Annual Report Overviews

The level of school and teacher involvement in the ACME project is generally proceeding on schedule. Most of the first cohort of fifth and sixth grade teachers have participated in two summer institutes and follow-up professional development sessions during the 1997-98 school year. In the summer of 1998, the second cohort of fourth and seventh grade teachers attended their first institute, and many school administrators attended sessions to promote campus-based leadership and support for the project. In addition, the ACME project staff have encouraged involvement by keeping teachers and administrators informed of professional development schedules through letters and brochures. However, the level of school and teacher involvement in the ACME project’s first year has not been complete, which may be due in part to the difficulty of reaching all of the possible participants in a project of this scope.

In general, all 83 elementary and middle schools in the district, except one school, have teachers who have participated in some ACME professional development. In addition, most teachers from the targeted grade levels have participated in some ACME professional development. Although district employee records are not always accurate because teachers’ positions change from year-to-year and changes are not always updated, estimates support a high level of involvement. Out of approximately 60 sixth grade and 60 seventh grade mathematics teachers, attendance at the summer institutes of 1998 was nearly 100% of the teachers. Out of approximately 250 fourth grade teachers, attendance was about 90% of the teachers for the first week and about 80% of the teachers for the second week of their first summer institute. Similarly, out of approximately 270 teachers from pilot schools, 90% of the teachers attended their first summer institute. However, out of approximately 250 fifth grade mathematics teachers, approximately 40% attended the second summer institute.

The low attendance rate for fifth grade teachers in the summer of 1998 could be explained by departmentalization. In up to 20% of the district’s elementary schools, fifth grade teachers teach either mathematics and science or language arts and social studies. Yet, departmentalization does not completely account for this low attendance rate. Project staff reported that some fifth grade teachers reported that they did not attend the second summer institute because they "were already trained." Because the ACME project staff do not want this belief to persist, staff members have taken steps, such as calling and visiting schools, to clear up misunderstandings about schedules and the ACME professional development design. Consequently, enrollment of fifth grade teachers for the first follow-up of their second year in the project is up to about 75% of the teachers.

All of the teachers who participate in the ACME project teach at schools that serve a diverse population of students. In the principal questionnaire, school administrators reported that racial and ethnic make up of students in the district’s schools were on average 46% Hispanic, 35% White, 20% African American, 2% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0% American Indian or Alaskan Native, although the composition of each school varied across campuses. Principals also reported that 19% of the students had limited English proficiency and 61% were eligible for free or reduced lunches on average, although this percentage also varied across campuses. Thus, the ACME project is reaching schools with diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds, language proficiency, and family socioeconomic status.

The K-8 mathematics teachers who are targeted to participate are primarily female and White or Hispanic. Among the teachers who responded to the questionnaire, 95% of the mathematics teachers and 90% of the special education teachers were women and 5% of the mathematics teachers and 10% of the special education teachers were men. The racial or ethnic backgrounds of the mathematics teachers and special education teachers were, respectively, 61% and 76% White, 27% and 11% Hispanic, 9% and 5% African American, 1% and 5% Asian, and 2% and 3% with other backgrounds. One-third of the mathematics educators had taught for five years or fewer, 18% for 6-10 years, 30% for 11-20 years, and 19% for 21 years or more. A larger proportion (50%) of special education teachers were had taught for five years or fewer. Seventy percent or more of all teachers who responded had completed three or more semesters of mathematics courses in college.

Principal involvement in the project is in its seminal stages. When the principal questionnaire was distributed in the Spring of 1998, a few principals were not familiar with the ACME project and did not respond to questions about it. Just 39% of the principals who responded to these items reportedly were familiar with the project to a great extent. Some principals (29%) reported a high level of involvement with the ACME project, whereas about the same number (25%) reported that they were not at all involved.

In the summer of 1998, the ACME project staff began developing the campus leadership component that was part of its original plan. In the first year, project staff noticed that teachers were more knowledgeable about standards-based curriculum and instruction than were campus administrators. To address this imbalance, project staff planned three different two-day sessions for administrators to attend to learn about the new mathematics program, suggestions for leading teachers in implementation, and address parent and community concerns. After low attendance at the first session, project staff sent letters to administrators who were scheduled to attend the remaining sessions as reminders. At the beginning of the school year, because so few administrators had attended two days of the sessions, the deputy superintendent again required those who had not completed the sessions to attend make up sessions.

Although a few principals in the district may be knowledgeable of NCTM standards and what standards-based instruction should look like, for the most part principals in the district are just beginning to learn about them. An observation of the second professional development with administrators revealed that their concerns centered on organizing materials rather than on deepening their knowledge about curriculum and instruction. In response the facilitator’s request for questions or concerns about the standards, principals asked about buying student books that accompany Investigations, preparation of materials in Spanish, and the delivery of materials to campuses. As the session continued, discussion returned to planned topics such as how the new curriculum and state standards are aligned, what standards-based curriculum looks like, and how to address parent concerns.

In conclusion, school and teacher involvement is high, but transitioning. Nearly every school in the district has teachers who have attended ACME professional development and those schools serve a diverse populations of students. A majority of the teachers who are targeted to attend ACME professional development have participated, although in the second summer session the attendance of fifth grade teachers tapered off. Principal leadership in the project is in its seminal stages, and will require continued effort to increase and maintain the level of involvement.

Central to NSF’s support for Local Systemic Change initiatives is the assumption that enhancement of curriculum and instruction does not take place solely with teachers and in classrooms. State and district policies, parents, principals and other forces that impinge on classroom instruction should influence teachers’ attempts to provide standards-based teaching and learning to all students. At the end of the first year, the ACME project was transitioning toward a supportive context with some policies and practices aligned with its vision and efforts underway to alter major barriers.

In general, teachers in the district are collegial and prepared to support one another and work together for mathematics reform. Most teachers (86% of mathematics teachers and 73% of special education teachers) who responded to the teacher questionnaires reported that they felt supported by their colleagues to try out new ideas in teaching mathematics. A majority of all teachers (over 60%) who responded felt that teachers in their schools had a shared vision of effective mathematics and regularly share ideas and materials related to mathematics. Although for many of the district’s teachers collegiality was high, time to work together was not a readily available resource. Less than one-fourth of all teachers who responded felt that they had time during the regular school week to work with peers on mathematics curriculum and instruction.

Teachers who responded generally felt that their principals supported their efforts to improve mathematics education and collaborate with their peers on innovations, although special education teachers perceived somewhat less principal support than general education teachers. Most teachers (87% of mathematics teachers and 77% of special education teachers) felt supported by their principals to try out standards-based mathematics curriculum and instruction. Less half of the teachers who responded reported that their principal provided teachers time to meet and share ideas together, and some (40% of mathematics teachers and 30% of special education teachers) felt that their principal encouraged them to observe exemplary mathematics teachers. Moreover, a majority of the principals thought that these resources supported teachers. To encourage effective instruction, 67% of the principals supported giving teachers time for planning and preparation, 81% endorsed opportunities for teachers to work together, and 90% supported time for teachers to attend professional development. Thus, most teachers feel that their principal supports their efforts to adopt standards-based teaching practices, and most principals believe that the resources available influence the quality of instruction. However, a minority of teachers feel that their principal provides the resources necessary to successfully implement standards.

In general, campus administrators responded to the principal questionnaires with a great deal of support for standards-based curriculum and instruction. Like teachers, principals highly endorsed investigative instructional strategies. Most principals (83% or more) considered investigative instructional strategies, such as cooperative learning groups, hands-on and inquiry-oriented activities, and performance-based assessment, very important for mathematics education. Almost all of the K-8 principals (89% or more) reported that they were knowledgeable of national standards for mathematics education, well-prepared to support their teachers in implementing the standards, and could accept the noise that emerges from an active classroom. As discussed in the previous section, many principals are just becoming knowledgeable of the full implications of these strategies for teaching and learning. The positive attitudes reported suggest that as principals learn more about standards-based mathematics, many could become a powerful force in the districtwide implementation. In interviews, ACME project staff acknowledged the many pulls on principals’ time that could distract some from fully supporting the project on their campuses.

Parents reportedly provided teachers little support in school and classroom activities, and special education teachers received much less parental support than did mathematics teachers. Most teachers (32% of mathematics teachers and 63% of special education teachers) who responded reported that few or none of their students’ parents attend PTA meetings and family math nights. Although many teachers (61% of mathematics teachers and 84% of special education teachers) reported that few or no parents voice support for investigative approaches to mathematics instruction, a similar number of teachers (47% of mathematics teachers and 66% of special education teachers) reported that few or no parents voice support for traditional approaches to mathematics instruction. Thus, teachers, particularly special education teachers, do not perceive much support or opposition to any kind of mathematics instruction from parents. Yet, in professional development teachers recounted stories about how a few parents challenge the standards-based mathematics curriculum and instruction.

Support for the ACME project from parents and teachers is mixed as one ACME staff member reported. In the fall of 1997, after fifth and sixth grade teachers had attended the first summer institute, staff members attended a parent night at two different schools. At one school, teachers had garnered the parents’ support against the project, whereas at the other school the project staff was invited to provide information about and guidance for the project. These two examples suggest that support for reform in mathematics education is in transition and involves both barriers and facilitation.

From the point of view of the ACME project staff, attitudes and beliefs of teachers, principals, and central office staff that support reforms in mathematics education are present but not quite ideal. The support from district staff is often verbal, but not action-based. Support from the community is more mixed than it is within the district. Although some campuses have been quite successful at engaging the community in meaningful ways, others are just beginning to recognize the importance of this source of support. The ACME project’s connections with institutes of higher education and other community stakeholders are cohesive at some points, but at not other points. The role of this external support is usually advisory.

Thus, from this evidence, it appears that more teachers would be better able to implement standards-based curriculum and instruction with increased support from colleagues, principals, parents, and the community. Special education teachers report even less principal and parent support than general education teachers. Designing intervention strategies to buoy up these points of support is a challenge facing the ACME project staff.

Some of the strongest supports of the ACME project are district policies and practices, including the quality of instructional materials, system for purchasing and managing materials, curriculum scope and sequence, and alignment with other reforms. From the perspective of the ACME project director, the district clearly supports the ACME project with materials: "The bottom-line is that no expense is too great." The district is purchasing high quality materials and curriculum resources for all of the district’s schools and for all special needs, such as bilingual, ESL, and special education classrooms. The district’s adopted mathematics curriculum as well as the state standards the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are all aligned with national standards. Moreover, the reforms in mathematics are aligned with the district’s efforts in literacy and science education.

On the other hand, the statewide and districtwide methods of assessment, have a mixed impact on the efforts to reform mathematics in the district. The state accountability test the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is clearly high stakes. Schools are rated according to student performance on the TAAS in reading, writing, and mathematics, and local newspapers publish the results of these ratings. The test consists of word problems with multiple choice responses and is not directly aligned with the performance-based assessment of national standards for children’s mathematics competence. The ACME project director reported that while some teachers in the district are interested in performance-based assessment, TAAS is the only means of assessment for others. The TAAS test puts a great deal of pressure on teachers so that their experimenting with other forms of assessment raises anxiety. The ACME staff reported that they knew that teachers would have questions about how standards-based curriculum and instruction prepare students to perform well on the TAAS. Consequently, in professional development, ACME staff helped teachers understand that the test is designed around the TEKS state standards and meets the expectations of TAAS.

Thus, although district practices and policies tend to facilitate the ACME project, the state and districtwide assessments put a stress on full implementation of standards-based mathematics curriculum and instruction.

Whether high quality professional development will continue in the district after the ACME project ends is a question of institutionalization. In its first year, the project has developed an emerging infrastructure for a high quality professional development system in the district. Many components of the system are in place, and efforts to modify other components are underway.

A major strength of the ACME project is that it fits into the district’s current system of professional development but expands and develops the system. A hindrance to the ACME project is that its staff provide professional development on top of their other duties as the district’s mathematics specialists. Similarly, teachers who would be leaders in the project would have to add leadership responsibilities to their work as teachers. Time and financial constraints thus limit the capacity of ACME staff and teacher leaders to provide high quality professional development to the district’s teachers and administrators. Nonetheless, the quality of professional development that the ACME project currently offers sets a precedent for other projects in the district to follow.

The merging of other resources available to support ongoing, high quality professional development is in a transitional phase. Recently, central office administration has attempted to open communication about aligning the expenditure of federal and district funds with district policy including the standards-based mathematics curriculum and instruction. These efforts initially were met with both enthusiasm and opposition. Through these efforts, tension emerged between the district policy of campus-based management and other district mandated policies such as the ACME initiative to reform mathematics education. Simultaneously, principals receive authority to manage their own campuses and a mandated project to change mathematics curriculum and instruction.

The structures to sustain high quality professional development are in the initial stages. Incentives for all K-8 mathematics teachers to participate in ongoing professional development at the school and district level and for all new K-8 mathematics teachers to be oriented to standards-based curriculum and instruction are being refined. The central office staff have recently launched an evaluation to assess and improve professional development that the district provides, and examine the links between professional development and classroom implementation. Although the structures for high quality professional development are in place, there is considerable room for improvement.