1. 1 STEM Faculty Engagement in P-20 Partnerships: A Conflict of Interest? American Association of Colleges and Universities Faculty Work and The New Academy Presenters: Lynn Harbinson, E=mc² Project Manager; Dewayne Morgan, Research Analyst; Danielle Susskind, P-20 Program Specialist Other Authors: Nancy Shapiro, Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs; Jennifer Frank, P-20 Partnership Project Evaluator & David May, K-16 Partnership Project Manager

2. Overview of Presentation Context: University System of Maryland Faculty Engagement in P-20 Work Case Examples from an NSF-Funded P-20 Partnership Community College Community College Master’s Level University Master’s Level University Two Research Universities Two Research Universities Lessons Learned and Discussion

4. USM Policy on Faculty P-20 Engagement The assessment of teaching, research/scholarship/creative activities, and service during the promotion and tenure process shall give appropriate recognition, consistent with the institution's mission, to faculty accomplishments that are collaborative, interdisciplinary, and inter-institutional and to faculty innovations in areas such as undergraduate education, minority-achievement programs, K-16 curriculum development, and technology-enhanced learning. Board of Regents Bylaws, Procedures, and Policies II - 1.00 UNIVERSITY SYSTEM POLICY ON APPOINTMENT, RANK, AND TENURE OF FACULTY

5. USM P-20 Partnership Grants U.S. Department of Education (TQE Grants)  Project LINC – Learning in Communities ($4 million)  E=mc 2 – Education Equals Mentoring, Coaching and Cohorts ($6 million) National Science Foundation (MSP Grants)  VIP – Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 ($8 million)  MSP 2 – Minority Student Pipeline Math and Science Partnership ($12 million)

6. National Science Foundation Math and Science Partnerships The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program is a major research and development effort that supports innovative partnerships to improve K- 12 student achievement in mathematics and science. Five Key Features: Partnership-Driven Teacher Quality, Quantity and Diversity Challenging Courses and Curricula Evidence-Based Design and Outcomes Institutional Change and Sustainability

7. USM’s VIP K-16 Partnership Participants: 3 four-year universities, 1 community college, 2 non-degree granting research institutes, and the largest school district in the state. Goal: To improve science instruction in Maryland high schools and colleges/universities through the creation of communities of teachers and faculty in which they develop inquiry pedagogy skills and science content knowledge by learning from each other. Scope: 350 high school science teachers. 100 college/university faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students, and prospective science teachers.

8. Case Study #1: Community College Context Primary Mission- to prepare students for the workforce or for transfer to a 4 year institution Initially very little involvement by STEM faculty in the partnership Two years of an inactive partnership- the college’s science dean recruited a faculty project leader from outside the institution (a retired high school science teacher from the partner district)

9. Community College continued… The new project leader assessed the needs and interest of the faculty and created a program centered on teaching and learning seminars and faculty professional development Project leader served as a “peer coach” to participating faculty Project leader created learning communities with faculty from different disciplines and other faculty leaders began to emerge

10. Community College continued… LESSON: The involvement of the administrator (the Science Dean) led to a strong and fruitful program and created a surge of faculty leadership A year after the project has ended, the learning communities and the collaborations have continued to grow At least 18 STEM faculty members are still involved in redesigning courses and curricula

11. Case Study #2: Master’s University Context One of the strongest teacher preparation programs in the state Campus-based learning communities already existed in addition to a dedicated group of STEM faculty members interested in the project’s work They “hit the ground running”

12. Master’s University continued… Faculty learning community doubled in size Expanded beyond department boundaries to other IHE partners and high school science teachers Redesigned 7 courses and created 3 new inquiry based courses For the 1 st time in the institution’s history, the faculty received financial support to continue participation in peer-learning communities

13. Master’s University continued… Still...faculty felt that their work was “low priority” as compared to other roles and responsibilities Faculty culture was in competition with the aspirational goals of the administration- the institution was looking to move up in research status and so was rewarding research over teaching

14. Master’s University continued… One faculty member was denied tenure because of her work on the project At the end of the 3 rd year, a new Provost came aboard and the faculty learning communities regained some of their prestige LESSON: Without support from the administration, even very engaged faculty have a difficult time sustaining their work 14

15. Case Study #3: Research University–High Research Activity Context Role of highest level administrators Managing faculty expectations College of Education vs. College of Science 15

16. Research University –High Research Activity continued… After two years- the project was sent to the university’s community outreach and service- learning center This center has high visibility and prestige across the campus which then attracted motivated faculty Faculty and high school teachers met and discussed ideas for participation resulting in “mini-projects” among faculty and teachers who shared similar goals 16

17. Research University –High Research Activity continued… Connections between faculty and teachers led to college students being invited to schools to do demonstrations and high school students being invited to campus to participate in classes STEM majors were placed in high school science classes to expose students to others “doing science” LESSON: The work was not initially were the faculty were located, but since the STEM faculty were involved in the Outreach Center, it was a natural home for the project because it pulled people in who would have been dispersed across campus – then the institutional leadership began to take notice 17

18. Case Study #4: Research University—Very High Research Activity Project originally housed in the campus Center for Teaching and Learning (without a departmental affiliation) No initial interest from STEM faculty, even with heavy recruitment and numerous financial incentives Resulted in no major faculty activity during the first two years of the partnership

19. Case #4 Continued At the same time, the president and provost were publicly working to create more visibility for STEM (especially increasing majors and teachers) Finally, an informal faculty group was convened by the associate provost, led by a nationally known and well-respected physics professor (also former chair of the campus senate), to discuss a campus-level plan for improving undergraduate STEM education

20. Case #4 Continued Over the course of the next year, six new interdisciplinary core courses for non-science majors were created by this faculty group, which became a signature program at the university LESSON: Understanding the importance of creating concrete pathways for faculty involvement. Understanding the importance of identifying faculty leaders with considerable “clout” as champions and allies, especially in environments where this work falls so far outside of the rewards structure.

21. Lessons Learned Although all four institutions shared similar goals for faculty engagement in the partnership, the “currency” was different on each campus The emergence of faculty leadership was a function of campus context and administrative leadership as well as individual motivation Both top-down leadership and bottom-up ownership were necessary to bring about sustainable change; neither was sufficient by itself THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL!

22. Discussion Questions What best practices have you seen for encouraging and rewarding faculty leadership in P-20 partnerships? What role can institutional leaders play in fostering a supportive campus environment for this work?

23. Contact Information Lynn Harbinson, E=mc² Project Manager, University System of Maryland, lharbinson@usmd.edu lharbinson@usmd.edu Dewayne Morgan, Research Analyst, University System of Maryland, dmorgan@usmd.edu dmorgan@usmd.edu Danielle Susskind, P-20 Program Specialist, University System of Maryland, dsusskind@usmd.edu dsusskind@usmd.edu