| Home | Return to Poster | Discuss This Poster | Poster Presentation Full Text: Preserving ASSET through a Shared Vision of Continuous Improvement in Teaching Quality: From an emphasis on hands-on to inquiry Poster presentations are composed in four parts: Original goals for project sustainability under ideal conditions Reflections on these goals from the end of the project funding cycle Suggestions for projects starting out; or, how we might have done things differently Questions for other project's staff to reply to

Original goals for project sustainability under ideal conditions

We achieved our first goal of getting hands-on materials into classrooms. ASSET Inc, founded by Bayer Corporation in 1994, piloted the comprehensive program for systemic reform that we learned from the National Science Resources Center in two school districts in Allegheny County. By 1995, we were delivering STC (Science and Technology for Children) and FOSS (Full Option Science System) materials to 1,020 teachers in 16 school districts, by 2001 to classrooms in 69 school districts. Use estimates are at 95%.

In those early days, I hoped that our university and informal science partners would adopt coordination of professional development, but it turns out that while we work closely with partners, districts look to ASSET for professional development because teacher leaders conduct all sessions. Our learning curve on what was needed to support the improvement in teaching quality was steep. We came to understand the impact of inquiry from the Institute for Inquiry at the Exploratorium, and only yesterday at the final session of a study group on inquiry, do we have concrete evidence that teachers are changing their practice.

Aligned assessment of student learning was assumed and has been a component of professional development. However, using performance-based assessment requires a radically different approach, which needed to be learned first.

In the past year, we have come to realize that mechanisms for continuous improvement for teaching need to be continued and hoped districts would share our vision and pay the necessary fee to continue these efforts. Reform takes longer than five years. We've only set the stage.

Partners of all kinds have been and continue to be critical. We all believe that "a closed system can't regenerate," but we know we are countering the tendency to isolation in the classroom and in the school and in the district all the time.

( BACK TO POSTER | BACK TO TOP )

Reflections on these goals from the end of the project funding cycle

Nothing is impossible if we keep student learning as the focus. School districts, community groups, and local business and family foundations have been amazed by what we have accomplished. We have established the following:

• We have seen the effects of the "addiction model." Districts, teachers, and students want to teach and learn science the hands-on, inquiry-based way. Therefore, the need for materials refurbishment and supply has become an addiction that districts are now willing to pay for.

• Teacher leaders are the most effective change agents.

• Ongoing professional development as a new model (we now have a professional development catalog), and an evolving Center for Inquiry, are the means to simultaneously promote and support teaching quality

• An Inquiry Science Endorsement process and alignment with the Principals Academy are our most effective university partnerships.

• Mutually beneficial partnerships, such as those with our founding partner, Bayer, bring incredible rewards and add clout to the reform agenda

• A new fee structure offers 4 different levels of memberships that bundle materials, professional development, and the university partnerships, depending on the level of district involvement. Thirty-three school districts have made commitments (three more than in the NSF project!) for next year. We thank Roberta Jaffe of the California LASERS project for heading us in the right direction on the fee structure! Through the fee structure and its price list of products and services, we have become an organization based on fee for service rather than on grant funding. We fully expect that in another two years we will generate enough revenue through fees to sustain the project. We're seeking corporate funding to provide support for continuous improvement, or R & D.

The external assessment required under the core evaluation for the LSC, especially the results of the student assessment, have had a major impact on our ability to tell the story. To see the results, go to our website ( www.assetinc.org ) and look up the Results Report.

( BACK TO POSTER | BACK TO TOP )

Suggestions for projects starting out; or, how we might have done things differently

One organizational thing I would do if we were starting over is to have a school district fee for professional development in addition to the fee for materials. One programmatic thing I would do differently is to organize an administrative component right along with the teacher professional development. Our partnership with the Principals Academy has enriched the program and its support system for teachers tremendously. We find that principals have the same learning curve as teachers regarding the benefits of standards-based teaching and learning, as well as the complexity of translating it into classroom practice. A case in point would be that under the comprehensive levels of the new fee structure, districts pay into the position of a Coalition Resource Teacher (on loan from a district for 2 years), whose services are shared by a small group of districts. This method is institutionalizing the concept of teacher leaders as partners and colleagues with principals.

( BACK TO POSTER | BACK TO TOP )

Questions for other project's staff to reply to

• How do you convince school boards that the national vision for reform will have a positive effect on their students?

• What kind of joint projects have you developed with museums?

• What subsequent funding have you sought from NSF?

• Can you give some examples of programs that work to bring about change in high school math and science teaching. What incentives have worked with high school science teachers?

• How do you specifically address/improve the achievement gap between races and suburban and urban/rural?

• How do you get your state department of education to give priority to the improvement of teaching quality?

( BACK TO POSTER | BACK TO TOP )

Also...

ASSET District Membership Options

1. Entry level - $225 per teacher, provides

• One module per teacher
• One course per teacher

2. Menu-driven level - a membership fee based on district size, provides

• Course scholarships based on district size
• Products and services at member rates

3. Basic Comprehensive level - $450 per teacher plus a contribution toward a Resource Teacher based on building size, provides

• Two modules per teacher
• One course per teacher
• Institute or conference (excl. residence fee) for 1/8 of teachers
• Colloquia with a Resource Teacher
• University partnerships for Principals Academy and Inquiry Endorsement process for pre-service students/teachers

4. Continuous Improvement Comprehensive level - $600 per teacher plus a contribution toward a Resource Teacher based on building size, provides

• Three modules per teacher
• One course per teacher
• Institute or conference (excl. residence fee) for _ of teachers
• Colloquia with a Resource Teacher
• University partnerships for Principals Academy and Inquiry Endorsement process for pre-service students/teachers

THIS POSTER WAS PREPARED BY:
Reeny D. Davison of the ASSET (Allegheny Schools Science Education and Technology) Inc project.

( BACK TO POSTER | BACK TO TOP )