Welcome to our Stanford University/San Francisco Unified School District Research-Practice Partnership. We’re working together to build the capacity of site-based mathematics professional development leaders and to study the impact on the teacher leaders, teachers, and students. This video highlights the preparation of teacher leaders and their workshops with teachers at their own school site. We’re happy to share our PD and research. We look forward to hearing from you with your questions and comments.

A very nice example of an RPP! I know the attached paper goes into a fair amount detail, but can you highlight some of the changes in the PD model that resulted from input by the SFUSD partners and how that input was collected? Now that the model has been iteratively developed, I was also wondering if there are plans for an impact evaluation or are there more rounds of development that need to take place first?

Hilda and colleagues, I was interested in your work with teacher leaders because of our own recent work in Western Washington doing something similar with science teacher leaders. We found it rewarding to do this work, but we did face several challenges. I was wondering what you found to be perhaps unexpected insights when working to develop teacher leaders over time and what you found to be the challenges? For example, were your teacher leaders readily taking up new instructional practices as well new leadership practices for use with peers? Would you add to or elaborate on your four-step model knowing what you do now?

Hello Hilda, Rebecca, and colleagues. I’m interested in hearing more about the role(s) of teacher leaders in this program and the impact of the program on their teaching practices as well as their colleagues’. How would you describe teacher leaders’ relationships with researchers in the Teacher Leader preparation sessions and with their colleagues in the workshop sessions? What were some of your key outcomes for both teacher leaders and their colleagues? What were some unexpected outcomes?

These posts raise a number of important questions about our project and about RPPs in general.  Here are my thoughts about several of them:

 

A Design Team that included Stanford members of the Stanford team and SFUSD district personnel met prior to the first summer institute to adapt the PSC to SFUSD priorities and design the summer institute. One initial adaptation this team made to the PD model was to use tasks in the SFUSD curriculum and include three PSC tasks per cycle, one at each grade level. Thus, rather than all teaching the same task, teachers would only teach tasks that were part of their grade-level curriculum. This decision represented a major adaptation to the original PSC model, which was designed so that when teachers examined classroom video, all would have analyzed and taught the PSC task used in the video clip.

 

Mark, we also faced several unexpected challenges in doing this RPP work. As one example, many of teacher leaders with whom we worked had little experience leading professional development, and all of them had little familiarity with the new curriculum.  Modeling activities was an explicit part of the original leadership preparation model, however debriefing of the modeled activities was not. To address their lack of experience, we incorporated modeling and debriefing into each leadership preparation session, and we used protocols to guide the debriefs.  We also experienced an unexpected challenge when the member of the district STEM team who was preparing assume responsibility for the leadership preparation meetings moved out of the area in the fall.  Although we have not made any modifications to the four-step model, I anticipate that we will incorporate more explicit attention to the preparation and support of district personnel to lead the leadership preparation component of the work.

Thank you so much for sharing about this innovative district-wide work!  I would love to hear more about how the partnership work launched and the initiation/recruitment of site-based teacher leaders.

Hello,  

I am a parent of two SFUSD students (my husband and I are also Electrical Engineers). My son graduates in a few weeks, he's been accepted in to WPI (Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which is also my and my husband's alma mater ) as an Electrical Engineering major. He just took the AP Calculus BC test this past week. He also had to take an on-line college math placement test and was placed in to MA 1024, Introduction to Multivariable Calculus. If he gets a 4 or 5 on the AP BC test they will give him credit for MA 1020,1021 and 1022. 

My son has reaped the benefits of some of the change in philosophy. Not just in his math classes but his science classes.  This group collaboration and project based approach is, I believe, extremely valuable and is what drew him to WPI which has a project based approach to engineering.  

I also have a daughter who is a rising Junior in the SFUSD and was in 7th grade when the district implemented the new math sequence. I was especially happy with her Geometry class. Geometry is, I think, often misunderstood. This isn't just about proofs and theorems. She worked with her table to build castles and other structures which gave better insight in to "why Geometry". 

However? This said? I am very unhappy with how the SFUSD has implemented this sequence in Middle School.

Prior to 2013 every 8th grade student had to take Algebra 1 and that was a huge mistake.  Now there is that extra year in 8th grade in Math 8. Basically giving students who need it more time with some early Algebra content.  

However? Delaying the full Algebra course (Factoring, Quadratic Equations, etc) for everyone to the 9th grade puts students who wish to major in Engineering behind the proverbial 8 ball. It not only forces them to jump through hoops to access Calculus in 12th grade. It delays advance science such as Physics.

The class of 2018 was the last cohort who had access to Algebra in 8th grade, this was my son's class. So he was able to take Geometry in 9th and rise through to Calculus BC in 12th. This, as I mentioned above, allows him to begin with Multivariable Calculus in college and to take an introduction to EE class right away as he has the required math. This way he can see if this is what he really wants to do (he is trying to decided between CS or EE). 

Currently the SFUSD doesn't allow *any* 8th grader access to Algebra 1. There are those who are ready for it, just as there are those who need more time. I am not a fan of this all or nothing approach. Algebra for all in 8th grade as it was or Algebra for none which is their current philosophy. 

In order for current High School SFUSD students to have access to Calculus in 12th grade they either :

1. Double up in 9th grade. Taking Algebra 1 and Geometry concurrently. (space dependent at school site)

2. Double up in 10th grade.  Taking Algebra 2 and Geometry Concurrently. (space dependent at school site)

3. The district offers a 6 week Summer Geometry class for a small cohort of rising Sophomores determined by their Algebra 1 grade and lottery (space constraints). This is the most worrisome path to me. It flies against everything talked about here. How do you learn a full year of Geometry content in 6 weeks? This isn't credit recovery. The preparedness of these students when taking the SATs and going further in to math (Pre Calculus, Calculus, etc) will be interesting to track. 

4.  An Algebra 2/ Pre Calculus compression class taken Junior year.  This is mislabeled as an honors as the UC system doesn't recognize it as such. It is also missing some important Pre Calculus content. Lowell High School identified the topics missing: Parametric equations, Polar coordinates, Using inverse trigonometric functions to solve Trig modeling equations, Complex conjugates, Adding and subtracting complex numbers on the plane, Distance in the complex plane, Vectors and matrices, Inequalites, Matrix equations,Matrix inverses and General triangle problems 

This is very important content for those going on to take Calculus BC. 

While I have been a supporter of the pedagogy, I have not been happy with the implementation in forcing those ready to accelerate in 8th grade to wait.  

I paid for my daughter to take an on-line Algebra 1 CCSS class when she was in 8th grade, she took it concurrently with her Math 8 class. She was able to start 9th grade with Geometry and this August is taking Honors Pre Calculus Junior year. She isn't sure if she wants to be an engineer. She is leaning toward Physics (Astronomy). However now she will have access to AP Calculus BC with a full year of Pre Calculus behind her. 

There is a lot to celebrate in the district's approach to Math. However shutting out children *ready* for Algebra in 8th grade is not one of them. 

Best Regards, 
Maya  Keshavan (Mom to a Graduating Senior and Rising Junior.  A K-12 SFUSD family).