DOCUMENT RESUME ED 476 703 SE 067 864 Hoffer, Rina; Cantrell, Steven AUTHOR Baseline Report for the Los Angeles Urban Systemic Program in TITLE Science, Mathematics and Technology. Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication. INSTITUTION Los Angeles Unified School District, CA. Program Evaluation and Research Branch. No-157 REPORT NO 2003-00-00 PUB DATE NOTE 88p. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Curriculum Development; *Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education; *Low Achievement; Mathematics Education; *Professional Development ABSTRACT This baseline report presents classroom observation data collected during Spring 2002 in elementary and secondary mathematics and science classrooms using a sample drawn from the lowest performing schools in the district. The report also includes Los. Angeles Urban Systemic Program (LAUSP) professional development workshop data from the first seven months of program implementation, December 2001 through July 2002. This report presents findings related to the quantity and quality of standards-based curriculum and instruction in mathematics and science. (KHR) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Baseline Report for the Los Angeles Urban Systemic Program in Science, Mathematics and Technology PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS Office of Educational Research and Improvement BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ill_CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL FORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION Points of view or opinions stated in this 1 document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Rina Hoffer, M.A. Steven Cantrell, Ph.D Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication No. 157 March 2003 BIEST COPY HAMA. 114 2 March 2003 LAUSP Executive Summary This baseline report presents the classroom observation data collected during Spring in elementary and secondary mathematics and science classrooms using a sample 2002 drawn from the lowest performing schools in the district. The report also includes LAUSP professional development workshop data from the first seven months of program implementation, December 2001 through July 2002. This report presents the findings related to the quantity and quality of standards-based curriculum and instruction in mathematics and science. The report will hopefully serve both program staff and district administrators in improving the infrastructure to support the enhancement of mathematics and science instruction and student success in those academic disciplines. A brief summary of our findings follows: How frequently are elementary teachers teaching math and science? We found that 77% of the elementary teachers conducted a math lesson every day. Sixty percent of the elementary teachers mentioned using the pacing plan to guide their math lessons; however, a third found the pacing plan difficult to maintain. In addition to the pacing plan, teachers mentioned that SAT/9 pressures frequently determine the sequence of instruction. Teachers felt pressure to cover additional content, often at the expense of students' comprehension, since the districts' pacing plan does not address some of the topics tested on the SAT/9 until after the testing date. Science teaching was scare. Fully 6o% of the teachers failed to teach a single science lesson during our three days of observation. Only io% of the teachers conducted a science LAUSP Baseline Report 3 LAUSP March 2003 lesson on two or more days. Teachers claimed thatathe demands placed on them to implement a coherent language arts and mathematics program, did not afford them time for science instruction. What is the quality of the elementary mathematics and science instruction? We found that the majority of elementary teachers used traditional practices in their mathematics instruction. While there was some evidence of inquiry-based practice, it was of low quality. Our observations revealed several trends that betray a traditional, rather than inquiry-based, approach to instruction. The majority of questions teachers asked students were those requiring recall of basic information. Discussions rarely lasted more than 8 minutes. Students accomplished much of their work individually, at their desks, solving computational or procedural problems. Where we observed science being taught, we saw a greater degree of inquiry-based instructional practices and student activities. We observed more discussions, more open- ended questions, and more opportunities for "hands-on" activities. This was especially true for teachers who conducted more than one science lesson. Teachers who told us that they did not teach many science lessons blamed the lack of resources, the lack of support, and the district's low expectations for the delivery of elementary science. there any differences between the LAUSP and comparison teachers in their Are implementation and delivery of a mathematics and science curriculum? In elementary classrooms more of the LAUSP teachers were observed to implement inquiry-based practices in the classroom than the comparison teachers. In mathematics, nearly twice as many LAUSP teachers used manipulatives in the classroom. In science, ii LAUSP Baseline Report LAUSP March 2003 the reverse occurred. We observed more inquiry strategies used by comparison teachers, particularly, discussions, open-ended questions, and opportunities for students to make observations. What is the quantity of secondary mathematics and science courses students are receiving? Enrollment in eighth-grade Algebra more than doubled from 2001 to 2002. The pass rate districtwide was 61%. The pass rate for the LAUSP and comparison schools was slightly lower. Between 2001 and 2002, the overall pass rate dipped by 3%. At the senior high level, the course pass rate for first year mathematics students in LAUSP was 4o% and 41% among the comparison schools. Fewer students completed second year mathematics courses and still fewer completed a third year or more advanced mathematics course. Ethic differences were also observed. The pass rate for college-eligible math and science courses among Hispanic and Black students was zo% lower than the pass rate for their Asian and white counterparts. Pass rates in first year science courses for both the LAUSP and comparison schools were lower than 50%. Fewer than 5o% of students passing a first year science course continued to enroll in a second year science course. What is the quality of the secondary mathematics and science instruction? Instructional quality was low. Secondary mathematics and science classrooms teachers did not implement the investigative and experimentation standards nor the mathematical reasoning embedded in each of the content strands. We observed low levels of goal clarity, low levels of challenge for tasks assigned to students, and weak alignment iii LAUSP Baseline Report March 2003 LAUSP between the goals set and the tasks assigned. Instructional strategies and student activities in mathematics classrooms were rated similarly to those found in elementary classrooms. Student activities mainly consisted of solving basic computation problems. We saw few occasions where students were asked to solve 'real world' problems or develop inquiry skills: The questions teachers asked typically required basic recall of information, and seldom required students to use reasoning or provide evidence. Discussions occurred more often in middle school classrooms than high school classrooms, but those discussions seldom challenged students to use "higher level thinking." We found more instances of inquiry-based practices in secondary science classrooms than we did in mathematics classrooms. Still, the majority of science lessons consisted of traditional activities. Students conducted a lab activity in 26% of the middle school classrooms and in 45% of the high school classrooms. There were higher levels of student engagement in the few classrooms where laboratory activities occurred. Where lab activity did not occur, teachers blimed a lack of resources, inadequate facilities, and low levels of district science emphasis due to the absence of mandated testing in all but senior high science classrooms. Are there differences across school levels and between the LAUSP and comparison classrooms? In secondary mathematics classrooms, LAUSP teachers more often utilized discussions and "hands-on" lessons, particularly at the middle school. Teachers in comparison high school classrooms asked more open-ended questions than their LAUSP counterparts. iv LAUSP Baseline Report LAUSP March 2003 High school teachers provided students with more opportunities to use relevant examples and 'real world' contexts in their lessons than did middle school teachers. Inquiry strategies were observed more often in the comparison classrooms. What is the extent of Professional development offered through the LAUSP? first seven months of program implementation, LAUSP provided over zoo During the professional development workshops in both mathematics and science to more than 2,zoo teachers throughout the district. Two-thirds of the workshops were devoted to science, a few workshops were devoted to assisting mathematics and science teachers to incorporate technology into their lessons, and the balance of the workshops focused on mathematics. Over two-thirds of the professional development workshops were held at one of the six Math/Science resources centers. None of the workshops were held at LAUSP school sites. Who is receiving the professional development offered through the LAUSP? Overall, the LAUSP professional development predominantly served elementary teachers, and the majority of those workshops focused on science. This finding suggests that when the districts' efforts shift to include a focus on science, the teachers served by the LAUSP program will be a step ahead. The findings in this report suggest a need to provide mathematics and science teachers with more support, and greater opportunities to learn a variety of instructional strategies that reflect Standards-based practices. Support is also need for the development of student activities that build inquiry skills. LAUSP Baseline Report LAUSP March 2003 Based on our findings we make the following recommendations: If LAUSD desires science to be taught, especially at the early grades, the district 1) needs to support standards-based science curriculum adoption and implementation. In doing so, the district will need to ensure availability of sufficient materials (books, lab materials, etc.). In elementary classrooms, the district should consider allotting a specific time devoted to science. In order to assist the LAUSP in serving the professional development needs of 2) mathematics and science teachers, the district should consider further supplementing LAUSP resources and staffing to ensure access for more of the districts' teachers to receive the professional development offered. This could happen by increasing the number of Math/Science resource centers to one per local district. Science coaches/specialists should also be considered. 3) The district should enforce the policy that students must pass two years of laboratory science and three years of mathematics prior to high school graduation. 4) The LAUSP should expand its professional development offerings to include on- site support to teachers, while maintaining the professional development offered to teachers at the Math/Science resource centers. 5) The LAUSP should increase the professional development for middle and high school teachers, particularly to teachers teaching Algebra in the eighth grade. 6) The LAUSP should offer professional development to principals in order to assist them in supporting teachers to align curriculum and instructional practice. Vi LAUSP Baseline Report LAUSP March 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HOW FREQUENTLY ARE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS TEACHING MATH AND SCIENCE? WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THE ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION? II ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LAUSP AND COMPARISON TEACHERS IN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERY OF A MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CURRICULUM? II WHAT IS THE QUANTITY OF SECONDARY MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE COURSES STUDENTS ARE RECEIVING? III WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THE SECONDARY MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION? III ARE THERE DIFFERENCES ACROSS SCHOOL LEVELS AND BETWEEN THE LAUSP AND COMPARISON CLASSROOMS? IV WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFERED THROUGH THE LAUSP? V WHO IS RECEIVING THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFERED THROUGH THE LAUSP? A STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARDS-BASED MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT IN LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS' (LAUSD) LOWEST PERFORMING SCHOOLS. 1 BACKGROUND 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2 4 SAMPLE SELECTION OBSERVATIONAL SAMPLE SCHOOLS 8 OBSERVATIONAL SAMPLE 8 TEACHERS RESEARCH QUESTIONS 9 10 ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS: 10 SECONDARY MATH AND SCIENCE CLASSROOMS: 10 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFERED BY.THE LAUSP PROGRAM 10 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS FINDINGS 13 15 ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS QUANTITY OF ELEMENTARY MATH AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 15 Elementary Mathematics 16 Elementary Science 19 Classroom 20 23 QUALITY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS Instructional Strategies in Elementary Math 24 Student Activities in Elementary Math Instruction 28 Instructional Strategies in Elementary Science Classrooms 33 Student Activities in Elementary Science Instruction 34 40 SECONDARY MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CLASSROOMS 40 QUANTITY OF MATH AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 43 QUALITY OF MATH AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN SECONDARY CLASSROOMS Instructional Strategies in Secondary Mathematics Classrooms 45 Student Activities in Secondary Mathematics Classrooms 48 Student Engagement in Secondary Mathematics Classrooms 53 Professional Development Workshops 55 Instructional Strategies in Secondary Science Classrooms 56 Student Activities in Secondary Science Classrooms 59 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN SECONDARY SCIENCE CLASSROOMS 63 66 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 73 75 APPENDICES Vi LAUSP Baseline Report March 2003 LAUSP A Study of the Implementation of Standards-Based Mathematics and Science Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Los Angeles Unified School Districts' (LAUSD) Lowest Performing Schools. This baseline report for the Los Angeles Urban Systemic Program (LAUSP) presents observation data collected in Spring 2002. This report sets forth initial findings as to the quality and extent of Standards-based mathematics and science curriculum and instructional activities within LAUSD's lowest performing schools. This evaluation aims to assist the LAUSP in serving the professional development needs of mathematics and science teachers. This study answers four broad questions: What is the nature of mathematics and science instruction in these classrooms? Are curricula and instruction aligned with the California Content Standards? Are mathematics and science teachers developing students' inquiry skills? Are teachers at the district's lowest performing schools participating in LAUSP's mathematics and science professional development? Background The National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) program in 1993, applying lessons learned from the earlier State Systemic Initiative (SSI) program to the problems of inner city school systems. In 1995, LAUSD received a $15 million five-year grant under the NSF's Urban Systemic Initiatives program, a predecessor to the LAUSP. For five years, the Los Angeles Urban Systemic Initiative (LASI) undertook systemic reforms in pursuit of one simple vision: to raise student achievement levels in mathematics and science. In woo, NSF extended the grant for a sixth year to enable LAUSD to continue its LASI. In September zoo', the NSF awarded 1 LAUSP Baseline Report 10