To support continuous professional development model in the teaching and learning of mathematics, many districts and schools have begun hiring elementary mathematics coaches and/or specialists (MCSs). However, limited large-scale empirical research exists that determines how the use of MCSs affect student learning and achievement. Kristin E. Harbour and Evthokia Stephanie Saclarides begin to fill in this gap by using data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress to explore the relationship between the presence and responsibilities of elementary MCSs and 4th-grade student achievement in mathematics. Based on their findings, they share practical implications for districts and administrators to consider.
BalfanzR.MacIverD.J.ByrnesV. (2006). The implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics reforms in high poverty middle schools: A multi- site, multi-year study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 33–64.
2.
BallD.CohenD. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
3.
CampbellP.F. (1996). Empowering children and teachers in the elementary mathematics classrooms of urban schools. Urban Education, 30, 449–475.
4.
CampbellP.F.MalkusN.N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 430–454.
5.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR.C.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
6.
DesimoneL.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward a better conceptualization and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181–199.
7.
DesimoneL.M.PakK. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56 (1), 3–12.
8.
EllingtonA.WhitenackJ.EdwardsD. (2017). Effectively coaching middle school teachers: A case for teacher and student learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 177–195.
9.
FosterD.NoyceP. (2004). The mathematics assessment collaborative: Performance testing to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 367–374.
10.
GibbonsL.K.CobbP. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68 (4), 411–425.
11.
HarbourK.E.AdelsonJ.L.KarpK.S. (2016, April). Examining the relationships among mathematics coaches and specialists, student achievement, and disability status. [Paper Session]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Washington, DC.
12.
HarbourK.E.AdelsonJ.L.KarpK.S.PittardC.M. (2018). Examining the relationships among mathematics coaches and specialists, student achievement, and disability status: A multi-level analysis using National Assessment of Education Progress data. The Elementary School Journal, 118 (4), 654–679.
13.
HawleyW.D.ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In SykesG.Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
HjalmarsonM.A.SaclaridesE.S.HarbourK.E.LiversS.D.BakerC.K. (in press). Mathematics specialists and teacher leaders: An ongoing qualitative synthesis. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico: Department of Mathematics Education of Cinvestav and the Mexican Association for Research on the Use of Technology in Mathematics Education.
15.
KnightD.S. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 38 (1), 52–80.
16.
ManginM.M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: How district context influences reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45 (5), 759–792.
17.
McGathaM.B.DavisR.StokesA. (2015). The impact of mathematics coaching on teachers and students. (Brief). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
18.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2012-458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
19.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). Reading and Mathematics School Questionnaire, 2011, Grade 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
20.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
21.
SaclaridesE.S.BakerC.K.MuddA.LiversS.D.HarbourK.E.HjalmarsonM.A. (in press). An exploration of mathematics teacher leaders in PME-NA Proceedings from 1984-2019. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico: Department of Mathematics Education of Cinvestav and the Mexican Association for Research on the Use of Technology in Mathematics Education.
22.
SchneiderB.CarnoyM.KilpatrickJ.SchmidtW.H.ShavelsonR.J. (2007). Estimating causal effects: Using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
