0.6 Ward, c. (july 2009). implementing success against all odds:  (Page 6/9)

Table 3. Frequency of Use of Strategies from RM ² Model.

Survey Question: “Do students in your class…”

Another important aspect of the RM ² model is the use of assessments to inform instruction. When asked how often they assessed their student in math 27 (87%) indicated they assessed their students at least twice a month, 2 (7%) indicated they assessed their students at least once a month, one (3%) assessed their students every three month and one (3%) reported only assessing students once a year. All of the teachers indicated that they used the data from math assessments to inform their instruction. Only eight teachers responded to the question about whether they were provided with release time to analyze math assessments with two (25%) indicating they were and six (75%) indicating they were not. However, when asked whether they were given release time to meet with grade level colleagues to look at data and discuss instructional strategies, only one teacher (3%) responded never, seven (23%) indicated they had release time twice a year, 15 (48%) said they received release time once a month, and eight (26%) indicated that they received release time more than once a month. Perhaps it was not always clear how release time was meant to be used.

Teachers reported differing amounts of support from math coaches. Two teachers (7%) indicated that they only received support one to three times a year, nine (30%) indicated that they received support once a month, and 19 (63%) stated that they received support once a week. The number of times teachers reported the math coaches visited during math instruction varied with seven teachers (32%) indicated the coach visited once a month, 13 (59%) stated they were visited twice a month, and two (9%) reported the coach came to their class during math instruction at least once a week. Both principals reported that the instructional coaches met with teachers once monthly.

Principals are expected to visit the classroom during math instruction. Only one teacher (3%) indicated that the principal came less than once a month, 11 (50%) indicated the principal visited at least once a month, 9 (41%) were visited twice a month, and one teacher (4%) indicated the principal came every week. Findings from the principal surveys reveal principals visited classrooms to observe math instruction at least once monthly.

Teacher and principal perceptions

Teachers were asked, “If the school culture has changed over the last three years, what do you think is the primary cause of the change in culture?” Across the three schools, 14 teachers responded. Of these, 13 stated a positive change in school culture. Most attributed to the change is an increase in shared focus and a consistency across the school. One teacher felt that the school culture was negative and questioned whether all teachers were using RM ² . “School culture is consistently negative and follows few set goals. No one knows what is going on or when and this impacts fidelity to the program.” There were four other responses from the same school each suggesting that the respondent believed the school culture had improved. As one explained “…culture has improved due to clear expectations, collaboration, uniform curriculum, coaching and focus.” Another cited, “More focused and designed curriculum and a uniformed way of teaching”; “collaboration, coaching, modeling and high expectations from the administration”; ”teaching staff has changed and with that change came a calmer more focused school climate.” Taken together, these comments suggest that most teachers felt there had been a positive change in the school culture. Most of the reasons can be directly linked to RM ² , although other reasons, such as a change in staff, were also given as positive influences.