1. Faculty Engagement in Partnership Work Nancy S. Shapiro University System of Maryland AACU 2007

2. Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 (VIP K-16)  $7.5-million, 5-year Math and Science Partnership grant of the National Science Foundation.  Designed to bring inquiry science instruction to high- school and university students. Partners include:  1 public school system, 1 community college, and 7 USM IHEs  Goals:  Develop a sustainable learning community  Enrich science teacher knowledge  Engage college faculty in enriching their teaching and pedagogy

3. VIP K-16 Activities Involving IHE Faculty Course Redesign Summer internships for HS teachers to work with IHE faculty Professional learning communities Dissemination of their results to the P-16 Community

4. VIP K-16 Challenges to Faculty Engagement Different cultures among schools and universities Geography- distance between institutions and school system Little knowledge of educational research among Master Science Teachers, faculty fellows, and project staff Systemic barriers to change instructional practices “Publish or perish”-strong pressure to do research

5. CASHÉ: Change and Sustainability in Higher Education A three-year study that seeks to document curriculum transformation, faculty engagement, and sustainable change among higher education institutions involved in NSF Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Projects.

6. CASHÉ: Goals Discover how MSPs have changed undergraduate STEM education and teacher preparation at participating higher education institutions. Identify what strategies MSPs have used to engage faculty in these change initiatives Assess the impact (if any) that MSPs have had on campus culture, policies, and priorities in such areas as hiring, promotion and tenure, faculty advancement, faculty development, and rewards structures

7. Breakout Questions Primary Questions: 1.How do faculty communities view partnerships with the K-12 community? Are they programs of scholarship or community service? 2.What types of models and incentives is your institution using to encourage and reward higher education faculty involvement in P-16 initiatives? a.Which appear to be the most effective in terms of numbers of faculty involved and depth of engagement and participation?

8. Breakout Questions Secondary Questions: 3.To what extent has your institution created or adopted some form of the "community of practice" model to engage higher education faculty in P-16 activities? a.How are these communities structured and defined? b.How do these communities contribute to and support broader institutional objectives? 4.Have faculty in certain disciplines at your institution been able to make more headway than others through their involvement in P-16 initiatives? a. If so, what internal and external factors account for these differences? 5.What is it that you have seen that may make you draw a conclusion (or not) that involvement in P-16 transforms faculty into more reflective practitioners (beyond more immediate outcomes that may include increased awareness, increased knowledge, changed pedagogy, etc.)? a.What types of engagement foster such developments?