0.6 Ward, c. (july 2009). implementing success against all odds:  (Page 4/9)

Data from the Oct. 2007 CBEDS data collection, the 2008 STAR Program Student Answer Document 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Cards.

In October, 2006, two schools in the district, School 1 and School 2, elected to pilot a math model i.e., Results driven Math Model (RM ² ). In September of 2007, another school piloted the program. School 1 and School 2 are both K-5 schools and School 3 is K-6. The three schools are all within a mile radius of each other and serve similar demographics.

In 2007, just after 6 months of using the math model, the number of proficient students at School 1 increased from 26 to 44% in math. At School 2, the number of proficient students grew from 42% to 51%. In 2008, the number of proficient students at both schools continued to grow with 55% of the students proficient in math at School 1 and 57% proficient at School 2. In August of 2008, after one year of using the math model, School 3 increased from 31% to 48% proficient students in the area of mathematics (California Department of Education, 2009). The figure below shows state content standards test results based on AYP trend data for each of the sites over a five year period in the area of mathematics. RM ² was implemented in schools 1 and 2 in November of 2006 (for test years 2007 and 2008) and at school 3 in September of 2007 (for test year 2008).

Figure 1. Five Year AYP Math Overall Trend Data for School 1, School 2, and School 3.

The results driven math model (rm2)

The nine pedagogical components of the math model include: seven step lesson design, direct instruction including teacher modeling, active student engagement, on-going spiral review, standardize note taking, common lesson delivery, on-going professional development, common pacing, and the use of common assessments aligned to the pacing guides. The focus of the model is on lesson delivery, pacing order, use of common assessments, data driven instruction, and ongoing coaching for teachers and administrators.

In November of 2006, second through fifth grade teachers at School 1 and School 2 elected to adopt the math model. Principals were assigned an administrative coach, and teachers at each site were provided with a math coach. Teachers were given 1.5 days of training in November and half-day trainings monthly from December to April. When the model was first introduced, teachers were trained in the implementation of each component of the model and the math strategies. Pacing guides were created for teachers in grades 2–6 linking district adopted textbooks to the state content standards and the RM ² order of content delivery. Additionally, teachers were trained in an approach to teaching basic math skills and given basic facts books with scripted lessons, math problems, and assessments to ensure all students were able to compute basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division with automaticity. The explicit teaching of basic skills added an additional 30 minutes of math instruction and provided students with a structure to memorize basic facts and apply them in real problems.