The Successful Partnership Enhancement Program (PEP) Model in Appalachian Schools
Claim 1
The online and focus group surveys show similar identified needs and
a similar priority order. (see http://www2.research.uky.edu/amsp/pub/June%202007%
20Research%20Conference/Harold%20Peach%20-%20Research%20Note.pdf.). Sources
of data include a special, proven evaluative instrument, the Program Improvement Review
(PIR) developed by AMSP personnel and officially adopted by the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA, http://www.nsta.org/pd/spir/ ). Other sources used are the Kentucky
School Improvement Plans, survey data from parents or community, standardized test scores
(the ACT's Plan and Explore Programs, Commonwealth Testing System) and the No Child Left
Behind Yearly Report.
Claim 2
The PEP proposals have yielded a broad
list of needs based on school and district data. Within this list, individual schools
describe content and concepts as well as grade levels related to the needs. The schools
propose both different intervention strategies to address the needs and varied
implementation strategies. (See AMSP Annual Report Year 5 - http://
www2.research.uky.edu/amsp/pub/Annual%20Report%20-%20Year%205.pdf)
Claim 3
As stated by former Secretary of Labor, William Brock, "When the results fall
short, we tell them (K-12 teachers), 'You just have to work harder'. Most feel that they
have no voice in their schools. This in no way to treat professionals." (Wallwork &
Male, 2008, 3).
Duncan's Examining AMSP Partnerships: Increasing Capacity for
Distributed Leadership (AMSP 2006 Annual Report and publication in
preparation) showed that both centralized and distributed leadership paradigms worked but
that the latter was much more effective for getting more teachers involved at the local
level, and that time was the single most important factor (and most lacking in schools)
for successful partnerships - time to explore, brainstorm, think together and
plan/coordinate the project or idea.
Claim 4
The 2007 AMSP Faculty
Survey (see 2007 Annual Report) provided the evidence for changes in IHE faculty attitudes
and teaching practices. For example,
- 88% - Changed the instructional materials and/or content used in their courses
- 71% - Changed the teacher preparation curriculum at their institution
"The PEPs required collaboration
that yielded short-term partnerships leading to long-term relationships. For example, the
PEPs "seeded" relationships within the counties that make up the AMSP and enabled them to
grow. These relationships have become critical connectors to sustain locally generated
work. Further, the PEPs enabled development of relationships between IHEs and K-12 that
didn't previously exist. This has obvious benefits for the districts, but it also benefits
the IHEs. The Appalachian Math Science Partnership: A Multi-State Umbrella Partnership
Promoting Local Mathematics And Science Reform Close-Up Papers (Inverness Research,
http://appalachian.mspnet.org/index.cfm/15831)
Claim 5
The Kentucky
Academic Index scores rose for all 21 Kentucky schools participating in PEPs during the
first two rounds evaluated. Thirteen schools demonstrated an 8% to 35% increase in
mathematics or science academic indices. Preliminary impacts for the latest completed
projects (2007-2008) show consistent improvements across districts, including one
elementary and two middle schools with 10-13 point improvements in mathematics
indices.
The achievement data are also supported by numerous testimonies from
participating teachers, e.g., "...the district met all of our math goals for the first time.
We attribute that to the hard work of our teachers in the PEP program."
