Research Practice PartnershipsChicago, April 30, 2014

Michael Sorum: Deputy SuperintendentLeadership, Learning and Student Support

Fort Worth Independent School District

When did we decide to work at scale? What are implicit or explicit ToA for change

at district? What level did we start? Why? How did starting at that level lead to

different challenges?

An evolving strong sense of the importance of context for meaningful large-scale research/partnerships◦ How can you learn from the mistakes or successes of

partnerships without understanding the context in which the work was done?

◦ Of course every district has its own context but no district is without context… I would venture…more commonalities than differences

Disingenuous to convey that work started with a conscious “decision” to engage in an at-scale partnership

Fort Worth Independent School District◦ 84,000 students: increasing by 1000 per year◦ 14% White◦ 23% African America n◦ 60% Hispanic◦ 33% English Language Learners◦ 8% Special Education◦ Rapid demographic changes throughout 1980s

White and African American numbers remained stable Hispanic population increased rapidly

Chronic underperformance of AA and H students Extremely traditional instructional practices

2003-2005:◦ District underwent severe budget cuts

10-15% of total operating budget Fund balance seriously depleted

85% of public school budgets are personnel Virtually all curriculum departments eliminated All support staff reassigned to campuses Change in state assessment from TAAS to TAKS

Significantly higher level

Capital Bond Project Fiasco◦ Extensive fraud and loss of public confidence

2005: New Superintendent◦ Partnered with University of Pittsburgh, Institute

for Learning◦ Conducted curriculum audit (Fenwick English)

Curriculum non-existent Implemented IRB process

Terminated numerous “research” projects◦ District used as a testing ground for products

that were subsequently “studied” Pending lawsuits due to “treatment” – “non-

treatment”

2006-2007 math textbook adoption year◦Selected Connected Math Program 2

(CMP2) 2006: IFL eventually succeeded in

introducing research lead and CAO◦ Work began in 2007

Schools reported to another “chief” Very challenging to get “leverage” on

principal time and professional development

If we provided teachers with high quality resources, highly skilled “at elbow” support (Lead Content Teachers) and a clear model of effective instructional practices, their behaviors would change and student achievement would improve

This ToA was common to all tested content areas for FWISD

Vanderbilt wanted to study the implementation of an ambitious and equitable instructional agenda (NSF funded)

Patience and perseverance of researcher◦ Convinced me (assured me) that their work would

not hinder District work but could in fact help Reluctant, passive participant but hopefully

unobtrusive—as was mathematics department

A third of our middle schools Extensive interviews of central office,

principals, teachers Observations of classrooms Assessment of teachers’ knowledge of the

pedagogy of mathematics

First year, Vanderbilt did ALL of the legwork and had to rope me into meetings to hear results◦ Not because I didn’t value the work but simply

over-extended—hiring staff, designing and writing a curriculum and delivery system, implementing a district-wide coaching model

After first year of reporting of results, my perspective changed dramatically

As a District—we were very focused on systemic implementation (ToA)◦ Significant “mirroring” of efforts across all content

areas Implementation of coaches Common curriculum with common format Expectations of principals and assistant principals to

be instructional leaders Expectations for departmental planning

Strong likelihood that findings within MIST schools would be very similar to findings in other schools in all content areas

Highlighted the cultural resistance to change ◦ Not only teachers! Central staff were a major

point a resistance—generally passive resistance Revealed the extent of lack of depth of content and

pedagogical knowledge of teachers—especially with respect to the strategies and skills that are best practices for their content area and student population

Revealed lack of administrative skill in coaching principals and teachers toward improving practice

Revealed lack of knowledge of effective instructional practices of leadership staff

Multiple initiatives: staff at ground level have difficulty seeing the related nature of multiple reform strategies◦ We’re “doing” PLCs and we’re “doing” rigorous

lesson planning and we’re “doing” effective strategies for ESL students and we’re “doing” inclusion

◦ In my mind these are all highly supportive of improving instruction—to some teachers and principals it was multiple initiatives

How to communicate better?

Converging urgency…◦ Federal and State accountability systems

Low ratings, low student achievement=highly supporting context for change

◦ Board expectation of change Ambitious agendas

Change teacher practices to improve student performance outcomes

MIST furthered our agenda to change teacher practices

Insightful, tenacious, and sensitive researchers

VPs were point of contact for mathematics departments. Finding was that teachers were not looking to principal for leadership◦ Prompted us to shift to principal

Revealed that the disconnect between School Leadership and Curriculum and Instruction was distracting from work◦ Merged the two departments under one leader

Does not “solve” all the problems, but simplifies the process

Coaches were ineffective, not sufficiently more “talented” than teachers, could not lead to improving teacher practice◦ Major redesign of instructional support model

Alignment with a MAJOR district initiative◦ Really it was more than an alignment, it was

forwarding and improving our agenda

Multiple factors but… Middle school mathematics scores have

steadily risen 20% of 8th graders are now taking Algebra I

and 5% geometry—passing state tests at 100% rate

Remaining 8th graders—could conjecture, the lower performing—scores have surpassed many urban peer districts and are our closest to state average—especially for subpops

Can assist with systemic “problem” that demands immediate response

Can garner strong external support Responds to need of Board to see

“immediate” change Provides lessons learned for scale work

For FWISD, with subsequent smaller scale projects, it has been a challenge to provide researchers with consistent and engaged support◦ Much harder to rally the troops for a project that

is not on everyone’s radar This has pros and cons; important to

consider both