1

Milwaukee Mathematics PartnershipSchool Based Partnerships: Using Social Network Analysis to Measure Progress Towards Distributed Leadership

Carl HanssenHanssen Consulting, LLC

DeAnn HuinkerUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

MSP Learning Network ConferenceWashington, DCJanuary 2008

2

Agenda

Context

Methods

Results

Conclusions

3

Evaluation Goals

Help the MMP better serve its constituents and improve its effectiveness

Serve the broader mathematics education community through documentation and dissemination of MMP activities

4

MMP Evaluation Logic ModelStudent

Achievement

Teacher Content& Pedagogical

Knowledge

Math FacultyInvolvement

Learning TeamEffort

SchoolBuy-in

TeacherInvolvement

NewCourses

DistrictBuy-in

MPA Ownership

MATCBuy-In

UWMBuy-In

ClassroomPractice

MMPActivities

ProximalOutcomes

DistalOutcomes

5

Focus for this study

StudentAchievement

Learning TeamEfforts

SchoolBuy-in

TeacherInvolvement

ClassroomPractice

DistributedLeadership

6

Method

20 Schools from 2006 & 2007

Purposefully selected for diversity in

School Type Geography Student Achievement MMP Involvement

7

SNA Survey

Open survey approach

Teachers & administrators Provide names of individuals with whom you

communicated with about mathematics Demographics

Other data School staff lists Student achievement results

in terms of % proficient

8

Analysis

Maps identify

MTL MTS Teachers Principal Literacy Coach Others in school Others outside

Statistics

Network density (%)

In-Degree(z-score)

9

1a.

2006

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

F 13 31 7.2% 11.7% 3.33 2.50

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

10

1b.

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

G 11 42 6.1% 7.5% 9.52 1.19 Sample Average 21.9 57.1 6.3% 12.2% 18.84 2.69 SD 8.0 16.7 2.6% 5.0% 6.9 3.7 Median 22 51 5.7% 11.4% 17.56 0.92

2007

11

2a.

2006

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

C 32 61 6.3% 9.2% 6.67 3.75

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

12

2b.

2007

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

C 36 78 3.5% 4.7% 16.98 0.64

Average 21.9 57.1 6.3% 12.2% 18.84 2.69 SD 8.0 16.7 2.6% 5.0% 6.9 3.7 Median 22 51 5.7% 11.4% 17.56 0.92

13

3a.

2006

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

J 22 45 5.8% 28.4% 13.07 1.14

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

14

3b.

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

I 28.0 75.0 4.0% 12.2% 23.31 0.33

Average 21.9 57.1 6.3% 12.2% 18.84 2.69 SD 8.0 16.7 2.6% 5.0% 6.90 3.70 Median 22.0 51.0 5.7% 11.4% 17.56 0.92

2007

15

4a.

2006

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

H 17 46 9.8% 28.6% 22.22 8.33

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

16

4b.

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

A 22 43 11.7% 20.1% 30.61 4.40 Sample Average 21.9 57.1 6.3% 12.2% 18.84 2.69 SD 8.0 16.7 2.6% 5.0% 6.9 3.7 Median 22 51 5.7% 11.4% 17.56 0.92

2007

17

5.

2007

School n Total Named Network density

Density in school

MTL Role--In Degree

MTS Role--In Degree

B 23 55 11.4% 31.1% 28.24 18.52

Average 21.1 54.0 6.7% 17.6% 13.81 5.31 SD 6.8 17.6 2.6% 9.6% 7.2 4.9 Median 19 48 6.2% 15.4% 13.07 3.75

18

MMP Distributed Leadership Continuum

Low High

Loose NetworkMTL Not CentralFew Links to MTLMTS OutsideFew Links to MTS

Tight NetworkMTL Central

Many Links to MTLMTS Inside

Many Links to MTS

1 2 3 4 5

19

Distributed Leadership &Student Achievement

This is the same

school 2 years in a

row!

20

Overall Conclusions

There is support for the argument that schools that have more fully adopted MMP principles are demonstrating stronger outcomes — distributed leadership is one manifestation of MMP adoption.

Creating distributed leadership in a school takes time—and communication is critical

There is tremendous variabilityacross MPS in the extent to which schools have adopted MMPprinciples and ideas

21

Conclusion

No single factor—e.g., distributed leadership, teacher MKT, learning team performance—is sufficient for success, but all may be necessary

Schools that are performing well do many of the things MMP promotes well, andrealize synergy between manyof these activities and principles