Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning Through School-Based Support: Champions or Naysayers

Authors: Marilyn E. Strutchens, Daniel Henry, W. Gary Martin, Lisa Ross

Preliminary analysis suggests a number of propositions (see Glaser and Strauss, 1967) that lend themselves to further analyses and data collection.  There appears to be a significant difference in HC and LC schools in regard to the implementation of TEAM-Math methodology, workshop attendance, enthusiasm for professional development, and openness to innovation in the classroom. Differences in student awareness of innovative practices were also evident.

1. Teachers at the HC and TC schools gave concrete examples of the involvement of teacher leaders in conveying professional development information, holding workshops, answering questions about TEAM-Math methodology, keeping them informed of the project's events, and passing along information from workshops which teachers were not able to attend.  Teachers at HC and TC schools used words such as "lifesaver" and "fabulous" to describe their teacher leaders, while teachers and the principal at the LC school could not name who among seven mathematics teachers was the teacher leader.
2. Administrators at all three schools were enthusiastic about the TEAM-Math approach, but the principals at the HC and TC schools were seen as supportive in many ways ("she gets us anything we need", "he makes sure we have subs so we can meet and plan curriculum") while the teachers at the LC school could not name any supportive actions on the part of the administrator. While the administrators at both the HC and LC schools had administrators who required their teachers to attend training, teachers at the schools viewed the requirement differently.  Only the principal at the HC school used TEAM-Math methods as part of his evaluation process, thus holding the teachers accountable. In contrast, teachers at the LC school said "the only reason I go to the workshops is because the principal told me I had to." The principal at the same school reported that one new hire "better start going to some workshops or she'll be gone".
3. Students were able to name TEAM-Math practices at all three sites, but at the LC site, only the students of the teacher leader reported using the student-centered investigation techniques, and even then only sporadically.  Students at the HC and TC schools were able to point to extensive use of student-centered and group-based activities championed by TEAM-Math, although without tying the TEAM-Math label to them.
4. Attendance at professional development was widely variable by self-report at the three schools.  Teachers at the HC schools reported going to many workshops, follow-up trainings, and Saturday professional development activities, while the other two schools reported distance to the workshops and family commitments on the weekends as barriers to participation.  In the TC school, several teachers wondered why workshops weren't "moved around" to facilitate their participation.

External factors had a large effect on the TC and LC schools, particularly in the area of staffing and experience with TEAM-Math workshops and training.  In the LC school, turnover of the principal and teacher leader has had a significant effect on the school's mathematics teacher practices, and new hires evinced no knowledge of TEAM-Math practices, attendance at workshops, or use of the curriculum guides.  In the TC, several teachers who had taught mathematics and received the TEAM-Math training had been shifted to other roles and replaced by teachers who had received less professional development related to TEAM-Math.