past foundation columbus city schools report

8/13/2019 PAST Foundation Columbus City Schools Report

1/195

2012-2013

Africentric, Linden, and West Feeder Systems

T R A N S F O R M A T I O N Sheli O. Smith, Monica S. Hunter, & Annalies Corbin

PAST TeamKat Deaner, Maria G. Cohen, Elliot Mork,Meghan Matta, Brian Coffey, Beth Witte,and Lori Trent


2/195

A PAST Foundation Publication 2013


3/195

PAST Foundation -- CCS Report 2012-2013

..............................................................................................Introduction 1

..............................................................................PAST Presents CCS to the World 4

STEMProfessional Development.......................................................................5

Understanding the Rationale of the PAST STEM Transformation Model ..................5

....................................Commitment to the Educational Paradigm Shift in this Century 6

...........................................................What Teachers Want to Know About STEM TPBL 7

....................................................How Do Schools Replicate Success in Transformation 7

What STEM Transformation Looks Like in Columbus City Schools ............................8

Building Upon Current Successes: Continued and Scheduled Collaboration.........15

............Coordinating STEM TPBL Implementation with Concurrent District Initiatives 16

Attaining Sustainability of STEM TPBL ........................................................................ 19

..............How We Identify STEM TPBL Professional Development Course Correction 20

...................................Integrations of STEM TPBL with State and National Standards 22

..............................Specific Issues Associated with Sustaining STEM TPBL Education 25

What are the Next Steps for Transformation: Recommendations............................28

Knowledge Capture.............................................................................................30

................................................................................................Research Activities 20

Data Collection and Methods ........................................................................................32

......................................................................................................................Data Sets 34

.......................................................................................................................Methods 35

......................................................................................................................... Surveys 36

...............................................................................................................Focus Groups 39

Table of Contents


4/195


Analyzing Focus Group Information ..............................................................................40

...........Challenges Identified by Teachers for a Successful Transition to STEM TPBL 40

...........Best Practices Identified by Teachers for Success in STEM TPBL Classrooms 43

.........................New Perceptions About Student Gains in a STEM TPBL Classroom 48

......................................................................Leadership and STEM TPBL Success 48

.............................................................................................................Conclusions 54

....................................................................................References Cited 55

.............................................................................................Appendices 56

..................................................................................................A. Invitations and Agendas 57

............................B. Evidence of TPBL in CCS Schools as Reported to PAST Foundation 115

...........................................................C. Example of 2012 & 2013 Teacher Presentations 120

D. ..................Transforming the Schoolhouse: A Roadmap to Community Engagement 126

........................................E. Inside Out STEM Innovation Conference June 11-12, 2013 157

................................................................................F. LFS Survey Deployment Schedule 161

..............................................................................G. WFS Survey Deployment Schedule 163

...................................................................H. LFS/WFS STEM Leader Survey Questions 165

...............................I. AFS Survey Deployment Schedule and Teacher Survey Questions 172

...........................................................................................J. 2012-2013 Survey Analysis 174


5/195


Tables

.... ..........1. Types and Frequency of PAST Professional Development with CCS Schools 9

.... ...........................................................................2. CCS Feeder System School Data 14

.... .................3. Scheduled PD Planning with PAST Foundation in Schools (2012-2013) 15

.... .............................................................................4. Ohio STEM Basecamp Report 17

.... .....................5. Evidence of TPBL in CCS Schools as Reported to PAST Foundation 18

.... ..........................................................6. Pre-Planning TBPL Deliverable Submissions 20

.... .............................................7. STEM TPBL Implementation Benchmarks in Schools 23

.... ..............................................8. Recommendations for Administration and Teachers 29

... ........................................9. Knowledge Capture Research Activities by CCS School 31

. ...........................10. STEM TPBL Research Study Participants by CCS Feeder System 32

. ................11. Comparison of Program Design Variables for Transition to STEM TPBL 34

.12. Overview of Teacher Themes on Successful Implementation of STEM TPBL in My

...............................................................................................................Classroom 38

.13. Teacher Identified Challenges for Successful Transition to STEM TPBL

............................................................................................................(2011-2012) 41

.14. Teacher Identified Challenges for Successful Transition to STEM TPBL

............................................................................................................(2012-2013) 42

. ...............................................15. Instructional Strategies Best Practices 2012 & 2013 45

. ......................................................16. Cultural Strategies Best Practices 2012 & 2013 46

. ..........................................................17. Delivery System Best Practices 2012 & 2013 47

. .......18. Teacher Reported Observations of STEM TPBL Student Growth (2012-2013) 50

. .........19. What is the Role of the Principal for a Successful Transition to STEM TPBL? 51

.20. What are the Essential Components of Administrative Support for a Successful STEM

......................................................................................................TPBL Transition? 53

Tables & Figures


6/195


Figures

.......................................................1. PAST TPBL Forms Associated with Brainstorming 11

.........2. PAST TPBL Forms Associated with Standards Alignment and Quality Products 12..............................3. PAST TPBL Forms that Reflect Evidence of Planning & Assessing 13

4. ..............................................................9th Grade Math: Overall Assessment Scores 26

Acknowledgements: All imagery reproduced in this report are the property of the PAST

Foundation.

!"#$%&'(

!"#*&+,(

!"#-.+,(


7/195

PAST Foundation -- CCS Report 2012-2013 1

Introduction

For 13 years the PAST Foundation has worked with communities, local

schools, school districts, states departments of education, policy

makers, business, and industry partners to help transform the culture of21stcentury education. As anthropologists working alongside educators

we have the opportunity to see educational systems in various stages of

transition. We work with urban, rural, reservation, frontier, suburban,

public, charter, transformational, traditional, STEM, and new platform

schools. Through this variety of educational experiences we recognize a

number of key Kevlar threadsthat form primary foundations of all

successful educational efforts. With an eye towards helping schools find

local relevance, we actively work to help educate not just the whole

child, but the whole community.

This report reflects the work of the PAST Foundation with Columbus

City Schools (CCS) STEM Transformation Project for the academic

year 2012-2013. A significant portion of the material in this report

was first compiled in June 2013 as part of our Ohio Race To The Top

(RTTT) Year 2 final report deliverable as a service partner with the

Ohio STEM Learning Network (OSLN), which is supported and

managed by Battelle Memorial Institute. PAST began working with

CCS on its STEM Transformation Project in 2009. Since that time, this

projects goals, intended outcomes, scope and scale has changed

dramatically (see previously published, 2010-2011 Linden Feeder

Report). As a result, our processes and work with CCS have been

both flexible and agile. Although many good things happened within

CCS during the 2012-2013 schools year, CCS was a district in crisis

and transition. The strain and stress of district scrutiny filtered down to

every level and effort within the district. We closed out the 2012-2013

academic year with some inspiring successes, some set backs, and

some auspicious starts.

Many changes have occurred in CCS since the end of June. There is a

new administration, philosophy and direction for CCS as a whole.

Interim superintendent, Dr. Dan Good, leads the district with a newfocus and energy. As a result, some of the changes recommended in

the Ohio RTTT and in this report have been addressed and

implemented with the change in leadership. Several building

principals and key administrators have moved or shifted with an aim

towards increasing building leadership and sustainability. Starling

Middle School and Dana Elementary School have merged and moved


8/195


into their new building. West High School has now completely

transitioned all grades (9-12) to STEM. Africentric k-12 has introduced

STEM to all grade levels. They await follow through in the

implementation plan they designed. Although some changes have been

made in the Linden Feeder, several strategic decisions need to be

addressed urgently.

As with all transformation effort funding and sustainability is a

constant concern. As anthropologists we know from more than a

decade of observation and interaction with schools in transition that

without full culture shift, no amount of funding can fix instructional

strategy problems. Full culture shift in most school and communities

typically takes 5-7 years. Cultural or paradigm shift assumes a

unified effort and investment. This is not the case across the three

feeder systems in which PAST has worked. Yet, within the CCS

STEM Transformation Project the funding sources that underwrotethe professional development at the Linden Feeder schools and West

Feeder schools will be expended by the end of the 2013-14 academic

year. Full culture shift in these schools, for numerous reasons, is not yet

complete. As the CCS STEM partners decide how support and

additional grant funds will support professional opportunities, it is

important that sustainability be at the forefront of decision-making.

Based on a number of recommendations in this report and knowledge

of shifting district funding and priorities, PASTs role in the three feeder

system schools for academic year 2013-14 was modified. Currently PAST

is providing on-going STEM professional development as follows:

! Work in the Linden feeder was scaled back to only two schools,

Linden Elementary and Linden McKinley.

! At Linden Elementary School we meet on scheduled days to

facilitate intensive TPBL planning with specified teacher

cohorts.

! On four mini workshops (45 minute check-ins) at Linden

McKinley STEM Academy to see how teachers are

implementing their summer, pre-planned mini-challenges.

! Weekly at West High School for ongoing planning among

teacher cohorts and with administrators regarding strategies for

implementation.

! Bi-Monthly at Starling and Westmoor Middle Schools for

ongoing cohort planning and with administration regarding

strategies for implementation.


9/195


! Monthly with Linden, West and Africentric feeders STEM

Coordinators for accelerated strategies in STEM TPBL

implementation.

Some of the recommendations in this report are already being

implemented. Dr. Hinds at Linden Elementary School is carefullytracking evidence of planning and implementation of TPBL modules

by her teachers. Diplomas Now (DN) at Linden McKinley STEM

Academy has modified its curriculum to allow for TPBL implementation

alongside the more prescribed DN curriculum. CCS is beginning to

publish TPBL modules created by STEM school teachers across the

district and STEM schools are beginning to work across schools within

feeder systems. These changes reflect both the change underway within

CCS as well as national paradigm shifts in education.

The intent of the PAST process is to be receptive to the evolving nature

of the community and needs of the faculty and administrators taskedwith navigating the ever-changing educational landscape by providing

tools and processes that allow proactive, educational responses without

sacrificing unique cultural attributes. Columbus City Schools has a

diverse population with many unique social and economic factors that

help shape individual schools. We have been fortunate, as an

organization, to have the opportunity to celebrate this diversity through

our partnership with CCS STEM schools.


10/195


PAST Presents CCS to the World

Over the course of the year the PAST team strived to present the successes of the CCS

transformation in both print and presentation. Listed here are the publications and

presentation that used CCS examples or focused on CCS topics.


11/195


Understanding the Rationale of the PAST STEM TPBL Model

The PAST Foundation stands for Partnering Anthropology with Science

and Technology. Our motto, Access through InnovationSMkeeps us

focused on exploring and continuously considering ways to link

learning to life. The PAST Foundation has more than a decade of

experience working directly with schools and communities in transition,

and has identified key benchmarks essential to successful school

transformation to STEM education. PAST offers a team of experts, led

by anthropologists working collaboratively with educators towards

identifying the critical needs of educational systems in transition. Using

an anthropological framework, we offer powerful analytical tools to

understand both the visible diversity of communities associated with a

particular educational system, as well as the hidden commonalities

they all possess. Large or small, urban or rural, from whole districts to

the one-room schoolhouse the PAST Foundation has effectively

partnered on all levels to outline consistent benchmarks that serve as

critical levers in shaping successful school transformational outcomes.

The PAST Foundation STEM Professional Development Model is based

on the notion that good STEM education is directly linked to the level

of innovative instruction and content delivery. To that end, PAST has

developed a culturally focused STEM program design anddevelopment model that is the cornerstone of the school

transformation in PAST Foundation supported schools. The PAST

workbook for building replicable modules began over ten years ago

and has undergone a process of trial, experimentation and on-going

field-testing. The PAST STEM transdisciplinary problem-based learning

(TPBL) model is an instructional strategy that is process-driven via

regular site- specific professional development supported by workbook

materials, intended as hands-on templates for designing and

implementing 21stcentury education. The step-by-step process is

designed to help instructors and community partners build robust andsustainable practices that engage and excite the learning team of

teachers and students.

Over the years we have been fortunate to have educators across the

country work with us to help us better understand their needs and

outlooks. Coming from an anthropological perspective, our process is

intended to be holistic, dynamic, and agile responding to issues and

STEM Professional Development


12/195


needs of current time. However, we draw upon the success of many

concepts and strategies well established in education throughout the

19thand 20thcenturies, such as, applying design cycles, mastery based

learning strategies, standards, and modalities of learning. We promote

a community-based cultural strategy that uses local, regional, and

global issues as the driving influence in creating guiding statementsand essential questions, for project modules in the classroom. We

promote a transdisciplinary approach to projects in an effort to de-silo

content areas and integrate skill development in ways that more

closely reflect real life. Finally, we contend that education is a life-long

process that begins at birth and continues throughout our mature lives

into our senior years. This extends a culture of learning that relies on

the way we present the process of learning by fully integrating learning

into our lives.A primary goal of our work is to create a process that takes any topic

and reveals how interconnected all subjects are to one another. We

cannot understand science if we cannot read, nor can we ground

math in real world issues if we cannot problem solve. If we do not

understand the social consequences of increased knowledge and

understanding gained through science and technology, we may

unintentionally change the path of humanity to reach its full

potential. Life is interconnected; learning should be as well.

A second goal of our STEM transformational model is to partner

professionals with educators drawing on compelling events that

engage and excite students. Todays students should possess theskills to take what they learn in formal education into their adult

lives. Their school experiences affect how they approach decision-

making, tackle problem solving, and perceive the world around

them. We believe that helping our youth better understand the

interconnectivity of the world will prepare them to be more effective

members of their communities. Students, educators, and community

partners can build programs together that result in amazing learning

experiences and lasting impressions. These successes encourage the

PAST team to keep working at updating and perfecting the process,

keeping it current and responsive to the needs of contemporaryyouth.

Commitment to the Educational Paradigm Shift of this Century

The PAST Foundation seeks outcomes and recognized benchmarks as

markers of success that are grounded in attaining an educational


13/195


paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts are inherently disruptive and will

profoundly change the delivery of education. All paradigm shifts take

time to implement fully, typically taking more than two years, and

although there may be setbacks, paradigm shifts have ground swell

momentum, growing until the paradigm becomes the commonly

accepted norm. A paradigm shift to TPBL is not an add-on tocurrent strategies and delivery systems that rely on direct instruction,

and will require re-tooling of the education workforce. Additionally,

educational paradigm shifts generally are differentiated from program

initiatives where the education workforce contends they have a choice

in implementing a new program, add-on. However, in making changes

that achieve a paradigm shift, the education workforce must accept

and apply new skills and tools that will enhance learning in terms of

new modes for delivery of instruction. Although paradigm shifts are

not initially tied to performance evaluations and salaries, ultimately

all performance will be judged by the common understanding ofSTEM TPBL, applying criteria defined by 21stcentury learning skills

and outcome.

What Teachers Want to Know About STEM TPBL

Some of the first questions teachers ask are How does this differ

from any other two-year initiative in education? How will I find the

time to do this?Our approach is designed to support educators in a

process that builds understanding of TPBL as an instructional

strategy that is not just another initiative viewed as add-on to directinstruction. The PAST Foundation approach to Professional

Development (PD) focuses on process as well as products alignment

to Common Core, Next Generation Science Standards, and State

Educational Standards, along with essential 21stcentury skills. We

offer a systematic process that scaffolds teaching skills and

experience in planning projects in a holistic context, and

implementing projects grounded in real world problems with fidelity

to grade level standards. This process combines a number of

historically successful techniques that build on inquiry-based

learning, mastery, transdisciplinary approaches, and progressiveeducation.

How Do Schools Replicate Success in Transformation

As in all paradigm shifts, change takes commitment and practice for

it to grow into a set of integrated strategies and delivery systems.


14/195


Willingness to change requires reassessment of how one leads,

teaches, and what tools will be used to impart learning. When built

holistically with consideration of schedule, available tools, and

resources, the process takes no more time than currently being

expended on planning and delivering instruction. It does, however,

look different in each school because it acknowledges theuniqueness of every school and community.

However, while each school will need to meet the particular needs

of students and staff in making the shift, there are common

elements of STEM TPBL that are replicable in tangible terms. TPBL

requires, more teacher planning on the front end, more student

interaction with creating the project and assessment, less lecturing,

and no worksheets. TPBL changes traditional grading curves from

bell shape to an ascending line that reflects gains for all students.

This is due to changes in instructional strategies structured by aSTEM TPBL approach to learning. Traditional instructional strategy

targets verbal learners and thus produces bell curve grade scales,

while TPBL targets multiple learning modalities and is reflected in

the ascending line grade scale. TPBL supports more peer-to-peer

learning and responds to differentiation in learning, as well as

different modalities of learning. Because of its replicable structure,

TPBL lends itself to benchmarking in two important ways: first, in

giving teachers the autonomy to develop the curriculum modules

and short cycle assessments; and second, by administrators tracking

student success in a 21st

century context. In the end, TPBL producesresults that far exceed current expectations, challenging the current,

status quo.

This set of guiding philosophies form the essential components of

the PAST Foundations approach to STEM transformation offering a

fundamental design to address school transformation in persistently

low achieving schools within Columbus City Schools.

What STEM Transformation Looks like in Columbus CitySchools

During the 2012-2013, academic year the PAST Foundation

partnered with 19 Persistently Low Achieving (PLA) schools within

three Columbus City Schools (CCS) feeder systems to ensure

transformational change toward STEM transdisciplinary problem-


15/195


based learning across all content areas. This school transformation plan includes several key

components (Table 1):

! Intensive workshops (day-long and/or multiple-day Professional Development) and/or

Summer and Spring Professional Development workshops

! Administrative Professional Development workshops

! Modeling the structural components for effective STEM Coordinator meetings

! Scheduled on-site visits to work with grade level teacher STEM teams

! Weekly debriefs with CCS administrators and partner agencies

! Hosting and maintaining the virtual project management platform, Basecamp

Feeder System Level of School Intense PDWorkshops

Scheduled

PD inAcademic

Year

STEMCoordinator

Meetings

Admin PDSessions

FridayDebriefings

VirtualBasecamp

High School 8

Middle 4

Elementary 4 1

High School 12 21 8 4

Middle 12 21 8

Elementary 24 30 8

High School 24 34 0 3

Middle 18 35

Elementary 18 51

124 204 33 12 60

Numbers represent events between May 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013

Types and Frequency of P ST Professional Dev elopme nt with CCS Schoo ls

110

9

4

0

1

20

20

20West

Linden

Africentric

Table 1: Types and Frequency of PAST Professional Development with CCS Schools

All components are aimed at facilitating and accelerating the transformation of education in

these 19 CCS schools. The components are varied and have evolved to meet the demands of

a much needed paradigm shift in CCS educational philosophy. This paradigm shift is

underway globally, and support from CCS educational, business, and industry partners is

helping CCS administrators, faculty, students, and parents change the way they think about

educating the citys children with thoughtful and consistent intent to attain success for all

students.

To this end, PAST Foundation professional development is benchmarked through continued

interaction, observation and reflection, utilizing ethnographic methods to inform and guide

the PAST team and administrators within the District and schools for real time, course

correction. Of the 391 total faculty from across the three feeder systems, the PAST Knowledge

Capture team conducted focus group discussions with 360 teachers (2011-2013) to capture


16/195


their voice and insights about the process underway. The analysis of

responses to the questions addressed in the focus groups is presented

in the Knowledge Capture section of this report. The ethnographic

insights on the experience of teachers and principals are constantly

used to inform, as well as compare with PD team observations,

interactions, and experiences in training and cohort planning.

Moreover, our Professional Development team utilizes a formative

feedback process to continually evaluate and modify the tools used

to help teachers plan and implement STEM transdisciplinary

problem-based learning. The PAST workbook, Problems>Projects>

Products: Designing Transdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning,

provides templates that can be used by teachers to guide their

transition to STEM TPBL, offering categories aligned to the principles

of design; brainstorming, designing or planning, building, evaluating,

modifying and sharing (Smith and Corbin 2013). The workbooktemplates provide teachers and administrators with a process that

enables them to create evidence for benchmarking:

! Effective planning (Figure 1)

! Continuous implementation (Figure 2)

! Student participation in projects

! Alignment to State Standards, the Common Core and Next

Generation Science Standards

! Consistent and structured evaluation through short cycle

assessments, rubrics and standards-based questions (Figure 3)

!

Real time, course correction through modification of PD tomeet specific training needs

! Demonstrations of learning engaging authentic audiences.

Through the use of this scaffolded process, the 391 teachers within

schools of the three feeder systems, Africentric (AFS), Linden (LFS),

and West (WFS) have the opportunity to consistently create projects

that address real world problems in a format that is easily transferred

and implemented across the 19 schools within the three systems. In

fact, this spring displaced teachers from the soon to be closed Dana

Elementary School in the West Feeder System, participated in PD in

order to plan their fall 2013 problems and projects they will implementat their new teaching location, South Mifflin STEM Academy. South

Mifflin is in the Linden Feeder System and these teachers will be

following their principal Pam Eberhardt, as she transfers from one STEM

TPBL, school to another.

Ongoingmodificationis aimed atshifting the

concept ofevaluation toHow do weimprove the

ongoing

process toinsuresuccess?


17/195


!"# !"#$%& ()*+"##%&'()*+%'#, -#,(./0&(/)(0+#, '"%' % */(1#&,%+ '2 "*3%/ '"2*."'45&'()*+%'(/. 0%&', 26 -#,(./ (/ #%)" %/- #1#&7 0&28#)'"#+0, ,'*-#/', */-#&,'%/- '"# 0%&', 26 )&('()%+ '"(/9(/.%/- "2: '"2,# 0%&', % (/'#.&%+ '2 %++ 0&2;+#3,2+1(/.4 (/ % ,(/.+# 0&2;+#3 )%/ ;# %--,,#- '"&2*." -(66#/' 0&28#)',%/- ,'*-#/', )%/ -#32/,'&%'# '"#(& +#%&/(/. '"&2*."% 1%&(#'7 26 0&2-*)',4

456.3!78591

!"# %" #& '"()& *+,

:;!.?7.831

-./+ *01"23/+*"0 %" #& 0&&% +" 4"((&4+,

4?.>:1 5"0'+264+ "2 %2/# 7"62 '"(6+*"0898:.@A1 !"# #*(( 7"6 4./09& *+ +" '644&&%,

!=65;1

!"# #*(( 7"6 './2& *+ #*+. "+.&2',

;B6>?67;1!"# %" 7"6 :0"# *+ '"()&' +.& ;2" %/-%,,#,,(/. &(.2&4 @2,'(/. !:2AB##9 @+%//#&, (, % .%' 3#)"%/(,362& (/62&3(/. %++ ,'%9#"2+-#&, 26 '"# 0&2)#,,> ,)20#> %/- 0%)#4

!"#$%&' #")**+& ,-+.&/-*01%% 234'1/&5

,-+.&/-67-181-1&*9:"#+;:#+--:& !"#


18/195


!"# !"#$%#$ '(%)*"+$ ,(-)#./%("#%&'()*+,-%(*# "./ 0+11#)#2* ,.2*#2* ()#(' ()# 3.+23*. +2*#3)(*# %#()2+23 45 (00)#''+23 *"# '(6#&).4%#67 8* +' ( '2(&'".* .1 2-6#).-' &).9#,*'*"(* ()# #:(6+2+23 *"# '(6# &).4%#6 *").-3"0+11#)#2* %#2'#'7

!"# !"#$%#$ 01.-#2%#$ ,(-)#./%( "#%&'-' -20#)'*(20 /"(* +* %..;' %+;# *. 6('*#) (


19/195


!"#$%&' ) *++,&-

!"#$%&'( !"#$%&'( !"#$%&'( !"#$%&'(

!"#$%&$$' !"#$%&$$' !"#$%&$$' !"#$%&$$'

!"#$%&$$' !"#$%&$$' !"#$%&$$' !"#$%&$$'

!"#$#%

&'#()(*"+,- /0#12+3,%

4(356#$ 7 8110#%

!"#.&/0 #1&"1*&2 3%*45&6 +03563"6+

!"#.&/0

!"#6,/0+

!"(30-"302 2"# 93(:533: 2"# ;(3'+ !"#.# 4/-*. !/ '(!-', ,/&'!)/(? .2&" '. ' .#-5#- /- '( /(,)(# *'('>#*#(! !//, #('3,#. ',, '26)#(. !/ 3#!!#- 2(6#-.!'(6 9"'! ). "'++#()(> )( !"#

*/*#(!? '(6 9"'! ). #:+#&!#6 4/- !"# 42!2-#0

8"# !"#$%&&' )*+,,&-). ' *'('>#*#(! !//, !"'! +-/62&! )6#'.0 @! ). ' >-#'! !//, 4/- '6*)().!-'!/-. !/ 2.# 4/-*'('>)(> -#./2- '&A2).)!)/(? */()!/-)(> +-/>-#..? '(6'..#..)(> -)>/-0 =/.!)(> 89/BC##7 =,'((#-. ). ' >-#'! *#&"'().*4/- )(4/-*)(> ',, .!'7#"/,6#-. /4 !"# +-/..? .&/+#? '(6 +'

8"# .+/'0+1>)5#. ' >-#'! 5)#9 /4 !"# )(!#-+,'$3#!9##( +-/D#&!. '&-/.. '( #(!)-# A2'-!#-0 E2*#-/2.!#'&"#-. +/.! !"# ,'->#B4/-*'! 3'&7*'+. )( !"#)-&,'..-//*. !/ "#,+ .!26#(!. #(5).)/( "/9 ',, !"# +-/D#&!.'-# )(!#-&/((#&!#6 '(6 9"'! !/ #:+#&! )( !"# 42!2-#0 F/-

!"# 2++#-B>-'6# ,#5#,.? 3'&7*'+. '-# ' A2)&7 5).2', !"'!',,/9 '6*)().!-'!/-. !/ !-'&7 *2,!)+,# +-/D#&!. /&&2--)(>.)*2,!'(#/2.,$ !"-/2>"/2! !"#)- .&"//,0

8"# 2,+134#5). ' "/,).!)& /5#-5)#9 4/- !#'&"#-.'(6 '6*)().!-'!/-. !/ )6#(!)4$ !//,. '(6 +-/..#.2.#6 !/ >'2># .!26#(! *'.!#-$ /4 ',)>(#6 .!'(6'-6.0

!"#$%&' #")**+& ,-+.&/-*01%% 234'1/&5

,-+.&/-67-181-1&*9:"#+;:#+--:& !"#


20/195


The continuous reflection and modification of the process bolstered by the increased pressure

to produce evidence of effective teaching has accelerated the rollout timeline since CCS first

engaged in the transformation to STEM TPBL education in 2009. As evident in Table 2 on

School Data, CCS slated the rollout time in the initial feeder system (LFS) over a three-year

period. The following transition at the West Feeder System across K-12 took only two years,

and the most recent feeder system to initiate the transition was Africentric, implementing aprocess planned for a one-year period for the year-round K-12 school. The, combined efforts of

the STEM TPBL process and the national push to create an effective teacher evaluation system

have helped advance the pace of the CCS transformational plan for transitioning to STEM

TPBL.

Table 2: CCS Feeder System School Data

Feeder System

TPBLRollout(Time

Elapsefor

Complete

Inclusion

inProcess

Level of School

No.ofSchoolsat

SpecificLevel

No.ofT

eachers

No.ofS

tudents

College

Partners

GrantP

artners

High School 1 OSU OSLN

Middle School 1 Columbus State Univ RTTT

Elementary 4 85 1561 Harvard COSI

High School 1 60 1131

Middle School 2 49 813

Elementary 7 114 2257

High School 1

Middle School 1

Elementary 1 14 353

74469

CCS Feeder System School Data

3 yrs

2 yrs NASA

Linden

West

64036

9

33 691

Columbus State Univ ODE Early CollegeAfricentric 1 yr

The PAST TPBL process and tools, when used to their fullest, produce clear paths of evidence

and demonstration for teachers and students as to planning, implementation, and

effectiveness. Thus, with the new national initiatives for rigorous teacher evaluation, the three

CCS feeders systems are poised to lead the district in modeling positive and effectiveprocesses of teacher evaluation that represents a joint effort of the three important

stakeholders: students, teachers, and administrators. The challenge is to get the teachers to

post their planning, and demonstrations of implementation regularly and with fidelity to an

open platform, such as Basecamp.


21/195


Building Upon Current Successes: Continued and Scheduled Collaboration

Information garnered from observation, discussion, and teachers delivered products

emphasize the importance of implementing STEM TPBL in a building-wide process that

transforms all grade levels within the building with well-defined leadership and well-articulated

strategies. Building on gathered evidence, PAST realizes how vitally important it is to scheduleand implement regular meetings for planning and building capacity with administrators, and

for collaborative work essential to success for STEM Leaders in specific schools, and faculty

teams.

Ongoing planning is key to successful implementation and building capacity. PAST structured

the 2012-2013 academic PD with this in mind. PAST convened a meeting in early September

Feeder System

TPBLRollout(Time

ElapseforComp

lete

InclusioninProcess

Level of School

No.ofSchools

at

SpecificLeve

l

No.ofTeache

rs

No.ofStuden

ts

CollegePartners

GrantPartners

High School 1 OSU OSLN

Middle School 1 Columbus State Univ RTTT

Elementary 4 85 1561 Harvard COSI

High School 1 60 1131

Middle School 2 49 813

Elementary 7 114 2257

High School 1

Middle School 1

Elementary 1 14 353

74469

CCS Feeder System School Data

3 yrs

2 yrs NASA

Linden

West

64036

9

33 691Columbus State Univ ODE Early CollegeAfricentric 1 yr

Table 3: Scheduled PD Planning with PAST Foundation in Schools (2012-2013)

laying out the total number of potential visits each school had the opportunity to utilize, as well

as the planned structure for the STEM Coordinators monthly meetings. The PAST team worked

creatively with all 19 principals establishing tailored routines that fit the needs and parameters

of each school (Table 3).

LFS elementary schools scheduled visits one day per month, while Linden McKinley STEM

Academy scheduled two days per month, one targeted to help Science faculty and Lead STEM

teachers from each grade level, and a second day to review with all the faculty of each grade

level cohort on progress that was being achieved. WFS elementary schools scheduled visits for

one day per month, while the two middle schools each scheduled two visits per month (every


22/195


other Tuesday). The West High School scheduled visits every week

along with a weekly meeting with the schools STEM Leaders. AFS, in

their initial year began by scheduling intensive PD workshops to first

introduce the high school faculty, then the middle school faculty, and

finally the elementary school faculty to the PAST STEM PD process.

Interspersed throughout the year, AFS used the district-wide, all day

PD to reinforce and practice the STEM TPBL process. Once the

middle and high schools went through the process, cohort planning

was scheduled to introduce the process.

All principals received a schedule of finalized PD planning dates and

times with reminders through Basecamp just prior to the assigned

PAST STEM Coordinators visit to each school. The effectiveness of

scheduling remains dependent on building administrators. In the

weekly debrief with CCS administrators and partners, this issue was

regularly addressed. By the close of the second quarter, PDresources were moved away from schools where the administrator

was ambivalent or not receptive to TPBL and given to schools

where a clear commitment to implementation was evident in

observed progress.

Coordinating STEM TPBL Implementation with Concurrent

District Initiatives

Complicating factors that can affect the transition to STEM TPBL

are associated with the lack of integration of district-wide programs

and initiatives. In any given CCS feeder system school, multipleprograms are running simultaneously and often without any

integration or coordinated effort. The many acronyms that identify

these programs within the district can also produce an unclear

message on priorities for instructional improvement. Programs

such as PAR, ROUNDS, Learning Circles, and Infinite Campusall

gather data to help guide teachers and student learning, but are

more often seen as evaluation. Read 180, RICA, Diplomas Now,

and 3rdGrade Guaranteeall provide remediation for students, but

are often defined as instructional strategies. PLCs, BLTs, Cohort

Planning, and departmental planningare intended to help building-level teams and leadership, but are often described by teachers and

administrators as busy work. Short Cycle Assessments, BOA, MOA,

and EOA, OAA, and OGTalong with Dibble, SRI,and TRCall assess

students against standards, but are often used as the primary guide

for instruction. The industry is rife with acronyms, and between

Efforts mustbe made tohelp school

faculty betterunderstand

and articulatethe driving

strategies anddelivery system


23/195


district and state level acronyms it is possible to have acronyms within acronyms such as CCIT

(Common Core Instructional TOSA [Teacher on Special Assignment]).

The plethora of programs running concurrently in schools makes the importance of being

thoughtful and strategic in professional development all the more critical. It also requires that

TPBL training and support be incredibly agile and inclusive, open to partnering and integratingconcurrent initiatives in order for faculty to accomplish all that is asked of them in any given

day, week, or quarter. To accomplish this, the PAST team visits the schools for ongoing

planning, working with teachers to enhance innovation and creativity, as well as bring

community partners to assist in planning, implementation, and provide authentic audiences.

STEM Coordinator meetings rotate each month to a different school location to expose the

STEM leaders to work-in-progress in other schools, and showcase the host schools student

work. For all meetings and professional development PAST conducts systematic outreach,

posting invitations and agendas to engage targeted school teachers and administrators to the

fullest extent possible (Appendix A: Invitations and Agendas). PAST weekly debriefs are open

to all administrators.

PAST recognizes its ongoing role as a concierge, guiding teachers to important information

on STEM education. In this aspect of our work, we have committed to building the virtual

platform of Basecamp providing current links to a constantly growing body of websites where

Community & Higher Ed

Partner GroupsK-12 Schools

Local, Regional &

National Teacher

Groups

Total Individual

Members

Basecamp managed by PAST Foundation and available to all participating schools

Ohio STEM Basecamp Report

53 41 3 1756

Table 4: Ohio STEM Basecamp Report

teachers can find resources to build upon best practices and problem-based learning (Table 4).

For example, the project path Good Stuff provides vetted sites by content area for teachers

to explore and to increase their computer skills, encouraging veteran teachers to cross into the

digital world of information. In addition, the PAST team scans current events, educational

postings, and other information that offers just fun stuff in order to reinforce the dynamic

nature and pace of life in the 21st

century and all of lifes compelling issues. Regularly postedpodcasts challenge, engage and inform teachers about todays transformation in education

including the Common Core Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, and access to

examples of transformation in other schools and inspiring speakers.

By keeping abreast of issues local, national, and global, the PAST team is in position to link

exciting and engaging programs with community partners that bring expertise and resources

to learning. Community resources, like WCBE radio station, Westgate Community Gardens,


24/195


CAR, Central Ohio Robotics Initiative (CORI), Chadwick

Arboretum, Greater Linden Development Corporation, St.

Stephens Community Center, and others are changing the

face and depth of education. Partners allow teachers to step

outside the confines of the classroom and prescribed

delivery and explore real world issues that each and every

one of us face in our schools, in our communities, and in our

nation.

The importance of connecting teachers with resources is

evident by the diversity of reported projects the teachers

implemented in 2012-2013. Appendix B (Evidence of TPBL

in CCS Schools as Reported to PAST Foundation) presents a

list of TPBL projects captured in the weekly reports to CCS

by the PAST team. When documented these TPBL modules

represent an important and valuable resource to CCS. Ifeach and every TPBL module were documented in the

replicable templates provided, CCS would possess, at

minimum, 175 new TPBL modules complete with aligned

standards and standards-based quizzes. Table 5 (Evidence

of TPBL Modules) reveals that TPBL modules aligned to

content concepts are being created across all content areas

including Engineering. Many of the modules cross content

areas or combine two content areas. Already CCS is taking

advantage of TPBL modules developed in the STEM feeder

schools. For example, Scratch My Back, Solar Cookers, andPollinatorsthat appear in the new CCS mini-challenges,

originated at Avondale and Sullivant Elementary schools

(CCS Curriculum Leadership and Development Science

Dept. 2013). This new series published by CCS uses the

Principles of Design, which form the basis of all TPBL

modules developed by Linden, Africentric, and West

teachers. Modeled on the terminology of the 5 Es (Engage,

Humanities Math Science Engineering

41 31 67 11

Evidence of TPBL Modules

Table 5: Evidence of TPBL in CCS Schools as Reported to

PAST Foundation


25/195


Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate) developed by the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in 2002 to help teachers

embrace the constructivist or engineering systems approach to

delivery, CCS is taking advantage of the growing reservoir of these

TPBL modules and disseminating them district wide.

Attaining Sustainability of STEM TPBL Education

Education is an industry that runs on cycling initiatives (two-year to

three-year cycles) that support textbook-based instructional

strategies and a lecture-based delivery system. Multiple initiatives

are rarely integrated, and often the total number of initiatives

running at any given time is a confusing mix of mandates that are

not clearly defined or prioritized. More often than not the funding

behind the initiative is used to hire teachers rather than

sustain the initiative program (Miranda 2013). Thus

initiatives come and go. Over time many teachers and

administrators have become jaded to the experience of

these cycling initiatives. In short, many within the education

industry simply ignore the intent of new initiatives knowing

they have a limited life cycle and primarily serve to subsidize

building personnel.

Without clear articulation of how initiatives are intended to

support the instructional strategy, cultural strategy, or

delivery system of a school, teachers and administrators find it difficultto differentiate between initiatives and paradigm shifts. In this

context, school transformation to STEM education is simply seen as

another initiative that will cycle through and then go away when

the next great fix comes along. This perception, linked with the

fact that there is no specific teacher salary criteria tied to

implementing this paradigm shift as it is with initiatives, only

reinforces the concept that transitioning to TPBL is a personal

choice, highlighting the discrepancy in understanding the

importance of overarching instructional strategies and delivery

systems for learning and student achievement. As PAST and CCScontinue the transformation in education, efforts must be made to

help school faculty better understand and articulate the driving

strategies and delivery system within the school. Most important to

this process is elevating emphasis of STEM education funding from

salaries supplementation to program sustainability that is key to a

successful paradigm shift.


26/195


Creating an appreciation for sustainability is, in part, tied to teacher evaluation. The evidence

required must demonstrate their facilitation of student learning in the classroom and on

standardized tests. As a major element of PAST PD, teachers are consistently asked to

complete planning documents (2-week Planners, Snapshots, Mini-Challenges, and Backmaps)

and post on Basecamp both the planned projects and evidence of implementation. The

success of this strategy has been slow and inconsistent, except with the group of earlyadopter teachers. This reflects the inexperience of administrators and teachers with consistent

evaluation and evidence of work, as a whole across the industry.

Table 6: Pre-Planning TPBL Deliverable Submissions by School

SchoolTotal # of

Teachers

No

deliverables

submitted

Partial

deliverables

submitted

Full

deliverables

submitted

Percentage

Completed

Africentric Elem 8 7 1 0 0

Africentric MS/ HS 20 13 7 0 0

Avondale Elem 16 7 6 3 19%

Dana Elem 12 9 3 0 0

Highland Elem n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sullivant Elem 12 6 6 0 0

Starling MS 14 8 6 0 0

Valleyview Elem 9 2 0 7 78%

West Broad Elem 18 7 2 9 50%

Westgate Elem 14 4 10 0 0

West High School* 13 3 n/a 10 85%

Westmoor MS 25 3 22 0 0

Linden McKinley** 34 23 8 3 8%

Where deliverables differed -- * Only first quarter backmap ** 6 mini challenges

How We Identify STEM TPBL Professional Development Course Correction

The PAST team looked for evidence within Basecamp of regular and widespread posting of

work products and have discerned that the most commonly posted evidence of planning by

faculty were the PowerPoint presentations produced by teachers at the culmination of theintensive spring/summer professional development workshops conducted by the PAST

Foundation. The presentation by faculty is always required as a non-negotiable product to be

presented to an audience of peers (Appendix C: Example of 2012 & 2013 Teacher

Presentations). Building on this knowledge, in 2012-2013 PAST adopted the strategy of

informing teachers that the evidence of planning was a deliverable tied to the availability of


27/195


on-going funding supporting their PD, adding accountability as a

feature of their training experience.

This modification to our PD strategy changed the number of

planning forms posted by teachers and signals a game changer

benchmark in the CCS STEM transformation process. However,even with the articulation of deliverables for Spring/Summer

professional development, posting varied between schools and

appears to be tied directly to administration within the school and

the administrators level of understanding of the process and its use

as an evaluative tool (Table 6).

In our experience, it is strategically important that school

administrators articulate and clearly define for teachers what the

benchmarks are for performance evaluation. Benchmarking requires

evidence. The four types of evidence that meet STEM TPBL

learning expectations are:

1. Evidence of Planning

2. Evidence of Alignment to Published State and National

Standards

3. Evidence of Implementation and Formative Feedback

4. Evidence of Student Demonstration of Learning

These four categories of evidence discussed widely in education

can provide teachers guidance to assess gaps among students and

modify learning strategies appropriately.

Evidence of planning is not a chapter number out of a textbook, orpenciled on a post-it. TPBL and the PAST process lend themselves

to systematic feedback, benchmarking, and reflection, all part of a

successful teachers evaluation of effective preparation for work with

their students. PAST templates such as the Backmap, 2wk Planner,

and Snapshotprovide a cohesive overview of each module laying

out all aspects, from the details of daily activities, to criteria upon

which the product will be evaluated, the standards aligned to the

project, and finally to the short cycle assessments that tie the rigor

of the project to the standards. Thus, these templates can be used

as guides and benchmarks, as well as to inform teachers andadministrators in terms of where learning gaps exist. Todays teacher is

being expected to create a set of products that demonstrate the

delivery of their instructional and cultural strategies. It is important to

have the tools and replicable process to accomplish this.


28/195


During 2012-2013 PAST focused on the hierarchy of STEM TPBL

driving home the point that without first identifying a unifying

problem, projects devolve into unaligned activities that merely

take up time. Over the course of the year we modified a number

of our templates to reinforce the principles of the design cycle,

which are universal to human thought but often go unarticulated.

These changes and modifications were driven by the findings of

our 2011-2012 focus groups and benchmarking process. At the

close of this academic year, we have completed this process again

and have identified several areas we will address with the schools

and faculties participating in our program in the upcoming year

(2013-2014).

Since the initiation of the first feeder system transformation, the

PAST team has gathered observations toward assembling a

series of benchmarks that signify change or where absent,indicate no change in a school. These benchmarks are dynamic

and as the transformation progresses, benchmarks that have

been attained by all the schools are no longer listed while new

benchmarks are added, as in the example above of the

benchmark of consistent posting by teachers. We have identified

approximately 10 benchmarks that consistently signify change at

any given point. As in any industry, benchmarking progress is an

important and necessary gauge of transformation. At the close

of each school year the PAST team reviews all of the weekly

reports examining the trends in individual schools and theconstraints where future attention should be focused. Table 7

(STEM TPBL Implementation Benchmarks in Schools) provides a

quick overview of the components of change that PAST will focus

on in the coming year.

Integration of STEM TPBL with State and National Standards

Two imperative components of transformation are: 1) a more

comprehensive understanding of Ohio Common Core, Next

Generation Science, and Ohio Standards as aligned to STEM

TPBL content and as drivers for standards-based, test, questionsthat elicit synthesis of concepts; and 2) require teachers to

provide consistent evidence of planning and implementation as

a means of instilling the habits of the paradigm shift and

professional evaluation.

An unintentional consequence of heavy reliance on textbooks


29/195


Table7:STEMTPBLImplementationBenchmarksin

Schools


30/195


and pacing guides is a demonstrated lack of familiarity and

understanding of educational standards among many K-12

teachers. For these teachers, standards are aligned by publishers

and curriculum counselors and do not require any input by them as

the classroom teacher. The result is most K-12 teachers do not

possess an overarching understanding of why curricula are

benchmarked to state and national standards. This lack of

understanding also leads to prevailing perceptions that hinder full

implementation in effectively utilizing educational standards. Some

of the perceptions teachers have shared with us include:

! Teaching the standard is the goal versus using the standard

to guide teaching.

! There are hundreds of standards for every grade, and there

is no way to get through them in an academic year.

! Only the standards for a single grade level should be taught

at any time, one should never go above or below thestudents grade level.

! It is not possible to know if a student has mastered a

standard.

! Standards for Ohio are very different than Common Core,

and thus need to be translated for us.

These perceptions demonstrate a lack of hands-on manipulation of

standards in guiding teaching. In fact, there are not hundreds of

standards for each grade. For example, there are only six anchor

standards in Language Arts. Granted each standard has keycomponents that must be understood to truly master the standard,

but these components are not standards. In TPBL when teachers

design a project for their class and then align the standards, they

are almost always surprised at how many standards they reach and

the wide span across grade levels the project encompasses.

All Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards along

with Ohio State Standards pivot on the verb introducing each

component to define mastery. There are a well-defined number of

verbs that cross cut all content areas and can be used as indicators

for both students and teachers in demonstrating mastery. Once

teachers actually look at the standards, whether from Ohio or from

the national Department of Education, it is clear that standards are

simply concepts that form the foundation of solid knowledge in a

given subject for this time. We noticed the change in teacher

comfort level, almost immediately, when the PAST PD team began

using the word concept rather than the term, standard, with

I almost leftat the end of

the semester. Icame here to doSTEM, butwe didnt doany. This

semester we did

and it was alot better. Ihear they doSTEM in

every class in

10

th

grade. Icant wait


31/195


teachers. Helping teachers grow beyond these perceptions is key to

advancing the whole profession to achieve goals for 21stcentury

learning.

As noted earlier, teachers are not accustomed to creating

deliverables or benchmarking progress in any quantifiable way. SirKen Robinson notes there is a prevalent perception in the

profession that teaching is a messenger process, whereby

teachers simply deliver the message without responsibility for

student learning, thus teaching and learning are not synonymous

(Robinson 2013). Compounded by the perception that evaluation is

about success or failure and not an indicator for improvement,

hinders any type of paradigm shift or robust teacher evaluation

system. TPBL helps teachers shift from the burdensome notion

that they must be sages on the stage, to become guides on

the side, who can enjoy learning and exploration alongsidetheir students. Teachers who make this shift enthusiastically

concur that learning becomes fun and their passion for teaching

is restored.

Specific Issues Associated with Sustaining STEM TPBL

Education

Above and beyond the benchmarks that identify areas needing

more attention, we must consider the particular facts associated

with the Linden Feeder System. Among a number of challenges

confronting LFS schools, two elementary schools have beenreconstituted, and may or may not have a critical mass of STEM

TPBL trained teachers to continue transformation in fall 2013.

Both schools gained principals who come from CCS STEM schools

engaged in the process of TPBL transformation. It is important to note

that there are now enough CCS schools engaged in the STEM

TPBL transformation, and therefore, even with the movement of six

principals (6 of 19, or 31%), four of the positions, to date, have

been filled with principals engaged and supportive of STEM TPBL.

Early on in the initial phase of transformation, PAST calculated thata given school or system could withstand a teacher turnover of

30% and maintain continued transformation. Over the years we

have watched the faculty turnover numbers closely, considering the

effects that higher rates of turnover have on a given schools progress.

For three consecutive years Linden McKinley STEM Academy (grades

7-12) has experienced 50% turnover in the faculty, and it is


32/195


anticipated that in the coming academic year (2013-14) the turnover rate will exceed 75%. In

the single grade level teaching cohort at Linden McKinley where turnover each year has

remained low, at one to two teachers, the continued progress toward full transformation is

readily apparent. In the 10th grade, cohort planning is now an embedded daily occurrence,

and each quarter has an overarching theme, each content area instructor participates in

projects that address a number of issues of the theme, reading occurs in all subject areas, anddemonstration of learning is wide ranging.

The 10thgrade experience stands in stark contrast to the 9th,11th, and 12thgrades that have

lost over 80% of the faculty. In 2012-2013, ninth grade had half of the academic year slated for

non-TPBL curriculum offered through Diplomas Now,and the second half by TPBL. Upper

grade planning is still siloed, and resulting projects in the 2012-2013 year were highly

disparate, lacking cohesive overarching problems or robust products. The loss of trained STEM

TPBL teachers has both beneficial and deleterious affects. On the good side - CCS now has

approximately 50 STEM TPBL trained teachers dispersed across the district. However, the

down side for Linden McKinleys progress is that it looks more like a first-year STEM schoolrather than a school in its fifth year of transformation because of the consistently high turnover

rate in recent years.

! #$%$ &'(&')'*%) +,- %')% )./&') 0&/1 2/%3 )'1')%'&)

45*6'* 7.85*9': ;%3


33/195


In schools experiencing high turnover

where there is no planned training for

new teachers lacking TPBL experience,

transformation is constrained, if not

completely stymied. Evaluation by those

outside the transformation process

without full comprehension of the

specific challenges that Linden McKinley

has experienced are likely to see the

current situation as evidence of failure of

the STEM TPBL instructional strategy,

rather than inconsistency in administrative policy in supporting the

pilot CCS school in the district.

Rolling out the Diplomas Now(DN)

initiative without good articulation on howDN would be coordinated with the TPBL

instructional strategy further exacerbated

perception that STEM TPBL failed to attain

expectations for students at Linden

McKinley. Ninth grade teachers who were

gaining success with TPBL in the previous

year, were instructed by DN coaches to

utilize the textbooks provided without

deviation or integration of STEM. The

result, according to Diplomas Nowdirectors was the worst performance in the

companys history.

In the second semester when some of the

teachers re-engaged students with TPBL, a

student noted at the end-of-year STEM school

festival, I almost left at the end of the

semester. I came here to do STEM, but we

didnt do any. This semester we did and it was

a lot better. I hear they do STEM in every classin 10thgrade. I cant wait (9thgrade student,

May 2013). The opinion of the student is

substantiated with the raw assessment scores

for one 2012-2013 Math class, where the

teacher used the DN curriculum in the fall, and

then reverted to TPBL in the spring (Figure 4).


34/195


As evidenced by the grades, students who were not math or logic

learners responded better to TPBL where multiple modalities were

reached through hands-on activities, versus textbook-based delivery,

which primarily targets math/logic learners.

The rallying piece of information among our findings on student

performance is bolstered by the fact that the students voice is

also beginning to indicate a clear preference for STEM TPBL

instruction. In an independent survey of students at Linden

McKinley STEM Academy conducted by the Ohio Department of

Education, students expressed their desire to undertake STEM

problems and projects, even though TPBL modules are often more

rigorous than traditional lecture driven classes with worksheets.

Additionally, the voices of over 350 teachers captured the fact that

when teachers use STEM TPBL in their delivery, learning becomes

fun and student engagement increases. Non-STEM schools acrossCCS are now asking to be included in the transition to STEM TPBL.

These sentiments signal that the ground swell of the STEM TPBL

paradigm shift is underway at a scale far exceeding current

implementation. To insure the CCS STEM transformation is

successful and sustainable, the district must continue the process,

paying attention to real time needs for successful STEM transition,

and address these needs systematically and with agility.

What are the Next Steps for Transformation:

Recommendations

We closed out the 2012-2013 academic year with some inspiring

successes, some set backs, and some auspicious starts. Each year,

using the PAST process of regular evaluation, reflection,

modification, and informative Knowledge Capture, we have

identified a number of areas that require attention and careful

mentoring. Ongoing modification is aimed at shifting the concept of

evaluation from a post mortem Did we succeed, or did we fail?

to How do we improve the ongoing process to insure success?

Table 8 provides an overview of essential elements for guiding

expansion of the CCS transformation to STEM TPBL for

administrators and teachers.

We closed outthe

2012-2013academic year

with someinspiring

successes, someset backs, and

someauspicious

starts.


35/195

Articulate the Instructional Strategy, Cultural Strategy, and Delivery Systems

that the faculty and initiatives at a school will work within.

Map out the initiatives for faculty within the school and their connection tostrategy or delivery.

Articulate the hierarchy of Problems, Projects and Products with the TPBLInstructional Strategy.

Provide administrators with TPBL training so they understand TPBL

instructional strategy and can lead faculty in defining goals using initiatives to

support strategies and delivery.

Plan for TPBL training for new teachers using STEM Leads within the

building.

Advocate for teachers regarding the transition to TPBL in order to build

confidence in process, presentation of evidence, and outcomes.

Chart fidelity of TPBL modules to assist teachers in continuous improvement.

Integrate Habits of Mind into all areas of instruction, assessment, and

delivery.

Use consistent format to capture evidence of planning, alignment to

standards, and gap assessment for real time course correction in instruction.

Exhibit demonstration of student learning throughout the school.

Teachers

Recommendations for Administration & Teacher STEM TPBL Implementation

Administration


Table 8: Recommendations for Administration & Teacher STEM TPBL Implementation


36/195


Knowledge Capture Program

The Knowledge Capture (KC) Program at the PAST Foundation plays

an integral role in transformation to STEM education for PreK-12

Columbus City Schools (CCS). The KC team of researchers has activelyengaged with CCS PreK-12 staff, documenting the transition to STEM

transdisciplinary problem based learning (TPBL) for administrators

as well as for PreK-12 teachers in the classroom. Through this work

PAST is able to provide real time information to support design and

implementation of professional development (PD) in STEM TPBL.

Utilizing an approach that incorporates one-on-one interviews,

focus groups, and surveys, the Knowledge Capture research team

informs the PAST Foundations approach to providing real time

course correction. Knowledge Capture assures that PD is

addressing both fundamental training components, as well asunique issues that emerge within individual schools over the course

of the STEM TPBL transition period.

Research Activities

This report focuses on two academic years: 2011-2012 and

2012-2013. Table 9 (Knowledge Capture Research Activities by CCS

School) lists the individual schools and the type of research

conducted (e.g., interview, focus group, or survey) within threePreK-12 feeder systems consisting of elementary, middle, and high

schools. Table 10 (Knowledge Capture Program 2011-2013)

provides a breakdown of the total number of individuals (n=467)

including administrators, teachers and other stakeholders who

participated in research conducted by the KC team. Overall, the KC

team has conducted research activities with just over 90% of all CCS

staff participating in the STEM TPBL professional development

provided by the PAST Foundation.

Table 10 (Knowledge Capture Program 2011-2013) shows the

process over the two-year period to include a total of (45) focus

groups held with (360) teachers. During that same period, (27) one-

on-one interviews were conducted with administrators and other

stakeholders. CCS PreK-12 teachers completed a total of (69) online

surveys in the academic year 2012-2013. This included STEM

Leaders/Coordinators (n=27) in two feeder systems (Linden and

West) to gather input from first-, second- and third-year STEM

KnowledgeCapture

assures that

PD isaddressingboth

fundamentaltraining

components, as

well as uniqueissues that

emerge withinindividualschools overthe course ofthe STEM

TPBLtransitionperiod.


37/195


Table 9: Knowledge Capture Research Activities by CCS School

!"# $% & !"# $% & !"# $% &!"#$%#&'()"#*%+ -./' 0(1$%2+ 3&45

62"$$*% 7(899*: 3&;< 8"=8 7(899*: >&45?! ! ! ! ! ! !

@12"*A9# -./' 0(1$%2+ 6BC%)&D? ! ! ! ! !

!"#$%# -./' 0(1$%2+ 6BC%)&D? ! ! ! ! ! !

-9EA8 '"FF*"# -./' 0(1$%2+ 6BC%)&D? ! ! ! !

G"#$79C -./' 0(1$%2+ 6BC%)&D? ! ! ! !

G%7A @"=8 -(899* 6>&45? ! ! ! ! ! !

-A1C*"#= '"$$*% -(899* 6D&;? ! ! ! ! ! !

G%7A299C '"$$*% -(899* 6D&;? ! ! ! ! ! !

0H9#$1*% /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6BC%)&I? ! ! !

J1#1 /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6BC%)&I? ! !

@"=8*1#$ /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6)&I? !

-E**"H1#A /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6BC%)&I? ! ! !

K1**%+H"%L /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6)&I? ! !

G%7A MC91$ /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6BC%)&I? ! ! !

G%7A=1A% /*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6)&I? ! ! !

@"=8 -(899* 6>&45? ! !

'"$$*% -(899* 6D&;? ! !

/*%2%#A1C+ -(899* 6)&I? ! !

Knowledge Capture Research Activities by CCS School

Research activities included one-on-one interviews (INT), focus groups (FG)

Over the 2011-2013 time period, the Knowledge Capture (KC) team engaged with CCS administrators and

teaching staff to document identified goals and priorities for the transition to STEM education. Research

activities involved one-on-one interviews and/or focus groups with staff at (9) schools in 2011-2012. In Fall

2012, the KC team expanded research activities to include surveys to gather data from STEM Leaders in two

feeder systems (LFS and WFS) to inform PD design for the 2012-2013 school year. The first pre-training

surveys for K-12 teachers (AFS and LFS) were conducted in 2012-2013. These surveys providing baseline data

prior to STEM PD on teacher perceptions of STEM and Transdisciplinary Problem Based Learning (TPBL).

Ethnographic data were analyzed and coded for thematic issues related to teacher concerns, perceivedchallenges, priorities, as well as relevant teacher strengths essential to PD design for STEM TPBL in CCS

schools.

)/NO !P-Q!"#$%# P%%$%C -+7A%2< GP-QG%7A P%%$%C -+7A%2< 0P-Q0FC"(%#AC"( 6)&45?

and online surveys (S) with PreK-12 teachers and administrators in 3 feeder systems

$''(')

&+,-'.

&/0112

3$&

45678

9:;; 9:;9 9:;7

$&

456;:8


38/195

!"#$%#&'() *+,#$ -.'/01

23(+0")

43.'(

67) 40'%20")

-489

:0'+0")40'%20")

!"# $%&' )*++ , - + .

/"# 0%1%23 )*++ 4 . ,*

; < = >?/"# 567 )*+) -

!"# 567 )*+) . + -

/"# $%&' )*+) . ,8

!"# $%&' )*+) ) +8

!"# 0%1%23 )*+) . ,9

!"# :;3

0"# :;3


39/195


Data Collection and Methods

The KC research team engages directly with teachers and

administrators to provide ongoing program evaluation of goals and

achievements identified by CCS staff, contributing to the growth and

sustainability of STEM TPBL in individual schools as well as individualclassrooms. Discussion of these issues is organized by the three

school essentials identified in the PAST Foundation STEM TPBL

professional development program. These are:

! Instructional Strategies

! Cultural Strategies

! Delivery Systems

Table 11 (Comparison of Program Design Variables for Transition to

STEM TPBL) presents a view of the diverse range of approaches

implemented in nine schools reported by principles within the

Linden Feeder System (LFS) and the West Feeder System (WFS).

Note that each school presents a unique approach and combination

of program components to support their transition to STEM TPBL

including:

! Varying degrees of STEM TPBL

teacher common planning time for

collaborative work during the

school week and across the school

year.

! Different ways of incorporatingcommunication about STEM TPBL

between administration and

building staff.

! Differences in organization of STEM

TPBL teacher teams.

The range of approaches for structuring the transition to STEM TPBL

to some degree reflects institutional constraints, but also shows the

variation in building-level administrator and staff preferences for

integrating STEM TPBL planning into weekly/monthly/quarterlyactivities. Table 11 also provides a comparison across schools and

feeder systems of the wide-ranging characteristics for transitioning

to STEM TPBL. In this view, we can consider how these variables

inform the design of STEM TPBL professional development in ways

that build upon existing strengths within the school (building-level)

culture that include established modes of communication, social

My role as theprincipal is to

set up thestructures, orthe systems, or

theexpectationsthat support

our STEMeducation.And thenleave the

autonomy, orgive the

teachers in thegrade levelteams the

autonomy, touse their

expertise inthe contentarea to mesh

the twotogether.


40/195


!"#$&'()#*+,$

-.,""/&01

234$$5

634$$5

734$$5

638"#+,

638"#+,09+$(

+,$-.,""/&01

:3;$0( $?$/


41/195


TPBL training. Within LFS, some schools initiated training in phases,

choosing to lead with a subset of grade levels. WFS also

includes schools in their first or second year of transition,

where schools are initiating training for a sub-set of grade

levels or choosing to transition by grade level over time. In

this view, we can consider the pivotal transition points forteachers that correspond to a year one (Y1), year two (Y2)

or year three (Y3) transition experience. These pivotal

points define critical benchmarks as indicators of progress in

the context of a three-year training program as described

and self-reported by PreK-12 teachers and principals.

In this report we also utilize pre-training survey data from a

third feeder system, Africentric K-12 (AFS), providing a pre-Y1 feeder

system perspective that contributes to the comparative understanding

of teacher and principal perceptions about STEM TPBL as they initiatetheir transition process.

Methods

The KC Program holds an active research IRB assuring that human

subjects research protocols are consistently implemented through

informed consent required for all CCS staff voluntarily agreeing to

participate in KC research activities. All research

participants receive information through a written

consent form and/or verbal consent process, providing

a clear description of the project, purpose of theresearch, and method of data management. Most

important, ethnographic protocols for maintaining

anonymity and confidentiality of data is carefully

reviewed with study participants prior to engaging in

research activities to assure participants are informed on

the methods for protecting identity through use of code

numbers in lieu of the individuals name or school

affiliation.

The KC team has engaged in research activities with CCS staff at

individual school sites, the PAST Foundation facility, and other

locations where CCS staff participated in STEM TPBL professional

development conducted by PAST. Our research has produced a series

of reports during 2011-2013, including preliminary assessments

through work in progress summary reports and briefings for the core

STEM TPBL planning and implementation team. These work-in-

progress reports are designed to provide an essential element of real


42/195


time insights to structure PD, in ways that support meeting specific

needs identified by feedback from teachers and administrators through

anonymous data collected from surveys and focus group

discussions. This component of work is the primary path

through which PAST conducts real time course correction,

assuring professional development design andimplementation address emerging challenges and needs

of teachers and building administrators during the

transition to STEM TPBL.

Surveys

In the 2012-2013 academic year, the KC program began

conducting online surveys with STEM Leaders and

teachers. The first online surveys were conducted during

Fall 2012 with STEM Leader/teachers from the Linden and

West feeder systems (n=27). A work-in-progress reportentitled, Knowledge Capture Summary Overview, Columbus City

Schools STEM Leaders Surveywas presented to CCS in January 2013.

Of (20) Linden STEM Leaders, (10) or 50% completed the survey. Of

(29) West STEM Leaders, (17) or 59% completed the survey. The online

survey was accessible via Survey Methods. Each feeder system was

given a distinct online link, providing a systematic mode to track

responses by feeder system (see Appendix F: LFS Survey

Deployment Schedule, and Appendix G: WFS Survey

Deployment Schedule).

Survey design was initially developed from prior KC focus

group data compiled from 2010 to 2012. The PAST

Foundation Professional Development Team also

provided input to the final survey design. The survey

consisted of (13) questions and during the beta test

survey completion time was in the range of 10-15

minutes (see Appendix H: LFS/WFS STEM Leader Survey

Questions).

An online pre-training survey was conducted with the

K-12 faculty of AFS teachers (n=37) during the winter and

spring of 2013. These surveys were conducted over the 2013 academic

semester beginning with high school teachers, followed by middle

school teachers, and concluding with elementary level teachers (see

Appendix I: AFS Survey Deployment Schedule and Teacher Survey

Questions). This pre-training survey provided an opportunity to gauge

existing teacher experience and understanding of STEM and


43/195


transdisciplinary problem based learning, including

descriptive and quantified information about their

experience in team collaboration, existing communication

modes within grade levels and across the school as a

whole, and expectations and goals for successful STEM

TPBL implementation.

In 2012-2013, 37 of 56 Africentric teachers completed the

online survey. This includes high school teachers (n=12),

middle school teachers (n=15), and elementary level

teachers (n=10), for an overall response rate of 66%. This

number includes classroom teachers, unified arts, and

other supporting faculty. The anonymous online survey

was accessible via Survey Methods and was

administered during an initial professional development

session conducted by the PAST Foundation at the schoolsite. The three school groups (elementary, middle and high school)

began their training across the 2012-2013 academic year as follows:

high school (initiated in October 2012), middle school (initiated in

February 2013) and elementary level (initiated in May 2013).

To date, we have completed a total of (69) surveys with CCS PreK-12

staff in three feeder systems (see Table 10). Use of surveys

has proven an effective and efficient tool to provide

baseline data for assessing CCS pre-training issues

identified by teachers at the start of training for the

academic year, informing PD design for initial (Year 1)

transition to STEM TPBL education, as well as for those

who are entering their second or third year of PD. In this

approach KC data is used primarily to define the priorities

to be incorporated in the PD design for the specific

coming academic year.

Knowledge Capture research team conducted two staff

briefings in February 2013 to review preliminary analysis of

survey data for the Linde

past foundation columbus city schools report

Documents