for students as well as for teacher licensure can identify content gaps in curriculum, as well as illuminate pedagogical issues. Finally, teachers’ self analysis of school needs is essential in identifying both what most needs to be improved and how it can be accomplished in their individual setting. All three levels (national, state, and local) of data analysis are important in making changes that reflect best practices and are responsive to local needs.
This process must be collaborative. Love [10] offers a framework for collaborative inquiry focused on student learning as a vehicle for systemic reform.
Figure 1. Love’s [10] Model for Collaborative Inquiry into Student Learning
Love bases this model on eight basic principles. Among these is that school reform is fueled by inquiry, that the inquiry must be data-driven, focused on student learning, and collaborative. Collaboration within the framework of simultaneous renewal goes beyond involving all K-12 stakeholders, which means including mathematicians and mathematics educators who participate in the preparation of teachers. Grounded in the basic principles of Love’s collaborative inquiry and the premises of simultaneous renewal, the KSU-MTP project identified a data-driven collaborative approach to include all partners. A mathematics team was developed including lead teachers from each partner district (though not every school), mathematics educators, and mathematicians. Through the collaborative analysis of national, state, and local needs focused on student learning, each school developed a unique action plan to improve student achievement in their setting (see figure 3).
KSU-PDS Partnership School Improvement Action Plans
School: District: QPA Cycle:
Identified Improvement Area:
Rationale for selecting this area:
Targeted Partnership Goal:
Evidence of Partnership Impact: How will you know when you have achieved your goal? What are your indicators of student achievement? Who will be responsible for monitoring your progress?
Strategies: How do you plan to use KSU students and faculty resources to help achieve your goal?
Teacher Involvement: How will the teachers in your building be involved in the process?
Resources: What resources do you plan to use to accomplish your goal?
Timeline: What is the timeline for activities and results?
Wish List: What resource needs will you have to accomplish your plans?
Figure 3. School Action Plan Protocol.
The development of the action plans was the “point of departure” from pre-planned collaborative discussions with teacher-leaders, to emergent school-wide professional development and improvement activities responsive to the needs of each site. To illustrate the implementation of an action plan, we share one school’s story, a school that was one of the poorest and lowest performing in the state of Kansas.
Case 1: Supporting Teacher and Student Understanding in K-12 Schools
One elementary school, one middle school, and one high school in Kansas City, Kansas became KSU Professional Development Schools in 2001. Teacher leaders from the elementary and middle schools wrote mathematics school improvement action plans based on the data-driven discussions of the mathematics team. They were asked to identify weak areas and resources needed to address these weaknesses. It was from these action plans that teachers began developing a new language to describe what was possible. Phillip Schlechty [11] calls this "invention"--the invention of new ways of thinking and of organizing so that students can be reached more effectively. Such invention cannot be a collection of sporadic and disjointed efforts. Rather, it is "steady work" that is inclusive, broad-based, and grounded in the day-to-day realities of school life [12]. Through our partnership, a supportive environment was formed, that encouraged teachers to work together and the "steady work" began.
A series of activities, one leading to another was set into motion. Initially, Kansas City invited three members of the mathematics team (a teacher, a mathematics educator, and a mathematician) to meet with the district leadership about how to improve mathematics teaching. A question arose in the conversation about the curricula used in another PDS, which was standards-based. The result of the conversation, and several follow-up meetings, was to consider using these two schools as pilot sites to explore standards-based curricula. This led to a PDS exchange in which Kansas City teachers visited Manhattan/Ogden to observe and meet teachers implementing reform curriculum and conceptual mathematics lessons. It was from these observations, reflections and analysis of their mathematics data that lead teachers to realize that their curriculum was not aligned with the state mathematics standards and that expectations of their students were too low. Teachers, school improvement facilitators, clinical instructor, central office personnel and Kansas State University educators came together to rethink curriculum and instruction and attend to the needs of both teachers and students. Two representatives of the math team (the teacher-in-residence and a mathematics educator) offered a summer institute at the elementary school to showcase Investigations in Number, Data, & Space. At that meeting, teachers at each grade level made decisions about the extent that they would use units from this curriculum in the upcoming school year. Similarly, the middle school invited these two representatives to showcase selected units from Connected Mathematics Project (CMP). Both schools became pilot schools for Investigations and CMP. During this pilot, a peer counseling model was adopted and teachers from Manhattan, who were familiar with this reform curriculum, became coaches to the KCK teachers. Observations of teachers using this curriculum continued as well as model teaching at all grade levels in Kansas City. In addition to the peer coaching and model teaching, teachers requested unit-studies. Teachers from another PDS, who were teaching at the appropriate grades, offered grade-specific unit studies to help teachers understand the goals and activities of upcoming units. Professional Development focused on student learning and implementing the reform curriculum.