Annual Report Overviews

Annual Overview

It is important to note the evolution and sequencing of BASEE with respect to the five strands. The project has moved ahead simultaneously on all five fronts, addressing the needs of new teachers, experienced teachers, lead teachers, administrators, and SRTs. This has been a developmental year of skill building at each level. Of necessity, however, the most time and emphasis during the first year was spent on developing the expertise and capacity of the SRTs, to prepare them to conduct professional development sessions for participants in the other strands. As the key proponents of the project, investment in the SRTs came first, so that they could then turn around and effectively work with others -- on a formal basis initially with the leads, and then new teachers as they have been hired, and then with general offerings to all teachers. In this way the project director and SRTs have attempted to build a solid foundation with each fortified layer.

The SRTs spent a large proportion of their time during 1997 - 1998 planning the specifics of two major summer professional development institutes. They first participated in similar professional development themselves, and combined various leadership and facilitation skills to which they had been exposed with their own classroom experience as teachers, and then assembled the ingredients for two very successfully designed and implemented institutes. One was on physical science content (two identical weeklong sessions), and one five-day institute on inquiry.

In addition to the major BASEE offerings described below, teachers were encouraged to participate in numerous professional development opportunities concurrent with, but not sponsored by, BASEE, through which they could earn BASEE hours or stipends. Some of these offerings focus on science content, others on pedagogy, integration of science with math, literacy and technology, etc. Among the local opportunities of which teachers took advantage are: the AIMS Education Foundation, the Tech Museum Of Innovation, the San Francisco Exploratorium, Life Lab, a series of Eisenhower Post-Secondary grant funded workshops with HP scientists through Canada Community College, the Bay Area Earth Science Institute at San Jose State University, Resource Area for Teachers workshops, the California Academy of Sciences, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the U. C. Berkeley Lawrence Hall of Science, NASA, and various annual conferences such as the Bay Area Environmental Education Resource Fair, the Council of Math and Science Educators, and the California Science Teachers Association. Although not evaluated by BASEE, each of these entities is highly reputable for their high quality offerings and commitment to science education and teacher professional development.

Summer Institutes: Strand II and Strand III

In the past seven months when we last reported in April, BASEE has thrust the bulk of its attention to the summer institutes. Acknowledging the need to give teachers enough content understanding to go beyond mechanical use of the science curriculum, content background is a major focus of BASEE teacher professional development efforts. Designed to meet the needs of strand II teachers, the Celebrating Physical Sciences institute was held twice during the last two weeks in June.

The SRTs started intensive planning of the summer Physical Science Content Institute in January, 1998. Instructional triads were formed consisting of a university professor (content specialist), an industry-based scientist from HP or SLAC (content advisor), and an SRT (pedagogy specialist, facilitator, and logistics coordinator). Together the groups of three planned and delivered two 5-day (30 hour) institutes that were held in June, 1998. The Project Director and the few SRTs who were not part of a triad served as facilitators and logistics coordinators. Each of the two weeks was held in a different location -- one in the north and one in the south, to serve respective teacher populations. Physical science was the chosen content area because it is the one with which most K-6 teachers are least familiar. The science content (optics, light, and color) selected for the Inquiry Institute, which was offered later in the summer, was deliberately different from the science content of Physical Science Institute in order not to be repetitive for teachers who opted to attend both.

As many as 218 teachers signed up for the content class most appropriate to the grade level they teach: Chemistry and Matter for Upper Grades; Matter for Primary Grades; Sound; Electricity and Magnetism, Force and Motion for Upper Grades; or Balance, Force and Motion for Primary Grades. Teachers were eligible to earn a BASEE stipend of $300 or district salary credit. Each class took field trips to see physical science in action. For example, the Sound class went to the San Francisco symphony, a music studio, and audiology and ultrasound labs. The Force and Motion class explored the mechanical advantage of simple machines on an historic ship docked in the Bay. The field trips were aligned with the content, and enabled participants to make very vital connections to physics in the real world. Several teachers exclaimed they would never look at the climbing apparatus in a park, a collection of toys, or the acoustics of a building in the same way again after learning the physics behind these everyday things.

On the open-ended response items, teachers' self-reported affirmations of gains in content knowledge on the end-of-week questionnaire support the positive quantitative findings:

I gained so much information that helps me understand more completely topics that I teach. The fact that I actually got to "do" the activities, question why things are the way they are, and set up experiments to find out, was very powerful. Now these concepts are more embedded within me to teach my students.

The BASEE Science Learning Model was used and prominently displayed in each class of the institute, and clearly made an impact on teachers.

For me the most valuable part of the week was learning by the engage -> explore -> explain -> apply system (very effective!) while seeing how it works.

When asked how they will use what they learned in the institute, teachers responded:

I plan to modify the FOSS unit to reflect the ideas about force. I plan to model and teach using a science journal to help children communicate their understanding and to use these journals in assessment.

Pedagogy was the focus of the SRT-designed Invitations to Inquiry Institute held for one week (30 hours) in August, 1998 for lead teachers. This Institute was modeled after the San Francisco Exploratorium's 12 day Inquiry Workshop, and included two educators from the Exploratorium for two of the five days. Revolving around the content of optics, light, and color, participants engaged in an "immersion" experience of inquiry as an optional pedagogical method. Taking the basic tenets of investigative, hands-on science (with which lead teachers are familiar) a step further, inquiry was presented as a powerful method to use "at least once a year to give students the gift of pursuing their own investigation." (Exploratorium Science Educator)

The week was designed to have the 68 participants progress through each stage of the learning model (engage - explore - explain - apply), a day at a time. With each day, as adult learners, they delved further into the process of inquiry. The intent was for them to actually experience the power of this type of learning so they could understand how valuable it is for all students.

When asked how they intend to use what they have learned, teachers refer to the importance of questioning skills and the use of science notebooks:

I want to try inquiry. I certainly want to change my question asking techniques, and teach kids to focus theirs. I want to teach kids to document their observations in notebooks.

I will spend time with my class on effective questioning — and not just for science! I will also have the students keep science notebooks to record information and reflect on their learning.

Praise was abundant for the project team on the final questionnaire section for "other comments:"

This was a great workshop. Presenters were good models. Material covered was appropriate and spanned the wide experience of those present. An outstanding 5 days. Thanks to all those who worked so hard. I, for one, am motivated.

I was very impressed by this week. The amount of work and planning that went into it was incredible. I constantly take workshops and classes, and this ranks as one of the top 3 learning experiences of my 31 year teaching career.

Since our last report we’ve met with our district superintendents twice. We’ve noted a significant change in their participation which at first was as individuals and has now become a group with a common cause. Because of the arrival of new California State Science Standards which appear to be focused on more encyclopedic learning with less hands-on, our superintendents wish to influence the shaping of criteria for materials adoption at the state level. They realize that their investment in exemplary curriculum materials and the accompanying professional development is jeopardized by the apparent regression in the pedagogical orientation of the new standards. United by a perceived external threat, they have found strength in their numbers and in the support of peer PIs from one of the state’s premier high-technology corporations. For our most recent PI meeting, the superintendents, assistant superintendents, SRTs and HP co-PIs were joined for the first time by the director of Hewlett-Packard’s philanthropy department and the director of the government affairs office. These two high ranking HP employees lent clout and support to the district superintendents’ meeting and have decided to become regular members of the team.

The assistant superintendents meet bimonthly, as the Administrative Council (AC), with the SRT team to address policy and implementation issues. After a year of challenging guidelines, roles and responsibilities discussions, the group has come to a set of agreements that were recently packaged into a revised handbook. At present, a subgroup of administrators working with SRTs is designing a "toolkit" for principals as a way to support and engage them more with the project. Another first, the formation of this subgroup was the decision of the AC members and reflects their first attempt to pro-actively take a lead role in strengthening project goals. It also demonstrates group agreement on the importance of the role of the principal in boosting science teaching and learning.

During a two and a half day retreat, the AC along with SRT team delved into the frustrations from the year, revisited goals and made strides in mid-course corrections. The issues identified and decisions for improvement are discussed in the lessons learned section.

Two recent events for principals featured the elements of exemplary science instruction by using the Horizons videotapes with the observation protocol and rubric. Dr. Steve Schneider, our evaluator, presented these programs. In addition, we were pleased to have Dr. Rich Shavelson, Dean of the School of Education at Stanford, discuss the science standards and assessment ramifications with our principals.

In four separate sessions during August, new teachers from across the collaborative gathered to hear about BASEE, see the learning model in action and engage in hands-on science as a hook for exploring three different kinds of pedagogies. Kevin Beals from the Lawrence Hall of Science used chemistry to engage teachers in active lessons with lively discussions. This introductory kick off was followed by an afternoon in small groups as the new teachers worked with lead teachers to learn their first science kits. The teachers will be introduced to kits #2 and #3 at sessions, which are offered at various times throughout the school year. Throughout the year, SRTs and lead teachers are available to assist new teachers on a one to one coaching basis.

During July several SRTs participated in the Wynne Harlan weeklong workshop at San Francisco’s Exploratorium. The focus on assessment is of particular interest to our districts when formal multiple choice testing by grade level will soon become a requirement in California. Districts are interested in having multiple measures, which are performance based. As a result of the summer work with Wynne Harlen, this subgroup of SRTs has designed a workshop for their SRT peers.

One member of the SRT team and the project director assisted the NSRC in providing their Elementary Science Leadership Institute that was hosted by HP. This program trained teams from 14 districts that were beginning their science reform efforts. Working with a cutting edge experienced team of NSRC presenters was a rich professional growth opportunity for the new BASEE faculty.

Since the advisory board members who live in the Bay Area are closely connected to and regularly support BASEE and those that live out of state find it difficult to travel for a single event, we decided this year to convene instead our benefactors. The SRT team and HP project PIs met for an evening dinner hosted by HP to provide a project update and benefit from their expertise in small group discussions. Our guests included: Dr. Helen Quinn, physicist from Stanford Linear Accelerator and a volunteer scientist during our summer content institute, Mr. Ray Bacchetti, program officer of the Hewlett Foundation and Ms. Ann Bowers, trustee of the Noyce Foundation. At table groups we grappled with the following questions:

1. State Standards — How will they affect what we need to do? What are likely scenarios? (Helen Quinn)
2. Effective Communication — what we’ve accomplished so far and appropriate next steps (Ray Bacchetti)
3. How can we use lessons learned from year one to plan next steps? (Ann Bowers)

• Appropriate pacing is essential. In our first year we tried to do too much too quickly not realizing the impact of district calendars in addition to BASEE events. We have since reshaped the calendar for year two with more balance. Also, we no longer believe that every SRT must attend every event. When we are providing training in small groups, the tasks can be divided and shared across the SRTs. This way we capitalize on expertise as well as time.
• Paperwork overload is a poor use of SRT time. SRT talents are in the areas of professional development and classroom support. To alleviate the over burdened paperwork demands, we have hired a roving clerk who assists in some districts (other districts have someone in house) as well as at the project office level. Additionally, we are redesigning our website so that activity reports can be logged online as well as program registration. Soon we hope to have a form for submitting school site science plans online as well.
• Clarifying roles, responsibilities and guidelines is essential. The fact that we made mid-course changes was frustrating, as it seemed to participants that we lacked focus. It was unsettling, disconcerting and discouraging to have changes in the rules. After a year of negotiations, testing certain agreements and learning from our mistakes, we have now agreed on a set of guidelines that we hope will serve the project effectively. These have been printed in our revised handbook and given to each school site and each SRT.
• The value of thoughtful planning becomes visible in our professional development programs. The SRT team spent untold hours of planning for the better part of a year to design, develop and finally deliver the summer institutes. Prior to that time the team researched effective institute design by visiting outstanding programs across the nation. Agreeing upon and putting together the best of the best requires many hours of careful work. We have learned that our triad presentation team format for content institutes is a powerful model and can be transformational for the presenters as well as the participants. This requires, however, team members who are willing to meld their expertise, negotiate differences and arrive at a consensus while seeking excellence.
• No strand, or audience, can be neglected during a systemic reform process. During our discussions with Dr. Karen Worth from the Education Development Center, we understood that temporarily ignoring one strand in order to alleviate an over-full calendar would not result in a sustainable project. Consequently, while adjusting the calendar we endeavored to maintain regular contact with members of all strands simultaneously making forward steps. To accomplish this means finding creative ways to share the SRT responsibilities, maximizing our development time and sometimes depending on outside consultants to provide programs. Another solution is the current search for an additional SRT who will work at the project level providing assistance to all districts.

Our access to resources has been a strength of the collaborative. HP has formed strong relationships with many institutions through our philanthropy programs and education initiatives. We haven't hesitated to call on our friends for help and they haven't disappointed us: Richard Shavelson of Stanford, Lynn Rankin of the Exploratorium, Jacquey Barber from Lawrence Hall, Judith Fritz from TheTech, Mike Shea from CSU Sacramento, Larry Lowery from Lawrence Hall and Ramon Lopez from the American Physical Society

Nancy Thomas is a member of the California Science Project Advisory Committee. Through contacts there we have been able to recruit excellent presenters for our professional development offerings. Contacts within CSP were a constant source of information about the state's Standards Commission work. We also had an HP public affairs manager representing industry on the commission and so we had an inside track on issues. We were able to use this information in meetings with our BASEE superintendents to discuss concerns around standards and the next adoption. Bess Stephens and a group of superintendents drafted a reply to the science standards draft and enlisted help from several important industry groups to also give feedback on the standards.

HP funded development of three parent workshops through a grant to the Lawrence Hall GEMS program. As a result, we have been field testing these workshops and are poised to use them to inform our parent community and to rally support for science in our community. All three workshops are hands-on. One talks about how children learn and the various instructional strategies of an exemplary teaching and learning. One shows parents how they can use questioning strategies with their children to assess their learning. The third shows how parents can reinforce and support their child's learning. These workshops are an excellent opportunity to team our teachers with HP employees in delivering these workshops during brown bag lunches in industry or evening programs at schools.

Our HP engineers and IT experts have been called on to help with the technology training for our SRTs and lead teachers in using their laptops. We were able to recruit the Institute for Computer Technology to assist us in technology training.

It is gratifying that our evaluators have called out the leadership development of our SRT team as a strength of the project. Key to the growth and development of our SRT team has been the leadership provided by Jan Hustler, our BASEE Project Director. Her style is inclusive. She plans extremely well and works extremely hard. Her skills and abilities span the technical work as well as work involving relationships and communications across all stakeholder groups.

We knew this first year was pivotal. If we didn't establish credibility and a shared vision with our major stakeholders -- superintendents, administrators, SRTs and lead teachers -- we knew it would be difficult to move forward. Concurrent with developing a cohesive team, we needed to set up a management infrastructure. The overall plan needed to be defined more clearly and more specifically, e.g. the job descriptions for our SRTs and the guidelines around the site-based plans, stipends, consultant fees, etc. We needed to set up a process for tracking participant hours. And much more.

About mid-year we realized that our SRTs were suffering from massive paperwork overload. Some of our SRTs were feeling conflicted between what their district was expecting of them and what our BASEE project needed from them. We sought formative feedback from our evaluators and we acted on their advice.

PI's Bess Stephens and Nancy Thomas set up meetings with the superintendents of each of our eight districts. These were friendly chats designed to reinforce BASEE's progress and objectives and to secure our superintendent co-PI continuing commitment to the program. We candidly discussed the issues we were grappling with and sought their advice. We addressed district-specific issues and solutions specific to their particular situations.

One of our steering committee members was an HP employee who had been on sabbatical and traveling for several months. She was in town for a few days in May so we invited her to our third Superintendents' Breakfast. Afterward she commented that she could not believe the change. She said, "It's amazing. Last year at this time we were struggling with how to get our superintendents involved. I've just witnessed a group that is engaged in BASEE issues and that has clearly taken ownership. How did you do it?" Her observation gave us all a lift. We hadn't realized how far we'd come with our administrators.

We reviewed our budget and found a way to fund additional clerical help for our SRTs. We are getting feedback that this extra help is making a difference.

We agree with our evaluators' comments about the need to build capacity. We are working with our HP public affairs managers in the region to help recruit HP scientist volunteers to team with our SRTs and lead teachers. Their special project is to offer regional evening kit-training sessions open to teachers across the collaborative. Each training will be given twice -- once in the north and once in the south. By choosing kit topics that span multiple districts we will lessen the burden for each district. The offerings will include content training also, thereby helping attract veteran teachers as well as teachers new to a particular unit.

We held a brainstorming session at a recent Administrative Council meeting around our need to build capacity through our principals. It has been gratifying to see that a dozen administrators, principals and SRTs have formed a taskforce and are working on a toolkit for principals. We hope to see more principal involvement as a result -- in site planning, in communicating BASEE goals, in encouraging attendance at our professional development offerings, in using our observation rubric and observation training to work with individual teachers, etc.

A major improvement over last year is the consistent offering during the district staff development days. Larry Lowery's questioning techniques workshop will be offered in every district, and follow-on small group sessions will engage local school sites. As we continue to build success upon success, and work hard at word-of-mouth recruiting, we are very optimistic about our ability to reach more and more teachers.

Our superintendents are engaged in the political challenges of the state science standards, the state curriculum adoption process, and the state-wide testing. We are hoping to come out early with the results of our CSIAC student assessments. Nancy Thomas applied for and was appointed to the state's Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP). She will do whatever she can to ensure that the excellent research-based curricula that our BASEE districts are using will be adopted by the state. We are hosting several members of the newly appointed state science Frameworks and Criteria Committee to visit us and learn about our curricula and our professional development efforts in hopes of influencing them to include process and experiment requirements in their criteria.

We have been able to provide for an additional BASEE SRT to assist our project director, thanks to an additional $50,000 each year committed to BASEE from the Noyce Foundation. We have circulated the job description across the region and already have several promising applicants. This new addition to the team will allow us to step up our efforts to increase peer coaching and effective school-site plans.

We are poised to do a better job of helping teachers integrate science with the other disciplines. TheTech, our new regional science and technology museum in San Jose, has already been working with us by aligning their technology institutes with our summer physical science topics and ensuring that our BASEE teachers receive early invitations.

We continue to look for ways to increase our visibility and support in the community. Bess Stephens' and Nancy Thomas' managers both attended our most recent superintendent breakfast. They were impressed and plan to attend future meetings as well. It was a great meeting with a lively dialog around the new standards and their implications for our future efforts. As a result of the discussion during the meeting we have initiated a gap analysis between our districts' curricula and the standards. We will be contacting the developers of FOSS, Insights and STC units to encourage them to do whatever they can to qualify for California adoption. We hope to proactively publicize our student test results and gain community support for our in-depth, inquiry centered curriculum units.

BASEE is off to a great start. As BASEE PIs, we are committed to provide significant amounts of our time and significant HP resources to ensure its continued success.

-- Nancy Thomas and Bess Stephens