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

November 4, 2013 Lee T. Todd, Jr. Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Kentucky

The Impact of NSF Math and Science Funding


• n the Voices of Appalachia

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

• r 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

• ngoing 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

• fferings

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 – 6th 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

PIMSER Math & Science Leadership Support Networks

• n Created Statewide Math and Science Leadership

Support Networks (MLSN/SLSN)

n To develop, sustain and expand a professional

learning community of M/S leaders across the state

n Initially used the TPs and RTPs from ARSI n Facilitated Instructional Support Leadership Networks

for 585 administrators in all 176 school districts 2005-2006 2009-2010

PIMSER Math & Science Leadership Support Networks

• Grade Level

06-07 07-08 08-09 Elementary 97.9 101.9 103.57 Middle 78.8 89.2 98.5

2 SLSN Participants Instructional Supervisor & 1 Teacher Cadre Work Began in 08: Format of Cadre-6 mtgs/yr, 3 days in summer Resulting test scores from implementation of cadre work from 2008

n Impact of Leadership Support Network for Bell

County Cadre:

n Kentucky Department of Education in 2010 used

the Network Model to implement Math and English Language Arts Leadership Support Networks in response to Senate Bill 1

Residuals of AMSP

• n Kentucky Online Testing Examination (KYOTE)

n Developed during ASMP but with University and CPE funding and

• ffered for free

n Senate Bill 1 passed in 2009

• Must reduce college remediation rates by at least 50% by 2014

from the 2010 rates

• Students making below the equivalent of 19 on the ACT math

exam must receive remediation (All Ky Juniors take the ACT)

• After remediation, students had to pay to re-take ACT or the ACT

COMPASS test whereas KYOTE is free

n KYOTE adopted by 6 Universities, 8 Community Colleges, 150 High

Schools – 54,186 tests taken between Jan 2011 – Oct 2013

n Eastern Kentucky saved $3,193,103 due to reduced remediation

course offerings from 2010 to 2012 (36% drop in Dev. Math Enroll.)

“Access to Algebra” Course

• n Prepared students (passed Algebra II) could get dual

credit high school and college algebra credit from UK

n Offered professional development (500-level college

course) to high school math teachers

n Unique: students worked with on-site high school teacher;

UK provided PD and course design

n Students enrolled in exact same class as UK students n All tuition and fees were waived; student received

transcript from UK

n Kentucky State University has adopted this “A to A”

course

n Supporting 20 high schools n Fall 2009 – 82 students; 45.12% received college algebra credit

Thoughts from Business Experience

• n Be aware of “Market Drivers”

n Business: “Daylight” flight simulation training required by FAA n ARSI & AMSP:

• Negative – No Child Left Behind legislation
• Positive – Kentucky Senate Bill 1

n Begin with the End in Mind (Covey: Seven Habits)

n Business: Fund raising, exit position n ARSI & AMSP:

• Negative – “Faint traces remaining” (Todd: “Foam Rubber Pillow Affect”)
• Positive – TPs – RTPs – District Funding – Learning Support Networks – KDE
• n “Shut Up and Listen” (Ernesto Sirolli: TED Talk)

n Business: Zambia Project n ARSI & AMSP:

• Negative: NCLB “Top Down” model
• Positive – Focus on indigenous talent; Teachers teaching teachers

Thoughts from Business Experience

• n “Market Driven” Approach (Geoffrey Moore: Crossing

the Chasm)

• n Business: Early Teleconferencing – BASF Carpet Division

n AMSP:

• Developed a portfolio of “products”
• “Sold” and supported those who really wanted them using

“Microfinancing”

Discussion