The Impact of NSF Math and Science Funding on the Voices of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Impact of NSF Math and Science Funding 
 on the Voices of Appalachia � November 4, 2013 � Lee T. Todd, Jr. � Professor of Electrical Engineering � University of Kentucky �

Outline � n Characteristics of Appalachia � n NSF Funded Projects from 1995 to 2008 � n Goals for each project � n Results for each project � • Intended and Unintended outcomes � • Political and State influences � n Residuals after Grants Conclude � n Thoughts from Business Experience � n Discussion �

Characteristics of Appalachia � n View schooling with ambivalence � n Recognized as good, worth having � n Threatening the fabric of family and community � n Student achievement is chronically low � n Nature of school systems � n Districts are small, with few resources � n Largest employer – job security vs. improvement � n Teachers must multi-task beyond the classroom � n Low expectations and fatalistic attitudes � n Suspicious of “ outsiders ” � n Self-reliant and hard working �

Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative (ARSI) � n Funded from 1995 – 2005 for $10M � n Project region � n 66 counties in Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia � n Some of the poorest counties in America � n At least 30 percent of school-aged children in poverty � n Investment quite small for scale of region and scope of problems addressed � n Slow, steady, incremental funding was effective � n Focused on developing indigenous knowledge and leadership capability �

ARSI (continued) � n Goals � n Develop K-14 teachers to create effective STEM learning environments � n Develop sustainable systems for access to educational resources and services in support of standards-based teaching and learning � n Develop: � • School leadership � • Regional partnerships � • Community involvement � • Stakeholder support � Reference: ARSI Evaluation Portfolio: Volume I (Inverness Research) � �

ARSI (Continued) � n State and Local Policy Environment � n Great range of states ’ contexts � • Some lacked state-wide educational policies � • Great range of diverse needs � n False promise of state-purchased “ technology ” which was expected to “ mainstream ” rural schools � n States were implementing accountability tests � • Public disclosure of test results � • Possible censure for lack of progress � n Varied readiness to embrace reform �

Components of ARSI Model � n Teacher Partners – network of lead teachers � n Catalyst Schools – models for improvement � n District Liaisons – local administrators � n Community Engagement Teams – build support for MST improvement beyond the schools � n Regional Collaborators – located at a university or college to give access to resources � n Resource Coordinator – housed within Regional Collaboratives � n Regional and National Resources – other RSIs �

ARSI Strategies � n Strategies that Did Not Work � n Technology did not help develop leadership capacity � n Community engagement found little traction � n Strategies that Worked � n Teacher Partners became central core of strategy � • Extensive professional development � • Resource Coordinators assumed primary responsibility � • District Liaisons provided support and advocacy for reform � n Regional Teacher Partners (RTPs) � • Elevated strongest ARSI teacher partners into a role to serve as a TP but also to support other TPs in the region � • NSF provided a special add-on grant to support RTP effort �

ARSI Strategies (Continued) � n Strategies that Worked � n Program Improvement Review (PIR) � • Team of teachers and administrators from outside the district “ audited ” the math and science programs � • Catalyzed change in individual schools �

ARSI Results � n Hundreds of teachers deepened their knowledge � n Teachers improved their classroom practice � n Classroom quality better than national average � n Grew teacher and administrator collaboration regarding math and science education � n Thousands of students had enhanced chances to learn math and science – gains in test scores � n Created an “ improvement community ” that has residual benefits for future reform activities such as AMSP �

Conclusions Regarding ARSI � n Individualized case-by-case approach proved surprisingly effective � n Focus on “ indigenous ” leadership was powerful � n Teacher Partners made greatest contribution � n Teachers leading teachers powerful strategies � n 85% between 11 to 30 years of teaching experience � n 78% worked as TPs for between 3 to 10 years � n TPs became the “ standard-bearers ” for MS reform � n All 35 TPs later funded by districts themselves � n TP concept used successfully by other RSIs �

Appalachian Mathematics and Science Partnership (AMSP) � n Funded from 2002 to 2008 - $23M � n 51 School Districts and 9 Institutions of Higher Education in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia � n Configured to build on ARSI ’ s development of lead teachers � n Goals � n Closing the achievement gap � n Increase college-going rate � n Strategies � n Improving pre-service IHE classroom instruction � n PD for in-service teachers via IHE/K-12 partnerships �

AMSP Implementation � n Not a uniform “ intervention ” to schools/teachers � n Made available a wide range of program activities � n Used concept of “ microfinance ” to provide funding to those seeking to participate � n In-service Teacher Enhancement summer institutes � n School Improvement & Program Enhancement programs � • Baseline Improvement Grants � • Partnership Enhancement Program (PEP) Grants � n Workshops and institute for school leaders to ensure ongoing improvement in the region �

AMSP Implementation � n PEP grants of $20,000 to $30,000 given to 24 schools � n 120 schools participated in a wide range of offerings � n 35 schools accumulated 200 hours over 5 years � n 63 schools accumulated 200-800 hours � n 21 schools accumulated 800-2,200 hours � n Distributions based on “ market demand ” � n AMSP offered an alternative to the top-down culture surrounding NCLB �

AMSP Implementation � n Partnership Enhancement Program (PEP) � n NSF awarded a supplemental grant to increase the scope of this program beyond Appalachia � n 87 Primary School Projects � n 57 Secondary School Projects � n Corporate funding received: � • Toyota U.S.A.: 12 Districts, 6 IHEs, 44 IHE faculty, 200 teachers, over 33,000 students � • AT&T Bardstown: Development of lessons/activities, assessments, peer observations, web site, Math Learning Community – 6 th grade through post secondary �

Inverness Research Report 2013: “ Delivering the Test ” � n Research after five years of AMSP grant � n Comparison of AMSP and non-AMSP schools � • Used test scores, classroom environment, interviews � • The two AMSP high schools had stronger programs than their non-AMSP counterparts � • One of the AMSP middle schools was stronger but two were weaker than their non-AMSP counterparts � n Traces of the AMSP are faint � • Appear where lead teachers have had ongoing grants and support from AMSP leaders � • Appear where principals supported the efforts of lead teachers � n Residual resides in the human capital developed more than the programs that were promoted �

Partnership Institute for Mathematics and Science Education Reform (PIMSER) � n Strategic University Commitments in AMSP Proposal to NSF in 2002 � n Formation of PIMSER for sustainability of ARSI and AMSP best practices beyond the period of the grant � n Create and fund “ Outreach Professors ” in math and science in Arts and Science and Education Colleges � n Formal Institute of University of Kentucky � n Funded by President and Provost � n Reported to Provost � n Housed AMSP, STEM outreach and engagement projects involving many colleges across campus �

PIMSER Engaged Outreach Units � n P-12 Math and Science Outreach � n KY-WV Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) � n Math/Science Computing and Distant Learning � n Pre-Service Teacher Recruitment & Support Programs (NOYCE Grants) � n Health Science Outreach � n Kentucky Girls STEM Collaborative � n Evaluation and Assessment �

PIMSER Income/Grant Funding 2004-2012 � n Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education: $2,283,500 � n Kentucky Department of Education: $5,243,368 � n NSF: $966,151 (Master Teacher Project) � n School District Contracts: $741,368 � n Conference Registration Fees: $2,968,637 � n Total: $12,203,024 � NOTE: All 176 school districts impacted through partnerships, training opportunities and outreach efforts �