Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative · isolated and poverty-laden school districts in Appalachia and wealthier, more advantaged regions of the states served. The participating districts’

Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative

Year 7 Progress Report

OHIO

KENTUCKY VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA TENNESSEE

WEST VIRGINIA

ARSI YEAR 7 PROGRESS REPORT

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 I. Overview of the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative (ARSI)………………….2-9

A. The ARSI Model........................................................................................................ 2 B. ARSI Scale-Up Activities ........................................................................................ 3

C. Demographics and Current Status of the ARSI Project ...................................... 3 D. Leadership Development......................................................................................... 4

E. Professional Development ....................................................................................... 6

II. Evidence of Systemic Reform .................................................................................. 9-23 A. Driver 1: Standards Based Curriculum................................................................ 9 B. Driver 2: Policy Changes ...................................................................................... 10 C. Driver 3: Resource Convergence ......................................................................... 11 D. Driver 4: Partnerships .......................................................................................... 12 E. Driver 5: Student Achievement............................................................................ 15 F. Driver 6: Student Equity Isuses ........................................................................... 22 III. Individual School/School District Improvement....................................................... 23 IV. Status of the ARSI Master Teacher Project .............................................................. 26 V. Lessons Learned and Remaining Challenges ............................................................ 29 Summary................................................................................................................................... 30

YEAR 7 PROGRESS REPORT

Figures

1. ARSI School Demographics ................................................................................................4

2. Teacher Partners Who Have Moved to Other Leadership Positions..............................5

3. Amount of Time Teacher Partners Spent on Various Activities.....................................6

4. Comparison of Level of Curriculum Implementation......................................................9

5. Source and Amount of District Funds for Mathematics and Science ...........................11

6. Funds Generated by the ARSI Project ............................................................................12

7. Distribution of Teacher Partner Time Spent on Community Engagement .................13

8. ARSI Catalyst Schools Showing Improved Performance ..............................................16

9. Student Performance Data in ARSI Region....................................................................17

10. Student Performance Data for Ohio Participating School Districts .............................18

11. Student Performance Data for West Virginia Participating School Districts..............19

12. Student Performance Data for Kentucky Participating School Districts.....................19

13. Box plot Comparisons for 11th Grade Mathematics Test Scores in Kentucky ............20

14. Box plot Comparisons for 11th Grade Science Test Scores in Kentucky ......................21

15. Comparison of Male and Female Mathematics Enrollment and Performance ...........22

16. Comparison of Male and Female Science Enrollment and Performance.....................23

1

INTRODUCTION The Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative (ARSI), one of four original NSF Rural Systemic Initiatives, has made a major impact on the region during the past seven years. The project’s mission of “accelerating improved performance in mathematics and science for all students through high-quality, standards-based teaching” was particularly daunting at the time of ARSI’s initial funding. ARSI committed itself, however, to “closing the achievement gap” between the isolated and poverty-laden school districts in Appalachia and wealthier, more advantaged regions of the states served. The participating districts’ student achievement data indicate that ARSI has been successful in this venture. It has been very difficult to mount and sustain cooperative efforts for school improvement in the Appalachian region, even within a single county. Too often, in Appalachian communities, poverty, isolation, and lack of resources combine to create cultures in which people suffer from low expectations and fatalistic attitudes. In addition, school leaders in the region have often not been sufficiently prepared to lead the kinds of reforms needed to meet the state and national expectations in today’s “results oriented” environment. Educational and cultural opportunities such as universities, museums, or zoos, taken for granted elsewhere, simply do not exist or are difficult to get to further limiting educational opportunities for the region’s citizens. The politics of school employment are also an important factor as the local school district is usually the largest single employer and in many cases, hiring the best prepared teachers has not been the foremost criteria. The ARSI project has accepted these challenges and developed a model which is built upon the expertise and strengths of the local communities, while, at the same time, elevates their goals and expectations through the implementation of standards-based programs and consistent training and support for teachers and school leaders. Economic Conditions. Although gains have been made in the income level of households in Appalachia, the counties in the six state region served by ARSI continue to lag behind both their regional and national counterparts. Appalachian eastern Kentucky, the largest area served by the project, has the greatest disparity with residents earning a third less than the national average. The children of the region, living in high poverty conditions in many cases, are more likely to have serious health and emotional problems which contribute to low self-esteem leading to poor school performance. Educational Conditions. At the outset of the ARSI project, schools and school districts across the Appalachian region were hampered by a lack of “vision of quality mathematics and science programs” which could provide direction for reform efforts. Few school or district policies existed that promoted excellence in science and mathematics and the financial resources needed were limited. None of the participating school districts had a system-wide curriculum in science and mathematics aligned with state and national standards. Professional development was usually district-wide, focused on generic topics, and not related to program improvement in the content areas. Little emphasis was placed on improving teacher skills in their content areas or the specific pedagogy necessary to improve student performance. Support from parents and the community at large was lacking and, in addition, schools made little effort to improve parent and/or community engagement. As a result, a wide gap in student achievement existed between students in the ARSI service region and their respective state averages.

2

I. OVERVIEW OF THE APPALACHIAN RURAL SYSTEMIC INITIATIVE A. The ARSI Model The ARSI Approach. The success of the ARSI model lies in its regional delivery system and its capacity-building strategies. The ARSI-eligible counties are spread throughout Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Now in its seventh year of operation, ARSI is building on significant performance gains and is overcoming many of the challenges it first faced when working with the rural Appalachian school districts in these states. Keys to ARSI’s success include the utilization of:

• Teacher Partners to build district capacity for improving mathematics and science • Resource Collaboratives to establish a broad-based system which facilitates local

planning and decision making, • Leadership Teams consisting of Teacher Partner, ARSI District Liaison, Superintendent,

and a Principal to develop a district plan that supports program improvement, • Program Improvement Reviews that help schools assess their current mathematics and

science programs upon which to base their plan for improvement, and, • Resource convergence for student learning through partnerships with Departments of

Education, Appalachian Technology & Education Consortium, and ACCLAIM (an NSF-funded center for learning and teaching).

Resource Collaboratives. The five Resource Collaboratives strategically located at area universities, spearhead ARSI’s reform efforts. As “field agents”, the Collaboratives facilitate local planning and decision-making while coordinating training for Teacher Partners and direct services to catalyst schools in their region. ARSI’s goal is to embed the functions of the Resource Collaborative within each university so that these sites will continue as centers for science and mathematics education reform beyond the scope of NSF support. Teacher Partners. ARSI has developed a strong network of committed and competent Teacher Partners in participating districts. Teacher Partners have become the primary change agents for reform. In catalyst schools and other schools in their districts, Teacher Partners help other teachers implement standards-based instruction and provide support for curriculum development and selection of resources. Professional Development. The primary strategy for change in schools in the region has been the professional development of mathematics and science teachers. Teachers in area schools now demonstrate attitudes that are consistent with standards-based mathematics and science and more frequently use standards-based practices, inquiry and problem solving. Community Partnerships. Support for ARSI’s vision of high-quality, standards-based programs is widespread and improving steadily among stakeholder groups in the participating districts. ARSI Teacher Partners are active in building community support, which is enhancing understanding and involvement of school math and science programs. Activities that have helped schools reach out to the community include community meetings, family mathematics/science/technology nights, and the use of community, business leaders and parents on community engagement teams.

3

ARSI Leadership Teams. ARSI has consistently utilized a team approach to school reform. The district team consists of the ARSI District Liaison, Teacher Partner, school principals, and the district superintendent. District teams are supported by ARSI Resource Collaboratives located at five universities in the Appalachian region. B. ARSI Scale-Up Activities The principal goal of the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative continues to be accelerating improvements in student performance in science, mathematics, and technology throughout the central Appalachian region. ARSI has established the following strategic goals for Phase II and significant progress has been made toward meeting these goals during Year 7.

• Continued development of the knowledge and skills among K-12 teachers to create effective learning environments in which all students learn mathematics and science and use technology.

• Development of a sustainable system providing students and teachers with timely, coordinated access to educational resources and services that support active, standards-based teaching and learning.

• Enhancement of school leadership, regional partnerships, community involvement, and stakeholder support necessary to sustain long-term educational improvements.

• Documentation of the effectiveness of the ARSI model and how its components support the changes observed in participating schools and districts.

• Development of a research base specifically focused on science and mathematics reform in rural communities.

• Establishment of “centers for science and mathematics education in rural communities” at university sites in the Appalachian region.

ARSI has established a broad-based system that facilitates local planning and decision-making by allowing students, teachers, administrators, and community members’ equitable access to factors critical to achieving the vision of quality mathematics, science, and technology education. As a result of ARSI’s efforts during the first seven years of the project, student achievement has increased in science and mathematics in participating school districts, new and consistent policies increasing the opportunities for and rigor of mathematics and science programs have been enacted, and broad-based support for science and mathematics education has been achieved. These systemic improvements will contribute to the long-range goal of the ARSI project, to prepare a more competitive workforce not bound by its geography. C. Demographics and Current Status of the ARSI Project Sixty-six rural school districts, based on the level of children residing in poverty, were eligible for the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative at the outset of the project in 1996. During the academic year 2001-2002, ARSI had active participation in 36 counties and, during the course of the project, has had some level of involvement in 46 eligible counties in the six-state ARSI region. The school demographics showing the total number of schools, students, and racial distribution is shown in Figure 1.

4

During Year 7, ARSI provided services to 126 schools in 39 school districts with direct support from 56 Teacher partners. 39 districts had one or more Teacher Partners for a total of 46 Teacher Partners released full or part-time for the provision of science and/or mathematics program improvement efforts. ARSI provided program development support for 8 school districts which together had a total of 10 affiliate Teacher Partners. The non-duplicated count of teachers served by the project indicates that 2,404 teachers received direct services from either the ARSI Teacher Partner or ARSI Resource Collaboratives. Teacher Partner and Resource Collaborative logs indicate that more than 54,572 hours of professional service development were provided during Year 7, which would be the equivalent of 9,095 training days. The potential impact on students due to ARSI’s involvement in Central Appalachia is extensive. Considering that each educator has direct contact with at least 25 students, the total number of students impacted by ARSI would exceed 60,000. Figure 1. ARSI school demographics including student racial distribution.

Total Number of Estimated Student Racial Distribution (2)

Schools Math

Teachers Science

Teachers

Students

White African

American Native

American

Asian

Hawaiian

Other Mixed Race

Elem. 167 1,885 1,825 42,988 42,018 360 142 74 8 67 319

Middle 35 160 134 10,465 10,229 88 35 18 2 16 78

High 85 284 259 28,234 27,597 236 93 49 5 44 210

Other (1) 52 347 322 10,881 10,635 91 36 19 2 17 81

Totals 339 2,676 2,540 92,568 97.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7%

(1) “Unit schools” with a different grade distribution than normally configured as

elementary, middle or high schools (2) Based on racial percentage for all ARSI counties on the 2000 U.S. Census.

D. Leadership Development Administrative Leadership. A critical component of each school’s leadership team is the school principal. Principals have direct responsibility for the development and implementation of the curriculum, classroom instructional activities, parent/community engagement efforts, and generally, all factors which impact student learning. In most cases, the school principal is not a mathematics or science major and many have had little experience in school reform initiatives. Also, school principals have a myriad of responsibilities, which often force them to make science and/or mathematics program improvement efforts a low priority. The ARSI Principal Partner project provides a training and support system which has enabled selected principals to become science and mathematics advocates and a resource for other principals in their district. The Principal Partners serve administrators in his/her district in a comparable role as Teacher Partners. Fifteen (15) principals participated in the initial implementation of this project in Year 6. During Year 7, ARSI supported 25 principals in the second phase of this initiative. The selection was voluntary and based on an equitable distribution across districts and the six-state ARSI region.

5

The goal of the Principal Partner project is to build local school district leadership capacity for mathematics and science program improvement by enhancing the knowledge and skills of “leader principals” in each ARSI school district who will in turn provide leadership, training, and support for their peers. The project identified and provided training and support for principals who will provide leadership for mathematics and science program improvement efforts for their own school, as well as for other administrators in their district. Principal Partners participate in regular ARSI training sessions, work with ARSI Resource Collaborative staff in planning district-wide principal training sessions, and support science/mathematics program improvement efforts by assisting other principals in their own buildings. Principal Partners have participated in the following activities:

• Enhanced personal instructional leadership skills and increased knowledge of science and mathematics content and pedagogy.

• Served as a “conduit” between ARSI and principals in their participating school district. • Served as a facilitator at regular meetings which focus on mathematics and science

program improvement. • Assisted in designing training programs for principals. • Assisted with training sessions for other principals. • Served as a mentor to other principals in science and mathematics program improvement

efforts. Teacher Leadership. In addition to ARSI’s overt efforts in leadership development, there has been an “unintended” but equally significant by-product of ARSI’s efforts. Teacher Partners, largely due to the extensive training and opportunities for leadership provided through the ARSI model, have moved to higher-level leadership positions in their school, district, or the region. Figure 2 shows the types of leadership positions former ARSI Teacher Partners are now holding. Twenty-three percent (23/101) of the Teacher Partners have moved to higher, full-time leadership positions at either the local district, region, or state level. ARSI Teacher Partners have assumed major roles in state curriculum development efforts, have served in elected leadership positions in mathematics or science teacher organizations, and have become proficient in writing grant proposals resulting in additional funds of science and mathematics program reform efforts. In addition, seven Teacher Partners are pursuing advanced degrees in mathematics or science education. Figure 2. Comparative numbers of Teacher Partners who have moved into other leadership positions in education at the local, regional, or state level.

Types of Leadership Positions Teacher Partners Have Assumed

Number of Teacher Partners

1998-2001

Regional

Service Center M/S Consultant

Principal

District Level

Coordinator

State

Teacher Leader

LSC

Project Director

91

7

10

3

2

1

6

E. Professional Development A primary vehicle for science and mathematics program reform in the ARSI districts is professional development. Driving this vehicle is the ARSI teacher partner, a highly skilled mathematics or science educator selected by the catalyst school. During the Phase I (first five years) of the project, teacher partners focused primarily on their own classroom and school (catalyst school). During Phase II, teacher partners are extending their efforts throughout the district. The number of teacher partners has increased from 21 in the 1996-97 school year to 56 during the 2001-2002 school year. Of this number, 28 were released on a full time basis. An important validation of the value of Teacher Partners to local district mathematics and science reform efforts is the fact that all teacher partners’ salaries were supported to some extent and 10 teacher partners’ salaries were supported entirely with local district funds. In addition, every district provided financial support for the teacher partners to attend ARSI professional development meetings. Resource Collaboratives have conducted monthly training sessions for teacher partners as well as leadership training for principals focusing on mathematics and science program improvement. District liaison and superintendent meetings held semi-annually also helped insure a strong science and mathematics delivery system in ARSI schools. The percentages of time that ARSI Teacher Partners worked in various mathematics or science program improvement activities are shown in the pie graph illustrated in Figure 3. These data indicate that 90% of the Teacher Partner’s time was spent in direct services supporting science and mathematics education reform.

Figure 3. Amount of Time Teacher Partners Spent on Various Activities (2001-2002)

31%

31%

5%

23%

5%5%

Directly work with other educatorsInstructional Materials Acquisition/Planning for Math-Science Program ImprovementConducting staff developmentIncreasing change facilitation skills/knowledge of standards-based instructionARSI Teacher Partner program administrationOther

7

A major focus of ARSI’s professional development during Year 7 has been to help schools know how to better utilize the collaborative inquiry process and data-analysis results for mathematics and science program improvement. This professional development has primarily used two resources: each school’s individual Program Improvement Review and Using Data/Getting Results: A Practical Guide for School Improvement in Mathematics and Science by Nancy Love. The emphasis on data analysis has facilitated both curriculum development and professional growth for teachers in ARSI schools. As a partner with the Appalachian Technology in Education Consortium (ATEC), ARSI teacher partners, other teachers, and Principal Partners participated in professional development that promoted the integration of technology into the mathematics and science curricula. This partnership resulted in a summer institute for teachers, 4 days of training provided by each ARSI Resource Collaborative, IBM’s Forum of School Executives for ARSI Principal Partners, Principal Partners training, and student research projects training. In the student research projects, students collected local data, input data into a regional database, and analyzed local data in light of regional information. Two types of workshops supported these projects. Students and Research by Julia Cothron, Ron Giese, and Richard Rezba was used in workshops for upgrading teachers skills in designing experiments, and workshops were led by the author(s). In the second part of the training, teachers learned about the use of internet-based student research projects. The training emphasized using technology to research topics, input data, analyze data and develop presentations using “Power Point’ and other presentation software. ARSI continued training on selecting high-quality research-based instructional materials, many of which were NSF developed. Reviews were done in the textbook adoption areas to help insure that materials are aligned with both state and national standards districts and resources are unified across the grade levels in the districts. ARSI partnered with the Appalachian Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment, and Instruction in Mathematics (ACCLAIM) to do three-day workshops: Algebra Investigations Using Models. These workshops brought together mathematics professors and high school teachers to learn strategies for implementing a higher-level of standards-based mathematics. During Year 7, further training was provided to Teacher Partners using the Hands-On Virtual Physics Project which focuses on the topics light, heat and temperature. This training is designed to promote an increase in teacher content knowledge in Physics, as well as to provide classroom materials for the teachers to create physics lesions for their students. ARSI sponsored two professional development activities for ARSI District Liaisons. One focused on strategies that K-12 schools can use to reduce college students’ struggles with mathematics and science. The other activity used the ARSI Implementation Dimensions to re-focus local attention on standards-based instruction, curriculum, and instruction. Other important professional development activities conducted by ARSI during Year 7 included the following:

• The UK RC was awarded $250,000 from the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education for providing workshops for teachers in grades 4-12 in ARSI districts in eastern Kentucky. Geometry for All (grades 5-8 and 9-12) and Enhancing Student

8

Learning in Mathematics and Science Through Literature-Based Reading Instruction (grades 4-8) workshops were offered at regional sites.

• The UK RC received $300,000 from the Kentucky Department of Education to provide four one-week academies with follow-up: Elementary Algebra for All, High School Algebra for All, and Elementary Earth Science.

• Kentucky teachers attended a follow-up session to Supporting Appalachian Teachers of Chemistry, in which they received instruction on how to use the TI-83+ and CBLII and how to assist students with collecting, organizing and analyzing data.

• The UT RC sponsored Gateway Biology training institutes, which prepared teachers to increase student performance on the Tennessee Biology exit exam.

• The UT RC hosted workshops sponsored by the Whirlpool Foundation to increase teachers’ content knowledge. Teachers also received materials to help reproduce workshop experiences in the classroom.

• The UT RC Teacher Partners received Marco Polo training. • The MU RC collaborated with the West Virginia Department of Education’s IBM’s

Reinventing Education program and NASA’s IV and V Education Resource Centers to provide professional development on available NASA materials to West Virginia Teacher Partners.

• The UVA’s College at Wise RC and the Center for Teaching Excellence hosted a week-long summer institute. Funding for the $76,000 institute was provided primarily by Eisenhower Development Program funds.

• The UVA’s College at Wise RC also hosted workshops for elementary schools: Math Extravaganza and A Day with Elementary Mathematics. These addressed specific areas of weaknesses identified in Virginia’s Standard of Learning assessments.

• The UVA’s College at Wise RC hosted an Action Research workshop for teachers in the western Virginia region.

• The UVA’s College at Wise RC and Wise County, VA hosted an Environmental Institute for middle/high school teacher/student science teams to encourage place-based science programs in rural communities and to use learning to connect the classrooms with their communities.

• During 2001-02, Ohio districts dealt with textbook adoption and curriculum alignment. To help school districts with this process, the OU Resource Collaborative provided training to the mathematics committees on the newly revised Ohio Mathematics Standards, correlated to “Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.”

Accomplishments/Results.

• Teacher Partners gained strategies, knowledge, and skills on how to collect, analyze, and share data to structure their efforts and time, as well as support implementation of quality standards-based curriculum, instruction and assessment.

• Teacher Partners learned new science/mathematics content and pedagogy to support the modeling, mentoring, and facilitating of standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

• Teacher Partners identified new resources that support the delivery of high quality instruction.

• Teacher Partners learned new methods to delivery quality professional development.

9

• Teacher Partners utilized their leadership skills to scale-up classroom instruction and learning.

• Classroom teachers in ARSI school divisions are seeking professional development to improve their content knowledge as exhibited by their involvement in Saturday workshops and summer institutes sponsored by ARSI. Also, their involvement after schools hours in the Hands-On Virtual Physics project supports the fact teachers are truly interested in improving their own understanding as well as improving their methods of teaching.

• Classroom teachers are demonstrating an increased interest in the use of technology in designing meaningful lesson plans in their science and mathematics classes.

II. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC REFORM A: DRIVER 1: Standards-Based Curriculum Since no participating school district had fully developed and aligned science and mathematics curricula at the outset of the ARSI project, the development and implementation of aligned, standards-based mathematics and science curricula has been a major focus of the project. Resource teachers have participated in curriculum development workshops and ARSI curriculum specialists have provided on-site technical assistance to participating districts. Because of ARSI’s efforts, the vast majority of participating districts have now developed and implemented K-12 science and mathematics curricula aligned with their state’s standards for science and/or mathematics. Because of the emphasis on curriculum development and the identified need for resources to support the revised program, many ARSI school districts are now selecting and purchasing resources consistent with national and state standards. The following chart (Figure 4) compares the level of science and mathematics curricula development and implementation in ARSI Catalyst Schools (Participating Schools by definition) with all schools in the ARSI districts. Prior to ARSI, 29% of the Catalyst Schools reported having an aligned mathematics and/or science curriculum and 31% of the Catalyst Schools reported using instructional resources aligned to this curriculum. As can be seen, these figures have improved dramatically. During Phase II, ARSI’s emphasis is extended to all schools in the participating districts and significant improvements are being made as a result. Figure 4. Comparison of the current level of curriculum implementation in catalyst schools and other schools in participating school districts. Implementation Ratings

% With Aligned Standards-Based

Mathematics Curriculum

% With at Least 1/3 of Teachers Implementing

Math Curriculum

% With Aligned, Standards-Based

Science Curriculum

% With at Least 1/3 of Teachers

Implementing Science Curriculum

ARSI Schools, 2001-02 (N=122)

89.3%

88.5%

95.1%

94.3%

Other Schools in ARSI Districts, 2001-02 (N=247)

92.0%

91.2%

92.0%

92.0%

10

ARSI continues to base its work in participating schools and districts on a comprehensive review or each participating school’s science and mathematics programs using the Program Improvement Review (PIR) process. The PIR provides an assessment of the school’s science and/or mathematics program which is used as the basis for the development of short and long-range reform based on the needs identified. B: DRIVER 2: Policy Changes Consistent Policies. During the seven years of ARSI’s existence, the six ARSI states have developed and adopted state standards, curriculum frameworks, and performance expectations that are based on and consistent with the national mathematics and science standards. The state standards and other requirements form a backdrop that significantly influences local policies and practices. ARSI has worked with the participating districts’ leadership teams in the development of school and district policies which increase mathematics and science learning opportunities for students. Examples of policies designed to increase the vigor and breadth of programs in ARSI districts are: “Requiring algebra as one of three courses in mathematics required for graduation” and “increasing the number of science credits required for graduation.” All catalyst districts have implemented or revised policies to support mathematics and science programs since the outset of the ARSI project. Sample policies instituted during Year 7 in ARSI districts include:

• The superintendent and local school board have passed a policy promoting instructional leadership. This policy mandates that all district administrators spend at least 10 hours per week visiting classrooms and be directly involved in teacher professional development. (Morgan County, OH)

• One-half hour each week is spent with students receiving remediation in all content areas. (Lewis County, KY)

• In order to get approval from site-based council for adoption of science and mathematics materials must be researched based and supported by NSTA, NCTM, AAAS, or NSF. (Lewis County, KY)

• All elementary schools have 4th and 5th grade mathematics and science representatives that meet alternate months with substitutes providing release. (Lincoln County, KY)

• All elementary schools are sending their 6th grade mathematics teachers to meeting monthly with substitutes providing release time. (Lincoln County, KY)

• All middle school mathematics teachers are released one day a month to work on programmatic issues. (Lincoln County, KY)

• Funding from Title II, Title I and ARSI Professional Development funds is being utilized to provide for professional development in grades K-6 during prime time hours. Funds are also being used to pay for the substitutes necessary to allow for this PD to occur. (Johnson County, KY)

• Owsley County, KY, one of the most distressed counties in Appalachia, now requires that 6 of the 24 required PD hours be content specific meaning that if you are a middle school math teacher, 6 out of the 24 hours need to be training in the area of mathematics.

11

C: DRIVER 3: Resource Convergence Convergence of Resources. The districts participating in the ARSI project reside in some of the poorest school districts in the nation. In most cases, schools qualify for “school-wide” Title I assistance and generally have more children receiving free-lunch than not. Although, as would be expected, resources for science and mathematics instruction have been limited, ARSI has coalesced existing significant available resources, services, and support for science and mathematics instruction. Local Title I, Title II, professional development, and Goals 2000 funds have been applied to ARSI mathematics and science program improvement efforts. Figure 5 represents the funding spent on science and mathematics reforms during Year 7 as reported by the ARSI participating districts. These funds support professional development for mathematics and science teachers, as well as are used by participating schools for instructional materials and to support personnel to assist with mathematics and science program improvement. Much of the convergence of resources for mathematics and science is directly attributable to the efforts of the ARSI Resource Collaborative Coordinators who have assisted leadership teams develop stronger school and district improvement plans. Figure 5. Source and amount of funds available for mathematics and science reform efforts in ARSI participating school districts (reported as part of Core Data).

2001-02 Funds

Source of Funds

Total Amount Available to Support District-Level Science/Mathematics

Activities

Total Amount Used to Directly Support ARSI Science/

Mathematics Activities Eisenhower Elementary and Secondary Funds

$583,556

$272,767

Goals 2000 funds (math/science only) 174,833 150,833Other district funds 758,013 273,879Other federal funds 31,500 500Other funds 195,209 66,240Other U.S. Department of Education funds 134,478 50,000Perkins funds (math/science only) 103,088 6,500State funds 2,228,148 180,724Title I funds (math/science only) 5,199,036 864,585Totals $9,407,861 $1,866,028 In addition to funds contributed by the participating school districts, ARSI has been successful in collaborating with regional agencies and has leveraged more than $3.7 million in additional resources for mathematics and science reforms in the region. The Appalachian Regional Commission, Annenberg Foundation, Eisenhower Regional Mathematics/Science Consortium at AEL, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee Departments of Education are some of the partners which have provided additional funds for the ARSI project. Figure 6 shows the funds generated during 2001-02 and during the duration of the ARSI project.

12

Figure 6. Funds for mathematics and science reform generated as a result of ARSI collaborations with other agencies.

Funding Source

2001-02

1996-2001

Total

Annenburg Foundation Rural Challenge Program 759,000 759,000 Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) 355,000 355,000 Ohio Department of Education 90,000 430,000 520,000 Eisenhower Regional Math/Science Consortium 80,000 80,000 State Higher Education Eisenhower Grants 355,737 327,000 682,737 Kentucky Department of Education 444,500 395,000 839,500 Goals 2000 Funds 950,000 950,000 Gear-Up Funds 467,200 437,200 904,400 Tennessee Department of Education 45,000 45,000 Other Mini-Grants 10,700 19,750 30,450 Appalachian Technology Education Consortium (ATEC) 146,222 25,909 172,131 Appalachian Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment and Instruction in Mathematics (ACCLAIM)

182,053

182,053

ARC and Kellogg Foundation (TN) in Appalachian Center for Higher Education 62,000 62,000 Whirpool Foundation 30,000 30,000 Vanderbilt University (TN) 10,000 10,000 Ohio Systemic Initiative-Discovery or Ohio Board of Regents 115,882 91,000 206,882 Appalachian Electric Power (AEP) 12,000 12,000 Totals 1,926,294 3,914,859 5,841,153

D: DRIVER 4: Partnerships Stakeholder Engagement. Securing community support for science and mathematics instructional programs in rural communities is difficult and requires a variety of approaches. Backing for ARSI’s vision of high-quality, standards-based mathematics and science is widespread and has improved steadily among stakeholder groups in the participating districts. Districts are developing and implementing programs that involve communities in the support of standards-based mathematics and science through a variety of means including support for parents assisting students in science fair projects, community meetings to increase involvement in mathematics/science programs, family mathematics/science/technology nights, and use of community/business leaders and parents on community engagement teams. During Year 7, ARSI Teacher Partners were active in building community support for mathematics and science as well. The primary activities included in 2001-02 were presentations to community groups, mathematics/science/technology family night programs, and planning for/utilization of community resources as guest speakers in science or mathematics classrooms and field trip opportunities. Figure 7 shows the relative amount of time Teacher Partners spent on various activities which improved community understanding and involvement in mathematics and science education reforms during the 2000-01 school year.

13

Higher Education Partnerships. ARSI’s major partnerships are with the five institutions of higher education where the ARSI Resource Collaboratives (RC) are located. ARSI has made much progress in institutionalizing these “rural science and mathematics education centers” at each university site. These university relationships provide stability for long-term science and mathematics program support for the rural schools in Appalachia. The Ohio ARSI Collaborative is incorporated into Ohio University’s (OU) College of Education (COE), with whom it has collaborated on Eisenhower grants. The OU ARSI RC Coordinator has assisted the COE by observing mathematics student teachers and by teaching mathematics and science undergraduate methods courses. The Ohio ARSI RC Coordinator has also collaborated with OU’s College of Arts and Science in developing courses that better reflect the national mathematics and science standards for teaching and learning. In Virginia, the ARSI Resource Collaborative is a major component of and the operational model for the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise, with whom it was a partner in an Eisenhower grant in 2002. Virginia school divisions have partnered with ARSI in providing funding to supplement the Eisenhower grant. The Resource Collaborative at the University of Kentucky is a part of its Appalachian Center, and the Tennessee Resource Collaborative is part of the University of Tennessee’s College of Education, Health and Human Sciences and is integrated with a U.S. Department of Education Gear-Up grant and the Tennessee Appalachian Center for Higher Education funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Kellogg Foundation. The West Virginia Collaborative is integrated into the College of Education (COE) at Marshall University (MU) where the Resource Collaborative Coordinator has worked with pre-service

Figure 7: Distribution of Teacher Partner Time Spent On Community Engagement Activities

27%

10%

6%2%2%7%

10%

14%

8%

1%

13% Planned/Conducted Mathematics/Science Night

Planned/Conducted Science Fair

Mathematics/Science Presentation to Community Group

Planning/Conducting Science/Mathematics Student Awards Program With Parents and Community InvitedPlanned/Conducted Mathematics/Science CompetitionWith Parents/Community InvitedParent Meeting to Describe/Explain Science and/orMathematics Student OpportunitiesPlanning for and Utilization of Community Volunteers forMathematics and/or Science PresentationsPlanning for and Utilization of Community Resources forMathematics and/or Science Instruction (Field Trips)Obtain Financial Support for Science/MathematicsPrograms from Community Businesses and AgenciesProduce Press Releases Regarding Science and/orMathematics Activities or AchievementOther

14

teachers during their clinical and student teaching experiences. The COE’s professional staff also often attend the professional development sessions provided for the MU ARSI Teacher Partners. Other Funded Agency Partnerships. During Year 7, ARSI staff collaborated in the planning and development of a NSF Mathematics Science Partnership grant proposal, which was funded at the beginning of Year 8. During Year 7, ARSI was a major partner with two federally-funded projects (ATEC and ACCLAIM). All three of these projects support and extend the ARSI goals for science, mathematics and technology reform in the Appalachian region. The Appalachian Technology in Education Consortium (ATEC) is one of ten national Regional Technology in Education Consortiums funded by the U.S. Department of Education. ATEC serves schools in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee by providing professional development, leadership support and technical services. ARSI is also including schools in Ohio and North Carolina in these support activities. The ATEC goal is to prepare teachers to integrate technology in a way that will deepen students’ learning and to prepare school administrators in strategies that will support this integration. During Year 7 ATEC partnered with ARSI to provide four major types of training: (1) ARSI Principal Partners attended the IBM Forum for School Executives, (2) Technology Leadership Institute for Principal Partners, (3) training through the Resource Collaboratives for ARSI Teacher Partners in how to assist teachers utilize technology in standards-based instruction, and (4) full-implementation of the Student Research Project. ATEC will be funded for four years, and is committed to providing similar support to the ARSI project in the remaining two years of its funding. It is anticipated that financial support for ARSI from the ATEC will exceed $525,000 over the four years of the project. The Appalachian Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment and Instruction in Mathematics (ACCLAIM) project is one of five National Science Foundation-funded Centers for Teaching and Learning. The project has four major components: (1) Increasing the number of persons in the region with advanced degrees in mathematics education; (2) Improving professional development opportunities for middle and high school mathematics teachers; (3) Improving pre-service mathematics teacher education; and, (4) Conducting and distributing research on mathematics education in rural environments. During Year 7 the four ARSI Resource Collaboratives at ACCLAIM-partner universities served as the primary vehicle for delivering professional development for improving mathematics teaching and learning opportunities through this project. Each of these ARSI Resource Collaboratives conducted workshops for area teachers. During the five years of the project, ACCLAIM will provide nearly $1 million for extending ARSI’s professional development opportunities in mathematics as part of the overall commitment to “increase the capacity for mathematics teaching and learning” in the Central Appalachian region. South Fork Local Systemic Initiative. The South Fork Local Systemic Change pilot project is a collaborative effort of ten high-poverty school districts in the Appalachian region of Kentucky and Tennessee, together with universities and science-rich institutions serving the area, to implement a standards-based K-6 elementary science program. This project builds on the positive results from these districts’ participation in the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative and hopefully will result in a comprehensive LSC project in 56 schools serving grades K-6. This

15

project will enhance ARSI’s contribution to creating regional capacity to support and sustain effective science instruction. Regional Partnerships. ARSI continues to maintain linkages with a number of regional partners. These include: the Rural Schools and Community Trust (formerly the Annenberg Rural Challenge), Southwest Virginia Education Consortium, the Appalachian Regional Commission, AEL, the Eisenhower Regional Consortium at AEL, Project CATS, the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Appalachian Electric Power and Ohio’s Coalition of Rural Appalachian Superintendents. State Departments of Education. Partnerships and collaborations with each state’s Department of Education are supporting ARSI’s efforts to assist some of the lowest performing districts improve student achievement in mathematics and science. State Department of Education collaborations have also generated additional funding to support various aspects of the ARSI program, as reported in Figure 6. Other Collaborations. In addition to the instances cited above, collaboration and networking continue to be a means through which Resource Collaboratives provide additional workshop assistance to local schools. ARSI teachers receive training as a result of ARSI Resource Collaborative partnerships with state departments of education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Nuclear Society, the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Program, North Carolina State University, Colorado School of Mines, National Science Teachers Association, and the Western Carolina University, the Ohio Board of Regents, South Regional Professional Development Center and Ohio Systemic Initiative – Discover (OSI-Discovery), Vanderbilt, and Whirlpool. E: DRIVER 5: Student Achievement The ARSI project involves school districts in six central Appalachian states. Student achievement data has been presented both regionally and by state to show the significant improvement in participating schools (catalyst schools). A distinction has also been made between “high implementation” and “lower implementation” schools based on the level of implementation of the tenets of the “ARSI model” for reform. Additional data, using box plots, has also been presented to demonstrate differences in ARSI and non-ARSI school district performance in Kentucky, where the majority of the catalyst schools are located. Aggregating Regional Assessment Results. The state assessment systems are different in the six states that ARSI serves. In addition, the number of schools and students impacted varies dramatically across the region. To account for both differences in assessment systems and participating numbers, the following strategy is utilized to aggregate student assessment results for the region served by ARSI.

• Rather than using mean performance at the school or district, ARSI collects the actual number of students who perform at or above the expected level, as defined by each state. For example, in Kentucky, ARSI uses the number of students performing at the “proficient” or “distinguished” levels on the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS); in West Virginia, ARSI uses the number of students at or above the 50th

16

percentile on the Stanford 9 assessment. By comparing the number of students meeting state expectations with the total number of students assessed, ARSI computes the percentage of students in ARSI schools performing at expected levels in the region.

• Because the districts in the ARSI region historically are among the lowest performing in their respective states, one indicator of progress is to compare the percent of students at expected levels in catalyst schools to the percent of students at expected levels at the statewide level. The state percentages are summed to give the “state performance” figures against which the ARSI catalyst school figures are compared.

• A group of comparison districts in the Appalachian region with similar economic distress and student demographics was selected. The comparison districts selected in each state were comparable in the number or students in the ARSI participating districts in that state. The percent of students meeting state performance expectations was computed in the same manner as the ARSI catalyst schools.

ARSI Regional Assessment Results. Student achievement data for ARSI districts validate the impact of the ARSI model. Figure 8 indicates, based on testing conducted in the 2000 school year, that 91% of all ARSI catalyst schools, as determined through the aggregation of individual state assessment data, show improved student performance in either mathematics or science and 62% show improvement on both. 80% of the catalyst schools show improved performance in math whereas 73% of the schools show improved student achievement in science. High-Implementation Districts. Twenty (of forty) catalyst school districts, utilizing the “ARSI Model,” are rated as high-implementation, and exhibit the following characteristics:

• District and school-level leadership and vision that supports implementation of standards based mathematics and science;

• Highly-skilled Teacher Partner(s) who has provided leadership for school and/or district initiated science and mathematics program reforms including intensive professional development;

Figure 8. ARSI Catalyst Schools Showing Improved Student Performance on State Assessments, pre-ARSI to 2000

62%18%

11%

9%

Both Math & Science Math Only Science Only Neither

17

• Data-driven district and school-level improvement planning for mathematics and science program improvement efforts;

• Mathematics and science curricula aligned to state standards and sequenced across grade levels;

• Majority of teachers utilizing inquiry and/or problem-solving instructional strategies on a regular basis;

• Quality instructional materials aligned with the school’s science and mathematics curricula;

• Technology utilized in the mathematics and science instructional program and available to access resources supporting instruction; and,

• Professional development and leadership training based on both personal and school program improvement needs.

The remaining districts, referred to as lower-implementation, are at various levels of implementation and exhibit some, but not all, of the characteristics identified above. As can be seen in Figure 9, student achievement on the most recent state-wide assessments has improved significantly in all catalyst schools during the seven years of the ARSI project. Although the “high-implementation” schools continue to achieve at a higher level in both mathematics and science, it is noted that all ARSI schools have shown great improvement in science and mathematics validating the “scale-up” activities focusing on growth across all participating districts. Participating State Student Achievement Data Individual state student achievement data, based on scores achieved on each state’s assessment, provides a clear picture that ARSI is making a positive impact across the region. Comparison of ARSI school performance data to the performance of all schools in each state further illustrates

Figure 9. Student Performance in ARSI Region

31%

40%

19%

43%

29%36%

15%

36%33%

44%

22%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Math Pre-ARSI Math 2001 Science Pre-ARSI Science 2001

% st

uden

ts m

eetin

g st

ate

stan

dard

States ARSI Catalyst Schools (all) High-Implementation Schools

18

that ARSI is “closing the gap” with other schools. Again, ARSI High Implementation schools generally show greater improvements in performance than both the state and other participating schools. Ohio. Data for Ohio ARSI schools indicate that there was a difference of 6% between all ARSI schools and the percentage of students across Ohio, which meet the state standard in mathematics, and a 20% difference in science. After 5 years of ARSI participation, the gap for all ARSI schools has been significantly reduced and ARSI students overall have improved more than 47% as compared to approximately 14% improvement in mathematics at the state level. The results in science are even more dramatic as the state percentage improved approximately 7% compared to a more than 100% increase in all ARSI schools. High implementation schools improved by nearly 45% in mathematics and nearly doubled in science. The gap in performance in science, a difference of 30% pre-ARSI has been reduced to approximately 10% for all students and eliminated for students in high-implementation schools. These data are represented in Figure 10. West Virginia. Students in West Virginia are considered “proficient if they score above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9. To determine progress over time, the student assessment data for West Virginia has been aggregated to compare movement of K-12 students from the lower assessment quartiles to the 3rd and 4th quartiles. At the outset of the ARSI project, the participating schools were scoring below the state average in both mathematics and science. The 1996-2001 comparison data show marked improvement in the number of students scoring in the upper percentiles and most important, show that students in ARSI participating schools have not only “closed the gap” but all schools have surpassed the state average in mathematics. Figure 11 shows a comparison of the percentage of students scoring in the 3rd and 4th quartiles from 1996 (pre-ARSI) to the results from the latest testing year (2001) for catalyst schools and the state.

Figure 10. Student Performance in ARSI Region (OH)

54%62% 58%

66%

38%

56%

28%

58%47%

68%

36%

69%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


% st

uden

ts m

eetin

g st

ate

stan

dard

States ARSI Catalyst Schools (all) High-Implementation Schools

t

19

Kentucky. The student assessment data for Kentucky has been aggregated to compare the performance of K-12 mathematics and science students performing at the “proficient” and “distinguished” levels on the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System assessment for ARSI participating schools and the state. The data presented in Figure 12 show that although ARSI schools are still performing below the state average, there has been a significant reduction in the “performance gap.” Kentucky “high implementation” schools have nearly tripled the number of students scoring proficient or higher in mathematics whereas the number of students across the state scoring at this level has increased only a third during this same period. In science, the overall number of students scoring proficient or higher at the state level and ARSI schools scoring at the proficient level or higher have increased dramatically since the outset of the project and the scoring gap percentage continues to decrease.

Figure 11. Student Performance in ARSI Region (WV)

55%

69%

56%63%

47%

70%

46% 50%49%

74%

49% 49%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%


% st

uden

ts m

eetin

g st

ate

stan

dard

State ARSI Catalyst Schools (all) High-Implementation Schools

t

Figure 12. Student Performance in ARSI Region (KY)

22%

30%

4%

34%

19%

26%

3%

28%

13%

32%

2%

30%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%


% st

uden

ts m

eetin

g st

ate

stan

dard

State ARSI Catalyst Schools (all) High-Implementation Schools

20

The following box plots* compare 1999 and 2002 Kentucky 11th grade mathematics scores. The data indicate that there is a pronounced significant difference between the state’s mean score and both the ARSI and ARSI-Eligible but not participating districts in 1999. There were also significant differences in the 2nd quartile scores between ARSI and the not-participating districts in 1999. For example, ARSI districts’ 50th percentile scores were higher than the 75th percentile scores of the not-participating districts. In 2002, both the ARSI and non-participating districts are still significantly below the state mean score, however, scores in both the 2nd and 3rd quartiles of the ARSI districts were significantly higher than those of the not-participating school districts. Figure 13. Box plot comparisons of 1999 and 2002 Kentucky Commonwealth Accountability Testing System 11th Grade Mathematics Scores. *Box plots represent the data in the following way: the center line inside the box is the median or middle score; the right side of the box is the 75th percentile and the left side of the box is the 25th percentile. The box contains 50 percent of the cases. The whiskers cover the remaining 50 percent of the cases with the whisker on the right representing the scores in the top quartile and the whisker on the left representing the scores in the bottom quartile.

32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104

1999

2002

1999

2002

1999

2002

State Results

ARSI Participating

ARSI Non-Participating

Kentucky Academic Index Scores - Mathematics - Grade 11

21

During the 1998-1999 school year, there were significant differences in the scores in science between the state, the ARSI districts, and the non-participating districts. There were significant differences in the 3rd and 4th quartiles between ARSI and the state and significant differences in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartiles between the non-participating districts and the state. Both the ARSI districts and non-participating districts were significantly below the state in all quartile bands in 2002. However, the ARSI districts made larger gains from 1999 to 2002 in both the 3rd and 4th quartiles than either the state of the non-participating districts. In addition, both the 2nd and 4th stanine scores of the ARSI districts were significantly higher than the scores of the non-participating districts. Figure 14. Box plot comparisons of 1999 and 2002 Kentucky Commonwealth Accountability Testing System 11th Grade Science Scores.

Kentucky Academic Index Scores - Science - Grade 11

40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94

1999

2002

1999

2002

1999

2002

State Results

ARSI Participating

ARSI Non-Participating

22

F: DRIVER 6: Student Equity Issues Student equity issues in the ARSI project tend to be centered on “gender” as the region’s demographic data indicates that less than 3% of the students represent a racial minority. Figure 15 compares the distribution of males and females in mathematics courses and indicates their relative performance in both higher and lower level courses. The data indicate that:

• The percent of females enrolled in lower level mathematics classes is consistently slightly higher than males.

• The percent of females enrolled in higher level mathematics classes is significantly higher than males and has increased during the three years monitored.

• The percent of females earning a “C” or higher in all mathematics courses is higher than males and the difference in both higher and lower mathematics courses appears to be getting larger over time.

Figure 15. Male and Female Mathematics Course Enrollment and Achievement in ARSI Schools Based on Core Data in Participating School Districts in Six States. 2000 2001 2002 Enrollment/Achievement Data

(N)

% Females

% Males

(N)

% Females

% Males

(N)

% Females

% Males

Students Enrolled in Lower Level Math Courses

8655

53.1%

46.9%

9347

51.6%

48.4%

8984

51.3%

48.7%

Students Enrolled in Higher Level Math Courses

4268

54.8%

45.2%

5275

56.7%

43.4%

5079

56.1%

43.9%

Students Achieving a “C” or Higher on Lower Level Math Courses

4892

56.8%

43.2%

5599

55.7%

44.3%

6340

54.5%

45.5% Students Achieving a “C” or Higher on Higher Level Math Courses

2675

55.0%

45.0%

3750

58.8%

41.2%

4024

57.5%

42.5% Students Taking Calculus

285

48.1%

51.9%

286

48.6%

51.4%

234

52.9%

47.1%

Students Achieving a “C” or Higher in Calculus

237

47.7%

52.3%

236

47.5%

52.5%

222

55.4%

44.6%

Figure 16 compares the distribution of males and females in science classes and indicates their relative performance in both higher and lower level courses. The data indicate that:

• The percent of females enrolled in lower level science classes is consistently slightly higher than males.

• The percent of females enrolled in higher level science classes is significantly higher than males and has increased significantly, with the exception of physics, during the three years monitored.

• The percent of females earning a “C” or higher in all science courses is significantly higher than males and the difference in both higher and lower science courses and, with the exception of physics, the difference is getting larger over time.

These data support the findings of ARSI during Program Improvement Reviews in which classroom observations show declining numbers of males in higher level mathematics and

23

science classes. These data indicate a need for schools to examine the curriculum, instructional methodologies, course taking patterns, and cultural factors which may be impeding the enrollment and successful completion of science and mathematics courses by males. Figure 16. Male and Female Science Course Enrollment and Achievement in ARSI Schools Based on Core Data in Participating School Districts in Six States. 2000 2001 2002 Enrollment/Achievement Data

(N)

% Females

% Males

(N)

% Females

% Males

(N)

% Females

% Males

Students Enrolled in Lower Level Science Courses

4548

51.4%

48.6%

5109

50.3%

49.7%

3999

50.1%

49.9%

Students Enrolled in Higher Level Science Courses

3538

55.9%

44.1%

4391

57.2%

42.8%

3119

57.7%

42.3%

Students Achieving a “C” or Higher on Lower Level Science Courses

2959

55.0%

45.0%

3254

55.3%

44.7%

2824

55.5%

44.5% Students Achieving a “C” or Higher on Higher Level Science Courses

2385

56.3%

43.7%

2972

58.1%

41.9%

2438

60.0%

40.0% Students Taking Physics

593

44.7%

55.3%

514

50.6%

49.4%

488

47.6%

52.4%

Students Achieving a “C” or Higher in Physics

433

41.8%

58.2%

420

51.2%

48.8%

440

47.5%

52.5%

III. INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL/SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT The following vignettes are a representative sample of schools and school districts which demonstrate the impact of the ARSI project. Boone County, WV (Marshall University Resource Collaborative) The improvement of teacher knowledge in content and pedagogical skills and the development of leadership skills of the math teachers throughout the county are two of the many areas from which Boone County has benefited as a part of the ARSI experience. Through this effort, colleagues have analyzed and developed a plan of action for the improvement of math. The district is now more focused on helping teachers achieve learning goals and providing the support needed both in professional development and also through instructional resources. Through self-assessment, a need for curriculum development and the use of hands-on instruction throughout the entire curriculum has been identified. Through staff development and modeling, math teachers better understand the new standards and how to implement the new curriculum. Math and science teachers also learned to use assessment differently and not rely only on paper-pencil tests. Other types of assessment include projects, rubrics, PowerPoint presentations, and group discussions. One of the many benefits of the implementation of the ARSI project is the significant increases in student performance on standardized tests. Communication among the teachers has increased and more effective uses of instructional technology, learning environments, and assessment strategies have been shared. All math teachers with an email address have been set up on a listserv, allowing quick delivery of

24

pertinent information. The effective use of technology is now seen as a need and as a tool to enhance and customize math learning. The influences of ARSI are like the domino effect, one person makes a positive change, then two, then three. Soon, an entire school has improved curriculum, methods of teaching and evaluation, and attitude. Dickenson County, VA (University of Virginia’s College at Wise Resource Collaborative) ARSI has laid the foundation for reform in science and math education in Dickenson County. Before the introduction to the ARSI project, instruction in Dickenson County schools was strong but very traditional. Little by little, change and reform has taken place, and more detailed reform efforts in science have followed on the heels of the ARSI project. Dickenson County’s first catalyst school was Clintwood Elementary and Middle School (CEMS). With the implementation of the Standards of Learning program in Virginia, the CEMS educators began to look further for the answer to their instructional needs. The school decided to become the catalyst school for the district with the ARSI project and concentrate on reforming their instructional practices. A teacher partner with a math and science background was selected to help direct the school in this new endeavor. Through various monthly trainings, the teacher partner became well versed in inquiry techniques and became the science specialist in inquiry at CEMS. She was able to assist her faculty with new and innovative teaching strategies that made learning and teaching fun resulting in both students and teachers who were excited about science and assisted other schools in the district with staff development activities as well. The acceptance and willingness of the teachers to pursue the training to implement the new curriculum was overwhelmingly successful. Clintwood Elementary, along with the other elementary schools in the district, continue to be heavily involved in math and science reform and the greatest benefit is that student learning is occurring for all students. Lewis County, KY (University of Kentucky Resource Collaborative) Lewis County Schools have been involved with the ARSI project for almost eight years. The district has several initiatives underway that are resulting in improved student achievement in math and science because of this association. Lewis County has two Teacher Partners: one with full-time release who focuses on secondary mathematics and one Regional Teacher Partner with full-time release who focuses on secondary science. These teachers have received exceptional training experiences, developed their leadership skills, and established a math/science cadre with representation from every school in the district. Through the math/science cadre, the district is beginning to develop leadership capacity in all schools. Cadre members have received in-depth training, and acted as pilot teachers and work together as a study group. ARSI’s impact has been systemic: policy changes have occurred and leadership has become more knowledgeable about quality math and science instruction allowing them to better support or initiate needed changes in the classrooms. Teachers have taken on leadership roles within their schools and the district. Student achievement in math and science is steadily improving in all schools; science and mathematics scores are either above or within tenths of a point of state means. This is quite an accomplishment considering the poverty and prevailing apathetic attitude towards education of our community.

25

Added value to the district has included outstanding consultants, standards-based materials, best practices for instruction, program changes, curriculum revisions, equipment, materials, and numerous opportunities for personnel and students. As a result, on about any given day in the district, students will be receiving instruction and using tools to do more powerful math and science. “There is not another partnership, collaboration, or initiative that the district has engaged in that has had the positive impact of ARSI.” Rowan County, KY (University of Kentucky Resource Collaborative) ARSI has enabled the Rowan County school district to impact students at all levels in the area of math and science. First, Rowan County has aligned its K-12 math and science curriculum with national and state standards, involving teachers at all levels. Because of the excellent training and leadership given to the district in the area of math and science. The district now sees the need to continue this work in other content areas as well. The curriculum work through ARSI has become the model for work in other content areas. Second, the training and resources Teacher Partners have received through ARSI have provided the district with the latest, BEST teaching strategies. In turn, Teacher Partners have shared these strategies, training, and materials with others in the district, along with on-going support. Because this training is ongoing, participation has been 100%. The ARSI Resource Collaborative has also provided model leadership training. Teacher Partners have been trained to analyze district test data and to share the analysis and strategies on how to improve student achievement with the administration. This training provided Teacher Partners with the necessary skills and confidence to facilitate faculty meetings and to share in administrative meetings. This type of collaboration is helping the district realize the importance of using Teacher Partners in the role of changes agents. “It has been exciting to see the changes ARSI has helped to bring about in the Rowan County district over the past years! We’ve been proud to call ourselves an ARSI District and ARSI Teacher Partners.” One Teacher Partner’s Story, Logan County, WV (Marshall University Resource Collaborative) When I first became an ARSI Teacher Partner, I thought that ARSI had been created just for me but it was created for the children of the six Appalachian states it serves. Here was a chance for me to spread my wings beyond my own classroom. I could offer teachers help with math and science standards based instruction. The teachers at my school were happy to have me come into their classroom and share lessons with their students. After a while, they began to see me as a resource who could help them prepare their own exciting lessons. I began to see them using the ideas I had modeled, and they began sharing lessons they had found with me. Our school had a Program Improvement Review in both science and mathematics. What an eye opener to have an objective look at classroom instruction! We used the PIR report to allocate resources and to help us write our School-wide Title I Plan and our USIP. Our school has added a one-half time Title I math teacher to assist our third and fourth grade students.

26

As a TP, I was able to recommend materials for our school to purchase. With funding from our Title I program, we purchased thousands of dollars of materials for our students. Now that I am a half-time Title I math teacher, the shopping continues. I met with the teachers I serve. We evaluated our SAT 9 data and made decisions about what we needed to purchase. A resource library for our teachers has been established with manipulatives, resource books and trade books for teachers to use in their classrooms. I have done extensive research on the Internet to find lessons that meet our WV Instructional Goals and Objectives which are compiled in binders for teachers to borrow. One of the best things about it is that I have been able to invite teachers from my Focus Schools to the trainings. I have also become more literate in technology – computers, calculators, GPS, and soon to be Palm Pilot. One of the best ways I have found to spread the ARSI message is to do Professional Development sessions for my county. I have had as many as 48 teachers attend sessions where they learn to do standards based math and/or science with their students. ARSI has provided funding to do these PD sessions. That has made it possible for me to introduce teachers to materials they otherwise would not have had access to. Teachers began writing grants to get science and math materials. In one year, eleven of our teachers received mini-grants from The Education Alliance. Teachers who had not liked teaching science before were now hooked. More teachers have also become involved in the state science and math conferences. Our participation in math field day competition has grown. And we have produced state level winners. It is impossible for me to walk down the halls of my school and not see the ARSI influence. Bulletin board displays proclaim math and science topics. Teachers stop me to share what they are doing with their students. It makes me feel good to know that our students are benefiting from high quality math and science instruction. In 2002 Logan Elementary was chosen as a West Virginia School of Excellence (SOE). I know that being an ARSI school contributed to that. The interviewer for the SOE process spent a lengthy amount of time asking me about ARSI. When she was finished, she told me she wanted ARSI for her school. IV. STATUS OF THE ARSI MASTER TEACHER PROJECT The ARSI Master Teacher Project was established to enhance regional leadership capacity for science and mathematics program reform in rural Appalachia and to provide intensive support in school districts that have ARSI Teacher Partners and are approaching full ARSI implementation. During the portion of its first year covered in this report (through August 31, 2002) the Master Teacher Project has accomplished the following: Selection of Master Teacher Cadre. Five master teachers, known in the project as Regional Teacher Partners (RTPs) were selected by a rigorous application and review process. Each of the five has demonstrated excellence as a classroom teacher and effectiveness as an ARSI Teacher Partner. They are strong local leaders who also have a desire for impact in the broader ARSI region. As a group, they represent the range of grade level and disciplinary expertise desired by

27

the project – both elementary and secondary, both mathematics and science. Their home districts have agreed to release them full-time for two years (August, 2002 through August, 2004) to serve in this project. Baseline data was gathered from the RTPs using a variety of means, including a leadership skills inventory, the ARSI Teacher Partner Profile inventory, and narrative responses to items addressing their vision of mathematics and science teaching, their vision of leadership, their perceptions of the RTP role, and their perceptions of the assets and weaknesses they currently possess. The data have been used for two purposes: establishing an initial picture of the RTPs against which to compare subsequent data as they evolve in their roles; and identifying issues to address in planning for their ongoing professional growth at RTPs. Based on the initial data, the MT Project evaluator reports the following characteristics of the RTP cadre:

• The RTPs are consistent in the vision they express for mathematics and science teaching. This shared vision is well-aligned with that promoted by ARSI.

• The RTPs recognize that they are considered leaders, and in fact demonstrate characteristics of effective leadership. However, they also feel that they have much to learn about leading and supporting change outside their home districts.

• The RTPs are strong examples of reflective practitioners, committed to examining their beliefs and practices, seeking out new information and perspectives, and continually improving their knowledge and skills.

• Each RTP has experience and expertise to contribute to the group as a whole. Together, they bring a variety of knowledge, interests, and resources that no individual has alone.

Preparation for the RTP Role. Professional development for RTPs has two components: joint activities to build a common core of knowledge and skills and strengthen the team relationships; and individual activities to address particular areas of interest and need expressed by each RTP. From March through August, 2002, the RTP group participated in 12 days of joint professional development activities, the majority in multiple-day sessions. Joint professional development addressed the following areas:

• Leadership and the skills of effective leaders. This work has centered around materials from John Maxwell, nationally-recognized for his work with leaders in the public and private sectors. Arising from this portion of the professional development (which has extended over several sessions), each RTP has identified specific aspects of leadership as objectives for personal study and growth.

• Characteristics of standards-based curricula. Through their work as ARSI Teacher Partners, the RTPs are well-grounded in the vision of standards-based teaching and learning. However, since they come from a variety of backgrounds – elementary and secondary, mathematics and science – the project has worked to ensure they also share common understanding of the essential features of standards-based curricula.

• Change facilitation. Using the resource books Building Leadership Capacity in Schools and Changing the Classroom from Within, the RTPs are developing their

28

skills in working with school-based teams to improve programs and enhance instruction. They have also begun receiving specific training in group facilitation skills.

• Using data for program improvement. RTPs are building their skills in data collection and analysis, utilizing resources from Using Data, Getting Results and Richard Sagor’s publications on Action Research. Each RTP has developed an Action Research question to investigate in their school-based work in the coming academic year.

• Innovative technology. The RTPs received training on using the IMMEX system as a learning tool for engaging teachers and students with rich science and mathematics problem situations.

• Defining the work of the RTP. The RTP group and project staff have worked closely together to refine and clarify the role expectations for RTPs, the nature of the work they are to undertake in the schools, and the indicators that will be used to report their progress.

Individual Professional Growth.

• Each RTP has identified and entered into a learning contract with a University mentor to further develop their knowledge in a particular area. For example, an RTP who has been a successful high school mathematics teacher is working with a university mathematics educator to learn about the content and pedagogy appropriate at the elementary level; another RTP who has an elementary science background is enhancing her physics content knowledge with help from two university physics professors who developed a CD-ROM based program. The RTP and mentor have developed and agreed upon particular learning goals and have devised a year-long plan of activities to achieve the goals.

• Each RTP has identified a specific area (e.g., brain-based learning, inquiry, technology) for concentrated study through individual reading and attending outside professional development. For example, two RTPs will be attending Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry sessions during 2003, as part of their focus on inquiry-based teaching.

The result of the joint and individual professional development will be RTPs well-grounded in their content knowledge and with the skills to work effectively with school staffs on program and classroom improvements. RTP Work in ARSI Districts. The RTPs are scheduled to begin their work with schools in the 2002-03 school year. Their time will be divided between working with a “focus school” in their home district and with a “focus school” in each of two other districts in the ARSI region. To date, the following activities have taken place:

• Project staff have met with the leadership team (RTP, principal, key mathematics and science teachers) from each of the RTP home district focal schools. The teams have articulated their vision and goals for the mathematics and/or science programs; and developed a plan for how to utilize the RTP in realizing their goals.

29

• A “request for proposals” was developed and sent to other ARSI districts soliciting proposals to have an RTP work with one of their schools.

Selection of the “outside” districts for RTPs has not yet been completed. In the focal schools in their home districts, RTP local work is expected to have direct impact 5 schools, 36 elementary teachers, 17 middle and high school teachers, and 2,900 students. V. LESSONS LEARNED AND REMAINING CHALLENGES ARSI has made significant strides in the first seven years, however, the region is large, the challenges difficult and much remains to be accomplished. In addition to the magnitude of the region served, the number and isolation of the districts has taxed both personnel and financial resources. The ARSI districts began at varying stages of development and readiness, and have required significantly different approaches and levels of support to forge a “regional systemic reform effort.” The challenges of working in communities in a region steeped in local traditions and values are ongoing and require an understanding of the “rural Appalachian culture” by all partners working in the reform initiative. ARSI now has many assets in place in the region which were non-existent seven years ago. There is a network of committed and competent teacher leaders; administrators recognize program improvement needs and are willing to work with other school and district leaders to achieve higher performance in mathematics and science; Resource Collaboratives are now strategically located at universities in the region and have established long-term and productive relationships with the ARSI districts; and, most importantly, the overall “capacity for reform” in the region has been greatly enhanced through the ARSI project. Some of the “Lessons Learned” in past years, that have shaped the development of the ARSI Project during Year 7, includes the following:

• Understanding and use of data is critical to the success of school improvement efforts. ARSI participating schools continue to utilize the results of a comprehensive school review process (Program Improvement Review) to establish needs which are addressed through the school improvement plan. These data are used to guide the work of ARSI in individual schools.

• Support for mathematics and science reform should be based on district readiness, willingness to reform, and current level of performance. School and district assessments determine the level of need and ability of school districts to embrace reform initiatives. School districts participating in the ARSI project develop individual improvement plans based both on need and capacity to implement the specific strategies available through the project.

• Efforts to increase community engagement must be integrated with other district mathematics and science education reform efforts to be effective. ARSI parent and community engagement activities are fully integrated into reform efforts at both the school and district level.

• Implementation of technology into the instructional program continues to be an area of need for all rural schools in the Appalachian region. Teachers need much assistance in how to better utilize this tool on a regular basis in their classrooms.

30

Technology can be successfully integrated in science and mathematics instruction leading to higher level student performance only if teachers have a clear understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and mathematics problem solving and appropriate pedagogy for increasing student learning. Professional development is a major initiative for ARSI. K-12 teachers learn inquiry, problem solving, and technology skills through the work of Teacher Partners as well as broad-based workshops provided by the ARSI Resource Collaboratives.

• It is critical that reform efforts be institutionalized so that the gains which have been made in improving science and mathematics instructional programs can be sustained. Focus on “individual teacher improvement is not enough to sustain improvement in rural districts. Reform initiatives must be “imbedded” into the programs of the universities which currently house the Resource Collaboratives to provide a support system which will sustain the progress made in these rural districts.

• Shared leadership is vital to reforms in rural areas. Districts, in which there is a viable leadership team, have been able to sustain reform efforts and have shown more consistent improvement than districts in which leadership is dispersed or located in one or two individuals. School district climate and impetus for systemic growth is extremely fragile. Districts that seem to be well on their way to making reform work, can and do lose this impetus when key personnel are removed from the picture or support funding is taken away.

• Administrative support is key to the change process. School principals must be “brought on board” and kept informed if science and/or mathematics education reform is established and continued. The ARSI Principal Partner effort is designed to provide principals leadership training in mathematics and science as well as tools for program improvement efforts.

SUMMARY More than ever before, the future prosperity of rural communities across the nation is dependent upon highly educated, mathematically and scientifically literate population. The collaborative involvement of all stakeholders in ARSI participating school districts has enabled schools to “close the gap in student achievement” and build the capacity for leadership resulting in increased student learning in science and mathematics. The ARSI project has framed a successful and ongoing reform strategy not only effective in Appalachia, but can be effective for improving mathematics and science educational opportunities in high poverty, rural environments across the country.

Documents

Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative · isolated and poverty-laden school districts in Appalachia and wealthier, more advantaged regions of the states served. The participating districts’