- Email: [email protected]
Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Editorial
Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders
1. Introduction In the last twenty-five years, the role of the mathematics teacher leader has evolved considerably in the United States particularly in elementary and middle schools. With the rise in the number of positions such as reading and instructional specialists and in an age of high-stakes testing, some state organizations and mathematics education researchers from certain states (e.g., Massachusetts, New York and Virginia) began to look carefully at developing leadership positions in schools with a focus on mathematics learning. Organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) worked to encourage these efforts nationally. Today, school districts are employing mathematics coaches to provide much needed leadership and to support teachers’ ongoing professional learning. These professionals offer special expertise in, for example, leading grade level team meetings, coaching and mentoring mathematics teachers, and providing leadership for the school’s mathematics program. Some districts have chosen to employ specialists to provide specialized instruction for students in mathematics. Some of these positions are part-time; others s are full-time, either in a single school building or with responsibilities for multiple school buildings. These positions carry a variety of different titles including mathematics coach, mathematics specialist, mathematics lead teacher, and instructional resource teacher. The types of roles these individuals assume vary from state to state and district to district and, in fact, the job descriptions may vary among the schools in a single district. What is common, however, is that most of their responsibilities are quite different from the work of regular classroom teachers. 2. Elementary mathematics specialists – historical beginnings The interest in preparing and implementing elementary school mathematics teacher leaders is linked historically to the preparation of elementary classroom teachers as generalists. To this day, elementary teacher education programs in the United States continue to prepare elementary teacher candidates in all major curricular areas. The call for teacher leaders with a mathematics focus comes at a time when deep understanding of critical mathematics concepts and an acuity in mathematics skills are important for every prospective teacher. An early response to concerns about the mathematics content and pedagogy background of generalist-prepared elementary teachers was to departmentalize elementary schools which, while very popular in the 1960s and early 1970s, was first suggested as early as the 1920s in an effort to ensure that content focused teachers taught all of the mathematics (or science or social studies) at a particular grade, typically Grades 4 through 6 (Becker & Gleason, 1927). In 1981, NCTM recommended that states provide a teacher credential endorsement for elementary mathematics specialists (EMS). For over three decades NCTM has advocated for elementary mathematics specialists (Dossey, 1984; Fennell, 2006; Gojak, 2013; Lott, 2003). At the same time, the ExxonMobil Foundation advocated for elementary mathematics specialist positions by supporting projects which helped to shape the role of EMS and support teachers who took on these leadership roles. Since NCTM’s release of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000), recommendations regarding the need for elementary school teachers with a particular expertise and interest in mathematics have prominently appeared in a range of educational and policy-related publications and reports. These documents have aided states in their quest to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001 0732-3123/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2
establish certification for EMS positions. Brief summaries of the key recommendations and, as appropriate, their impact are provided below: • NCTM (2000) advocated for specialist-related models, including mathematics teachers and mathematics coaches, as a way to not only enhance the mathematical experiences of students, but also to ensure the mathematical expertise of those responsible for knowing and teaching the content and process standards described within the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. • In Adding it Up (NRC, 2001) the National Research Council described mathematics specialists to be teachers within a departmentalized setting (e.g. one teacher teaching all the Grade 4 mathematics) and mathematics coaches as individuals responsible for supporting mathematics teaching and learning in one or more buildings by mentoring teachers, providing professional development, co-teaching mathematics lessons, or providing intervention or enrichment through “pull out” programs. • The National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) recommended that: “research be conducted on the use of full-time mathematics teachers in elementary schools” (p. xxii). This recommendation was based on the Panel’s findings relative to the importance of teacher content knowledge and the Panel’s recognition that most preservice elementary teacher education programs do not address the teaching and learning of mathematics in sufficient depth. • The Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) initially created the Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists: A Reference for Teacher Credentialing and Degree Programs (AMTE, 2009). These standards were revised in 2013 to align with recommendations of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) in the Mathematical Education of Teachers II (2012) and the mathematical content standards of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSO, 2010). The initial edition of the AMTE Standards had a significant influence on the accreditation standards for EMS preparation programs developed and issued jointly by NCTM and the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) that are used by many teacher education program providers (NCTM, 2012). In fact, the AMTE Standards continue to influence state certification efforts for EMS. • In addition to updating the recommendations outlined in the initial 2001 report on the mathematical preparation of teachers, The Mathematical Education of Teachers II (CBMS, 2012) also addressed the preparation and implementation of teachers with special responsibilities, including EMS. • In a joint position statement (NCTM, 2010) NCTM, the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM), AMTE, and the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics (ASSM) advocated for the advanced preparation of EMS and encouraged districts to place an EMS in every elementary school across the country. As interest and support for elementary mathematics specialists grew, states began to take notice (MSDE, 2001). At this writing, the following states have developed certification guidelines for mathematics specialists: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia, with several other states considering teacher credential endorsements for mathematics specialists. It should be noted that most state certifications for mathematics specialists are at the elementary school level only; however, there are a few states which include a range of certification levels. A review of all state certifications for mathematics specialists can be found at www.mathspecialists.org. As those interested in providing for and supporting mathematics specialists continue to advocate for such positions, there are two important realities to consider. First, virtually every state offers certification for reading specialists, while fewer than half of the states have enacted certification for mathematics specialists. Second, most mathematics specialists in school districts across the country are appointed to their positions, often without the proper knowledge and skills in mathematics content, pedagogy, and school-based leadership. These realities present us with the following question: How can school district leaders and mathematics educators advocate for those serving as mathematics specialists and provide the continual support they need to be successful? The research described in the papers in this special issue address this overarching theme. 3. VMSI research conference In June 2016, the Research and Development Conference: Preparing and Implementing Successful Mathematics Coaching Programs took place in Richmond, Virginia. The goals of the conference were to: (1) compare and contrast the different forms that mathematics coaching and teacher leadership are taking in school districts across the country; (2) share findings from research studies about implementing coaches in K-5 schools; (3) exchange ideas for designing and offering professional development programs used to prepare teachers for these relatively new roles; (4) describe the characteristics that are necessary for mathematics teacher leaders to have an impact on the students, teachers, and administrators that they work with on a daily basis; and (5) identify future directions for research about K-5 mathematics teacher leadership. With support from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. DRL 0918223) and the Brookhill Institute of Mathematics, 150 mathematics educators, mathematicians, school district administrators, and mathematics coaches from across the country attended this two-day event at Virginia Commonwealth University. In addition to two keynote addresses and a panel discussion, 11 papers and 10 posters were presented by 29 different mathematics education researchers from across the United States. This special issue is comprised of the papers presented at the conference. Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3
Each of the papers in this special issue addresses at least one of the goals described above. The collection of papers is organized into three major sections: (1.) the impact of different models of mathematics coaching on the students and teachers that coaches work with; (2.) how the work of coaches is situated within the complex social networks that exist in various school buildings; and (3.) the preparation and implementation of mathematics coaches in K-5 schools. 3.1. Section 1: Research involving various models of mathematics coaching The papers presented in this section represent an analysis of different forms of mathematics coaching including the coachembedded teacher professional development model (one specialist leads professional activities for teachers in one or two school buildings) and the departmentalized teaching model (the specialist leads teachers at one or more grade levels/subject matter areas). In the first paper, Leubeck and Burroughs take the reader on a research journey describing how they developed and applied a definition of mathematics coaching as they worked with teacher leaders in several school districts in the northwestern United States. Using a school-based professional development model of coaching, the authors explored the work between coaches and other members of the school community. They also present the instruments they used for data collection as well as report the results from two extensive research studies. To further clarify, they analyzed the perceptions of coaching, the effectiveness of coaching, and the nature of coaching using information gathered from different members of the school community: teachers, administrators, as well as the coaches themselves. As a result, the authors describe the process of shaping a more robust definition of mathematics coaching as well as methodologies for understanding and accounting for the coaches’ work with teachers. The next two papers present findings from large-scale research studies that were conducted in the state of Virginia where the established coaching model is one in which mathematics specialists provide daily, in-school professional development for all teachers of mathematics. The first of these papers by Campbell and Griffin describes the coaching-related activities that are most likely to result in changes to teacher practice and, ultimately, on student achievement. Building on Campbell’s previous seminal work on this topic, the authors present findings from a large-scale quantitative study on the work of mathematics specialists in rural school districts. In particular, they explore the amount of time that coaches in these rural schools spent engaged in coaching or serving as a community organizer for mathematics versus the time spent engaged in other non-job related duties. The results of their study support the purposeful implementation of all aspects of the coaching cycle (preparation, modeling or co-teaching a lesson, and debriefing) and the use of professional learning communities (PLCs) to allow for and encourage collaborative efforts among teachers for making changes to their instructional practices. The second paper presented by Ellington, Whitenack, and Edwards focuses on the impact of mathematics specialists on urban and rural middle schools in Virginia. This mixed methods study used quantitative and qualitative analyses to describe the daily work of specialists in middle schools and to determine their impact on teacher beliefs about how mathematics should be taught and learned as well as student achievement. By coordinating methodologies, the authors illustrate how one might corroborate the quantitative findings with findings from case studies of teachers to better understand the daily work of coaching middle school teachers. The method described in this paper of identifying highly engaged teachers offers promise as one approach for understanding and explaining the mathematics specialist’s relative success. In sum, both of these papers highlight the importance that teachers be highly and purposefully engaged with the mathematics coach in order for coaching to have a meaningful impact on teachers’ and students’ learning in the school building. The final paper in this section features a study of a departmentalized teacher model in which elementary mathematics specialists were the primary teachers of mathematics. Webel, Conner, Sheffel, Tarr, and Austin describe the work of three individuals as they serve in this role over during one school year. Three models of departmentalized teaching are presented: (1) a team approach in which one individual specializes in specific mathematical content; (2) a grade-level teacher approach where one person teaches all mathematics for a particular grade level; and (3) a class swap approach in which two teachers swap groups of students during mathematics and language arts instruction. This paper describes both the educational possibilities and the limitations of utilizing mathematics specialists as they employ one of these approaches. 3.2. Section 2: Mathematics coaches work within social networks The papers in this section explore the complex social networks within which mathematics coaches operate. A coach is a member of several different social networks as they go about their daily work in the school building. Each of these social networks requires the coach to draw from different aspects of her complex job responsibilities. And yet, all of the roles that a coach assumes are interconnected. The overall goal of the coach is to foster the learning community within the school (and possibly the school district). Two overarching themes through many of the papers in this section are the use of social networks to interpret and to facilitate systemic change across a school or district and provide local supports to teachers as they collectively develop their understanding of mathematics content and pedagogy. Hopkins, Ozimek, and Sweet describe elementary school coaches’ efforts to support system-wide reform around mathematics instruction by helping teachers to implement a newly adopted curriculum. They argue that coaches served as brokers of these districts’ reform efforts, and as they shifted their coaching activities over time, they made it possible for teachers to engage in professional learning. In particular, coaches built teacher capacity as they supported teachers’ implementation of the new curriculum throughout the district. Using institutional theory and the notion of brokering, the authors frame their Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
analysis around tracing changes in the school district’s organizational practices by teasing out three social processes: regulative (district and state policies, etc.), normative (individuals sense of obligation to accept changes) and cognitive dimensions (the extent to which individuals internalize these changes). As they do so, the authors develop a strong case for the pivotal roles of coaches as the process for implementing change occurs throughout the school district that, in turn, accounts for both individual and collective learning by teachers. As part of their analyses, they reconstruct the school district’s evolving social network to describe the coaches’ activities and to make a compelling argument about the coaches’ effectiveness over time. By way of contrast, the next paper in this section draws on sociocultural theory to examine how coaches can begin to support learning across a local system through the coach’s work in one school building. Gibbons and Kazemi’s primary interest is in understanding the coach’s work in school-wide efforts to support reform—what they refer to as ambitious instructional practices. They describe how a mathematics coach encouraged and implemented changes by working with teachers both individually and collectively. Specifically, the coach helped the teachers to view each classroom as a community of learners where students’ and teachers’ contributions are an integral and continuous part of the learning process. In their discussion, the authors describe how the coach helped individual teachers support students. Additionally, the authors make a strong case for school-based organizational practices that make it possible for the coach to affect instructional change by helping groups of teachers collectively plan for instruction and implement instructional strategies that support active student participation. As a result, teachers, principals, and other key personnel contributed to practices that created positive learning opportunities for students and meaningful changes in the overall instructional climate of the school. Knapp’s paper also draws on a situative perspective to explore one first-year coach’s work in a rural school setting. This informative study is an autoethnographic study of how she transitioned from her previous role as a mathematics teacher leader (in a different school building) to her newly found position as an instructional coach. In her narrative account, she argues that the school’s organizational structure played a significant role, particularly with regard to supporting a community of practice where everyone shared common goals for the school’s mathematics program. Knapp, like the coach in Kazemi and Gibbons’ research, employed ambitious teaching as a model for facilitating a climate of shared learning among teachers. In particular, Knapp systematically implemented co-planning with individual and groups of teachers and incorporated the professional development models, Mathematics Studio and mathematics learning walks, to foster shared learning experiences among teachers. As such, teachers were encouraged to spend time in each other’s classrooms, plan lessons together, and observe student discourse while lessons were taking place. For Knapp, these types of collaborations are key and are most effective when it becomes the norm to engage in these types of practices. Additionally, Knapp makes a case for how important it is for the coach and the principal to work in concert to support new forms of collaboration and shared understandings about the school’s mathematical program as they support teachers as well as the coach’s work throughout the school building. Smith, Hayes, and Lyons use Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to analyze a unique type of social network—one in which an individual who completed a mathematics coach preparation program and served as a coach in one school building for two years then transitions to a fulltime teaching role. They present three case studies of classroom teachers involved in this complex social dynamic, each of whom spends time helping their colleagues make changes to their instructional practices. This paper explores the factors that result in leadership opportunities for these teachers and how they take advantage of these opportunities to support colleagues working to make changes to their pedagogy. The authors share several insights into the work of classroom teachers who also assume leadership roles: (1) it takes a significant amount of work to balance classroom responsibilities with leadership opportunities, (2) the building administration plays a pivotal role in either encouraging or limiting these types of leadership opportunities, and (3) teachers who stayed in the same building in which they formerly worked as mathematics coaches had to work through ambiguities that naturally developed due to their change in roles. As part of the discussion, the authors also encourage other researchers to apply Bronfenbrenner’s analytic framework to better understand other situations involving teacher leaders.
3.3. Section 3: Preparation of mathematics coaches and implementation of coaching programs This section contains empirically-based papers describing two types of professional development programs to prepare teachers to assume mathematics leadership roles in elementary or middle schools. Additionally one of the authors outlines the importance of engendering successful professional relationships between coaches and principals. In the first paper, Haver, Trinter, and Inge describe the 25-year effort, the Virginia Mathematics Specialist Initiative, to support mathematics specialists as they provide school-based professional development for K-8 teachers of mathematics. This ongoing initiative has been embraced by academic and community organizations across the state. As part of the discussion, the authors describe the process employed to develop and implement a teacher credential endorsement for mathematics specialists in Virginia. Additionally, they outline the key components of graduate program–a model for preparation programs in Virginia that has also been adapted by other institutions across the country to prepare classroom teachers to assume roles as mathematics specialists. As a consequence of this work, the authors note that over the last 15 years mathematics specialists have become common fixtures in many of Virginia’s elementary schools. They also outline other initiative efforts including the research conducted in urban and rural school settings and the grassroots efforts to establish and maintain a professional organization for these important mathematics teacher leaders. Lastly, the authors share a set of resources (i.e. Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
5
activities, lessons, articles, etc.) for readers interested in utilizing these resources with prospective or practicing mathematics teacher leaders. The second paper by Beaver, Burton, and Harrington describes an online program developed in Oregon to prepare teachers to serve as mathematics coaches. The authors summarize the mathematics and educational leadership courses in their program and the online technologies used to deliver instruction, implement activities, and conduct meaningful discussions between participants. They also present some of the lessons they have learned about planning and implementing this type of program. As they report, overall, their experiences have allowed them to make changes that have resulted in a stronger more effective program. Specifically, they are finding ways to help participants build a sense of community and sustain a level of success with the coursework while, at the same time, maintaining a rigorous graduate program. The final paper in this section is written by Lucy West, a well-known leader and practitioner with extensive experience in helping coaches develop productive professional relationships with teachers and administrators in the school buildings in which they work. In this paper, West explores a variety of important issues for how the mathematics specialist and school building principal can build a successful working relationship. To illustrate her points, she presents several scenarios that highlight how important these collaborations are to the success of the mathematics coach’s work with teachers. In particular, she describes the various ways the principal and coach can work together to co-lead the school’s mathematics program and to navigate the challenges that arise while helping teachers develop the skills to be successful in helping students learn mathematics. 4. Next steps and acknowledgements In addition to presenting timely results from current research about mathematics specialists, the papers presented in this special issue also provide interesting future directions for research into the work of mathematics coaches. As several of the authors suggest, research is needed that makes connections between formal, often district-wide, professional development initiatives for teachers and the school-based professional development provided by mathematics coaches. Specifically, in addition to placing coaches in school buildings (or district offices) to plan and deliver large-scale professional development experiences, researchers need to explore ways for coaches to expand on what is learned through those experiences as they work with teachers in smaller groups or one-on-one in their classrooms. For instance, several papers in this special issue highlight the coaches’ important role in supporting and sustaining PLCs. The coach is often called on to lead the PLC. Further research is needed about how the mathematics coach can capitalize on PLCs to inform her work with individual teachers as well as create shared learning experiences among teams of teachers. As the guest editors, Aimee Ellington, Joy Whitenack, and Christine Trinter, are pleased to present the papers in this special issue of the Journal of Mathematical Behavior to readers interested in this area of mathematics education research. We appreciate the support of the Journal of Mathematical Behavior editors, Elizabeth Uptegrove and Carolyn Maher, for inviting us to serve as co-editors for this special issue and for providing guidance and feedback throughout the process. This special issue is an outcome of the Virginia Mathematics Specialist Initiative research conference organized by the editors of this special issue and was made possible by support from the National Science Foundation and the Brookhill Institute of Mathematics. We also would like to thank the many conference presenters and participants for making the event a meaningful and successful experience. We would also like to thank the authors of the papers who provided papers for this special issue for making these contributions to the body of mathematics coaching and leadership literature. And finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to participate in the publication process. Their thoughtful comments and suggestions for all of the papers helped ensure the quality of each individual paper as well as the presentation of a well-crafted special issue. References
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2009). Standards for elementary mathematics specialists: A reference for teacher credentialing and degree programs. San Diego, CA: AMTE. Becker, E., & Gleason, N. K. (1927). Departmentalization in the intermediate grades. The Elementary School Journal, 28(1), 62–66. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society & Mathematical Association of America. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Dossey, J. (1984). Elementary School mathematics specialists: Where are they? The Arithmetic Teacher, 32(3) Fennell, F. (2006). We need elementary school mathematics specialists now. NCTM News Bulletin, 43(4). Gojak, L. M. (2013). It’s elementary! Rethinking the role of the elementary classroom teacher. NCTM Summing Up. Lott, J. (2003). The time has come for Pre-K-5 mathematics specialists. NCTM News Bulletin, 40(4). Maryland State Department of Education. (2001). Keys to math success: A report from the Maryland Mathematics Commission. Baltimore, MD: MSDE. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2010). The role of elementary mathematics specialists in the teaching and learning of mathematics. AMTE, NCTM, NCSM Joint Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/The-Role-of-Elementary-Mathematics-Specialists-in-the-Teaching-and-Learning-of-Mathematic National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2012). NCTM CAEP Standards: Elementary Mathematics Specialists (Advanced Preparation). Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/CAEP-Standards/. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D.C: National Academy. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Aimee Ellington ∗ Joy Whitenack Christine Trinter Virginia Commonwealth University, United States Francis (Skip) Fennell McDaniel College, United States ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ellington) Available online xxx
Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Editorial
Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders
1. Introduction In the last twenty-five years, the role of the mathematics teacher leader has evolved considerably in the United States particularly in elementary and middle schools. With the rise in the number of positions such as reading and instructional specialists and in an age of high-stakes testing, some state organizations and mathematics education researchers from certain states (e.g., Massachusetts, New York and Virginia) began to look carefully at developing leadership positions in schools with a focus on mathematics learning. Organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) worked to encourage these efforts nationally. Today, school districts are employing mathematics coaches to provide much needed leadership and to support teachers’ ongoing professional learning. These professionals offer special expertise in, for example, leading grade level team meetings, coaching and mentoring mathematics teachers, and providing leadership for the school’s mathematics program. Some districts have chosen to employ specialists to provide specialized instruction for students in mathematics. Some of these positions are part-time; others s are full-time, either in a single school building or with responsibilities for multiple school buildings. These positions carry a variety of different titles including mathematics coach, mathematics specialist, mathematics lead teacher, and instructional resource teacher. The types of roles these individuals assume vary from state to state and district to district and, in fact, the job descriptions may vary among the schools in a single district. What is common, however, is that most of their responsibilities are quite different from the work of regular classroom teachers. 2. Elementary mathematics specialists – historical beginnings The interest in preparing and implementing elementary school mathematics teacher leaders is linked historically to the preparation of elementary classroom teachers as generalists. To this day, elementary teacher education programs in the United States continue to prepare elementary teacher candidates in all major curricular areas. The call for teacher leaders with a mathematics focus comes at a time when deep understanding of critical mathematics concepts and an acuity in mathematics skills are important for every prospective teacher. An early response to concerns about the mathematics content and pedagogy background of generalist-prepared elementary teachers was to departmentalize elementary schools which, while very popular in the 1960s and early 1970s, was first suggested as early as the 1920s in an effort to ensure that content focused teachers taught all of the mathematics (or science or social studies) at a particular grade, typically Grades 4 through 6 (Becker & Gleason, 1927). In 1981, NCTM recommended that states provide a teacher credential endorsement for elementary mathematics specialists (EMS). For over three decades NCTM has advocated for elementary mathematics specialists (Dossey, 1984; Fennell, 2006; Gojak, 2013; Lott, 2003). At the same time, the ExxonMobil Foundation advocated for elementary mathematics specialist positions by supporting projects which helped to shape the role of EMS and support teachers who took on these leadership roles. Since NCTM’s release of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000), recommendations regarding the need for elementary school teachers with a particular expertise and interest in mathematics have prominently appeared in a range of educational and policy-related publications and reports. These documents have aided states in their quest to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001 0732-3123/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2
establish certification for EMS positions. Brief summaries of the key recommendations and, as appropriate, their impact are provided below: • NCTM (2000) advocated for specialist-related models, including mathematics teachers and mathematics coaches, as a way to not only enhance the mathematical experiences of students, but also to ensure the mathematical expertise of those responsible for knowing and teaching the content and process standards described within the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. • In Adding it Up (NRC, 2001) the National Research Council described mathematics specialists to be teachers within a departmentalized setting (e.g. one teacher teaching all the Grade 4 mathematics) and mathematics coaches as individuals responsible for supporting mathematics teaching and learning in one or more buildings by mentoring teachers, providing professional development, co-teaching mathematics lessons, or providing intervention or enrichment through “pull out” programs. • The National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) recommended that: “research be conducted on the use of full-time mathematics teachers in elementary schools” (p. xxii). This recommendation was based on the Panel’s findings relative to the importance of teacher content knowledge and the Panel’s recognition that most preservice elementary teacher education programs do not address the teaching and learning of mathematics in sufficient depth. • The Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) initially created the Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists: A Reference for Teacher Credentialing and Degree Programs (AMTE, 2009). These standards were revised in 2013 to align with recommendations of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) in the Mathematical Education of Teachers II (2012) and the mathematical content standards of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSO, 2010). The initial edition of the AMTE Standards had a significant influence on the accreditation standards for EMS preparation programs developed and issued jointly by NCTM and the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) that are used by many teacher education program providers (NCTM, 2012). In fact, the AMTE Standards continue to influence state certification efforts for EMS. • In addition to updating the recommendations outlined in the initial 2001 report on the mathematical preparation of teachers, The Mathematical Education of Teachers II (CBMS, 2012) also addressed the preparation and implementation of teachers with special responsibilities, including EMS. • In a joint position statement (NCTM, 2010) NCTM, the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM), AMTE, and the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics (ASSM) advocated for the advanced preparation of EMS and encouraged districts to place an EMS in every elementary school across the country. As interest and support for elementary mathematics specialists grew, states began to take notice (MSDE, 2001). At this writing, the following states have developed certification guidelines for mathematics specialists: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia, with several other states considering teacher credential endorsements for mathematics specialists. It should be noted that most state certifications for mathematics specialists are at the elementary school level only; however, there are a few states which include a range of certification levels. A review of all state certifications for mathematics specialists can be found at www.mathspecialists.org. As those interested in providing for and supporting mathematics specialists continue to advocate for such positions, there are two important realities to consider. First, virtually every state offers certification for reading specialists, while fewer than half of the states have enacted certification for mathematics specialists. Second, most mathematics specialists in school districts across the country are appointed to their positions, often without the proper knowledge and skills in mathematics content, pedagogy, and school-based leadership. These realities present us with the following question: How can school district leaders and mathematics educators advocate for those serving as mathematics specialists and provide the continual support they need to be successful? The research described in the papers in this special issue address this overarching theme. 3. VMSI research conference In June 2016, the Research and Development Conference: Preparing and Implementing Successful Mathematics Coaching Programs took place in Richmond, Virginia. The goals of the conference were to: (1) compare and contrast the different forms that mathematics coaching and teacher leadership are taking in school districts across the country; (2) share findings from research studies about implementing coaches in K-5 schools; (3) exchange ideas for designing and offering professional development programs used to prepare teachers for these relatively new roles; (4) describe the characteristics that are necessary for mathematics teacher leaders to have an impact on the students, teachers, and administrators that they work with on a daily basis; and (5) identify future directions for research about K-5 mathematics teacher leadership. With support from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. DRL 0918223) and the Brookhill Institute of Mathematics, 150 mathematics educators, mathematicians, school district administrators, and mathematics coaches from across the country attended this two-day event at Virginia Commonwealth University. In addition to two keynote addresses and a panel discussion, 11 papers and 10 posters were presented by 29 different mathematics education researchers from across the United States. This special issue is comprised of the papers presented at the conference. Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3
Each of the papers in this special issue addresses at least one of the goals described above. The collection of papers is organized into three major sections: (1.) the impact of different models of mathematics coaching on the students and teachers that coaches work with; (2.) how the work of coaches is situated within the complex social networks that exist in various school buildings; and (3.) the preparation and implementation of mathematics coaches in K-5 schools. 3.1. Section 1: Research involving various models of mathematics coaching The papers presented in this section represent an analysis of different forms of mathematics coaching including the coachembedded teacher professional development model (one specialist leads professional activities for teachers in one or two school buildings) and the departmentalized teaching model (the specialist leads teachers at one or more grade levels/subject matter areas). In the first paper, Leubeck and Burroughs take the reader on a research journey describing how they developed and applied a definition of mathematics coaching as they worked with teacher leaders in several school districts in the northwestern United States. Using a school-based professional development model of coaching, the authors explored the work between coaches and other members of the school community. They also present the instruments they used for data collection as well as report the results from two extensive research studies. To further clarify, they analyzed the perceptions of coaching, the effectiveness of coaching, and the nature of coaching using information gathered from different members of the school community: teachers, administrators, as well as the coaches themselves. As a result, the authors describe the process of shaping a more robust definition of mathematics coaching as well as methodologies for understanding and accounting for the coaches’ work with teachers. The next two papers present findings from large-scale research studies that were conducted in the state of Virginia where the established coaching model is one in which mathematics specialists provide daily, in-school professional development for all teachers of mathematics. The first of these papers by Campbell and Griffin describes the coaching-related activities that are most likely to result in changes to teacher practice and, ultimately, on student achievement. Building on Campbell’s previous seminal work on this topic, the authors present findings from a large-scale quantitative study on the work of mathematics specialists in rural school districts. In particular, they explore the amount of time that coaches in these rural schools spent engaged in coaching or serving as a community organizer for mathematics versus the time spent engaged in other non-job related duties. The results of their study support the purposeful implementation of all aspects of the coaching cycle (preparation, modeling or co-teaching a lesson, and debriefing) and the use of professional learning communities (PLCs) to allow for and encourage collaborative efforts among teachers for making changes to their instructional practices. The second paper presented by Ellington, Whitenack, and Edwards focuses on the impact of mathematics specialists on urban and rural middle schools in Virginia. This mixed methods study used quantitative and qualitative analyses to describe the daily work of specialists in middle schools and to determine their impact on teacher beliefs about how mathematics should be taught and learned as well as student achievement. By coordinating methodologies, the authors illustrate how one might corroborate the quantitative findings with findings from case studies of teachers to better understand the daily work of coaching middle school teachers. The method described in this paper of identifying highly engaged teachers offers promise as one approach for understanding and explaining the mathematics specialist’s relative success. In sum, both of these papers highlight the importance that teachers be highly and purposefully engaged with the mathematics coach in order for coaching to have a meaningful impact on teachers’ and students’ learning in the school building. The final paper in this section features a study of a departmentalized teacher model in which elementary mathematics specialists were the primary teachers of mathematics. Webel, Conner, Sheffel, Tarr, and Austin describe the work of three individuals as they serve in this role over during one school year. Three models of departmentalized teaching are presented: (1) a team approach in which one individual specializes in specific mathematical content; (2) a grade-level teacher approach where one person teaches all mathematics for a particular grade level; and (3) a class swap approach in which two teachers swap groups of students during mathematics and language arts instruction. This paper describes both the educational possibilities and the limitations of utilizing mathematics specialists as they employ one of these approaches. 3.2. Section 2: Mathematics coaches work within social networks The papers in this section explore the complex social networks within which mathematics coaches operate. A coach is a member of several different social networks as they go about their daily work in the school building. Each of these social networks requires the coach to draw from different aspects of her complex job responsibilities. And yet, all of the roles that a coach assumes are interconnected. The overall goal of the coach is to foster the learning community within the school (and possibly the school district). Two overarching themes through many of the papers in this section are the use of social networks to interpret and to facilitate systemic change across a school or district and provide local supports to teachers as they collectively develop their understanding of mathematics content and pedagogy. Hopkins, Ozimek, and Sweet describe elementary school coaches’ efforts to support system-wide reform around mathematics instruction by helping teachers to implement a newly adopted curriculum. They argue that coaches served as brokers of these districts’ reform efforts, and as they shifted their coaching activities over time, they made it possible for teachers to engage in professional learning. In particular, coaches built teacher capacity as they supported teachers’ implementation of the new curriculum throughout the district. Using institutional theory and the notion of brokering, the authors frame their Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
analysis around tracing changes in the school district’s organizational practices by teasing out three social processes: regulative (district and state policies, etc.), normative (individuals sense of obligation to accept changes) and cognitive dimensions (the extent to which individuals internalize these changes). As they do so, the authors develop a strong case for the pivotal roles of coaches as the process for implementing change occurs throughout the school district that, in turn, accounts for both individual and collective learning by teachers. As part of their analyses, they reconstruct the school district’s evolving social network to describe the coaches’ activities and to make a compelling argument about the coaches’ effectiveness over time. By way of contrast, the next paper in this section draws on sociocultural theory to examine how coaches can begin to support learning across a local system through the coach’s work in one school building. Gibbons and Kazemi’s primary interest is in understanding the coach’s work in school-wide efforts to support reform—what they refer to as ambitious instructional practices. They describe how a mathematics coach encouraged and implemented changes by working with teachers both individually and collectively. Specifically, the coach helped the teachers to view each classroom as a community of learners where students’ and teachers’ contributions are an integral and continuous part of the learning process. In their discussion, the authors describe how the coach helped individual teachers support students. Additionally, the authors make a strong case for school-based organizational practices that make it possible for the coach to affect instructional change by helping groups of teachers collectively plan for instruction and implement instructional strategies that support active student participation. As a result, teachers, principals, and other key personnel contributed to practices that created positive learning opportunities for students and meaningful changes in the overall instructional climate of the school. Knapp’s paper also draws on a situative perspective to explore one first-year coach’s work in a rural school setting. This informative study is an autoethnographic study of how she transitioned from her previous role as a mathematics teacher leader (in a different school building) to her newly found position as an instructional coach. In her narrative account, she argues that the school’s organizational structure played a significant role, particularly with regard to supporting a community of practice where everyone shared common goals for the school’s mathematics program. Knapp, like the coach in Kazemi and Gibbons’ research, employed ambitious teaching as a model for facilitating a climate of shared learning among teachers. In particular, Knapp systematically implemented co-planning with individual and groups of teachers and incorporated the professional development models, Mathematics Studio and mathematics learning walks, to foster shared learning experiences among teachers. As such, teachers were encouraged to spend time in each other’s classrooms, plan lessons together, and observe student discourse while lessons were taking place. For Knapp, these types of collaborations are key and are most effective when it becomes the norm to engage in these types of practices. Additionally, Knapp makes a case for how important it is for the coach and the principal to work in concert to support new forms of collaboration and shared understandings about the school’s mathematical program as they support teachers as well as the coach’s work throughout the school building. Smith, Hayes, and Lyons use Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to analyze a unique type of social network—one in which an individual who completed a mathematics coach preparation program and served as a coach in one school building for two years then transitions to a fulltime teaching role. They present three case studies of classroom teachers involved in this complex social dynamic, each of whom spends time helping their colleagues make changes to their instructional practices. This paper explores the factors that result in leadership opportunities for these teachers and how they take advantage of these opportunities to support colleagues working to make changes to their pedagogy. The authors share several insights into the work of classroom teachers who also assume leadership roles: (1) it takes a significant amount of work to balance classroom responsibilities with leadership opportunities, (2) the building administration plays a pivotal role in either encouraging or limiting these types of leadership opportunities, and (3) teachers who stayed in the same building in which they formerly worked as mathematics coaches had to work through ambiguities that naturally developed due to their change in roles. As part of the discussion, the authors also encourage other researchers to apply Bronfenbrenner’s analytic framework to better understand other situations involving teacher leaders.
3.3. Section 3: Preparation of mathematics coaches and implementation of coaching programs This section contains empirically-based papers describing two types of professional development programs to prepare teachers to assume mathematics leadership roles in elementary or middle schools. Additionally one of the authors outlines the importance of engendering successful professional relationships between coaches and principals. In the first paper, Haver, Trinter, and Inge describe the 25-year effort, the Virginia Mathematics Specialist Initiative, to support mathematics specialists as they provide school-based professional development for K-8 teachers of mathematics. This ongoing initiative has been embraced by academic and community organizations across the state. As part of the discussion, the authors describe the process employed to develop and implement a teacher credential endorsement for mathematics specialists in Virginia. Additionally, they outline the key components of graduate program–a model for preparation programs in Virginia that has also been adapted by other institutions across the country to prepare classroom teachers to assume roles as mathematics specialists. As a consequence of this work, the authors note that over the last 15 years mathematics specialists have become common fixtures in many of Virginia’s elementary schools. They also outline other initiative efforts including the research conducted in urban and rural school settings and the grassroots efforts to establish and maintain a professional organization for these important mathematics teacher leaders. Lastly, the authors share a set of resources (i.e. Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
5
activities, lessons, articles, etc.) for readers interested in utilizing these resources with prospective or practicing mathematics teacher leaders. The second paper by Beaver, Burton, and Harrington describes an online program developed in Oregon to prepare teachers to serve as mathematics coaches. The authors summarize the mathematics and educational leadership courses in their program and the online technologies used to deliver instruction, implement activities, and conduct meaningful discussions between participants. They also present some of the lessons they have learned about planning and implementing this type of program. As they report, overall, their experiences have allowed them to make changes that have resulted in a stronger more effective program. Specifically, they are finding ways to help participants build a sense of community and sustain a level of success with the coursework while, at the same time, maintaining a rigorous graduate program. The final paper in this section is written by Lucy West, a well-known leader and practitioner with extensive experience in helping coaches develop productive professional relationships with teachers and administrators in the school buildings in which they work. In this paper, West explores a variety of important issues for how the mathematics specialist and school building principal can build a successful working relationship. To illustrate her points, she presents several scenarios that highlight how important these collaborations are to the success of the mathematics coach’s work with teachers. In particular, she describes the various ways the principal and coach can work together to co-lead the school’s mathematics program and to navigate the challenges that arise while helping teachers develop the skills to be successful in helping students learn mathematics. 4. Next steps and acknowledgements In addition to presenting timely results from current research about mathematics specialists, the papers presented in this special issue also provide interesting future directions for research into the work of mathematics coaches. As several of the authors suggest, research is needed that makes connections between formal, often district-wide, professional development initiatives for teachers and the school-based professional development provided by mathematics coaches. Specifically, in addition to placing coaches in school buildings (or district offices) to plan and deliver large-scale professional development experiences, researchers need to explore ways for coaches to expand on what is learned through those experiences as they work with teachers in smaller groups or one-on-one in their classrooms. For instance, several papers in this special issue highlight the coaches’ important role in supporting and sustaining PLCs. The coach is often called on to lead the PLC. Further research is needed about how the mathematics coach can capitalize on PLCs to inform her work with individual teachers as well as create shared learning experiences among teams of teachers. As the guest editors, Aimee Ellington, Joy Whitenack, and Christine Trinter, are pleased to present the papers in this special issue of the Journal of Mathematical Behavior to readers interested in this area of mathematics education research. We appreciate the support of the Journal of Mathematical Behavior editors, Elizabeth Uptegrove and Carolyn Maher, for inviting us to serve as co-editors for this special issue and for providing guidance and feedback throughout the process. This special issue is an outcome of the Virginia Mathematics Specialist Initiative research conference organized by the editors of this special issue and was made possible by support from the National Science Foundation and the Brookhill Institute of Mathematics. We also would like to thank the many conference presenters and participants for making the event a meaningful and successful experience. We would also like to thank the authors of the papers who provided papers for this special issue for making these contributions to the body of mathematics coaching and leadership literature. And finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to participate in the publication process. Their thoughtful comments and suggestions for all of the papers helped ensure the quality of each individual paper as well as the presentation of a well-crafted special issue. References
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2009). Standards for elementary mathematics specialists: A reference for teacher credentialing and degree programs. San Diego, CA: AMTE. Becker, E., & Gleason, N. K. (1927). Departmentalization in the intermediate grades. The Elementary School Journal, 28(1), 62–66. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society & Mathematical Association of America. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Dossey, J. (1984). Elementary School mathematics specialists: Where are they? The Arithmetic Teacher, 32(3) Fennell, F. (2006). We need elementary school mathematics specialists now. NCTM News Bulletin, 43(4). Gojak, L. M. (2013). It’s elementary! Rethinking the role of the elementary classroom teacher. NCTM Summing Up. Lott, J. (2003). The time has come for Pre-K-5 mathematics specialists. NCTM News Bulletin, 40(4). Maryland State Department of Education. (2001). Keys to math success: A report from the Maryland Mathematics Commission. Baltimore, MD: MSDE. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2010). The role of elementary mathematics specialists in the teaching and learning of mathematics. AMTE, NCTM, NCSM Joint Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/The-Role-of-Elementary-Mathematics-Specialists-in-the-Teaching-and-Learning-of-Mathematic National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2012). NCTM CAEP Standards: Elementary Mathematics Specialists (Advanced Preparation). Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/CAEP-Standards/. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D.C: National Academy. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
G Model MATBEH-574; No. of Pages 6
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Aimee Ellington ∗ Joy Whitenack Christine Trinter Virginia Commonwealth University, United States Francis (Skip) Fennell McDaniel College, United States ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ellington) Available online xxx
Please cite this article in press as: Ellington, A., et al. Preparing and implementing successful mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001