CSU California Academic Partnership Program
pixel

Year 1

At the middle school, four to six week units at the 6th and 8th grade introduced both students and teachers to an enriched curriculum. Units used included Factors andMultiples (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1986), Telling Someone Where to Go (Equals Publications, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley CA, 1994), and Used Numbers (Dale Seymour, White Plains NY, 1990). Middle school teachers attended locally sponsored workshops which focused on these .replacement units" or met with the on-site coordinator to receive detailed instruction about the units. Two high school teachers attended a one- week summer institute for College Preparatory Math I (CPM 1), an alternative algebra course.

Year 2

Extensive training occurred during the summer prior to the beginning of year 2. Middle school teachers accepted an offer from the University of Wisconsin to field test Math in Context (MIQ and attended a rwo-week institute in Wisconsin where the program was introduced. High school teachers attended one-week institutes for CPM I (Algebra 1) or CPM 2 (Geometry). During the year, two high school teachers received replacement unit training in Fantasy Baseba/11 (Giant Step Press, Solving CA, 1994), sponsored by CSUDH, and the unit became part of the non-college prep math courses.

Year 3


Extensive summer training continued. Two middle school teachers were invited to receive advanced training in MICand went to the Netherlands (yes Europe!!). Four middle school teachers attended three to five day training sessions for CPM 1. All high school teachers attended CPM 1, CPM2, or CPM3 training sessions as well.

Staff Development(Curriculum)


Curriculum staff development, which targeted specific grade levels or courses, provided additional information and support for teachers throughout the year. For example, teachers involved in CPM attended three to six scheduled follow-up sessions facilitated by CPM experts. Teachers involved in MIC met monthly with the on-site consultant and/or an expert from MICto work with the units they would be teaching. A high school teacher who was piloting Investigating Mathematics (Glencoe, Blacklick OH, 1994) for a Math A course worked with the on-site consultant monthly to better understand and develop these materials.

From time to time, teachers requested collaborative meetings to work on specific curricular concerns. These meetings were arranged and facilitated by the on-site consultants.

Staff Development (Instruction and Assessment)


The need for effective instruction and assessment strategies led to a comprehensive staff development program which focused on these issues. Because of their general nature, both middle school and high school teachers participated in these sessions. Topics were introduced during the September institutes and follow-ups continued throughout the year.

Year 1


Cooperative learning strategies were introduced in September and follow-up workshops occurred throughout the year. On- site presenters, an expert from CSUDH, and teachers experienced with cooperative learning provided the Culver City staff with information and strategies. On-site consultants coached teacher- novices.

Teachers were introduced to "Problems of the Week" in September, which provided a practical first step for curricular change through problem solving. Most middle school teachers implemented a "Problem of the Week" program. Some high school teachers utilized problems of the week, while others integrated the problem solving strategies into their existing curriculum. On-site consultants provided support for teachers involved in the program by helping to select problems, duplicating materials and assisting with assessment of student work.

Year 2


Assessment, the primary staff development goal during year 2, was approached on many levels. On-site consultants presented workshops focusing on the match between instruction and assessment, and appropriate uses of open-ended questions, portfolios, writing, and rubrics. Outside speakers shared non-traditional, yet practical, methods of assessing students. CAPP teachers who used CPM in other schools joined the Culver City teachers to hear Judy Kysh, director of CPM1 speak about assessment in CTM. Teachers joined together to write exams and grade papers as a way of better understanding each others' practices and maintaining quality control within courses.

Another second-year focus was teacher collaboration. This goal was particularly important because it was believed that teachers who experienced the power of collaboration as professionals would better understand its benefits in the classroom. Five of the middle school teachers enrolled in a three-year summer institute at CSUDH. Their collaborative efforts in the summer extended into the school setting, providing a model for everyone. Common preparation times for pairs of high school teachers teaching the same course encouraged collaboration. Each week the on-site consultant met with partners to discuss progress and concerns related to their classes. Obstacles of scheduling were overcome with no fiscal impact.

At both the middle and high school, collaborative planning meetings, facilitated by the on-site consultants, were encouraged. As a result, many classes benefited from greater consistency between teachers, and teachers benefited from sharing ideas and work.

Previous | Home | Next

 


Content Contact:
CAPP Office
(562) 951-4780
capp@calstate.edu
Technical Contact:
webmaster@calstate.edu