Chandler Unified showcases K–12 math learning experiences, highlights professional development and preliminary gains

Chandler Unified School District math coaches and district leaders presented a K–12 update on math instruction and professional development during the district—s Dec. 11, 2024, study session, describing classroom demonstrations, curriculum-mapping tools and two professional-development programs the district says have reached hundreds of teachers.

The presentation, led by district instructional coaches and supported by a recorded segment from Dr. Trey Cox of Chandler—Gilbert Community College, outlined the district—s Enhancing Math Practices (EMP) program for K——8 teachers and the Arizona Mathematics Partnership (AMP) for secondary teachers. Presenters showed how lessons are aligned to Arizona Department of Education standards, the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice and research-based frameworks such as Building Thinking Classrooms.

District staff said the work emphasizes student-centered tasks, classroom discourse, use of vertical non-permanent surfaces (whiteboards) and formative assessments. Presenters described a 10-minute live demonstration in front of the board that replicated activities students do in classrooms: pairing to reason about inequalities, representing solution sets on number lines, and using open vs. closed circles to show inclusion.

"I can honestly say in the last 20 years, I have never seen teachers more energized in the classroom by what we're doing," one presenter said during the demonstration. A recorded message from Trey Cox, identified in the presentation as a math professor at Chandler-Gilbert Community College, said: "With the teachers engaged in AMP ... we've seen in the classroom a huge increase in student engagement." Cox added that college-level instructors have reported improved performance by students from district classrooms.

Presenters described district tools available to teachers: unified curriculum maps that split standards by semester, symbols to flag "major" versus "supporting" standards, premade common formative checks, and a "Connections for Success" resource that traces standards across grade levels. They said the red-circle standards should receive roughly 75% of instructional time and blue-triangle standards about 25%.

On professional development, district staff described EMP as a two-day release course followed by classroom visits and on-site coaching; they said more than 1,000 teachers have had contact with EMP content during the last four years. AMP, the secondary program, was described as five days of summer work plus follow-up workshops, 12 collaborative meetings and three classroom observations; presenters said observed teacher practice and student work often look substantially different between a first and third observation.

Staff pointed to several measures as early indicators of progress: district performance on an assessment labeled "AASA" for grades 3——8, recognition by the ASU Helios Decision Center for Educational Excellence for postsecondary math performance, and teacher- and classroom-level growth seen in observations and video coaching. One presenter said the district continues to "outperform the state in math" and noted pockets of strong growth.

Board members pressed for subgroup detail and pace of change. Board member Rohrs asked why overall proficiency (cited as roughly 51%) was not higher compared with some neighboring districts; district leaders replied that cohort composition and year-to-year cohort turnover affect comparisons, and that growth measures and formative assessment triangulation are necessary to interpret single-year proficiency figures. Board member Serrano cited disaggregated proficiency rates stated in the meeting: Asian students at 83%, White students at 61%, Hispanic students at 33% and Black students at 29%, and asked what targeted steps are being taken for lower-performing subgroups. District presenters pointed to universal design for learning, targeted coaching, and differentiated instruction as ongoing strategies.

Presenters and coaches identified a multi-year implementation timeline. EMP began in the 2020——21 school year, staff said, and they described a three-to-five year horizon for districtwide impacts to appear in systemic assessment outcomes as students progress through grade bands. District staff said principals received parallel training so administrative observation and feedback would align with instructional expectations.

Board members asked about comparative rates and time to impact. District leaders said some grade bands and cohorts have had only two or three years of instruction under the newer model and that full system-wide effects take multiple years as cohorts move through the grades.

The presentation included classroom examples at Carlson Elementary, Weinberg Elementary, CTA Humphrey, Santan Junior High and Hamilton High School. Staff said teachers are documenting student work to inform instruction and that the district is building a common language for classroom expectations: eight teacher practices, eight mathematical practices and Building Thinking Classroom strategies.

The session closed with a request from a board member for additional disaggregated data and a commitment from staff to return with more detailed breakdowns and analysis of growth metrics. Presenters asked board members and administrators to visit classrooms and to review the published curriculum maps and Connections for Success resources the district posts for teachers.

Sources and quotes in this article come directly from the Dec. 11, 2024 study session presentation and recorded remarks shown at the meeting.