University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons ScholarlyCommons CPRE Research Reports Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) 3-2003 The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform Intermediary for Education Reform Thomas B. Corcoran University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, Educational Methods Commons, and the Education Policy Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Corcoran, Thomas B.. (2003). The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/34 View on the CPRE website. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/34 For more information, please contact [email protected].
Transcript
University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons ScholarlyCommons
CPRE Research Reports Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE)
3-2003
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful
Intermediary for Education Reform Intermediary for Education Reform
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Administration and Supervision
Commons, Educational Methods Commons, and the Education Policy Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Corcoran, Thomas B.. (2003). The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/34
View on the CPRE website.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/34 For more information, please contact [email protected].
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform Education Reform
Abstract Abstract A variety of technical assistance organizations have been created in the last 20 years to help public schools implement reforms to improve their perfor- mance. These organizations vary in size, sponsorship, and focus, but their creation rests on the common premise that the reforms needed in the schools to educate all children to high standards require strong external stimuli and resources and knowledge beyond what are ordinarily available in public school systems (McDonald, McLaughlin, & Corcoran, 2000). Accordingly, these technical assistance organizations forge partnerships with school systems under pressure to improve their performance. Working across the boundaries of the educational system, these organizations serve as catalysts for reform, offering schools and districts expertise and other resources needed to make the desired changes. Dedicated to the implementation of reforms, they are presumed to be free of the ordinary interests and ordinary political pressures and, therefore, more likely to be able to overcome the inertia and resistance that often block reform in public bureaucracies like school systems.
Researchers have not paid sufficient attention to these organizations, yet they play an increasingly important role in the improvement of public education. To stimulate more interest in these organizations, and in understanding what makes them effective, we report here on the Merck Institute for Science Education (MISE). For nearly 10 years, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has evaluated MISE’s partnership with four school districts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, providing MISE staff with feedback on the progress of their work and assessing MISE’s impact on schools, teachers, and students. This long-term relationship has provided an extraordinary opportunity for both CPRE and MISE staff to gain insights into how a technical assistance organization works with school districts to change classroom practice. The story of MISE, and its efforts to bring about instructional reforms in science, is a story of vision, collaboration, learning, and persistence. It is also a success story that offers important lessons for other intermediary organizations working with school districts to improve teaching and learning.
Disciplines Disciplines Curriculum and Instruction | Educational Administration and Supervision | Educational Methods | Education Policy
Comments Comments View on the CPRE website.
This report is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/34
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
i
ContContContContContentsentsentsentsentsList of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................. iBiography...................................................................................................................................... iiiAbout MISE .................................................................................................................................. iiiCPRE’s Evaluation of MISE ....................................................................................................... iiiOrdering Information ................................................................................................................. iiiThe Evolution of the Merck Institute for Science Education ................................................. vIntroduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Origins of MISE ...................................................................................................................... 1A New Vision for Science Education ......................................................................................... 2Learning from Experience ........................................................................................................... 4
Phase 1: Developing a Shared Vision .................................................................................. 4Phase 2: Building Cultures of Instructional Improvement .............................................. 5Phase 3: Broadening Access to Professional Development ............................................. 6
Improving Participation ................................................................................................. 8Impact on Practice ........................................................................................................... 9
Phase 4: Sustaining the Work ............................................................................................. 11MISE’s Approach to Professional Development .................................................................... 11
The Impact of MISE’s Work ...................................................................................................... 12Measuring Student Performance: Partial Answers and Continuing Challenges ....... 13
SAT-9 Results .................................................................................................................. 14ESPA Results ................................................................................................................... 14Assessment Issues ......................................................................................................... 15The Assessment Plan .................................................................................................... 15Local, State, and National Policies .............................................................................. 17
List of TList of TList of TList of TList of Tables and Figuresables and Figuresables and Figuresables and Figuresables and FiguresTable 1. Peer Teacher Workshops, 1996-2001 ............................................................................ 7Figure 1. Impact of Professional Development on Teacher-reported Science TeachingPractice ......................................................................................................................................... 10
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
ii
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
iii
BiographBiographBiographBiographBiographyyyyy
Tom Corcoran is co-director of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education(CPRE). Prior to joining CPRE, Corcoran served as the education policy advisor for NewJersey Governor James Florio, director of school improvement at Research for BetterSchools, and director of evaluation and later chief-of-staff of the New Jersey Departmentof Education. His research interests include the use of research to inform policy andpractice in public education, the efficacy of different approaches to professional devel-opment, the effectiveness of whole-school reform, the impact of changes in work envi-ronments on the productivity of teachers and students, and the factors affecting theeffectiveness of scaling-up strategies.
AAAAAbout MISEbout MISEbout MISEbout MISEbout MISE
In 1993, Merck & Co., Inc. began an endeavor to make a significant and visiblecommitment to improving science education by creating the Merck Institute for ScienceEducation (MISE) and supported the new venture with a 10-year, $20-million financialcommitment. From its inception, MISE had two goals: to raise the interest, participation,and performance of public school students in science, and to demonstrate to otherbusinesses that direct, focused involvement would hasten the improvement of scienceteaching and learning in the public schools. MISE initiated its work by forming partner-ships with four public school districts — Linden, Rahway, and Readington Township inNew Jersey, and North Penn in Pennsylvania —where Merck had major facilities. Tolearn more about MISE, visit www.mise.org.
CPRE’s EvCPRE’s EvCPRE’s EvCPRE’s EvCPRE’s Evaluation of MISEaluation of MISEaluation of MISEaluation of MISEaluation of MISE
CPRE, based at the University of Pennsylvania, was contracted by MISE in 1993 todocument the implementation of the initiative and assess its impact on districts, schools,classrooms, and students. Throughout the evaluation, CPRE conducted interviews withteachers, instructional leaders, and district personnel; surveyed teachers; developed casestudies of schools; and examined student achievement data in order to provide feedbackon the progress of the MISE Partnership.
Copies of this report are available for $5.00 each. Prices include book-rate postageand handling. Make checks payable to Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.Sorry, we cannot accept returns, credit card orders, or purchase orders. Sales tax is notapplicable. To obtain copies, write:
CPRE PublicationsGraduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania3440 Market Street, Suite 560Philadelphia, PA 19104-3325
Quantity discounts are available. For more information, please call (215) 573-0700.
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
iv
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
v
The EvThe EvThe EvThe EvThe Evolution of the Merolution of the Merolution of the Merolution of the Merolution of the Merck Institutck Institutck Institutck Institutck Institute fe fe fe fe for Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science EducationYear Primary Focus Major Accomplishments1992-1993 Launching the initiative Merck & Co., Inc. created the Merck Institute for
Science Education (MISE) with a 10-year, $20-millioncommitment and the goal of raising student interest,participation, and performance in science.
1993-1994 Building awareness and providing assistance, andsetting the groundwork for use of nationallydeveloped curriculum materials
The newly created MISE focused on cultivatingrelationships with its four partner districts, three inNew Jersey and one in Pennsylvania. MISE assisteddistricts with selection and purchase of newmaterials for elementary science; and helped localeducators envision a new approach to scienceeducation by sponsoring their attendance atnational conferences, exposing them to state-of-the-art materials and national resources, andencouraging them to visit classrooms withstandards-based science instruction. MISE createdresource center enabling educators to review and tryout new instructional materials.
1994-1995 Taking a more proactive role, evolving into a singlePartnership, and designing and implementing theLeader Teacher Institute
MISE focused on improving the quality andaccessibility of professional development forteachers. MISE staff assumed a more proactiveleadership role and, in the summer of 1995,implemented the Leader Teacher Institute, enrollingmore than 140 teachers. This offered a commonprofessional development experience for teams ofteachers in the four districts. This helped create asingle Partnership -- MISE and the four districts.
1995-1996 Increasing resources through a National ScienceFoundation grant, implementing the Peer TeacherWorkshops, continuing the Leader Teacher Institute,and focusing on local policy alignment
MISE received a National Science Foundation LocalSystemic Change grant for the purpose of providing100 hours of high-quality professional developmentin science and math to 800 K-8 teachers from thefour districts over five years. The second year of theLeader Teacher Institute was held. Peer TeacherWorkshops were implemented and more than 160teachers participated in the first summer. As LeaderTeacher teams assumed more professionaldevelopment roles, MISE staff evolved from asupplier of professional development to a facilitatorof schoolwide instructional change.
1996-1997 Continuing the Peer Teacher Workshops, completingthe Leader Teacher Institute, and focusing oncurriculum frameworks and assessment
Two hundred teachers took part in the Peer TeacherWorkshops, which were partially led by LeaderTeachers. The final year of the Leader TeacherInstitute was held. MISE gave more attention tomathematics. The MISE Resource Center wasexpanded to include material for elementary andmiddle school math. All four districts completeddraft science curriculum frameworks aligned withstate and national standards.
1997-1998 Increasing district responsibility for professionaldevelopment, expanding assessment work, initiatingcomprehensive planning, and continuing work withLeader Teachers
The Partnership had evolved into a broadcollaboration. Peer Teacher Workshops wereexpanded with 138 teachers participating.Communication and leadership skills of LeaderTeachers were expanded to support them asadvocates, coaches, and instructors in their schools.MISE staff worked to gain board approval for districtcurriculum frameworks. Work on improving studentachievement measures started.
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
vi
Year Primary Focus Major Accomplishments
1998-1999 Expanding professional development offerings,strategic planning in science, developing aPartnership Assessment Plan, sharing the work ofthe Partnership, influencing New Jersey policy
MISE increased professional development offeringsin the summer of 1999 and helped districts organizeand deliver 36 Peer Teacher Workshops, thusbuilding internal district capacity. MISE staff workedwith district teams to develop strategic plans thatfocused on curriculum and instruction, studentachievement and participation, policies andpractices, and parent and community support. ThePartnership adopted an action plan for studentassessment in science. MISE staff expandedoutreach efforts with new publications that outlinedtheir vision and work. An assessment sampler forteachers was developed. MISE staff providedleadership to statewide boards and committeesdeveloping science content standards andprofessional teaching standards.
1999-2000 Continuing the Peer Teacher Workshops, expandingand focusing the work in the middle schools,implementing the Partnership's assessment plan
MISE and the districts offered 31 Peer TeacherWorkshops in science and math in the summer of2000, held in district locations to increaseparticipation. MISE staff expanded and strengthenedwork in middle schools. Teams of teachers and MISEstaff selected, modified, and tested two TIMSS (ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study) tasksfor third and seventh grades.
2000-2001 Expanding the district role in the design and deliveryof the Peer Teacher Workshops, implementing thePrincipal's Institute, working on site in three middleschools, and working on the PerformanceAssessment project
MISE continued to offer Peer Teacher Workshops. Atwo-day institute for school principals was held toincrease their understanding of high-quality scienceinstruction and their capacity to help teachersprovide it. MISE staff continued to work on thedevelopment of curriculum frameworks and theselection of instructional materials for the middlegrade level. The Partnership PerformanceAssessment project was replicated in all grade 3 and7 classrooms.
2001-2002 Continuing the enhancement of local districtresponsibilities for Peer Teacher Workshops,implementing the Principal's Institute, working onsite in three middle schools, initiating work at onepartner high school, and enhancing thePerformance Assessment project
Peer Teacher Workshops reflected the needs of acontext where there is a high level of districtcommitment to standards-based science. A two-dayconference continued the institute for principals tofocus on their roles in encouraging good scienceteaching through teacher observations. MISE staffworked with district committees to establish formalcurriculum frameworks for school board adoption.Science reform work was initiated at one partnerhigh school using the selection of instructionalmaterials as the reform focus. The PartnershipPerformance Assessment project was expanded withtasks administered at grades 3, 7, and 8.
2002-2003 Continuing Peer Teacher Workshops, continuing thePrincipal's Institute, working on site with middleschools, implementing science reform work at onepartner high school, and initiating district-levelassessments for science modules
Peer Teacher Workshops responded to the needs ofdistricts committed to standards-based science. Asecond conference for principals focused on thepower of professional dialogue about instruction.Science reform work continued at one partner highschool using the selection of instructional materialsas the reform focus. Two partner districts cooperatedto develop, administer, and interpret summativeassessments aligned with instructional modules.
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
A variety of technical assistanceorganizations have been created in thelast 20 years to help public schools imple-ment reforms to improve their perfor-mance. These organizations vary in size,sponsorship, and focus, but their creationrests on the common premise that thereforms needed in the schools to educateall children to high standards requirestrong external stimuli and resources andknowledge beyond what are ordinarilyavailable in public school systems(McDonald, McLaughlin, & Corcoran,2000). Accordingly, these technical assis-tance organizations forge partnershipswith school systems under pressure toimprove their performance. Workingacross the boundaries of the educationalsystem, these organizations serve ascatalysts for reform, offering schools anddistricts expertise and other resourcesneeded to make the desired changes.Dedicated to the implementation ofreforms, they are presumed to be free ofthe ordinary interests and ordinarypolitical pressures and, therefore, morelikely to be able to overcome the inertiaand resistance that often block reform inpublic bureaucracies like school systems.
Researchers have not paid sufficientattention to these organizations, yet theyplay an increasingly important role in theimprovement of public education. Tostimulate more interest in these organiza-tions, and in understanding what makesthem effective, we report here on theMerck Institute for Science Education(MISE). For nearly 10 years, the Consor-tium for Policy Research in Education(CPRE) has evaluated MISE’s partnershipwith four school districts in New Jerseyand Pennsylvania, providing MISE staffwith feedback on the progress of theirwork and assessing MISE’s impact onschools, teachers, and students. Thislong-term relationship has provided anextraordinary opportunity for both CPRE
and MISE staff to gain insights into how atechnical assistance organization workswith school districts to change classroompractice. The story of MISE, and its effortsto bring about instructional reforms inscience, is a story of vision, collaboration,learning, and persistence. It is also asuccess story that offers important lessonsfor other intermediary organizationsworking with school districts to improveteaching and learning.
Origins of MISEOrigins of MISEOrigins of MISEOrigins of MISEOrigins of MISE
Merck & Co., Inc., the third largestpharmaceutical company in the world interms of revenues (College Journal, n.d.),has a long history of supporting publiceducation. Before school-business part-nerships became popular, Merck wascontributing grants, gifts, and the timeand talents of its employees to the im-provement of science education in publicschools and higher education. However,Merck executives were not entirelysatisfied with these efforts to assist thepublic schools. They knew that althoughtheir gifts were appreciated by the com-munities that received them, their impacton teaching and learning in the publicschools was limited. They were alsoconcerned about the declining supply ofwell-trained scientists and technicians inthe United States and felt that steps hadto be taken to increase the interest ofAmerican students in science. And as apharmaceutical company, they alsorecognized that new developments inscience, such as biotechnology, required ahigher level of scientific literacy in thegeneral population.
After participating in a nationaleducation summit convened by PresidentBush and the nation’s governors in 1991,at which national goals for the improve-ment of education in the United Stateswere established for the first time, Merckexecutives felt that the corporationshould make a significant and visiblecommitment to improving science educa-
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
2
tion. Although becoming first in theworld in mathematics and science by theyear 2000 seemed unrealistic, they be-lieved significant progress was possiblewith a more focused and hands-onapproach. In 1993, Merck created theMerck Institute for Science Education andsupported the new venture with a 10-year, $20-million financial commitment.From its inception, MISE had two goals:to raise the interest, participation, andperformance of public school students inscience, and to demonstrate to otherbusinesses that direct, focused involve-ment would hasten the improvement ofscience teaching and learning in thepublic schools.
MISE quickly formed partnershipswith four school districts in which Merckfacilities were located and where arearesidents were familiar with a Merckpresence in their schools. Three of thesedistricts were in New Jersey — Linden,Rahway, and Readington Township —and the fourth was the North PennSchool District in Pennsylvania.
MISE invited leadership teams fromeach district — including the districtsuperintendent, the science and/ormathematics supervisor, school princi-pals, and Leader Teachers — to serve on adistrict advisory committee and to pro-vide input on critical decisions affectingits work. Over time, this advisory com-mittee developed into a learning commu-nity that shared a common reformagenda, and the individual partnershipsbetween MISE and the four school dis-tricts evolved into one unified Partner-ship. This enabled MISE and the fourdistricts to work collaboratively as oneentity, united in purpose and goals.
Taxpayers and parents in the fourdistricts were delighted to have theirschool systems form partnerships with acorporate neighbor whose expertise inscience was respected and whose largessehad been bestowed on their schools in thepast. This time, however, the relationshipwould be different, not only because ofthe increased investment by Merck, butalso because the new activist strategyrepresented by MISE sought greatercommitments from the school districts;changes in district policies, culture, andorganization; and specific reforms incurriculum and instruction.
A NeA NeA NeA NeA New Vision fw Vision fw Vision fw Vision fw Vision for Scienceor Scienceor Scienceor Scienceor ScienceEducationEducationEducationEducationEducation
Guided by a board of advisors thatincluded representatives of the NationalScience Resources Center, the NationalScience Teachers Association, the Na-tional Academy of Sciences, and leadingscientists and science educators, and ledby a respected science educator, a smallMISE staff set out to reform scienceteaching in the elementary and middlegrades in the four school districts. Theysought a dramatic transformation fromtextbook-based, memorization-orientedinstruction to guided inquiry in whichstudents actively engaged in science
The Study of MISE
Since 1993, CPRE has been docu-menting MISE’s work in the four part-ner districts, and providing MISE withfeedback on the implementation of itsstrategies and their impact. Between1993 and 2002, CPRE regularly inter-viewed school and district staff, ob-served science classrooms, surveyedteachers, developed case studies ofschools, examined student achievementdata, and conducted special analyses toanswer questions of concern to MISEand the districts. The long-term charac-ter of this research and the breadth ofthe data set provide a unique look at thedevelopment and impact of a technicalassistance organization. This work isreported in eight annual reports, pub-lished between 1994 and 2002, whichare available from CPRE.
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
3
investigations based on structured cur-riculum units such as those developed byFOSS (Full Option Science System) andSTC (Science and Technology for Chil-dren). While some reformers subscribe toa more radical view of inquiry in whichstudents determine what topics andquestions they wish to explore anddesign and conduct their own inquiries,MISE offered a more practical visionsuited to K-8 teachers. Their goals were topersuade districts to adopt well-designed,commercially available science modulesthat would support inquiry or investiga-tions guided by teachers and cover thekey concepts identified in state andnational standards, and to help districtsprepare teachers to use these instructionalmaterials both effectively and consis-tently.
While supportive of student inquiry,MISE staff recognized that teachers andschools needed a more structured ap-proach to be successful. This strategy wastermed inquiry-centered science teaching.MISE wanted inquiry-centered teachingto be the norm in science classrooms, anintegral and regular part of the experi-ence of all students at all grade levels. Inthese classrooms, students would bedeveloping and exploring scientificallyoriented questions, giving priority toevidence, and formulating, evaluating,and communicating their explanations.This vision of high-quality science educa-tion was new to many administrators andteachers in the partner districts. Andmoving elementary science teachingaway from a heavy dependence ontextbooks and toward inquiry posedsignificant challenges. As in most schooldistricts across the United States, sciencewas being taught by generalist teacherswhose science backgrounds were oftenminimal — typically consisting of onlyone or two basic college courses. In fact,making sure science was taught at all inthe elementary grades was an issue.There were no state assessments inscience when the MISE staff began their
work, and the reputations of elementaryschools and their relationships with thestate departments in New Jersey andPennsylvania depended on the perfor-mance of students in reading, writing,and mathematics, not science. Thus, inmany elementary classrooms, littleattention was given to science, and whenit was taught, it was often merely anextension of the reading program.
To put this new vision of scienceteaching into practice, the MISE staffrealized that they would have to do morethan provide professional developmentfor teachers. Their strategy was systemicand was based on studies of previousefforts to improve teaching (Corcoran &Goertz, 1995; Goertz, Floden, & O’Day,1995). The theory included the followingnine components:
• Persuading districts to make theimprovement of science teaching apriority, and to engage in seriousplanning to address it;
• Developing a leadership team in thedistrict that shared a common visionof science teaching grounded ininquiry and consistent with state andnational standards;
• Helping districts develop new cur-riculum frameworks for science, selectappropriate instructional materials,and develop systems for the manage-ment of the materials to ensure theycould be used effectively;
• Supporting the use of assessmentsthat were consistent with the vision ofgood teaching, including formativeassessments, end-of-unit assessments,and district-wide performance assess-ments and examinations;
• Building district capacity to plan anddeliver professional development thatprepared teachers to use the materialseffectively;
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
4
• Developing district and school in-structional leaders to carry out thiswork;
• Developing professional cultures forthe districts and schools that wouldpromote continuous improvement ofscience teaching and develop teacherexpertise;
• Aligning district policies for curricu-lum, professional development,resource allocation, and teacherevaluation with the vision of re-formed practice and the strategies forimprovement; and
• Promoting supportive state policies.
The leaders of MISE felt that onlysuch a systemic approach could stimu-late, support, and sustain the reforms inclassroom practice that they sought. Theyrealized that new curriculum materialsand professional development would beneeded, but they also recognized thatschool and district policies governingcurriculum, assessment, professionaldevelopment, resource allocation, person-nel evaluation, and accountability wouldhave to be aligned with the new vision ofhigh-quality science teaching.
For nearly a decade, MISE has pur-sued this vision and CPRE has beendocumenting their work and its impact.What follows is the story of MISE, andthe lessons that have been learned fromits efforts to improve science teaching.
The story of MISE can be dividedroughly into four phases reflecting theelaboration of MISE’s approach to reform.In each phase, MISE altered its strategiesas a result of feedback from its partnersand CPRE, changes in the policy environ-ment, and new funding opportunities.
Phase 1: DePhase 1: DePhase 1: DePhase 1: DePhase 1: Devvvvveloping a Sharedeloping a Sharedeloping a Sharedeloping a Sharedeloping a SharedVisionVisionVisionVisionVision
In 1993, neither MISE’s partnerdistricts nor the two states (New Jerseyand Pennsylvania) had content standardsor assessments in science. District cur-riculum guidelines for science were oftenvague and often ignored. Most teacherslacked the materials and equipmentnecessary to engage in inquiry. Instruc-tional expenditures for science materialswere low. Shaped by teacher interests andaccountability demands on the schools,science instruction was often little morethan an extension of the reading curricu-lum. In some classrooms, children ex-plored central concepts in science, but inmany others, they did little more thanread about nature. This was the conditionof science education that MISE, in part-nership with the districts, set out tochange.
In the first two years, MISE staff setout to build a shared vision of goodscience teaching with the partner dis-tricts. They cultivated relationships oftrust with each district by engagingdistrict superintendents, central officestaff, principals, and teacher leaders inopen discussions about the sciencestandards, the quality of the existingscience curriculum, and their expecta-tions for their students. They convincedthe districts to re-examine and revisetheir K-8 science curricula. Leadershipteams from each district went to theNational Science Resources Center’sElementary Science Leadership instituteswith technical and financial support fromMISE. Each attending team worked on afive-year strategic plan for reformingscience education in their system. Theinstitutes focused on the selection ofinquiry-centered sequential sciencecurriculum units, professional develop-ment to prepare teachers to use inquiry-centered teaching methods, cost-effectivesupport systems for supplying science
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
5
materials and apparatus to classrooms,assessment methods consistent withinquiry-centered science, and strategiesfor building administrative and commu-nity support. Upon their return, MISEstaff worked with them to review thescience modules that were available forelementary- and middle-grade science,and assess their suitability for inquiryteaching. Through this process, a sharedvision of inquiry-centered science teach-ing emerged.
Rather than adopting new curriculaall at once, MISE encouraged the districtsto select high-quality science modules foreach grade as the foundation of theirelementary science curricula and to phasethem in gradually so as not to overwhelmteachers. The modules selected by thedistricts fit the shared vision of inquiryteaching. To support this process, MISEopened a resource center that loaned outinstructional materials so that districtstaff could examine those that fit whatthey were trying to do in the classroom.This allowed local teachers to test out thenew science modules in local schoolsprior to their purchase and adoption.Once districts selected appropriate mate-rials, MISE funded the purchase of thesenew curricular modules which becamethe foundation of a more rigorous, stan-dards-based elementary science curricu-lum in each of the partner districts. Inaddition, MISE encouraged partnerdistricts to examine their personnelpolicies and procedures to ensure theywere recruiting and hiring qualifiedteachers and to develop strategic plansthat would incorporate the instructionalreforms sought by the Partnership. In thefirst two or three years of the Partnership,all four districts made major changes intheir elementary science curriculum.
Phase 2: Building Cultures ofPhase 2: Building Cultures ofPhase 2: Building Cultures ofPhase 2: Building Cultures ofPhase 2: Building Cultures ofInstructional ImInstructional ImInstructional ImInstructional ImInstructional Imprprprprprooooovvvvvementementementementement
The adoption of new instructionalmaterials in the elementary schoolsquickly generated requests from teachersfor more and better professional develop-ment and on-site support. Teachersneeded better understanding of thesubject matter addressed by the newcurriculum materials so they couldencourage students to ask critical ques-tions and help them seek meaningfulanswers. They also needed to understandhow to organize opportunities for in-quiry, how to set up their classrooms, andhow to replenish supplies for and man-age the new science modules. Buildingsupports for instructional change becamethe focus of the next few years as MISEcontinued to support the adoption of thenew curriculum materials.
With the assistance of the partnerdistricts, MISE designed and imple-mented a new program to prepare LeaderTeachers in each school to support the useof the new curriculum and the use ofinquiry in the classroom. Between 1995and 1998, the partners designed andimplemented a voluntary three-yearprofessional development experience forteams of teachers selected from eachelementary and middle school in the fourpartner districts. This Leader TeacherInstitute (LTI) provided three-weeksummer institutes and academic-yearsessions focused on a different domain ofscience (biological, physical, and earthsciences) each year intended to deepenteachers’ content knowledge, sharpentheir teaching skills, and prepare them toserve as mentors, coaches, and advocates.The creation of the LTI had an importantimpact on the partnerships themselves.By recruiting more than 140 teachers fromall four districts into a common profes-sional development experience, the fourseparate partnerships became one unifiedPartnership. The LTI required significant
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
6
commitment from MISE, the districts, andthe teachers, and these commitmentsforged a bond that would prove lasting.
Impact on Teaching Practices. TheLeader Teachers received nearly 500hours of professional development overthree years, and observations of theirpractice by CPRE researchers found thattheir teaching changed dramatically bythe third year and was considerablyabove average on a National ScienceFoundation (NSF) observation classroominstrument. Survey data also showedsignificant changes in their practice. Bythe third year, all of the Leader Teachershad made significant changes in theirpractice and the vast majority wereengaging students in inquiry on a regularbasis. After three years of involvement,however, their practice began to stabilizeas they encountered the time limits facedby all elementary teachers who teachmultiple subjects and pressures to attendmore to reading and mathematics.
Spreading Reformed Practice. Thegoal of the LTI was to increase the inter-nal capacity of each school in the partnerdistricts to support change in instruc-tional practice. The Leader Teachers wereexpected to serve as advocates of inquiry-centered instruction, and to coach otherteachers in these methods. Many of themconducted professional development fortheir peers, and some went into class-rooms to observe and coach. After twoyears, however, it was clear that theimpact of this change strategy was un-even. Some Leader Teachers were suc-cessfully engaging their colleagues butothers encountered serious obstacles,such as their own credibility as scienceteachers, time constraints, peer resent-ment, and lack of principal support.(Detailed accounts of the strategies usedby Leader Teachers and the obstacles theyencountered can be found in CPRE, 1999,pp. 56-63, and CPRE, 2000, pp. 59-64).
The lessons from the LTI initiativewere not lost on MISE. Successful diffu-sion of reformed practice in the schoolsclearly depended on which individualswere selected to be Leader Teachers; theindividuals not only had to have interestin, and knowledge of, science but theyalso had to be respected by other teachersin the school and have good relationshipswith their colleagues. The LTI selectionprocess had not always resulted in therecruitment of those with the most poten-tial for effectiveness. And once selected,the Leader Teachers had to have thesupport of principals. To succeed inreaching their peers, they also neededreleased time that districts and principals,facing demands to improve reading andmathematics, sometimes would notprovide. Given these obstacles and theprevailing norms of high teacher au-tonomy and classroom privacy, spreadinginquiry through the Leader Teachersrequired a cultural revolution in eachschool that was difficult to spark.
But the LTI experience offered anotherpowerful lesson for MISE and its partnerdistricts. Intensive professional develop-ment had altered the practice of theLeader Teachers, and the Leader Teachersfelt that similar opportunities wouldencourage their fellow classroom teachersto adopt the inquiry method and helpthem use the new curriculum materialseffectively. Although MISE all along hadbeen encouraging district efforts toprovide all elementary teachers withmore professional development in sci-ence, the announcement of the LocalSystemic Change program by NSF pro-vided the Partnership with the opportu-nity to expand and intensify these learn-ing opportunities.
Phase 3: BrPhase 3: BrPhase 3: BrPhase 3: BrPhase 3: Broadening Aoadening Aoadening Aoadening Aoadening Accessccessccessccessccessttttto Pro Pro Pro Pro Profofofofofessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Devvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopment
In 1995, the Partnership received afive-year Local Systemic Change grantfrom NSF to provide more teachers with
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
7
direct access to curriculum-related profes-sional development in both science andmathematics. The centerpiece of thisproject was a new professional develop-ment strategy, the Peer Teacher Workshop(PTW), that would make intensive profes-sional development available to allteachers. Each week-long PTW was basedon one of the curriculum modules used inthe districts, and was designed to deepenteachers’ understanding of the science inthe module, their appreciation of com-mon student misunderstandings of thekey concepts, and their ability to useinquiry. The encouragement of teachers toattend as grade-level teams, the organiza-tion of follow-up sessions during theschool year, and support from districtresource staff meant that the PTWs werealso excellent vehicles for building andstrengthening professional learningcommunities in the schools that couldcarry and deepen the vision of inquiry-based science. The goal was to provide atleast 80% of the 800 teachers who taughtmath and science in grades K-8 in thefour partner districts with 100 hours ofthis kind of professional developmentover a five-year period.
The PTWs were designed by instruc-tional teams comprised of accomplishedteachers from the partner districts andcontent experts drawn from MISE staff,high schools, universities, and curriculumdevelopment organizations. The newstrategy utilized the local capacity devel-oped through the LTI by recruitingsuccessful Leader Teachers to help designand deliver the PTWs. The three-to-fourperson instructional teams were selectedby MISE and district staff and supportedby an annual three-day design retreatheld in the spring several months beforethe workshops. At these annual retreats,MISE staff and other experts helped theinstructional teams design workshopsthat modeled inquiry, taught the partici-pants the underlying science or math-ematics, and prepared them to managethe curriculum unit.
Table 1 displays the number, types,and enrollment of Peer Teacher Work-shops held since 1996. These data showsteady growth in participation from 1996to 2000 and then a leveling off at a rela-tively high level of participation. During1999, 2000, and 2001, approximately halfof the nearly 800 K-8 teachers teaching
Year Number ofPTWs
MathPTWs
Math andSciencePTWs
SciencePTWs
PTWEnrollment
Number ofIndividuals
Summer 1996 6 0 0 6 169 169
Summer 1997 8 2 0 6 195 195
Summer 1998 22 8 1 13 506 287
Summer 1999 36 9 1 26 525 386
Summer 2000 32 9 2 21 667 490
Summer 2001 37 12 1 24 536* 394*
Total 141 40 5 96 2,598 1,921
* Includes estimated enrollments in locally sponsored math PTWs.
Source: CPRE (2002, p. 19)
TTTTTable 1able 1able 1able 1able 1. P. P. P. P. Peer Teer Teer Teer Teer Teaceaceaceaceacher Wher Wher Wher Wher Worororororkshops, 1996-200kshops, 1996-200kshops, 1996-200kshops, 1996-200kshops, 1996-20011111
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
8
science and/or mathematics in the fourdistricts participated in PTWs. By 2002,over 80% had participated which, giventhe other demands on teachers’ timeduring this period, especially the strongemphasis placed on reading, was asignificant accomplishment.
This high rate of participation was notso easily achieved. After the PTWs hadbeen in place for three years, approxi-mately 40% of the teachers in the districtsstill had not participated. While observ-ing and interviewing teachers in thePartnership districts, CPRE noted thatteachers who had not yet participated inPartnership professional developmentwere often quite knowledgeable aboutMISE’s involvement in their district andsome described the Partnership in glow-ing terms. CPRE initiated a study of thesenon-participants and interviewed astratified (by grade level) random sampleof approximately 10% of the teachers whohad not yet participated in thePartnership’s professional development.
Survey data revealed no differencesbetween participants and non-partici-pants in terms of experience. Teacherswith over 20 years of experience wereequally as likely to participate in thePTWs as their younger or less-experi-enced peers. Furthermore, participantsdid not have stronger backgrounds inscience. Differences between participantsand non-participants were found in threecrucial areas: their enjoyment of teachingscience, their preparation to teach it, andtheir conceptions of professional develop-ment. Not surprisingly, participantsreported greater enjoyment of teachingscience and being better prepared to teachit. Not much could be done about theseattitudinal differences unless non-partici-pants could be persuaded to attend thePTWs.
The information about non-partici-pants’ conceptions of effective and desir-able professional development was moreuseful. Their perceptions collided withthe design of the PTWs in four importantways, described more fully below. First,the length of the PTW clashed with theirexpectations. Second, the professionaldevelopment strategies were inconsistentwith non-participants’ preferences. Third,the content of the professional develop-ment was not a priority for them. Fourth,the timing and location of the PTWs werebarriers to participation. Thus, the struc-ture, style, content, and logistics of thePTWs were perceived to be barriers toparticipation.
Non-participating teachers over-whelmingly preferred short professionaldevelopment experiences. Most of thoseinterviewed said that committing a fullweek to professional development wasextremely unattractive. They preferredone-day events that they could attend onprofessional release days provided bytheir districts. They were hesitant tocommit more of their time outside of theschool day to professional development.
Non-participants also conceived ofeffective professional development as thedissemination of information, rather thanmore active exploration of larger ideasand concepts based on subject-contentknowledge. These views conflicted withthe philosophy behind the Partnership’sprofessional development. When asked todescribe the most effective structure ofprofessional development, these teachersoverwhelmingly preferred one-dayworkshops where they received materialsand were led by an interesting instructor.Furthermore, the PTWs made the practiceof many of the participants more public.It is important to recognize that thetraditional culture of teaching is insu-lated; one’s struggles and shortcomingsare often kept behind closed classroomdoors. Despite the supportive, reflectivenature of these workshops, these teachers
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
9
were less willing to open their practicesto their peers, and therefore they wereless willing to attend the workshops.
The content of the PTWs also con-flicted with non-participants’ preferences.Most of the elementary teachers inter-viewed preferred professional develop-ment in the language arts rather than inscience or math. Furthermore, the teach-ers interviewed were more likely tochoose general areas for professionaldevelopment than opportunities todeepen their content knowledge in anyone area. Finally, offering the PTWs in themiddle of the summer in locations thatwere some distance from teachers’ homesalso deterred the non-participants. Theypreferred professional developmentduring the school year or immediatelyfollowing the school year and preferred itto be offered in their districts.
In response to these findings, thePartnership made changes to the struc-ture and marketing of its summer work-shops. The expanded offerings includedsome choices not directly tied to specificscience curriculum units, such as usingtechnology in the science classroom,assessment, and integrating science andlanguage arts. These choices may haveattracted teachers who preferred moregeneral areas for professional develop-ment, who traditionally sought languagearts workshops, or who needed to learnmore about technology. Informal net-works of participating teachers alsorecruited their peers. The Leader Teacherswere strongly encouraged to attend. Inresponse to district requests, the Partner-ship changed the timing of the work-shops so they occurred immediatelyfollowing the close of the school year.Also, one district was able to offer teach-ers the option of graduate credit. Theseefforts led to the recruitment during thefollowing summer of 34% of those whohad previously not participated, andeventually two-thirds of those who hadnot participated in the first three years(CPRE, 2000).
ImImImImImpact on Practicepact on Practicepact on Practicepact on Practicepact on Practice
To analyze the impact of this profes-sional development on teaching practiceas reported by teachers, CPRE evaluatorsexamined the statistical relationshipbetween reform-based teaching practiceand Partnership-provided professionaldevelopment while controlling for certainteacher background and school character-istics (CPRE, 1999). Hierarchical linearmodeling, a sophisticated form of regres-sion analysis that takes into account thatclassrooms are nested within schools, wasused (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).
Using data collected from surveys ofteachers and principals in the four part-ner districts, CPRE evaluators aggregateda series of survey items about teachingpractices in science. The survey itemsasked teachers how frequently they usedcertain practices, such as requiring stu-dents to supply evidence to support theirclaims, demonstrating a science-relatedprinciple or phenomenon, and usingassessment to find what students knowbefore or during a curriculum unit.Teacher content familiarity, teachingexperience, and amount of professionaldevelopment were used as independentvariables to predict teaching practice. Atthe teacher level, the sample consisted of334 teachers. Twenty-eight percent ofthese teachers reported they had receivedno science-related professional develop-ment during the year prior to the study,33% reported receiving between 1 and 39hours, 17% reported receiving between 40and 79 hours, and 22% reported receiving80 or more hours.
The most striking result from thismodel of science teaching is the statisti-cally strong relationship between highlevels of quality professional develop-ment and reform-based teaching practice.After adjusting for differences in teachers’content background, teaching experience,and school environment, teachers withmore than 79 hours of professional
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
10
development used significantly morereform-based teaching practices than didteachers with fewer than 79 hours ofprofessional development. Figure 1depicts the relationship between teachingpractice and professional development.
Teachers who had either no profes-sional development or between 1 and 39hours of professional development hadapproximately average teaching practice(that is, their scores on the scales devel-oped from the survey items were at aboutthe mean). Teachers who had between 40and 79 hours of professional develop-ment were slightly above average interms of their use of reform-based teach-ing practice. Teachers who received 80 ormore hours of professional developmentwere much more likely to have alteredtheir practice.
Also notable was the relationshipbetween content familiarity and reform-based teaching practice. Each additionalsemester of college science (a proxy forcontent familiarity) was associated with astatistically significant .11 of a standarddeviation increase in the model’s measureof reform-based teaching practice. Thissuggests that content-based professional
development is important and bearsfurther investigation. There was nosignificant relationship between years ofteaching experience and reform-basedpractice. This finding casts doubt on thewidespread assumption that experiencedteachers are more reluctant to changetheir practice than relatively new teach-ers.
Finally, direct observations of class-room practice by CPRE researchers in1998, 1999, and 2000 found both theLeader Teachers who had received inten-sive professional development in thesecond phase of MISE’s work and theteachers who had attended the PTWs hadchanged their practice, and both wereusing the science modules to engagestudents in guided inquiry. Using anobservation instrument developed byHorizon Research for the NSF LocalSystemic Change evaluation, CPREresearchers found the Leader Teachers tobe somewhat more advanced in their useof inquiry, but both groups were aboveaverage on the NSF scale, and the ob-served differences between them werenarrowing each year (CPRE, 1999, pp. 34-36).
Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1. Impact of Pr. Impact of Pr. Impact of Pr. Impact of Pr. Impact of Profofofofofessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Devvvvvelopment onelopment onelopment onelopment onelopment onTTTTTeaceaceaceaceacher-reporher-reporher-reporher-reporher-reporttttted Science Ted Science Ted Science Ted Science Ted Science Teaceaceaceaceaching Practicehing Practicehing Practicehing Practicehing Practice
-.056 -.054
.043
.523
-1.00
-.50
.00
.50
1.00
None 1-39 Hours 40-79 Hours > 80 Hours
Quantity of Professional Development
Stan
dard
Dev
iatio
ns
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
11
Phase 4: Sustaining the WPhase 4: Sustaining the WPhase 4: Sustaining the WPhase 4: Sustaining the WPhase 4: Sustaining the Worororororkkkkk
The Local Systemic Change grantended in 2001, but the four districts, withmodest support from MISE, have contin-ued to offer the PTWs. In the summer of2002, 25 PTWs were offered by the fourdistricts. Moreover, the general design ofthe PTWs has been extended to othersubject areas in all four districts. Each ofthe districts now has a cadre of teacherswho have designed and led PTWs inscience and mathematics. They have thecapacity to offer teachers high-qualityprofessional development. These experi-enced leaders also serve as coaches andmentors in their schools, and as curricu-lum leaders in their districts. The experi-ence serving on an instructional teamgives them the knowledge, skills, andcredibility to be leaders in other ways.Equally important, these experienceshave raised the standards for professionaldevelopment. Teachers in these districtsexpect well-designed practical experi-ences that enable them to do a better jobwith the curriculum that they must teach.
MISE has continued its work in anumber of noteworthy ways. For ex-ample, the Partnership offered a two-dayinstitute for principals to enhance theirunderstanding of high-quality scienceinstruction and their capacity to helpteachers provide it. Organized by princi-pals from the four partner districts andMISE and CPRE staff, the institute wasattended by 41 principals and a numberof central office staff. MISE staff alsoworked with districts on the develop-ment of curriculum frameworks andselection of instructional materials formiddle school science. MISE continues tosupport and develop the work of the fourpartner districts and is expanding thePartnership to include other schooldistricts.
While MISE modified its approach toprofessional development as a result ofexperience and CPRE’s evaluation, thecore principles guiding its design wereconstant. According to these guidingprinciples, professional developmentshould be:
• Based on a clear vision of good prac-tice;
• Linked to specific curriculum unitsand focused on the content teachersmust teach;
• Carefully designed and planned toprovide knowledge and skills thatwere immediately useful in theclassrooms of the participants;
• Respectful of teachers and based on acoherent theory of adult learning;
• Intensive but also extended over timethrough on-site support to allow forpractice and reflection;
• Led by accomplished teachers whomodeled good instructional practiceand collaborative work;
• Easily accessible for all eligible teach-ers; and
• Sustainable over time by local dis-tricts.
These principles are consistent with theprevailing consensus on effective profes-sional development (Corcoran, 1995;Elmore, 2002; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997).
MISE’s use of the priorities of districtsand schools to guide professional devel-opment differs from much current prac-tice which permits individual teachers to
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
12
choose their own learning opportunities.MISE’s goal is to build a shared visionabout sound instruction and communitiesof practice that can work together to enactit. While teacher participation in PTWs isvoluntary, there are strong incentives forteachers to participate including peerpressure and stipends. Because there areno linkages between participation orperformance in the PTWs and personnelevaluations, PTWs are seldom seen ashigh-stakes or threatening experiences.From the start, MISE sought to builddistrict capacity to provide high-qualityprofessional development on a sustainedbasis. Gradually, the responsibility fortraining has shifted to the partner dis-tricts where teachers and others trainedthrough the PTWs are leading the work.
As noted earlier, building teachercontent knowledge in science has been amajor focus of the Partnership’s profes-sional development program. Needs ofteachers were assessed through surveys,examination of student assessmentresults, and discussions with supervisorsand principals. Most of the contentexperts used in the PTWs were skillful inaddressing the content needs of partici-pants, linking activities and instructionalideas to the “big ideas” in the curriculummodules. Workshop participants re-viewed curriculum content and discussedproblems that students were having withit. While CPRE researchers are persuadedthat most PTW participants learned agreat deal of new science content, there isonly limited empirical evidence to sup-port this claim. CPRE’s conclusion isbased on observations of content discus-sions in the PTWs, the amount of timedevoted to such discussions, the attentiongiven to content in the workshop materi-als, and teacher self-reports about whatthey learned.
It is important to remember that thisprofessional development was the center-piece of a broader reform effort, and thatMISE’s approach was systemic. Theyintentionally set out to alter the environ-ment in which teachers were working. Inaddition to helping the partner districtsselect new science curricula, MISE helpedthem develop new curriculum frame-works. Through the process of selectingmaterials and designing professionaldevelopment, MISE had a profound effecton the norms of good practice in scienceteaching and the expectations of teachersheld by central office curriculum staff.These new norms were also shared withprincipals through a series of institutes atwhich principals observed, rated, anddiscussed videos of science teaching.These other activities created environ-ments which were supportive of theprofessional development.
The ImThe ImThe ImThe ImThe Impact of MISE’spact of MISE’spact of MISE’spact of MISE’spact of MISE’sWWWWWorororororkkkkk
The Partnership formed by MISE andthe four school districts can point to somereal accomplishments. Clearly, the sciencecurriculum in the four partner districtshas been strengthened and science hasbecome a core subject in the elementaryschools. MISE and district staffs haveworked together to develop curriculumframeworks aligned to state and nationalstandards, selected appropriate instruc-tional materials, and designed and devel-oped professional development activitiesthat support the new curricula. The oncefragmented, textbook-driven, and uncer-tain science curriculum has been replacedby well-structured curricula incorporat-ing well-designed science modulesfocused on important concepts linked tothe state standards. Teachers have accessto science modules and materials thatwere not available 10 years ago and, most
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
13
importantly, they are expected to usethem. Students in the partner districts arenow assured of exposure to a well-balanced, inquiry-centered science cur-riculum.
Students also are assured of a betterand more equitable opportunity to learnscience because science instruction hasalso improved. Many teachers have adeeper understanding of the content andhave adopted inquiry approaches as aresult of the intensive professional devel-opment offered by the Partnership andsupport from teacher leaders and super-visors. Using NSF-developed observationtools that focus on the use of inquiry,CPRE has found the vast majority ofelementary teachers in the Partnershipschools to be using inquiry as a primarymethod for teaching science.
District policies have also changed.The most obvious changes are the newcurriculum frameworks, increased expen-ditures for instructional materials, obser-vation procedures, and the acceptance ofMISE’s principles of professional devel-opment. When the NSF grant ended andthe amount of external funding wasreduced in the summer of 2001, thedistricts continued to offer PTWs and stilldo so. They do so because there is both aneed (new teachers, new modules, and acontinued desire to do it better) and ademand (teachers want the kind ofprofessional development providedthrough the PTWs). An unexpected by-product has been the use of the sameprofessional development principles tosupport curriculum revision innovationsin literacy, mathematics, and socialstudies.
Other more subtle cultural changeshave also occurred in the partner dis-tricts. There is more respect for, andgreater use of, teacher expertise. Class-room teachers are playing leadershiproles in professional development, assess-ment, and curriculum. Planning at the
school and district levels is more collabo-rative and taken more seriously. There isa greater focus on results. Instructionalresources have been reallocated to pro-vide teachers with more professionaldevelopment opportunities and access toexemplary K-8 science education materi-als at MISE’s resource centers. The re-sources devoted to professional develop-ment are seen as investments that shouldbe carefully designed and are expected toproduce results.
Have these changes improved studentknowledge of science or increased thenumbers of students who pursue morechallenging courses in high school andcollege? Do students in the Partnershipdistricts do better work in science than inother comparable districts? Do they scorebetter on common measures of scienceunderstanding? Unfortunately, theanswers to these questions are somewhatambiguous. As will be shown below, wehave some evidence that the reforms haveimpacted student achievement, but it islimited and the identified effects aremodest.
The ambiguity of the answers toquestions about the impact on studentsstems from the challenges the Partnershiphas encountered in science assessment.None of the available measures of scienceachievement have proved adequate to thetask of measuring the effects of inquiry-centered teaching. When MISE began itswork, there were no standard measures ofachievement in science used in the part-ner districts. In 1994, MISE and CPRErecommended the adoption of the SAT-9science assessment, but the districts,sensitive to criticism of over-testing,would only agree to using the open-response items in grades 5 and 7 and didnot administer the full test. These limited
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
14
data are the only longitudinal studentachievement data available for all fourdistricts. In addition, for three of thedistricts, CPRE has examined four yearsof results (1999 to 2002) on the NewJersey Elementary School PerformanceAssessment (ESPA) science test adminis-tered to fourth graders, but there will beno more data from this source as the testhas been eliminated as the state respondsto the requirements of the No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001.
Analysis of the results on the SAT-9open-response items administered to fifthand seventh graders have not shown aconsistent pattern of district-wide im-provement in the partner districts. How-ever, studies examining changes byclassrooms have found some effects. In1999, CPRE staff examined the cumula-tive effects on students in grades 5, 6, and7 of being in classrooms led by teacherswith different amounts of Partnershipprofessional development. This analysisbuilt upon, but was slightly differentthan, the work of Sanders and Rivers(1996). The hypothesis was that studentswho had different sequences of teacherswith different amounts of Partnershipprofessional development experiencewould perform differently. For example,students who studied science for threeconsecutive years in the classrooms ofLeader Teachers would perform differ-ently, on average, on the SAT-9 thanwould students who had three consecu-tive years of teachers who had had notparticipated in Partnership professionaldevelopment. The logic is that participat-ing teachers would have altered theirpractice and would be using more power-ful strategies to engage students in thestudy of science to help students masterkey concepts.
The results showed that fifth-gradestudents whose teachers had one or twoyears of Partnership professional devel-
opment during the 1996-1998 periodoutperformed students whose teachershad no Partnership professional develop-ment in the same time period. However,there was no statistical difference be-tween students who spent two years withteachers who participated in Partnershipprofessional development and studentswho spent one year with such teachers.The seventh-grade analysis shows thatstudents taught for two and three yearsby Partnership-trained teachers per-formed similarly statistically. Thesestudents performed better than studentswho spent just one year with a Partner-ship-trained teacher. No difference wasfound between seventh-grade studentswho had one year with a trained teacherand students who had no Partnership-trained teachers. Finally, it should benoted that these differences, while statis-tically significant, were substantivelysmall (CPRE, 2002, pp. 45-49).
There have been serious problemswith using the SAT-9 as a measure ofeffectiveness. To the teachers and stu-dents in the four districts, the SAT-9represents additional testing (it is referredto as the “Merck test” or the “CPRE test”)and, because no stakes are associatedwith the test, it was not always takenseriously by students or teachers.
ESPESPESPESPESPA RA RA RA RA Resultsesultsesultsesultsesults
Analysis of the results of the ESPAadministered in fourth grade in the threeNew Jersey districts have not shownsignificant effects. While the three MISEpartner districts have ranked at or nearthe top of groupings of similar districtssince the science test was first adminis-tered in 1999, CPRE has not been able toobtain student-level data from the NewJersey Department of Education to con-duct analyses. It has also been suggestedthat there have been differences in thedifficulty of the test from year to year. TheNew Jersey fourth-grade ESPA also posesother problems. Although the items are
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
15
aligned with state standards, it is notpossible to determine how well they arealigned with the specific content of thescience modules used by the Partnershipdistricts in the tested grades because thestate department does not release theitems.
Moreover, since the stakes are quitehigh, all New Jersey districts are moti-vated to perform well. There may be littleapparent difference in the results ob-tained on this assessment through con-ventional test preparation, increased timespent on science, and inquiry-basedinstruction. Thus, better teaching andbetter student work may not necessarilylead in the short-run to discernible differ-ences in results on the ESPA.
The lack of persuasive evidence thatstudent performance had improvedpresented a serious dilemma for thePartnership. On one hand, school admin-istrators, teachers, MISE staff, and CPREstaff were in agreement that student workand student interest in, and understand-ing of, science had changed for the betterin most Partnership schools. On the otherhand, the available measures of studentachievement were not recording signifi-cant gains. The consensus view was thatthe assessments were flawed and werenot sensitive to the changes occurring instudent learning. Moreover, MISE anddistrict staff felt that the availability ofbetter formative assessments linked to thescience modules and increased use ofperformance assessments would contrib-ute to further improvements in teaching.
The Assessment PlanThe Assessment PlanThe Assessment PlanThe Assessment PlanThe Assessment Plan
In response to these problems, MISEand the partner districts developed afour-part plan in 1998 to improve assess-ment in science. MISE convened severalmeetings on the topic of student assess-ment in science to develop a consensus
on the best way to assess the effects of theinstructional reforms being promoted bythe Partnership. Interest in developing amore comprehensive assessment planwas driven in part by district dissatisfac-tion with the SAT-9 and the desire forbetter information. A variety of constitu-encies — including MISE, the four part-ner school districts, classroom teachers,Merck, and CPRE — shared these con-cerns. There was general agreementamong the meeting participants on theimportance of using a nationally recog-nized, standardized measure. However,the participants also wanted to collectassessment information more closelylinked to the module-based curriculumused in the districts. They wanted perfor-mance information that could be stan-dardized and aggregated across schoolsand that was reliable enough to providethe basis for programmatic conclusions.
These conversations culminated indevelopment of a four-component Part-nership assessment plan. The four com-ponents were:
1. A nationally recognized, standardizedtest consisting of multiple-choiceand/or open-ended items focusing oncentral themes in science;
2. A set of tasks consisting of perfor-mance, multiple-choice, or open-ended items more closely tied to thedistricts’ curricula and standardizedin their administration;
3. Pre-/post- or summative tasks spe-cific to each science module thatcould be administered district-wide;and
4. Informal, unit-based assessments of avariety of different forms for class-room use.
Component 1. Finding a standardizedtest in science that was acceptable to allfour districts was a source of continuedfrustration. A substitute was needed for
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
16
the SAT-9 which several districts haddecided not to continue to use. Two of thepartner districts adopted the TerraNovascience test as part of more comprehen-sive district-wide adoptions, but fouryears after the plan was developed, therewas still no Partnership-wide standard-ized assessment in science.
The lack of a common curriculum inthe four districts poses a fundamentalproblem for summative assessment. Eachof the four partner districts has selectedsomewhat different science modulescontaining different content in the testedgrades, so no common assessment can bewell-aligned with each district’s curricu-lum. Moreover, most of the four districtschose to rotate the use of the modulesamong classrooms rather than purchasethem for each classroom. That means thatthe sequence in which the modules havebeen used has varied across classroomswithin a school and among schools. As aconsequence, it is impossible to achievehigh content alignment within a singleschool with any test administered in thespring because classes will vary in themodules that they have completed. Thispresents a challenge for performanceassessments as well as for standardizedtests.
Component 2. MISE took the lead indeveloping performance assessments forthe second component of the plan. In thesummer of 1999, MISE contracted withone of the developers of the performancetasks used in the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)to work with MISE staff and teachersfrom the Partnership districts in a jointventure. The intent was to identify avail-able performance assessments that couldbe administered across the four Partner-ship districts. A working group includingthe consultant, teachers, and MISE staffmet several times that year to review eachpartner district’s curriculum, the avail-able performance assessments, and whichgrades should be assessed. This was not
an easy task. Each district had selectedtheir own science modules, and there wasvariation in the modules used in anygiven grade. There also was variation inthe sequence that was used across theschools in a district and within schools.Therefore, the working group decidedthat the performance assessments shouldfocus on process skills rather than onparticular content areas to avoidadvantaging some districts over others.
The working group reviewed a widerange of performance tasks before settlingon four TIMSS performance assessments:two for third-grade students called“Magnets and Plasticine,” and two forseventh-grade students called “Solutionsand Magnets.” The tasks were piloted inthe fall of 1999 in a sample of classroomsacross the four districts and then admin-istered in all third- and seventh-gradeclassrooms in the spring of 2000. Theywere re-administered with some modifi-cations in the spring of 2001 and 2002,and additional assessments were selectedfor use in the fourth and eighth grades in2002.
Piloting these assessments and thenadministering them across the fourdistricts was an enormous endeavor andrepresented a substantial accomplishmentby the Partnership. To avoid the biasesthat can come from differential adminis-tration, the Partnership developed stan-dardized directions for administration. Tofurther ensure uniform administration,the working group developed a methodof documenting any assistance providedstudents by the teachers who adminis-tered the assessments. The Partnershiprevised the rubrics for scoring the assess-ments so that judgments of the quality ofstudent work were reliable across mul-tiple scorers.
To maximize the professional devel-opment potential of the experience,teachers from the Partnership districtswere involved in most of the develop-
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
17
ment work for the performance assess-ments. At the end of October 1999, thePartnership held a multi-day workshopfor teachers to score student work fromthe pilot, refine the rubrics, and analyzethe information gleaned from the tasks.Teachers first reviewed the rubrics forassessing student work, then rolled uptheir sleeves and scored the work. Asubset of the tasks was scored twice toassure inter-rate reliability. Teachers whoparticipated in the workshop valued theexperience; they felt that it was one of themost powerful professional activities theyhad ever experienced as teachers.
In subsequent years, students’ workon the assessments have been scoredexternally, but teacher leaders have stillgathered in the fall to examine anddiscuss the results. These teachers haveled sessions in their districts focusing onwhat the results indicate about thestrengths and weaknesses of studentlearning in science and the implicationsfor curriculum and teaching strategies.These teachers have also worked withMISE staff to make modifications to theassessments and their administration. In2001, an experiment was conducted inwhich some third graders were giventime to examine the materials prior to theassessments.
Components 3 and 4. The demand forbetter informal unit assessments hadbeen addressed in part prior to the devel-opment of the plan by distributing unit-based assessments developed by teachersand research scientists from the Educa-tional Testing Service. The resultinggrade-level binders contain more than100 tasks and are widely distributed forteachers to use with the science modules.Shortly after the plan was adopted,district teams began to develop and testtasks to be used with science modules tosatisfy the third component.
Other factors complicate studentassessment. The focus of thePartnership’s science instruction has beenon inquiry, not recall. It may be thatstudents who are learning to questionand are engaged in inquiry are gainingsignificant skills and understanding thatthe standard assessments do not measure.Furthermore, not all of the teachers whoteach science in grades K-8 have partici-pated in the Partnership’s professionaldevelopment initiatives, and those whohave, received varying amounts of train-ing. Thus, not all students have access toPartnership-trained teachers, and stu-dents do not consistently have Partner-ship teachers from year to year. Thismakes it harder to measure any long-termeffect of the use of inquiry-based instruc-tion since measures of the average perfor-mance on standardized tests like the SAT-9 may mask the actual effects of theprofessional development.
It could also be that the Partnership’sintervention has had weak effects onstudent performance. This seems unlikelygiven the observed changes in studentactivity and work done in class. Never-theless, until adequate measures ofstudent achievement are available, thesequestions will remain unresolved. MISEstaff and district staff have administeredperformance assessments based on theTIMSS performance tasks. Taken by allstudents in grades 3 and 7 in the spring of2000, 2001, and 2002, the results wereuseful for instructional planning, but didnot produce reliable student scores. As aresult, they did not help the Partnershipsolve the larger problem of developing acomprehensive assessment of studentscience learning in inquiry-centeredclassrooms.
Local, StatLocal, StatLocal, StatLocal, StatLocal, State, and National Pe, and National Pe, and National Pe, and National Pe, and National Policiesoliciesoliciesoliciesolicies
MISE is committed to making scienceeducation a local, state, and nationalpriority, and regularly interacts withpolicymakers concurrent with its work in
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
18
the partner schools. At the local level,MISE works with district administratorsand school board members by presentingthe Partnership’s work at public schoolboard meetings or by having informaldiscussions to clarify issues or providemore in-depth information. Superinten-dents report changes in district policies asa result of MISE’s influence includingincreased support for strong professionaldevelopment, and improvements inhiring and recruitment practices that putmore emphasis on a teacher’s knowledgeabout content and inquiry-based instruc-tion. At the state level, MISE staff serve onkey committees such as New Jersey’sProfessional Teaching Standards Boardwhich is responsible for setting highstandards for teachers’ professionaldevelopment. Participation in theseforums means that science education andMISE strategies can influence decisionsthat will impact teachers and studentsstatewide. At the national level, MISE staffpartner with leading educational organi-zations such as the National ScienceResources Center and the EducationalTesting Service to help develop inquiry-centered curriculum and assessmenttools, and are frequently asked to shareknowledge about their work with repre-sentatives from universities, corporations,museums, and school districts around thenation.
After 10 years of documenting thework of the Merck Institute for ScienceEducation, CPRE researchers havereached the following conclusions aboutMISE’s work:
• The concept of partnership has beencritical to MISE’s success. This ideahas had a profound impact on MISE’sapproach to reform and its successfulengagement of the four districts.Building a genuine partnership hastransformed this reform effort from anexternally funded project to shared
work based on a common vision. ThePartnership has sustained and deep-ened the reform effort, resulting in itsintegration with the regular opera-tions of the four districts.
• MISE’s systemic approach hasworked. Science has become a priorityin the partner districts. Inquiry-centered teaching has become thenorm, most teachers have learned touse it well, and the districts aresupporting it. Student work in sciencehas changed dramatically and thesechanges have resulted in some im-provement on standardized tests.
• MISE and its partners have not onlylearned how to provide high-qualityprofessional development, they havelearned how to provide it at consider-able scale, and they have learned howto attract high proportions of teachersto participate.
• The provision of opportunities forteachers to acquire new knowledgeand reflect on their practice, boththrough institutes and on the job,matters a great deal. The more profes-sional development teachers receive,the more their classroom instructionresembles the vision of good practiceadvanced by MISE and the better theperformance of their students.
• Sustained support for reform pro-duces momentum and changes thenorms of practice. When a criticalmass of teachers in a school hasreceived professional developmentand begun to change their practice,the practice of non-participants alsobegins to shift in the same direction.When norms change, new teachersare socialized and prepared to engagein the reformed practice throughformal induction and informal learn-ing from experienced peers. Theatrophying effects of teacher andprincipal turnover are reduced and it
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
19
is easier to sustain the new practices(CPRE, 2001).
• Preparing Leader Teachers to act ascatalysts of change in instructionalpractices across the classrooms oftheir schools produced mixed resultsas it was highly dependent on thesupport of the principal and thecareful selection of the Leader Teach-ers. However, teacher leadershipproved critical to this reform effort. Byoffering teachers authentic opportuni-ties for leadership such as designingand delivering professional develop-ment, developing and implementingnew tools of assessment, and leadingstudy groups, MISE helped thedistricts build a competent, confident,and professional teaching force. Thedistricts are able to sustain the workin large part due to the capacity of theteachers who have emerged as leadersthrough the work of the Partnership.
• A successful partnership such as thisone also requires the ongoing supportof school principals. They set thepriorities in their schools; shape thenorms of acceptable practice; deter-mine whether teachers have time forplanning, reflection, and discussion ofinstructional matters; explain thechanges in classroom practice toparents; and find resources andprovide support for a sustainedreform. Principals must understandand embrace the vision of reformedpractice and appreciate and supportthe teacher leaders who help spreadit.
• The four partner districts have be-come active players and shaped thePartnership. They have adoptedMISE’s vision of instructional reform,and are actively supporting reformedpractice. District staffs are now moreattentive to how their policies andprocedures affect classroom practice.The four districts have made changes
in policy, organization, and assign-ments in support of MISE’s vision ofscience instruction. They have inter-nalized some key lessons drawn fromthis experience and, within theirresource limitations, are applyingwhat they have learned in languagearts and mathematics.
• These changes have been given anassist by Merck’s reputation, exper-tise, and commitment to publiceducation which have enabled MISEto influence state policy and create anenvironment more supportive of thereforms.
• In terms of the bottom line — theimprovement of student performance— classroom observations and inter-views show that student work inscience has shifted dramatically, frommemorizing facts in textbooks todesigning and conducting investiga-tions that help students understandkey concepts as well as the habits ofmind and methods of inquiry used byscientists. Analyses of student perfor-mance on standardized tests revealthat students who have receivedscience instruction over several yearsfrom teachers who have participatedin the Partnership professional devel-opment outperform students whohave been taught by non-participants.In spite of the assessment problemsencountered by MISE and the Partner-ship, these data suggest that, in thelong run, as more and more teachersparticipate in the workshops, therewill be an increasing positive impacton student performance in science.
The Partnership initiated by MISE hasbeen a remarkable collaboration with anenviable track record of accomplishment.The experience of the Partnership, its
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
20
successes and shortcomings, and thechallenges that it has faced offer lessonsfor other organizations that set out tohelp school districts improve teaching.Many of these apply to any reform effort.The most important lessons are:
• A shared vision and clear communi-cation are critical to the eventualsuccess or failure of a reform. MISE’sadvisory committee was a unique andimportant element of the Partnership,and helped provide the Partnershipwith valuable feedback to modify andenhance the work. The committeegave the Partnership’s leaders aforum to address issues or concerns,share ideas, and make decisionsaffecting the work. Providing thePartnership’s leaders with regularopportunities to meet and collaborateempowered the key stakeholders andgave each a voice in the Partnership’sdevelopment and success.
• Respect for teachers and teaching is aprime directive. From the beginning,MISE staff showed respect for teach-ers as professionals and valuedcolleagues. They understood thatteaching was demanding and com-plex work, that there were not alwaysclear answers to the problems teach-ers faced, and that successful teacherswere highly skilled professionals.This respect was evident in theirvoluntary approach to professionaldevelopment, in the climate set in theinstitutes, in their concern aboutquality, and in their insistence thataccomplished teachers help designand lead the professional develop-ment. This principle won them therespect of the teaching forces in thefour districts. Even those who wereunwilling to participate recognizedthat the “MISE folks understoodteaching.”
• If you build good professional devel-opment programs, teachers will come.
CPRE’s data show that the vastmajority of teachers will voluntarilytake advantage of opportunities tolearn and to improve their teachingpractice — if the opportunities areseen as worthwhile and are accessible.Offering professional developmentthat is directly related to teachers’work, showing respect for theirprofessionalism, carefully combiningattention to subject-matter knowledgewith skills in pedagogy, and class-room management of inquiry haveproved to be a successful formula.
• Professional development must be acontinuous process, not a set ofepisodes. Not only do teachers benefitfrom continued engagement with thecontent of the curriculum and oppor-tunities to reflect on what students arelearning, there is also constant turn-over. Good teachers who have beentrained depart, and each year there isan influx of new teachers who have tobe brought up to par quickly. Thereassignment of teachers to differentgrade levels after they have devel-oped expertise with the curriculum ata given grade level also confoundssystematic staff development plan-ning. MISE and the partner districtshave responded by building pro-grams to introduce new teachers toinquiry and in which all new teachersare required to participate. Theseorientation programs are effective forintroducing new staff to districtinstructional expectations, but consid-erable time is required for high levelsof instructional proficiency.
• Given the current policies governingthe preparation and assignment ofelementary school teachers, there arelimits on the changes that can bemade in science teaching even withgood professional development. Mostelementary school teachers have littlecontent knowledge in science to beginwith, so it is difficult for them to reach
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
21
the level of content knowledgeneeded for successful inquiry-cen-tered instruction. Many can onlymove part of the way toward re-formed practice. They need thestructure provided by the well-designed science modules and thestructured investigations that are builtinto them. In addition, science com-petes with literacy and mathematicsfor instructional time in elementaryschool classrooms. Teachers may notbe able to do inquiry every daybecause it takes considerable time toplan and carry out.
• Persistence is critical as it takes timefor teachers to acquire the knowledge,skills, and confidence to change theirpractices, and even longer to alter thenorms of practice. MISE has workedwith the four partner districts for adecade. One of the important rolesthat they played was to keep peoplefocused on the reform. Many compet-ing interests pulled at people’s timeand attention. Keeping the interest ofthe reform at the top of the agenda isnot an easy task and takes skill,patience, and tenacity.
• Personnel changes are common inschool districts, and this turnover isthe enemy of persistence and, there-fore, of success. Superintendents,school boards, curriculum supervi-sors, principals, and teacher leaderscome and go. Since 1993, MISE hasworked with 14 superintendents inthe four districts. The annual turnoverof teachers was about 6%. However,the broad participation in the workand the widespread respect that itgarnered made it possible to sustainthe reforms in spite of the turnover inpersonnel. MISE staff kept top leader-ship informed and educated along theway and garnered their support andapproval. They built support for theeffort among all of the stakeholders sothat the loss of one leader did not
bring the effort to a halt. This hasbeen a time-consuming and delicateprocess, but also an important rolethat MISE was well positioned toplay. Merck’s reputation for qualityand integrity have been important insustaining the work of the Partner-ship through numerous leadershiptransitions.
• Teachers’ knowledge and skills arecritical factors in the classroom learn-ing experience, but not the only ones.Good curriculum materials are alsoessential. Teachers need access to andsupport in implementing standards-based curricula and teaching materi-als. They need the support andknowledgeable involvement ofschool- and district-level administra-tors, parents, and the community.MISE addresses these needs throughresource centers featuring exemplaryscience education materials, Merckemployee volunteer programs, andparent involvement programs, inaddition to its support of long-termprofessional development.
• Better assessment tools in science areneeded. Existing measures do notadequately show the effects of betterscience instruction. Right now, teach-ers see improved student work intheir classrooms and a higher level ofstudent interest in science, but theavailable measures do not adequatelydemonstrate this change to parents,school leaders, or the public. Inaddition to assessments that providegood diagnostic information forteachers’ instructional planning,assessments that are persuasive to thepublic and policymakers are neededas well.
• The state policy context on incentivesfor change can play a pivotal role instimulating instructional reform, andMISE’s role in shaping state policyhas had a high payoff. Including
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
22
science in state assessments is particu-larly important. If science is notassessed, attention shifts to the as-sessed subjects and it becomes diffi-cult to engage teachers in seriousinstructional reforms. This problemcan be countered if district leadersmake science a priority and include itin internal accountability processes.
Final ThoughtsFinal ThoughtsFinal ThoughtsFinal ThoughtsFinal Thoughts
MISE is a compelling example of atechnical assistance organization that hasdeveloped a coherent approach to reformand paid careful attention to feedbackfrom the field and from evaluation tomodify its strategy as needed. The suc-cess of the Partnership is testimony toMISE’s thoughtful strategy, patientresponsiveness, and willingness to makechanges. Each year, CPRE evaluatorsreviewed their findings with MISE staffwho then used the information to alterthe course of their work. MISE is a learn-ing organization, and it has modified itstactics as needed. Learning that theLeader Teacher strategy was not effec-tively spreading good practice, MISEaltered its approach to professionaldevelopment to engage hundreds ofteachers through Peer Teacher Work-shops. Finding that existing curricularguidance and assessment tools wereinadequate, MISE staff developed localcurriculum frameworks and new assess-ments. Recognizing that state policieswere limiting the reforms in the districts,MISE staff actively sought to create amore supportive policy environment,participating in the development of statestandards and curriculum frameworks,engaging in public outreach, and net-working with other business-schoolpartnerships, thereby broadening thebase for reform.
MISE formed partnerships with thefour districts that were based on mutualrespect, frankness, and honesty, and theyblossomed into one common Partnership
with a shared vision of reform. Thisincreased the likelihood that the collec-tive effort would be sustained over time;since everyone was a player in the deci-sion-making process, everyone had astake in the results.
MISE understood that a systemicapproach was needed in order for thisinitiative to have the desired impact ofbringing real change to science instruc-tion. Without a systemic approach, it islikely that the Partnership would havebeen less effective. By working at everylevel with school districts, by beingmindful of the political nuances of eachsetting, and by addressing issues of timeand professional development, MISEincreased the effectiveness of its efforts.
The MISE Partnership, in addition tobeing a story of real accomplishments, isan incomplete story. It is an incompletestory because as yet, there are not thebroad-based student achievement resultsneeded to support the assertions ofteachers, administrators, MISE staff, andeven CPRE evaluators that students arelearning more science. This is a criticaland important point that is being ad-dressed by MISE but which leaves anempty space in this success story.
With all of the intensive, high-qualityprofessional development that was partof the Merck venture, it is still sobering torealize that most teachers need between80 and 100 hours of professional develop-ment to produce significant change ininstruction. The extension of this fact toother districts in the two states under-scores the need for enormous fundingsupport and patience in order to see thechanges in practice needed to ensure thatall children receive a sound scienceeducation.
This is a partnership worthy of mod-eling. The example is there not only forother corporations to follow, but for alltechnical assistance organizationswhether they be sponsored by states,
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
23
universities, non-profit organizations, orprofessional organizations. There aresimilar stories to be told about the El PasoCollaborative for Academic Excellence,the Bay Area School Reform Collabora-tive, the Southern Maine Collaborative,and other organizations that have fo-cused on particular communities orregions and provided the intense andsustained assistance needed to makesignificant changes in teaching. Afteralmost a decade of financial support,sustained professional development, andmanagement guidance, the four schooldistricts working with MISE have madedramatic changes to their K-8 scienceprograms. Children have access to betterscience materials and teachers are morecomfortable with their teaching. Thesuccess of MISE and the Partnershipdemonstrates that serious efforts to helpteachers improve their practice broughtpositive results, and that students ben-efited from these investments.
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
24
The Merck Institute for Science Education: A Successful Intermediary for Education Reform
Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992).Hierarchical linear models for social andbehavioral research: Applications and dataanalysis methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
College Journal. (n.d.). Pharmaceuticals.Retrieved February 4, 2003, from http://www.collegejournal.com/researchindustries/researchindustries/pharmaceuticals-v.html/
Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachersteach well: Transforming professional develop-ment (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-16). NewBrunswick, NJ: Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education, Rutgers Univer-sity.
Corcoran, T. B., & Goertz, M. E. (1995).Instructional capacity and high-perfor-mance schools. Educational Researcher,24(9), 27-31.
Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion (CPRE). (1999). A close look at effectson classroom practice and student perfor-mance: A report on the fifth year of the MerckInstitute for Science Education. Philadel-phia: Author.
Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion (CPRE). (2000). Deepening the work: Areport on the sixth year of the Merck Institutefor Science Education. Philadelphia: Au-thor.
Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion (CPRE). (2001). Steady work: A reporton the seventh year of the Merck Institute forScience Education, 1999-2000. Philadelphia:Author.
Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion (CPRE). (2002). A report on the eighthyear of the Merck Institute for Science Educa-tion, 2000-2001. Philadelphia: Author.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gapbetween standards and achievement: Theimperative for professional development ineducation. Washington, DC: AlbertShanker Institute.
Goertz, M. E., Floden, R., & O’Day, J. A.(1995). Evaluating education reform: Sys-temic reform, Volume 1: Findings and conclu-sions. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, RutgersUniversity.
McDonald, J., McLaughlin, M., &Corcoran, T. B. (2000, April). Agents ofreform: The role and function of intermediaryorganizations in the Annenberg Challenge.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.
Sanders, L. W., & Rivers, C. J. (1996).Cumulative and residual effects of teachers onfuture student academic achievement. Knox-ville, TN: Value-added Research andAssessment Center, University of Tennes-see.
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new visionfor staff development. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curricu-lum Development.
