If We Build It, Will They Come? The Case for Structural Change to Support STEM Education Reform Association of American Colleges & Universities Annual Meeting January 25, 2008 Nancy Shapiro & Jennifer Frank University System of Maryland

Polling Questions  Have you worked with K-12 teachers or students in the past year? Ever? Do you know if any faculty on your campus do? How do you know? Who are they?  What structures or policies exist on your campuses that support any of the following: faculty work in K-12 schools? cross-disciplinary collaboration? support for improving undergraduate teaching?

An Agenda for Higher Education  How are higher education institutions responding to the push for greater accountability for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) teaching and learning outcomes? K-12 student achievement K-12 teacher preparation Undergraduate and graduate education Workforce issues

Emerging Context for Change Higher Education and K-12 Reform Issues  Seamlessness  Social responsibility The Crisis of Competitiveness and Innovation  A Nation at Risk  Rising Above the Gathering Storm 10,000 Teachers/10 Million Minds 2005: 60% of 4 th and 8 th graders scored below proficient in mathematics 2003: U.S. ranked 24/40 nations in math literacy and problem solving

Emerging Context for Change (continued) Accountability in K-12 and Higher Education NCLB (2000) was a public policy response to the demand for accountability in public schools—and initiated an avalanche of controversy. Spellings Commission (2006) is a public policy response to the demand for accountability in higher education—what do we expect will happen? National Response AAAS, NAS, NGA, NMSI, MSP, SMTI, TQE Example of Local Response: University System of Maryland Recent poll of 7 USM institutions yielded 30+ active STEM-related partnership programs with K-12 teachers and students MSP solicitation in 2002 versus MSP solicitation in 2008 State enhancement funding for STEM Regents’ STEM Initiative

One Response: NSF’s Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) Program 52 Partnership Projects (comprehensive, targeted, and institute) Five Key Features: Partnership-driven Teacher quantity, quality, and diversity Challenging courses and curricula Evidence-based design and outcomes Institutional change and sustainability USM’s Involvement: VIP K-16 and CASHÉ

Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 (VIP K-16)  Five-year, $7.8 million MSP grant from NSF  Designed to bring inquiry science instruction to high school and university students  Partners: University of Maryland, College Park; University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Towson University; University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute; Maryland Sea Grant College; Montgomery College; Montgomery County Public Schools Key Components  Extensive professional development for 350 high school teachers focused on inquiry instruction, new curriculum guides, and aligned assessments  Research experiences for teachers, with ongoing support for bringing real scientific inquiry to the classroom  Classroom internships for undergraduate science majors, who are partnered with high school science teachers  Graduate teaching assistant training programs in university science departments  Faculty learning communities in which faculty team up (often with K-12 teachers) to redesign instruction

CASHÉ: Change and Sustainability in Higher Education A study that seeks to document sustainable change among higher education institutions involved in National Science Foundation (NSF) Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Projects.

CASHÉ: Change and Sustainability in Higher Education Three-year supplemental research grant to study the impact of Math and Science Partnership (MSP) involvement among participating colleges and universities Methods of inquiry: project data analysis, surveys, interviews, site visits, meeting documentation, panel of experts (advisory board) Focus Questions 1) What impact have MSPs had on campus culture, policies, and priorities among participating higher education institutions as related to the goals of MSP? 2) What body of evidence supports that changes have occurred? 3) To what extent are these developments institutionally sustainable beyond the life of these grants? 4) How can institutions of higher education, disciplinary associations, and government agencies ensure that the best of these changes and innovations endure and become part of the campus culture?

CASHÉ: Change and Sustainability in Higher Education Role of Institutional Leadership  Importance of top-down support and endorsement (president, provost, dean, department chair) with bottom-up grassroots leadership  Impact of project prestige and visibility on campus  Clear and consistent messages; risk-aversion Faculty Engagement  Many have a personal interest and investment (e.g., child in school system)  Shared sense of responsibility in the future STEM pipeline  Importance of providing a “line” into K-12 schools  Importance of identifying specific roles in projects for faculty  Importance of engaging a critical mass of faculty

CASHÉ: Change and Sustainability in Higher Education Faculty Rewards Systems  Involvement for the most part is seen as outreach and service, rarely as scholarship  Recognition of research/publications in STEM teaching and learning has been an ongoing challenge  Uneven progress for reconsidering rewards systems for faculty who engage in this work  Many faculty view these developments with skepticism Unintended Consequences for Higher Education  Many faculty and institutions originally come to the table to “help reform” K-12, and end up looking at themselves in the process

CASHÉ: Change and Sustainability in Higher Education Some Evidence for Infrastructure Change  Many MSP institutions have developed new structures and infrastructures to help them build further capacity to respond to STEM P-20 issues Centers for STEM Teaching and Learning Offices for K-12 Outreach and Partnerships Joint appointments for faculty Education faculty in STEM departments; STEM faculty in education departments Interdisciplinary programs Measuring Outcomes and Sustainability  Tangible changes (courses, programs, structures, policies, hires)  Role of personal relationships and networks

Collaboration on Teaching Strategies Among VIP K-16 Participants Connections before VIP: 194Connections after 3 years: 711

“Vertical” Networks for Teaching Strategies Collaborations between Higher-Education and High-school teachers Connections before VIP: 19Connections after 3 years: 184

Conclusion and Discussion To what extent do these findings and observations fit with your own experiences on campus? What changes need to occur at individual, institutional, and policy levels in higher education to move the P-20 STEM teaching and learning agenda forward?