1. The Science and Mathematics Teacher Imperative SHEEO August 12, 2010 Howard Gobstein Co-director, SMTI Executive Officer and Vice President

2. Overview National context What’s the Problem? How SMTI attempts to address this for universities States and regions – the real action Key challenges

3. NOW is the best opportunity in at least a generation to address needs in STEM education … and… Also the most critical time

4. Swirl of National Activity NGA/CCSSO/Achieve – common core standards Data Quality Campaign, NMSI, Wilson, TfA, MfA, PTEC Foundations, industry incl: Change the Equation, Business Higher Education Forum federal government: President’s interest, Race, Innovation, NSF CCSSO and SHEEO Actually MET TOGETHER!!!

5. Economic studies conducted even before the information-technology revolution have shown that as much as 85% of measured growth in US income per capita was due to technological change. …(we are) deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. Improve K–12 science and mathematics education Recommendation #1: Annually recruit 10,000 science and math teachers The problem?

6. The Problem - refined We found some 500 discernible M/S teacher preparation programs across APLU campuses, with support from myriad sources “Despite all the studies, initiatives and projects over the last several decades, we have hardly moved the dial” – Nancy Zimpher, 2006 (then president, University of Cincinnati, now Chancellor, SUNY)

7. ‘[it’s akin to] hundreds of pilot lights across the country … Tom Luce, National Math-Science Initiative (NMSI)

8. How do we know …? “…the surprising discovery and further confirmation that there was no comprehensive source of information about effective programs and practices to prepare and develop science and mathematics teachers or STEM teachers more broadly.” Charles Coble

9. What’s Missing in S/M Teacher Preparation Programs? Common definition of quality Limited benchmarking or sharing of programs Insufficient institutional leadership and commitment Link with regional and state efforts

10. Universities Need to Leverage: Collective action from national consensus by leading universities on direction and definition of effort University leadership in concert with key faculty, particularly from science and math disciplines National (and state) momentum based on some common metric and framing of approaches Extensive cross pollination across existing initiatives Partnerships with education, state and regional governments, business Rationale for a Different Approach

11. Substantially increase the number and diversity of high quality mathematics and science teachers in middle and high schools Identify the immediate and longer term needs for science and mathematics teachers in states Build partnerships among universities, community colleges, school systems, state government and other stakeholders to address statewide needs for teachers on a sustained basis APLU Institutional Commitment to the Science and Mathematics Teacher Imperative

12. APLU Institutions in The Leadership Collaborative APLU Institutions committing to the Teacher Imperative SMTI U NIVERSITIES IN 43 STATES AND COUNTING … as of July 7, 2010

13. January 6, 2010: President Obama greets University System of Maryland Chancellor President William Kirwan, (center), University of Kansas Chancellor Bernadette Gray- Little (right), and University of Colorado at Boulder Chancellor Philip DiStefano (left). MEDIA CREDIT: AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

14. 1 st Galvanize university leadership 2 nd Establish robust research, innovation and sharing culture to enhance science and math teacher preparation within institutions, including critical role of disciplinary faculty 3 rd Determine state needs for secondary science and math teachers 4 th Team-up with selected national and regional partners 5 th Facilitate state and federal fiscal and policy support 5-Prong Strategy…

15. A “taxonomic” tool to systematically identify and compare leading practices and specific program attributes employed by universities and their partnering school systems to: –benchmark their own programs, –stimulate program innovation –enhance communication and sharing across the community and –assess progress in recruitment, pedagogical and content- knowledge instruction, clinical & field experiences, induction, professional development, linked to policies and program outcomes. The Analytic Framework

16. 1.Redesigned locally, such as UC-Boulder  Students have strong record of academic performance  Increased disciplinary faculty ownership  Altering promotion/tenure decisions  Making teaching OK for physical sciences majors  Learning Assistants (LAs) as a major recruitment strategy 2.Replication of UTeach spear-headed by UT-Austin/NMSI  Students have strong record of academic performance  Science dean leadership in teacher preparation  Discipline-based early field experiences  Making teaching OK for physical sciences majors  Alignment with “New Tech” high schools Early Reflections: Interesting Models Are Out There

17. Improving State Need Assessments of Science and Mathematics Teachers A guide for developing or evaluating estimates of the need 4 principal objectives: 1.To help states assess the adequacy of their current science and mathematics teacher workforce – both in number and quality 2.To give practical guidance to states and institutions in their efforts to develop reliable future need projections 3.To provide examples and resources that state and university officials can draw upon 4.To discuss the practical and theoretical challenges to improving projections of teacher supply and demand http://state-needs.teacher-imperative.com

18. The Center uses five phases to transform conventional schools into high- achieving, interactive learning communities: Phase I - Leaders Learning: Develops principals and superintendents to lead systemic change and technology integration in their schools and districts. Phase II - Whole-School Learning: Supports Phase I leaders by focusing on teachers, parents, and community leaders empowerment in creating technology-rich learning communities designed to enhance student success. Phase III - Teacher Learning: Creates in-depth authentic research and learning experiences for teachers in content areas Phase IV - Student Learning: Creates innovative learning strategies, such as Digital Game-Based Learning, to encourage students to be involved in their own learning. Phase V - University: Creates connections and collaborations to support learning beyond high school. http://k20center.ou.edu/ A statewide education research and development center which promotes innovative learning through school-university-community collaboration.

19. http://p20lab.org/

20. www.osln.org

21. Recap Intense national need; incredible attention Problem is not just how many – how do we know what works? SMTI university-centric approach, working out into partnerships State-wide efforts are critical, across institutions and across sectors

22. Challenges Defining effective teachers and their preparation in science and math – in both particular disciplines and with broad field expertise Developing potential for sharing of teacher expertise across urban and rural schools Incorporating effectively this STEM-specific initiative with broader state efforts in education Learning/sharing/stimulating with other states

23. Challenges -- 2 Aligning state standards and data with those of other states and with common core standards Engaging industry and other critical state leaders Learning/incorporating new school models such as New Tech High with their transdisciplinary/technology intensive learning environments

24. Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States; National Research Council summary: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12882.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12882.html

25. Measuring What Matters A Stronger Accountability Model for Teacher Education Edward Crowe July 2010 www.americanprogress.org

26. Contact Us SMTI Co-directors: Charles Coble -- ccoble@thirdmilegroup.comccoble@thirdmilegroup.com Howard Gobstein -- hgobstein@aplu.orghgobstein@aplu.org APLU Director, Science and Education Policy Jennifer Presley – jpresley@aplu.orgjpresley@aplu.org Lead on Assessing State Needs for Science/math Teachers Michael Allen -- mallen@allened.commallen@allened.com www.teacher-imperative.org