Collected Case Study Evaluations of the

Appalachian Regional Commission’s

Educational Projects

Study Conducted by Westat

For the Appalachian Regional Commission

March 2001
Collected Case Study Evaluations of the

Appalachian Regional Commission’s

Educational Projects

Prepared by:

Nicole Bartfai

Brian Kleiner

Glenn Nyre

Laurie Plishker

Gary Silverstein

Kyle Snow

Westat

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850

Prepared for:

Appalachian Regional Commission

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20009-1068

NOTE: The views, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those

of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views, opinions, or policy of the

Appalachian Regional Commission.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1 CASE STUDY FINDINGS.............................................................................. 1

Case Study Methodology

Lessons Learned

Case Study Reports

2 ADAIR COUNTY TECHNOLOGY CENTER............................................... 7

Adair County Board of Education

Columbia, Kentucky

3 THE DAVID SCHOOL AND SUCCESS BOUND ........................................ 23

The David School

David, Kentucky

4 MICHELIN LEARNING CENTERS .............................................................. 51

South Carolina Office of the Governor/Michelin Tire Corporation

Greenville, Anderson, and Spartanburg, South Carolina

5 MOBILE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT ............................................................ 69

Towns County Middle School

Hiawassee, Georgia

6 PARTNERING WITH PARENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL EARLY

CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.................................................................... 91

Tennessee State Department of Education

Eastern Tennessee

7 SCHOOL OUTREACH PROJECT ................................................................. 109

North Georgia Community Action, Inc.

Jasper, Georgia

8 THE SCIENCE CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA........................................... 129

Alliance for the Arts, Ltd.

Bluefield, West Virginia

9 SCIENCE AND MATH TO GO!..................................................................... 147

Anderson Oconee Pickens Hub/Clemson University

Clemson, South Carolina
1

CASE STUDY FINDINGS

This volume provides case study methodology, lessons learned, and summary information

for each of the eight case studies conducted as part of an evaluation of education projects funded by the

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) during the 1990s. The study—conducted by Westat, a

Rockville, Maryland, research firm—was designed to examine the range of activities that projects used to

enhance learning opportunities, the extent to which these activities were implemented, the

accomplishments associated with these activities, and the strategies that projects used to sustain

themselves beyond the ARC grant period. Of particular interest was the extent to which projects achieved

the outcomes set forth in their original proposals to ARC—and whether the activities and benefits

associated with the ARC grants have been sustained over time. In addition to a review of project and state

documents, interviews with ARC staff and state- and LDD-level staff, and a mail survey of 84 projects,

the evaluation included site visits to eight projects.

1. Case Study Methodology

The site visits were designed to allow for a more detailed examination of successful ARCfunded education projects, with an emphasis on the lessons learned by these projects and their efforts at

sustainability. Eight projects were selected for intensive visits, and information gained through these site

visits was summarized in a series of case studies. In addition, specific findings are used throughout the

final report to illustrate key findings.

The following criteria were used to narrow the pool of projects that were to be considered

for a site visit:

n Projects had to still be in operation (full, partial, or changed). This was ascertained

through telephone contacts conducted by Westat in November 1999.

n Projects had to have achieved at least some of their stated goals. This was ascertained

through a review of project documentation and telephone contacts conducted by

Westat in November 1999.

n Projects had to have focused on service-delivery or capacity-building, or other nonconstruction projects. This was ascertained through a review of project

documentation.
2

n Projects had to have been serving distressed or transitional counties (or serving a

multicounty region with at least some distressed or transitional areas) at the time of

the grant award.

Thirty-four projects met these requirements. From these, projects were then selected to

represent a range of the following:

n ARC project type—i.e., secondary education, adult literacy, math/science education,

basic skills, distance learning, elementary education, preschool, educational

partnerships, and dropout prevention.

n States, with Commission projects representing the states in which they are located.

n Project scope and size, measured by grant amount and number of counties or breadth

of the region served.

n Grantee organization types—i.e., schools or districts, state government, economic or

community development organizations, postsecondary institutions.

Eight primary sites and six alternates sites were selected. Following a brief telephone call to

ensure that projects were willing to host a site visit and that ARC-funded activities were still in operation,

the original eight primary sites were selected as the final case study sample (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1. ARC Case Study Projects

Michelin Learning Centers, Greenville, Anderson, and Spartanburg, South Carolina

Mobile Technology Project, Hiawasee, Towns County, Georgia

Partnering with Parents for Successful Early Childhood Development, Eastern Tennessee

School Outreach Program, Jasper, Georgia

Science and Math To Go!, Clemson, South Carolina

Science Center of West Virginia, Bluefield, West Virginia

Technology Center Project, Adair County, Kentucky

The David School/Success Bound, David, Kentucky

Teams of two site visitors spent 2 days at each of the eight sites. While onsite, the evaluation

team met with project directors and other key staff, interviewed or conducted informal focus groups with

project beneficiaries, including teachers, students, families, and adult learners, and visited facilities

supported through the grants. The resulting case studies were reviewed for accuracy by each project’s

primary respondent. Abstracts for these case studies are provided following the lessons learned.
3

2. Lessons Learned From Case Studies

During the site visits, local stakeholders were asked to identify any project-related lessons

they had learned that might be of use to other ARC-supported educational projects. Although some of

these lessons were specific to a particular project, several themes emerged across the majority of sites that

were visited. This section outlines some broader practices that may help future grant recipients maximize

the likelihood that their projects are successful and sustainable.

Clear Vision and Realistic Goals. Many of the grant recipients stressed that even before a

project begins, there should be a clear vision of what the project hopes to accomplish. The project’s

vision, purpose, activities, and intended outcomes should be clearly articulated to project staff,

participants, and the surrounding community. Furthermore, this vision should be consistent with local

needs. Finally, the vision should include clear and measurable goals—and a means of assessing whether

or not they have been met.

Community Buy-in. One of the most consistent themes that emerged during the site visits

was the need to cultivate community support for the project. Community stakeholders were most likely to

be supportive when they perceived that the project was providing a service that was responsive to local

needs. One project director noted that because “small communities tend to rely on each other,” it was

important to assure that key stakeholders were involved in the planning process. This involvement can

take many forms, including soliciting local leaders for the advisory board, engaging local businesses as

project partners, having frequent meetings with key stakeholders, and being responsive to stakeholders’

input. Most noted that community stakeholders were most likely to take ownership of a project if an effort

was made to provide services consistent with the community’s perceived need.

Thorough Planning and Design. As described in Chapter 3, the most prominent barrier that

projects identified was underestimating the amount of time required to implement a particular task. It is

therefore not surprising that case study participants emphasized the need to set aside ample time and

resources for designing and planning a project. Participants in several sites emphasized that project

success requires the clear and calculated framing of project aims. For example, staff may be more willing

to support a new approach if they know ahead of time why a specific course of action is being

recommended—and how it will ultimately benefit the community.
4

Several projects suggested conducting a comprehensive needs assessment to maximize the

likelihood that the resulting approach matches the needs of their intended beneficiaries, to examine

potentially replicable models, and to research different potential vendors. Many projects indicated that

such planning should also include some consideration of how the project will be evaluated over time.

Indeed, several of the projects had used their needs assessments to collect baseline data that could

eventually be used to gauge their long-term impact.

Specific Target Population. Several sites stressed the importance of specifying the distinct

community segments that are to participate in and benefit from project-related activities. For example,

one project, designed to increase students’ exposure to and knowledge of computers, recognized that with

limited resources it would only be able to serve a small number of the students. As a result, project staff

determined ahead of time which group of students would most benefit from the available resources.

Another project, designed to intervene with students at risk of not completing high school, eventually

decided to focus its efforts on those students who had already dropped out (as opposed to also providing

services to those students who had been suspended from school or were missing school for medical

reasons).

Others noted the difficulties associated with getting intended beneficiaries to participate in

project-related activities. For example, several case study sites indicated that some parents were reluctant

to engage in any activities associated with their child’s school (especially if they themselves had had bad

experiences in the same educational institution). They recommended that future projects develop creative

mechanisms (e.g., intensive marketing and advertising) aimed at locating and engaging at-risk families.

Tailored Approach. Case study participants also emphasized the need for projects to

anticipate—and make adjustments for—the needs and capabilities of their intended beneficiaries. For

example, one case study site noted that providing educational services to individuals who had not been in

a school setting for many years was made easier by designing non-threatening learning spaces and

developing a curriculum that accommodated various learning styles. Other projects noted that materials

must be developed to be at the appropriate skill-level for the participants—e.g., in areas with high rates of

illiteracy, project materials should be at a very basic reading level. Finally, several case study sites

emphasized that services in isolated communities be provided in such a way that they are accessible to as

many prospective beneficiaries as possible. When this is not possible, they suggested using formal or

informal methods to transport community residents to and from a central site.

Staff Skills and Commitment. Ultimately, the implementation of project activities must

rely on the front-line staff responsible for providing services. Many of the projects we visited emphasized
5

the importance of selecting staff who have an optimal combination of academic, technical, and

interpersonal skills, as well as a passionate commitment to serving the community, all of which are

necessary for working with at-risk youth and adults. The degree to which each of these qualities mattered

varied from project to project. In general, we found that staff who worked directly with participants had to

be technically oriented, organized, flexible, adaptable, and able to relate to people at various levels within

the community. Equally important, these staff frequently had to be willing to put in long days and be

unafraid of going into unknown—and potentially dangerous—situations. Finally, it appeared that staff

were often most successful when they came from within the affected community. This knowledge of the

history and customs of the locale was sometimes what was needed to give staff a “foot in the door,” since

it served as something that families could relate to and trust.

A number of sites acknowledged that the need to hire the best staff often had to be weighed

against the low salaries that grant recipients were typically able to offer. At the time of the site visits,

several projects were barely able to match the wages being offered by other local public (e.g., hospitals)

and private (e.g., fast food establishments) entities, thereby complicating their efforts to hire and retain

qualified staff.

Strong Leadership. In addition to having a highly qualified and skilled staff, projects

benefited from strong leadership that keeps staff motivated and focused. Successful project leadership

generally required someone with drive, persuasiveness, and strong organizational skills who could

coordinate the activities and negotiate the concerns of a variety of interested parties (e.g., school

administrators, faculty, parents, local businesses, and industry). Some projects also emphasized the need

for having a leader who could convey the importance of the effort to local (or state) leaders as a means of

ensuring sustainability after ARC funding ended.

Integration of Services. A number of projects provided a service that was easily integrated

with those already being offered through another community agency. In such cases, participants and

community stakeholders were often better served (since they did not have to travel lengthy distances to

receive a new service) and costs were often consolidated. One form of integration that was common

across the case study sites was cross-referral—e.g., after identifying a specific need, an agency would

refer an individual to another service provider. This ability (and willingness) to integrate services required

that all agencies have an awareness of how their informal “partners” could assist a particular individual.

Several projects suggested that having key members of their staff active in other agencies (e.g., serving on

a board of directors) was one means of ensuring collaboration. (It is worth noting that at least one site

suggested that there was sometimes a need for a clear distinction between the ARC project and other
6

agencies—especially in cases where project participants potentially have something to fear (e.g., loss of a

child) from an external agency (e.g., social services).)

Focus on All Family Members. A number of projects indicated that many of the education

problems they were confronting required intervention for both the students and their families. As such,

merely providing short-term services to one child was not enough to change how the family functioned,

particularly when parental academic encouragement was required. The best of these projects appeared to

take a proactive approach to tackling intergenerational issues (e.g., illiteracy, low self-esteem, lack of job

skills) by encouraging parents to serve as educational role models for their children—and vice versa.

For example, one project that was seeking to increase parents’ involvement in their

children’s schoolwork would not allow students to receive a laptop computer for home use until after at

least one of the parents had received training and signed a permission form. According to the project

director, this was also done to maximize the likelihood that parents would also make use of the

computers, and thereby elect to further their own education. In another project, preference for admittance

to an alternative school was given to students whose parents were interested in furthering their education

or would be contributing members to the school. This policy reflected the director’s belief that the school

alone could not successfully educate a child. The high proportion of mail survey respondents that sought

to simultaneously tackle a combination of youth and adult-oriented objectives provides evidence that this

dual focus was prevalent in many of the projects in the study sample.

Project Evaluation. Timely and robust evaluations can help projects determine whether—

and to what extent—their primary goals have been attained. These data can then be used for a variety of

purposes, such as to identify and correct operational inefficiencies (e.g., terminating inefficient activities)

and to attract additional funding from other sources. Although we found few examples of strong

evaluations, many of the case study sites indicated that they would have benefited from having given

more thought to evaluation at the outset of their projects. For example, one project had not considered

evaluation a priority. With limited resources, they have been more inclined to ensure that services are

provided to beneficiaries. However, project staff do appreciate that having more and better outcome data

would enable them to garner more funding.

Nevertheless, individual projects, like the ARC itself, face issues of attribution. When

beneficiaries of ARC projects are recipients of assistance from other sources, project staff are faced with

difficult evaluations to conduct. This, then, may be another area for ARC to provide technical assistance.
7

Adair County Technology Center

Project Location Columbia, Kentucky

Grant Recipient Adair County Board of Education

ARC Number CO 11256-I

ARC Project Type Secondary Education

Grant Amount $100,000

Matching Funding $70,000

Dates of Site Visit May 3-4, 2000

Site Visitors Brian Kleiner and Nicole Bartfai

Project Abstract

The Adair County Technology Center project, successfully sustained to this day, was initiated in

1993 to address the problem of graduating secondary students inadequately prepared for the

technically trained workforce of the 1990s. The primary aim of the project has been to expose

students to a variety of technology-oriented career paths to make way for their transition into

technical fields either in the workforce or else in postsecondary educational settings. Through

their hands-on experience in the technology education courses, students are afforded

opportunities to acquire new technical skills that may help to prepare them for the workforce or

postsecondary education. The courses prepare students by stressing independent thinking and

problem-solving and offering new kinds of knowledge, as well as practice in team-oriented

activities.

The project has proven to be a valuable educational venture that has impacted a small

Appalachian community in Kentucky. Most significantly, the center exposes large numbers of

students to an array of technology-related fields. The center has served roughly 150 students per

year since its inception. The enthusiasm generated by the center’s instructor and its courses

should continue to help to propel at least some students toward career paths in those directions.
8

Adair County Technology Center

Adair County Board of Education

A. Background

Community Characteristics

Adair County sits on the western edge of Appalachia within Kentucky. Its population is close to

15,000, with 3,800 people living in Columbia, the county’s seat and largest town. Like many

Appalachian regions, Adair County suffers from high unemployment (currently at 8 percent—twice the

national average). In the mid-1990s, many jobs were lost when the companies Osh Kosh B’Gosh and

Fruit of the Loom, major sources of employment in the county, moved their plants out of the state.

Farming is still an important feature of the county’s economy, although many small farms are struggling

and tobacco farmers have had to size down considerably.

Besides farming, the leading industries in the county include manufacturing, services, wholesale

and retail trade, and government. Adair County has recently invited in a new federal prison, which is in

construction and should be a source of many new jobs. Given the relative lack of employment

opportunities in the county, many young people must leave in search of jobs elsewhere.

There is one high school in Adair County, which currently houses around 800 students. The

student population at Adair County High School is representative of the county’s population as a whole.

The large majority of students are white, with 17 black and 2 Pakistani students. Nearly 45 percent of

students at the high school receive either free or reduced-price lunch, a rough indication of the county’s

level of poverty. In 1999, 46 percent of graduated seniors went on to some form of postsecondary

education, a relatively high percentage in the state of Kentucky.

Characteristics of the Grant Recipient Organization

The ARC grant recipient for the Adair County Technology Center was the Adair County Board of

Education, which presides over 2,500 students county-wide, including the high school and five
9

elementary/middle schools. The Board of Education was responsible for controlling grant funds and

overseeing project design and implementation.

The project was spearheaded under the strong leadership of the project director, who was then

Adair County High School’s technology coordinator, and also served as the school’s school-to-work and

vocational coordinator. The project director was responsible for the overall coordination of the project,

including planning, implementation, staff development, purchasing of equipment and materials, reports,

and evaluation. It was under her persuasive and extremely organized charge that the project was carried

out.

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

In the 1990s, the United States experienced the rapid expansion of technology-oriented industries

requiring employees who were highly skilled in technical fields. At the same time, too few students

graduating from secondary schools in the Appalachian region of central Kentucky were adequately

prepared for these kinds of employment. Not only did they lack the basic technical skills required for

jobs in technology-related industries, but many were never afforded the opportunity to be exposed to such

skills and career paths in high school.

The growing need for a workforce with greater competence in technical fields led to the

realization among industries and educators that training and preparation must begin within the schools.

Students must, at a minimum, be exposed to a variety of technical fields, to eventually lead some of them

along technology-related career paths and to satisfy the needs of industry for skilled workers.

Although a vocational/technical feeder program is available for Adair County High School

students, it is located in neighboring Russell County and many students have class conflicts or are

reluctant to commute the long distances necessary to attend. In addition, some Adair County High School

students are deterred by the local stigma attached to attending the vocational/technical school.
10

Approach

The Adair County Technology Center project was initiated in 1993 to address the problem of

graduating secondary students inadequately prepared for the technical workforce of the 1990s. The

primary aim was to expose students to a variety of technology-oriented career paths to make way for their

transition into technical fields either in the workforce or in postsecondary educational settings. The

project involved the installation and implementation of a technology center within the county’s high

school, as well as an adjoining telecommunications/conference room. The telecommunications/

conference room was designed to function as a meeting place for the school and community especially

because there were few alternatives at the inception of the project. Project planners were hopeful that the

conference room would be used for training seminars and presentation. The project’s objectives were as

follows:

• To allow students to explore a number of technologies that will be of importance in a modern

technological society.

• To provide hands-on technical training to students in grades 9-12 that will provide a positive

transition to postsecondary training or the workforce.

• To provide opportunities for students to develop a knowledge base about technology, develop

critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and prepare them to accept and understand new

technologies.

• To provide alternative technical activities for any students with disadvantages or disabilities.

• To provide positive experiences to improve students’ self-esteem and self-confidence.

• To assist students in future educational and career decisions.

• To provide opportunities for technical skills to be integrated into other academic areas.

• To provide school and community access to research, database search, capabilities for twoway interactive video, and training facilities through the use of a KET Star Channel and a

telecommunications classroom component.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

The technology center was still in full operation at the time of the site visit, now supported and

funded entirely by the Adair County Board of Education. It was noted by the high school principal that

the technology center and the classes held within it have become an established part of the school’s

curriculum. The work carried out in the center today is much as it was at the time of the ARC grant, with
11

only a few significant modifications, including the addition of a second course offering and minor

changes in course curriculum.

C. Activities Undertaken as Part of the ARC Project

Project Planning and Design

The success of the technology center at Adair County High School was due in large part to the

level of planning and design that occurred before its implementation. Project staff carried out research on

current needs, potential vendors, and curriculum, and the carefully crafted project consequently faced few

obstacles in its implementation. In addition, planning and design were highly collaborative, inclusive not

only of school faculty and administrators, but also of local businesses, parents, and community members.

The project director noted several factors having to do with planning and design that were critical to the

project’s success.

Community support and buy-in. The project director did not underestimate the importance of a

collaborative and inclusive process involving a host of players within the local community, including

school administrators, faculty, students, local businesses, parents, and other community members.

Community support and buy-in were accomplished in a variety of ways.

First, the project director formed an advisory committee consisting of the superintendent, the high

school principal, teachers, and counselors, local business representatives, parents, and others in the

community. According to the project director, it was not difficult to attract committee members because

there was a growing interest in and enthusiasm for technology education, especially among local

businesses that recognized the expanding need for a more technically trained workforce. The committee

of over 25 members met regularly and often during the formative phase of the project. Not only did the

committee make decisions on project design, but perhaps more importantly, its varied members helped to

galvanize support for the technology center across the community.

Second, collaboration and buy-in was fostered by a community-wide survey asking community

members, businesses, school administrators, parents, and students what sorts of technology should be

taught in the new technology center. Eighty-four surveys were distributed to community members and

businesses, and 58 of them were collected. Of the 53 surveys given to Adair County High School faculty
12

and staff, 24 were collected. The surveys revealed opinions about important technical fields and helped to

shape decisions regarding the technology center’s curriculum. Further, the surveys generated

considerable support and enthusiasm for the mission of the center. For example, the project director

noted, “It was the first time the business community felt like they had a say in things relating to school.”

Third, to gain the support and partnership of local businesses, the project director held regular

breakfast meetings with local business representatives. These meetings ultimately led to the procurement

of $19,000 in donations for construction of the teleconference classroom (including $10,000 from IMO

Industries, $2,500 from Osh Kosh B’Gosh, and $1,000 from First National Bank). In addition, nine local

businesses made in-kind contributions, such as the supply of doors, painting, carpet, dry wall, and ceiling

tiles.

Needs Assessment. According to the project director, their advance research into current needs,

curriculum, and vendors was critical to avoiding later problems. A needs assessment was done at Adair

County High School (before applying for the ARC grant), and the survey discussed above was

instrumental in determining technology domains of interest and importance to community members. In

addition, a team of advisory committee members made several site visits to three magnet schools in

Louisville that have technology centers (Southern High School, Seneca High School, and Nelson County

High School) that could serve as models.

Selecting a Vendor. In order to select a vendor, advisory committee members visited technology

conferences and trade shows. The project director explained that the aim was to choose a single vendor

that would be able to supply everything needed for the technology center, including equipment, furniture,

and curriculum. The advisory committee reviewed applications in response to an RFP, and references

were solicited from previous customers of candidate vendors. Potential vendors visited the school to

make presentations before the advisory committee. In the end, the vendor selected was Southern

Educational Systems (educational and industrial training equipment specialists). The project director

noted that the lack of problems encountered with the work done by this vendor resulted from their careful

research.

Installation

The Adair County Board of Education approved $75,000 to renovate the space needed for the

technology center. The facilities committee (a subgroup of the advisory committee) consulted with an
13

engineer to draw up rough sketches of the layout of the facilities. Final drawings were then approved and

submitted to the state department for final approval. Due to fire code restrictions, however, the facility

required greater renovation than expected, and the installation of the technology center was postponed for

several months.

In the end, the technology center was installed in a spacious room on the ground floor of Adair

County High School. The enthusiasm of the community was in evidence during weekends, when

volunteers from the community helped with renovating and furnishing the center. Equipment in the

center included such technologies as a laser, a computerized mini-milling machine, a VHS professional

camcorder, an audio system, a wind tunnel, and computers and software for desktop publishing, graphics,

computer-aided drafting, electronics, and flight simulation. Equipment was installed at stations (called

“modules”) evenly spread out within the center. Each station contained ample surface area for work

space and equipment.

Technology Center Instructor

The project director said that care was taken to select an instructor with a strong technical

background and solid teaching and people skills. The qualifications sought for the technology center’s

instructor were as follows:

• Certified with a minimum of an Industrial Education Orientation and Exploration certification

with a suggested minimum three years of experience.

• Knowledge/background in the technological areas defined in the module descriptions.

• Working knowledge of computers and computer application programs.

• Current certification to teach Level I and Level II Technology Education programs.

• Willingness to participate in staff development workshops prior to and during implementation

of the program.

• Willingness to attend special meetings and conferences sponsored by the local district or state

department to upgrade skills.

• Willingness to open program open to visitors who have scheduled an appointment.

• Willingness to work with other faculty members, school district staff, local industry, and

postsecondary institutions to share resources.
14

The instructor hired for the position, who was still teaching in the technology center at the time of

the site visit, was well qualified. He has a B.S. degree in Industrial Technology Education and an M.A. in

Education Technology. During the site visit, he demonstrated considerable enthusiasm for and

commitment to the technology center and its purpose. He also appeared to be well-liked and respected by

his students and colleagues.

Curriculum

The technology center was fitted with 14 modules; each devoted to a particular technical area.

The course offered to 9th through 12th grade students was called Technology Education. During the

course of a semester, students gained exposure to and experience in an array of technical fields, rotating

from one module to the next, spending about 5 days on each. The modules selected by the advisory

committee (with respect to survey results and other research findings) and instituted in the technology

center are detailed below:

• Aerospace – the study of flight, aerodynamics, the operation of a wind tunnel, lift, drag, flight

simulation, VFR, and FAA regulations.

• Applied Physics – the study of pneumatics, how gases and liquids are used and applied as

power sources, and physical science concepts such as force, work, and mechanical advantage.

• Audio/Video – the study and use of radio broadcasting operations and productions, video

production techniques, and video equipment applications.

• CAD (Computer-Aided Drafting) – the study of the basic concepts of drafting that leads to

computer technology, using CADKEY 7.0 mechanical software and DataCAD 5.0

architectural software.

• CNC/CAM (Computer Numerical Control/Computer Aided Manufacturing) – the use of

technology that allows a computer to control the operation of machine tools; the study and

use of basic milling operations.

• Desktop Publishing/Graphics – the application of computer technology in the design; layout,

and production of sophisticated publications.

• Electricity/Electronics – the study and use of basic theories and high-technology applications

to construct, test, and analyze electrical and electronic circuits.

• Engineering Structures – an introduction to civil engineering whereby basic engineering

principles are used in the design, construction, and testing of a bridge and other structures.

• Environmental Impacts – the study and use of an environmental trainer and water testing kits

to determine water quality, filtration, purification, and the effects on the environment.
15

• Laser/Fiber Optics – the performance of experiments that demonstrate the principles of fiber

optics and laser technology; the use of fiber optic cable to acquaint the student with the

cable’s ability to transmit the laser light.

• Biomedical Technology – the use of a biotechnology equipment kit to study living things and

how biological systems can be affected, created, altered, and influenced by technology.

• Robotics – the study and use of the basics of robot design, control, and applications, using the

Robot 2001 and student-designed projects.

• Telecommunications – the study of how orbiting satellites make global communications

possible; the use of a television satellite dish to investigate, plot, and tune in over 200 KUBand stations.

• Transportation/Production – the study and exploration of present and future transportation

methods; the use of various tools such as band and scroll saws, drill press, sander, drill bit set,

and other miscellaneous hand tools to produce student projects.

 

Technology Education was offered to students as an elective (Introduction to Computers was a

required prerequisite). Given popular demand and constraints on student enrollment, juniors and seniors

were given priority for course admission. The purpose of the class was to give students “hand-on

exploratory experience in several technical fields that would better acquaint them with today’s high-tech

careers as well as prepare them for two-year or four-year postsecondary degrees, or for the world of

work.” The course was intended to be preparatory for college and the workplace, stressing responsibility

and a greater degree of freedom among students, collaborative learning, and little lecture time in class.

The instructor for the course viewed his role as that of a facilitator, leading students along the

path of independent self-learning. In addition, rather than formal tests, students were graded on projects,

papers, and worksheets associated with each module. Students selected partners at the beginning of the

course, and as in typical workplace environments, worked closely together toward common goals.

For each module, students were given worksheets that had to be completed. Worksheets

contained questions and problems that address features of the relevant technical field and were checked

by the instructor only once each 9 weeks, thus requiring students to exercise the responsibility needed for

keeping up with class work. Worksheets were not graded, but rather were checked for completion and

reasonableness of answers. For each module there was also a post-test, which was used to evaluate

students’ understanding of the module. Students were allowed to find answers through any means,

including referring to books and collaborating with other students, thus simulating a work environment.
16

Telecommunications Classroom

At the time of the ARC grant, Adair County had no location available for public meetings and

small-group conferences. A telecommunications classroom was built next to the technology center to

provide business and industry, municipal offices, and the local college with a site to be used for training

courses, workshops, small-group conferences, and team meetings. Most of the donations from local

businesses and industry ($19,000 in total) were spent on construction of the telecommunications

classroom. As is discussed below, the room did not live up to the expectations held for it, and has been

used only infrequently by the community since the time of the ARC grant.

D. Problems Encountered

As mentioned earlier, installing the technology center took 6 months longer than expected,

because of firecode restrictions and the need for more extensive renovation than planned. According to

the project director, this might have been avoided by consultation earlier with an architect.

Telecommunications Room

After the telecommunications room was installed, new state regulations requiring that school

doors be closed after school and that all school visitors signed in at the front office. This hindered the

business community and other community members from using the telecommunications/conference room

as easily or frequently for meeting space. In addition, a more convenient meeting place was soon

thereafter established at nearby Lindsey-Wilson College. Although the teleconference room has been

used rather infrequently by the public through the years, it continues to be used within the school for

special guest lecturers and class presentations.

Buy-in of Educators

Although parents and local businesses and industry quickly recognized the significance of the

technology center, according to the project director it was harder to sell its merits to the education

community (e.g., faculty, administrators). In any event, the project director noted that it was crucially
17

important to persuade the superintendent of the center’s value, since his support trickled down to

administrators and faculty and quieted their resistance.

Need for Upgrades and Repair

Given the costs of maintenance and repair, as well as the rapid pace of technological change, the

center has had to grapple with the need for keeping its modules maintained, up-to-date, and relevant.

This, of course, requires considerable funding, and the center has had to make difficult decisions about

which modules to maintain and update. For example, the robotics module within the technology center

included a programmable robotic arm that was in disrepair. This module was (and continues to be)

inactive, since the funding was not available for the repair.

Adult Education Technology Course

One of the original aims of the project was to offer the center to adults in the community for their

continuing education. In 1995, a technology education course was offered to adults in the evenings 4

hours each week for 6 weeks. The course was similar to the one offered to high school students, and 11

adults were registered. However, many of the adults were disappointed to discover that the course was

not devoted to teaching computer skills (e.g., word processing) rather to exposing the learner to various

technologies. The adult course followed the same curriculum guidelines as the Tech I course. Although

the course was run to completion, it was not offered a second time.

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

No formal evaluation of the project was carried out. However, end-of-course evaluations were

collected from students each semester, and the feedback helped the instructor to shape curriculum

changes.
18

Dissemination

The Adair County Technology Center project’s success led to a considerable degree of attention

and interest within the community and beyond. Several presentations about the project were made at

statewide conferences and workshops, such as the Kentucky Vocational Conference and staff

development day in Elizabethtown. In addition, when staff from seven surrounding counties came to

Columbia for regional staff development in the summer of 1995, many teachers attended the technology

center to observe and experiment with the 14 modules. Further, many (supportive) articles were written

about the technology center in local newspapers.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

Sustainability

As noted earlier, the Adair County Technology Center has continued in operation since the time

of the ARC grant. This is due mostly to the adoption of the technology center as part of the high school’s

curriculum by the Adair County Board of Education. At the time of the ARC grant, the Board was fully

in support of the center and was aware that it would need to take over funding after the ARC grant ended.

The Board provides $1,500 annually for center upkeep and repair, and additional funding is available

through Perkins Title II grant money to purchase supplies and to replace nonconsumable items. The

center instructor’s salary is paid also by the Board of Education.

Another aspect of sustainability involves persuading students to enroll in the technology

education courses, since they are only offered as an elective. One way that high enrollments are sustained

is by word of mouth – students who have taken the course recommend it to friends. Indeed, interviews

with students in the center revealed that most of them took the course because a friend recommended it.

Further, many students are exposed to the technology center when teachers bring their classes to the

center for specific purposes. For instance, one English teacher brought her class to record student

speeches in the “radio room” (used for the audio and video module).

One way the instructor garnered interest in technology education courses and increased

enrollment among the school’s students was to expose them to some of the more compelling activities

featured in the technology courses. For instance, each semester there is an on-campus competition called
19

the “egg drop,” relating to the Research and Design module, where students in the course compete to see

who can drop encased eggs from high distances without breaking them. All students in the school are

invited to attend and observe. Similarly, this year Tech I students will participate for the first time in a

CO2 rocket car competition, where wooden cars constructed in class and powered by CO2 cartridges will

be raced on school grounds.

Expansion

The technology center’s purpose and workings have changed little since the time of the ARC

grant. Most notably, in 1997 a second elective course, called Technology Education II, was added to the

school’s curriculum. This course is structured like Tech I, but focuses more in-depth on a subset of the

modules, such as computer-aided drafting, radio broadcasting, and aerodynamics. Prerequisite to this

course is completion of Tech I. In 1999, almost 20 percent of students who had taken Tech I went on to

take Tech II.

There have been minor changes over the years, but the original Tech I course curriculum remains

basically the same. Tentative future plans for the center include adding a technology program at the 7th

and 8th grade levels (a middle school is located a block away from the high school), and expanding the

courses offered to include Tech III and Tech IV. These new advanced courses would be more highly

specialized, with focus on particular technical fields. For instance, the instructor mentioned the

possibility of a Tech III course focusing on communications, with emphasis on radio and video

production and computer-aided drafting.

Due to restrictions on cost, however, certain plans for module changes and upgrades may be

stymied. For example, the instructor noted that whereas radio production has moved toward digital

technology, upgrading the radio module to digital technology might prove to be too expensive. Similarly,

the instructor would like to add a module offering a programmable lathe, but this machine is currently too

costly.

G. Accomplishments/Outcomes

The most notable accomplishment of the Adair County Technology Center is that many students

have been exposed to an array of career paths in technical fields. The center has served roughly 150
20

students per year since its inception. Without the center, most students would not be aware of the kinds

of technology-related careers available to them. Further, the center has been able to generate the

enthusiasm necessary among students to propel them toward careers in technology fields. Students

interviewed confirmed this, all stating that they liked the course. Many students attending Tech I said that

they planned to enroll for Tech II. Of the 99 students currently taking Tech I, 58 have signed up to take

Tech II during the 2000/2001 school year. In addition, course enrollment figures for the past several

years have increased significantly, another indication of the technology center’s success.

Through their hands-on experience in the technology education courses, students are afforded

opportunities to acquire new technical skills that may help to prepare them for the workforce or

postsecondary education. The courses prepare students by stressing independent thinking and problemsolving and by offering new kinds of knowledge, as well as practice in team-oriented activities.

Although no numbers were available, the center appears to be achieving the aim of encouraging

at least some students to choose careers in technical fields. For example, the instructor mentioned three

previous students who will soon be studying engineering at the University of Kentucky. One student

went on to the Somerset Technical College to study industrial maintenance. He later joined the Army

Corps of Engineers and is now studying to become an engineer. Also, the principal noted that interest in

math and science has increased at the school, as have math and science scores on standardized tests,

attributable in part to the technology center.

Among other accomplishments, the technology center’s desktop publishing and graphics

capabilities are now being employed by Tech I students to produce a school newsletter that features

upcoming events, a message from the principal, announcements of student awards and distinctions, and

other news. At the time of the site visit, three newsletter issues had been released at a rate of one every

other month.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

In general, the success of the technology center project was due to the confluence of a variety of

factors, including strong leadership and organization, community buy-in and collaboration, and thorough

planning and design. The qualities of the instructor and the nature of the course pedagogy and curriculum

were also factors contributing to the project’s success.
21

Strong leadership and organization are necessary. The successful technology center requires

a leader with drive, persuasiveness, and strong organizational skills. This person must be able to

coordinate the activities and negotiate the concerns of a variety of interested parties, such as school

administrators, faculty, parents, and local businesses and industry. The project director for the Adair

County Technical Center embodied these skills and was able to shepherd the project along a successful

track.

Emphasize community buy-in and collaboration. A technology center is unlikely to succeed

without the buy-in and collaboration of the local community. Achieving community buy-in requires

finding ways to involve community members in and inform them about the planning and establishment of

a center. For the Adair County Technology Center, this was done by bringing community members onto

the advisory committee, conducting a survey, and informing the media about the project.

Also, once in operation, schools with a technology center should be receptive to the concerns of

local communities. For instance, the instructor for the Adair County center explained that a local

representative at IMO Industries (a leading employer in the county) complained to him that “kids can’t

even read a ruler these days.” Responsive to this comment, the instructor said that every semester he now

reviews in his classes how to read a ruler to within 1/16 of an inch.

Thorough planning and design are critical. Another essential for success is thorough planning

and design. First, as noted by the project director, success requires the clear and calculated framing of

project aims. One should have good answers to questions such as Why do we want to do this? and How

will it benefit students? Second, planning and design should include looking at a variety of other sites

with technology centers, conducting a needs assessment, and researching different potential vendors.

Third, the local Board of Education should be made aware up front about the long-term fiscal

responsibilities associated with a technology center, and it should be committed to long-term support.

In addition, planning should include thoughtful consideration of features of the curriculum within

the technology center. The curriculum should be context-specific, based on those technical fields that are

most likely to be of practical value to students within their communities. To illustrate, the instructor gave

the example of a hypothetical technology center, based perhaps in Nevada, where the curriculum might

include, say, a module on solar energy.
22

Technology classes should foster skills and activities found in college and the workplace. In

order to accomplish the aim of career development, courses in technology centers should foster the kinds

of learning and skills at use in postsecondary educational settings and the workplace. This includes

independent thinking and problem solving, collaboration, and an emphasis on individual responsibility.

Instructors should be aware that students have different learning styles, and some will like nontraditional

modes of teaching and learning more than others.

Select an instructor with the right qualifications. Finally, the success of a technology center

depends upon having a good teacher. This person should have a degree in industrial technology and a

strong background in math and science. He or she should also be able to handle multiple tasks, be wellrounded, and have a good rapport with students and the community. In addition, since technology

changes so rapidly, an instructor should keep current on his or her knowledge and skills (by attending

conferences, workshops, etc.).

I. Summary and Conclusions

The Adair County Technology Center has proven to be a valuable educational venture that has

impacted a small Appalachian community in Kentucky. Most significantly, the center exposes large

numbers of students to an array of technology-related fields. The enthusiasm generated by the center’s

instructor and its courses should continue to help to propel at least some students toward career paths in

those directions. Other Appalachian regions seeking to prepare their young people for technology-related

careers would do well to emulate Adair County’s Technology Center project.
23

The David School and Success Bound

Project Location David, Kentucky

Grant Recipient The David School

ARC Number KY 12112-95-I & CO 12632-97-I

ARC Project Type Basic Skills

Grant Amount $70,000

Matching Funding $24,000

Dates of Site Visit April 10-11, 2000

Site Visitors Nicole Bartfai and Gary Silverstein

Project Abstract

The David School, located in Floyd County, Kentucky, serves as an alternative school for

students who are in danger of dropping out of the public school system. With ARC assistance,

the David School initiated a pilot project, Success Bound, which added supplemental training in

the area of pre-employment/work maturity and job-specific skills. Initially, only 40 students

were enrolled in the Success Bound component. Since then, it has been thoroughly integrated

into the David School approach. Students are provided academic, vocational, and job training

skills through a variety of educational and hands-on experiences. Equally important, they are

required to create a postsecondary plan that identifies specific long-term educational and

professional goals—e.g., vocational school, college or community college, military,

employment. This plan focuses attention on how the David School can best serve a student’s

long-term needs—and serves as a standard against which “success” can be measured.
24

Success Bound

The David School

A. Background

Community Characteristics

The David School is located in Floyd County, Kentucky, in the heart of Appalachia. It is

considered part of the Floyd County education system, but it operates as a private, nonprofit, alternative

school for secondary students. Approximately 70 students are enrolled in the school, most of whom live

in Floyd County (other students come from the surrounding Magoffin, Knott, Pike, Martin, and Johnson

counties). During the previous decades, this area of Kentucky was dominated by the coal mining

industry, and many of the small towns were once coal towns owned and operated by mining companies.

Floyd County is predominately white, with only 1 percent of the population being nonwhite. The

county has high illiteracy, dropout, and poverty rates. In the 1990 census, Kentucky had the highest

illiteracy rate in the nation, andwith Floyd County had a 50.8 percent dropout rate of persons 25 years of

age and older. According to the director of the David School, the dropout rate has continued to increase,

in part because recent state education reforms have forced principals to keep attendance high and test

scores up, which is resulting in more students dropping out of school. The region’s poverty rate is also

high—31 percent of the population live below the poverty line, and 43 percent of residents under the age

of 18 live in poverty (U.S. Census estimates, 1995). The estimated household income is $21,792 (U.S.

Census estimates, 1995), and in 1994, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. The population of Floyd

County has remained relatively stable during 1990-97, but the county did experience a 10 percent

decline during 1980-90.

Characteristics of Grant Recipient Organization

The David School received 2 years of funding from the Appalachian Region Commission to

implement the Success Bound program to a subsection of students during the 1994 and 1995 school years.

The David School is a private, nondenominational, nonprofit education provider, founded in 1974. It

provides students with an alternative to public education with a heavy emphasis on vocational and job

skills training. The school serves approximately 100 students annually who have already dropped out—
25

or are at risk of dropping out—of middle or high school. Prior to admission, students undergo a

comprehensive screening process to assure that they meet the school’s admission criteria, including (1) a

need for remediation (approximately two grades below his/her appropriate level), (2) a need for financial

assistance (at or below the poverty level), (3) an agreement by the student to work in collaboration with

teachers to meet established short- and long-term goals (e.g., mastering division, college, employment),

and (4) an agreement by parents to be active participants in their child’s secondary education as well as

participate in adult and continuing education classes.

David School staff include a director and principal (who both teach one class), a counselor, seven

full-time teachers, a kitchen/food manager, and office support staff. The school operates under a common

vision and philosophy that serves to keep the staff focused on their intended outcome of helping students

in need. As is discussed throughout this case study, that common vision and philosophy have been

molded, to a large extent, by the Success Bound program that was funded by ARC. Other components

that make the David School unique are:

• The student-to-teacher ratio is 10 to 1.

• Meals are served in a family style environment, and students are expected to assist with food

preparation and clean up.

• Every morning begins with an all-school assembly to discuss upcoming events and highlight

the accomplishments of individual students.

• Students address the school’s director, principal, and faculty by their first names.

• Faculty members meet on a regular basis to talk about each student. According to the

school’s director, these weekly meetings are critical to helping teachers “think outside the

box” and for finding out how individual students are doing in other classes.

• Home visits are conducted by the staff twice a year. This practice, begun as a result of the

Success Bound initiative, enables the principal, counselor, and teachers to further understand

their students’ educational and social needs. It also encourages the parents to become more

involved in the school.

• Parents who lack a high school diploma or GED are strongly encouraged to enroll in the

David School’s adult learning facilities to further their own educational and vocational goals.1

 

1

 The David School, which operates 10 adult learning classes, is the only source for adult basic skills coursework in Floyd. The school enrolls

500 adults per year in this program. Parents who already have a high school diploma or GED are encouraged to attend a local community

college.
26

• Preference for admittance is given to students whose parents are interested in furthering their

education or will be contributing members to the David School community. This policy

reflects the director’s belief that the school alone cannot successfully educate a child.

• Students are expected to sign a contract when they begin the program. The David School

currently operates under a waiting list, and many students have been placed on a lower

priority because they do not meet all of the criteria for admission into David. (For example,

parents might not be willing to participate in their child’s education or students might not be

willing to contribute to the school.)

The David School originally occupied abandoned coal company buildings—the company store,

office, and movie theater, which were in operation during the mining era. The school also owned and

operated a full service gas station. The station, which served to educate students and generate revenue for

the school, was recently closed because its underground storage tanks did not meet U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. In 1997, the David School moved into a new $2 million dollar

building that is vastly different from the original coal company buildings. It is nestled in a mountain

valley directly up the road from the previous location in the town of David. The architecture is spacious

and stylish with cathedral ceilings and views of the surrounding mountainside. There are several cabins

on the school’s grounds used for a variety of purposes, e.g., housing summer volunteers, accommodating

teacher workshops, and serving as summer lodging for the Prestonsburg playhouse performers. An

accompanying building was designed for the wood working class and will eventually have a computer lab

for instructional technology classes. The cabinets that fill the kitchen area of the main school building

and in other areas of the school were designed and constructed by students. Students have also

contributed to other areas of the school (e.g., stairs, painting, drywall, electrical). At the time of the site

visit, the students and teachers were working on landscaping the grounds.

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

The David School was designed to address the needs of the surrounding community. At the time

the school was founded in 1974, many of Floyd County’s residents were undereducated, and this problem

perpetuated itself with high dropout rates. The Success Bound program, initiated in 1994, takes the

mission of the David School one step further by providing a framework for assisting students to prepare

for life after graduation. According to the director, prior to Success Bound, the goal for most students

was “getting to the finish line” (i.e., attaining a GED or high school diploma). However, many graduates
27

were uncertain of their plans after David School. With Success Bound, the goal was extended to include

attainment of a specific educational or vocational goal after graduation.

Approach

The Success Bound program started as a pilot project within the David School. It was designed

to add supplemental training to the school’s curriculum in the areas of pre-employment/work and job

specific skills. Initially, only 40 students were enrolled in the Success Bound component (the maximum

number that could be supported with existing funding). Since then, it has become a part of the curriculum

at the David School. Students are provided academic, vocational, and job training skills through a variety

of hands-on experiences. Equally important, they are required to create a postsecondary plan that

identifies specific long-term educational and professional goals, e.g., vocational school, college or

community college, military, employment. This plan focuses attention on how the school can best serve

students’ long-term needs—and becomes a standard against which “success” can be measured.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

The David School continues to provide hands-on educational experiences for students in Floyd

and surrounding counties. The school recently moved into a new building with a modern computer lab

and expanded vocational facilities. The new building has vastly expanded the school’s capacity to meet

the needs of the region’s students. It has also further enhanced the likelihood that the David School will

remain a permanent fixture in the Floyd County. The Success Bound program that started with a segment

of the program’s students has been fully integrated into the David School. As such, all students must now

enter the school with a vision for their future.

C. Activities Undertaken as Part of the ARC Project

Intake Process

The intake process has become an important component of the Success Bound approach. Staff

assess each student to determine his/her academic needs, interests, capabilities, and vocational potential.2

 

2

 The director notes that especially with the integration of Success Bound, the school is not in a position to accept some of the region’s hardest-toserve students (e.g., individuals with a history of substance abuse).
28

While referrals are taken from a variety of sources—primarily teachers, principals, and counselors—most

hear about the school through word of mouth. The school accepts students from 9th through 12th grade,

with occasional exceptions for 8th graders who are being held back for academic reasons. Interviews and

home visits are conducted to obtain a better understanding of their needs and interests. Students and

parents are expected to complete intake forms (Appendix A). These intake forms provide staff with

detailed information regarding students and parents. For example, the students’ intake form asks about

their behavior, special needs, reason for interest in the David School, expectations of themselves and their

teachers, and their relationship with their families. The parent intake form asks similar questions about

the student, but also gathers information directly about the parent. For example, income level, highest

grade completed, if they are enrolled in some type of school, and employment status. Each form

contributed to providing the staff with an overall picture of the students and family prior to admittance

into the David School. Prospective students also complete a diagnostic test to identify their strengths and

weaknesses and tailor their coursework accordingly. Applicants can take a student-led tour of the school

and are encouraged to shadow a David School student for a day.

Once accepted, students sign a contract that delineates the school’s expectations and basic

operating procedures (Appendix B). The students are responsible for selecting their classes. The David

School does not break students into classes by grade or ability, but rather by scheduling limits and the

student’s personality. With only about 70 students, staff can create classes that will more than likely be

free of conflict and include students who might interact well. At times, this presents a challenge for

teachers because there may be three different grade/ability levels in one class. For example, one math

class might include students who are learning fractions, pre-algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. As

such, the teacher would be required to create lesson plans that cover all of the varied topics.

Assessment of Student Progress

Each student’s progress is planned and assessed through the use of an educational plan and a

student progress report. The student’s educational plan includes information about the student (i.e., longterm goals, interest, and strengths) and a learner/instructor agreement. The learner agreement states:

I have identified the goals below and I choose to work on them at this time. I understand

that for the successful completion of these goals I will need to attend class____ hours per

week, from _______ to _____ , complete my assignments, ask for help when I need it,

and make a genuine effort to learn. If modifications need to be made in my learning plan,

my instructor and I will make a new agreement.
29

The learner is asked to sign and date the agreement. The instructor agreement, which is viewed as being

equally important, states:

As the class instructor, I will do everything possible to help this learner achieve the

following goals by providing appropriate instruction and monitoring the learner’s

progress at regular intervals. I understand that if modifications need to be made in the

learning plan, the learner and I will make a new agreement.

The student progress report allows the teacher to provide the student, parent, and school

administration with an overall view of the student’s progress in class. The teacher indicates if the student

understands the material, applies critical thinking skills, does assigned work, participates in class, and

cooperates with teachers and other students. The teachers is also asked to comment on the student’s

conduct, attendance, and if he/she is keeping up with class requirements. At the end of the semester, the

teacher also indicates whether the work accomplished is sufficient to grant credit for the semester.

Success Bound on Curriculum and Coursework

The Success Bound program was initially conceived as a pilot project that would only serve a

portion (i.e., 40) of the school’s students. The goal was to determine how successful these students would

be with a more focused and formalized approach to preparing students with life after school. The Success

Bound approach formalized the planning process and forced students to establish clearer benchmarks for

themselves. Expectations for the students were higher than in previous years, raising the bar for the kids.

Students were not just encouraged to have post-graduation plans, but also were expected to have

outcomes for themselves. The postsecondary education plan details a student’s long- and short-term

goals, education needs to meet the long-term goal, and the preparation he/she has undertaken to

accomplish set goal (Appendix C). This approach surfaced as the David School director recognized the

need to become more accountable to funding agencies and potential funders.

Initially, funding limited the number of students in this pilot project; otherwise, this approach

would have been available to all students. Students were selected based on interest in the program, as

well as parents’ potential involvement. In the initial years of Success Bound, the focus was limited to

juniors and seniors. Students in this program were taught the core competencies (i.e., reading, math,

science) and were tracked according to their postsecondary plan into one of the following areas:

• Service Station Management and Basic Auto Mechanics. Prior to the pilot project, the

service station was primarily used to provide students with some real-world work experience
30

in customer relations and auto mechanics. With Success Bound, the service station

curriculum was revised to provide targeted skills that could be used in a variety of local

employment opportunities—e.g., customer service, bookkeeping. The curriculum for the

revised program was developed in conjunction with a local vocational school (to maximize

the likelihood that students would be prepared to complete more comprehensive coursework

after leaving the David School. This program was discontinued after the closure of the

service station (due to EPA regulations). In spite of the high costs associated with the

renovations, the David School director was hopeful that the station would eventually be

reopened.

• Carpenter’s Helper. Under Success Bound, the carpentry course was modified to provide

students with a specific task—building cabinets for the new school. Once the new school had

been fully outfitted, the students continued making cabinets for low-income families.

According to the instructor, the benefits are not limited to cabinet making, as students learn

how to meet schedules and work as a team in an assembly line.3 Students were also provided

opportunities to participate in the construction of the new school building. At the time of the

site visit, students enrolled in carpenter’s helper were helping to assemble the floors,

windows, stairs, and ceiling that would eventually serve as the school’s carpentry workshop.

• Apartment Maintenance. This course is designed to teach students how to use common

tools and repair items around the house. It developed out of the fact that many students were

assisting, or assuming full responsibility, for maintaining their homes.

• Computer Training. Since moving into the new school, the computer training component

has become an important new course for students. The lab is outfitted with state-of-the-art

equipment, including a large monitor that allows students to view work being performed by

their instructor. At the time of the site visit, students were being taught word processing

skills. Depending on the demand, the skill level of the courses might increase. In addition,

the school was preparing to connect the computers in the lab to the Internet. It is anticipated

that this will substantially enhance the curriculum associated with the computer course.

• Child Care. Until recently, the David School housed a licensed preschool and kindergarten.

Students looking to gain experience in working with young children had the opportunity to

participate in a variety of activities, e.g., transportation, helping with arts and crafts,

recreation, reading stories, serving as mentors. This course was discontinued when the David

School closed its preschool in 1998.4

• Food Preparation. Students receive course credit for their food planning and preparation

responsibilities Specifically, students are required to participation in a variety of food

preparation activities, including preparing menus and shopping lists, shopping, cooking and

food preparation, and clean-up.

Keys class. An important component of the Success Bound program was the Keys class. This

class, now required of all David School students, is designed to create career awareness for the students.

The curriculum for the class includes teaching students about:

 

3

 In an average month, the school’s goal is to produce 20-30 cabinets.

4

 The preschool was closed after the local Headstart Program expanded, thereby diminishing the community’s need for the David School’s center.
31

• Making career decisions;

• Using the labor market information;

• Preparing resumes;

• Filling out applications;

• Interviewing;

• Being punctual;

• Maintaining regular attendance;

• Demonstrating positive attitudes an behavior;

• Presenting appropriate appearance;

• Exhibiting good interpersonal relations; and

Another part of the Keys curriculum includes teaching students listening and communication

skills, which the principal viewed as being critical for students when trying to get a job or get into school.

These goals are achieved through traditional teaching methods (i.e., lecture, videos) but also by bringing

speakers into the class, taking field trips to local colleges, and providing community service, such as

cleaning up the land around the school and in the community. This course provides students with the

skills necessary to achieve established goals and expand their view of the possibilities available to them.

Partnerships

David School has established partners that assist the school on a daily basis. The Floyd County

Board of Education provides bus transportation for David School students to a central locale (a

convenience store not far from the school) in order for the David School bus to pick up students. The

County also extends accreditation to the David School, and course credits between the two schools are

interchangeable. There is no financial exchange in this partnership.

In addition to the Board of Education, the David School has developed ties with the county

Department of Social Services. The David School has been able to make referrals as needed, and the

department has served as a source of referrals to the David School.

Other partners include local community colleges—Prestonsburg, Moorehead State, Berea, and

Mayo Technical School. As part of the Success Bound approach, David School staff aligned parts of

their curriculum with coursework offered at these to prepare students for postsecondary challenges. Other
32

benefits have included increased access to the resources available on these campuses and periodic visits to

the colleges as part of the Keys class.

D. Problems Encountered

The David School did not incur many problems in the implementation of the Success Bound

approach. As such, the following implementation barriers pertain to the operation of the school itself.

“Those Kids”

Students who attend the David School are at times labeled as “those kids.” The David School is

perceived as a school for low achievers and/or for youth with discipline problems. The director

commented that this label is often used by public school principals, teachers, and parents. During the site

visit, several students even commented on their original impression of the school: “the school for

dropouts” and “the dummy school.” These students indicated that their impressions changed as soon as

they visited the school. Unfortunately, this stereotype does keep some students from attending or parents

from sending their children. This issue is dealt with on an individual basis. Using the strengths of the

school (i.e., smaller class size) has proven to be one way to convince potentially hesitant parents or

students to attend the David School.

Limited Support for Students at Home

All David School students come from low-income families whose members are often

undereducated. In addition, many students do not receive encouragement from home, where there can be

limited emphasis placed on education. The director indicated that parents who did not do well in school

are less likely to view education as being critical to their children’s success. In addition, parents may fear

that, as their children gain vocational skills, they may be forced to leave the area to obtain gainful

employment. (The area surrounding David School has limited employment opportunities and even fewer

in highly technical fields.)
33

Staffing

Due to the limited financial reward for the school’s faculty and the demands placed on these

teachers, staff turnover has been a problem for the school. According to the director, teachers are asked

to perform tasks that they would not normally encounter in traditional regular public schools (e.g.,

assisting the principal in home visits, helping in the kitchen, rotating on the bus and van schedule). In the

past, some teachers who came from traditional public school backgrounds found they were unable to fit

into the environment at David School. The principal commented that at the David School, “students feel

as though they have voice in the school and it is expected of David School staff to treat students as young

adults.” According to the director, however, some individuals have difficulty with this concept.

Nonetheless, the director indicated that the school has been able to retain a core group of teachers/staff

(including some former students), thereby reducing the impact of such staff turnover on students.

Lack of Financial Support in the Community

The David School has earned the respect of the community but has received limited financial

support. It is a continual struggle to determine how and where funding will come for the next school

year. The David School director and staff work continuously to secure funding and raise public

awareness about the school. Most funding is obtained from outside the state and from individual

contributions; annually the school receives $50,000 in contributions.

Lack of Accreditation

The David School does not meet the state’s education requirements (i.e., Kentucky’s requirement

for portfolio assessment for all students). The staff have resisted state accreditation because the school’s

mission is not completely aligned with Kentucky’s educational guidelines and test requirements. This can

be problematic when requesting funding from some foundations, since they only provide support to

accredited schools. Only half of the teachers are certified, and this could cause additional problems in

achieving accreditation. To get around this problem, the local school board has extended accreditation to

David School, and this is recognized by local community colleges. The granting of accreditation from the

local school board, which occurred in 1976, has opened more avenues for David School graduates.
34

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

The David School has not conducted a formal evaluation of the Success Bound program.

However, the school is required to report annual statistics regarding the grades and postsecondary

educational and vocational plans of all graduating students. This information provides insights into the

extent to which students are meeting the goals outlined in their education plans and progress reports.

During the site visit, the director also expressed an interest in developing a postsecondary support

network that could be used in part to document students’ vocational and educational accomplishments

(the school does not systematically monitor what happens to students after they graduate).

Dissemination

David School staff have received considerable attention and praise for their work. About 800

people a year visit the school, including Kentucky governors, administrators from other school systems,

and reporters. The director’s office contains numerous newspaper articles that have been written about

the school. (At the time of the site visit, a reporter and photographer from the Lexington, Kentucky,

newspaper was at the school preparing a story that appeared soon after.) In addition, a documentary that

focused on four students was being filmed at the school. Through this attention, the David School has

been widely disseminated as a success story for all of Appalachia. Even with all this attention, word-ofmouth continues to be the best source of dissemination within the community and outside the state, and

the school’s director continues to be its strongest advocate.

The David School director commented that they have received about 5 to 10 visits from others

looking to replicate this approach. Most are outside the state, but several visits have been from local

districts. One of the area school districts is interested in starting an alternative school and has approached

the David School director for assistance. Despite their interest in the school, few steps have been taken to

actually start the school, but David School staff have been eager to share their approach with other

communities.
35

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

Sustainability

As discussed previously, the ARC-funded Success Bound program has become a permanent and

integral component of the David School’s approach. Over time, it has become seamlessly integrated into

the school’s curriculum, transforming everything from the intake process to the day-to-day course

offerings. Success Bound has even become a coined phrase at the school, with the road leading to the

campus formally named “Success Bound Road.” In addition, while a postsecondary plan was once

recommended, it is now required as a condition of graduation. There is no question in the mind of the

director and staff that Success Bound will remain a permanent fixture at the David School.

According to the director, the school’s capacity to sustain itself over the longer term was also

enhanced by the receipt of ARC funding and the successful implementation of the Success Bound

program. The director noted that ARC funding has given credibility to the school, which, in turn, has

been a useful tool for leveraging additional funds. In addition, the outcomes focus of Success Bound has

made it easier for the David School to describe to foundations the specific long-term goals that its

students are striving to achieve.

Project Expansion

The David School recently underwent a significant change when it moved into the new building.

There are still projects surrounding that move that need to be addressed by the David School staff

including the installation of the Internet at the school. Students will have access through the state-of-theart computer lab. The lab is currently being used to instruct students on computer application programs

and will be used in the future for students to access the World Wide Web. Delays have occurred due to

problems between the installer and the telephone company, but these difficulties were in the process of

being remedied. Other plans for the new building include the completion of the wood working shop

(cabinet making) and the classroom/computer lab that will be installed on the second floor of that

building.

The next step for David School in regards to project outreach includes working more with

postsecondary institutions. At the time of the site visit, David School staff were seeking financial support
36

to strengthen the postsecondary component of the program. Additional plans consist of working more

with parents and the community to increase involvement at the school.

G. Accomplishments and Outcomes

The David School has remained in operation for over 26 years. This alone is an indication of the

success the school has experienced. Since the integration of Success Bound, David School has been more

focused on what happens to students beyond high school—as opposed to just assuring that they attain the

short-term goal of graduating high school. As such, the Success Bound program had a significant impact

on the David School. Specifically:

• The curriculum went from book-specific to more transferable skills. For example, because of

Success Bound, the gas station coursework emphasized hands-on experience in running a

business and handling customer relations—skills that could be transferred to any business.

• The type of student who attends David School has also changed since Success Bound. Now

with the full integration of Success Bound, parents and students know ahead of time what is

expected—i.e., they must have a plan to continue after high school. Students who are now

accepted at David must express an interest in long-term plans after high school.

• Success Bound also changed fundraising strategies. According to the director, the focus has

shifted from telling stories about helping “hard luck kids” to telling stories about how David

School has helped students prepare for a more promising future.

While data are limited, it was apparent after speaking with numerous students that the program

has had a significant impact on its students. More often than not, students had a positive vision of what

they would be doing after graduation (e.g., attending community or vocational school). Equally

important, they were clearly enjoying their educational experiences (many indicated they would not have

remained in any educational system were it not for the David School). Some attributed the success of the

David School approach to the family-like atmosphere, others to the down-to-earth teachers, and still

others to the small class sizes. No matter the reason, it was clear during the conversations with students

that each had found a part of themselves that was once lost in the public school system—the feeling that

they were and would continue to be successful.

Additionally, the impact on the students can be seen in their increased level of self-esteem. Staff

commented that the students appear more self-confident and have more self-esteem then before the

Success Bound approach. This may be attributed to the fact students have contributed in some way to the
37

building of the new school, and this has created a sense of ownership among students and staff. By

increasing their level of commitment in the school and providing them a choice in coming to the David

School, students have bought-in to its approach and take more responsibility for its overall success.

Another change was in linking student’s schooling with the re-education of their parents. The

David School has increased its focus on families being involved, not just in the activities at the school and

their child’s education, but on their own education as well. According to the principal, “It is working

because you see the kids moving onto education opportunities and their parents increasing their

opportunities.” This change also appears to have affected the student-parent relationship. Several

students commented that their parents had enrolled in classes and that they were closer with them since

coming to the David School. They also indicated that their parents volunteer and come to the school for

events, which had not happened when they were attending public school.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

Have a vision and a common philosophy. The director suggested that in order for an alternative

school to be successful, its mission must be clear—not only to faculty and staff, but to students, parents,

and the surrounding community. Having a clearly stated philosophy has helped the David School stay

committed to the common vision of helping students at greatest risk of leaving the public school system.

A primary focus of the David School’s philosophy is its emphasis on postsecondary plans, vocational

training, and a back-to-the-basics approach to education. Further, the David School tailors its teaching

style to the educational needs of individual students. Individualized goals are established for each

student, and the grades that are assigned reflect the extent to which these goals are met.

Have a clearly defined population who will receive services. According to the director,

alternative schools cannot try to serve all students in need of additional attention. Rather, to maximize

their impact in the community, they must define the type of students they are qualified to serve. While

the David School focuses on students who have recently dropped out or are at risk of dropping out, it is

not able to serve individuals who have been removed from school due to serious behavior problems.

Given its limited resources—and the educational needs of its students—the director indicated that David

School cannot serve as a rehabilitation center for students with severe drug or alcohol problems.
38

Gain commitment from local board of education and community and business leaders.

According to the director, establishing the need within the community is critical. An important first step

is to gain buy-in from districts and other community and business leaders. The director suggested that

creating a public alternative education program is far different from developing a privately, not-for-profit

institution. While private institutions can determine whom they will serve, public facilities must meet

state standards/guidelines. The David School did not obtain this level of commitment prior to their

inception, but with time the Floyd County Board of Education has recognized the David School as an

important supplement to the Floyd County Education System. Any student who leaves the public school

for David is viewed as a transfer rather than a dropout.

The director also suggested that it has been helpful to have local leaders who are willing to

advocate on the school’s behalf throughout the community. These individuals have been asked to speak

at official functions and break down barriers that might otherwise exist between the community and the

school.

Develop ties with the county department of social services. The director emphasized that, by

establishing ties with the Floyd County Department of Social Services, the David School has been able to

make referrals as needed. The department has also served as a source of referrals to the David School.

Provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate and learn additional skills. According to

the principal, teachers at alternative schools tend to burn out at a faster rate than do teachers at public

schools. As such, the director and staff described the need to create an atmosphere designed to retain

teachers over the longer term. One approach described by the director is to provide staff an opportunity

to participate in—and determine the content of—professional development activities. Another approach

is to provide staff regular opportunities to meet and reflect as a group. As discussed previously, David

School staff meet on a weekly basis to discuss issues associated with the school—and with individual

students. This time is also used to provide teachers an opportunity to discuss problems, exchange ideas,

and vent about a student or particular situation. Other opportunities teachers have to feel part of the

school are through the 1-week orientation prior to the beginning of school and through reflective thinking.

Use the program to address the educational and vocational needs of parents. The director

emphasized the need to set up a structure that encourages parents to take advantages of the school’s

learning opportunities. The school’s intake procedures require that parents become active partners in
39

their children’s education by enhancing their own educational and vocational skills. In addition, the

school sponsors adult learning classes and will provide parents opportunities to use its computer facilities.

Reflect and document what is being done. The director expressed the need of nonprofit

organizations such as the David School to formally document any outcomes or data on the project. This

will assist when trying to leverage additional resources. He recognized that “foundations want to see the

outcomes and to know you will be accountable to the support they are providing. They want to ensure

that you are doing what you promised when requesting funds.”

I. Summary and Conclusions

The David School is a remarkable alternative for students who are not functioning in the

traditional classroom environment. As stated by director of the David School, “This is not a school of

choice but a school of need.” The ARC grant helped to promote an approach that assisted students in

focusing more on their long-term goals. While the Success Bound approach started as a pilot project in

the school, it has been thoroughly integrated into the school. Students are now expected to articulate a

plan for themselves once out of high school. According to the school’s director, “Once a school for

‘dropouts,’ the David School has become a school of ‘success.’” The school focuses heavily on

vocational education and on providing students with skills that are transferable in numerous settings—i.e.,

work, vocational school, or college. Over the course of 5 years since the implementation of Success

Bound, the school has focused on the role of parents at the school and in the lives of their children.

Parents have become a more visible at the school and are expected to enroll in adult education courses if

they have not received a diploma or GED. Between encouraging parents to increase their education and

requiring students to focus on life beyond high school, the David School and Success Bound have proven

to be a successful way to address the needs of Floyd County, Kentucky, and they have every intention of

continuing to serve the most needy students in Appalachia.
40

Appendix A: Student and Parent Intake Forms
41

Date 

Age 

Social Security No.

 

Student Intake Information

Student’s Name Date of Birth

Last First Middle

Address City/State Zip Code

Telephone No. (1) (2) (3)

Parent(s)/Guardian(s)

Do you have a driver’s permit/license? Automobile? Insurance?

Have you ever been retained?

Last School Attended Last Year Attended

Grade Level When Leaving School (Circle One) 8 9 10 11 12 Total Credits

List Types of Special Education and/or Remedial Classes (if any)

List Types of Testing (if any)

How many days of school did you miss - last semester, last year?

Why?

Have you ever been consequented for negative behavior? If so, list those behaviors:

Have you ever been consequented for alcohol, marijuana, or drug abuse

(prescription/nonprescription)?

Explain:

Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor/felony crime against a person/property?

Explain:

Any Suspensions? If so, for what reason?

Any Expulsions? If so, for what reason?
42

Student Intake Information (continued 2)

How did you hear about The David School?

Why are you interested in our school?

Who do you know who attends school here?

How important is school to you?

Why?

What is your interest in reference to career, work, college, vocational school etc...

What do you consider as your best subject? Why?

What do you consider is your least favorite subject? Why?

What are some positive things you can tell me about your last school?

What are some concerns you have about your last school?

What are your expectations of a teacher?

What are your expectations of yourself?

What are your extra-curricular activities? Hobbies? Sports?

What do you understand to be the expectation of a student at The David School? Explain:
43

Student Intake Information (continued 3)

Name of Parent/Guardian

Mother Occupation

Education

Father Occupation

Education

Family Income (Total)

Sources: Wages Child Support KTAP

Food Stamps Social Security SSI Other

Names of brother and/or sisters:

Age Education

Age Education

Age Education

Number living in household

Impressions

Mother/Guardian:

Father/Guardian:

Potential Student:

Other Information/Comments:
44

The David School

Parent Registration Form

1999-2000

David School, David, KY

41616

Name Social Security

Number Address

Street City State Zip Code

Home

Phone

Work

Phone

Other

Birthdate Age Male Female

Number of Years Out of

School

Highest Grade

Completed Last School

Attended

Date

Withdrawn Race: White, not

Hispanic

Black, not

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

American Islander

Indian Married

Status:

Married Single Separated Divorced Widowed

Number of People Living in Your

Household

Number of

Dependants Husband/Wife(s)

Name Highest Grade Your Mother

Completed

Highest Grade Your Father

Completed Do you have other family members who would like information about our

services?

Name Address Phone

Who referred you to The David School? How did you hear about The David School?

Courts/Judicial Board of Education Family/Friend

SDA KET/GED on TV Other Public Agency

Community Action Agency Media/Poster Brochure (DES, DSI, DSS)

Community College Technical Education Other:

College University One-Stop Center

Other Information About Yourself: (Mark all that apply)

U.S. Citizen Homeless

Veteran Migrant

Disabled Employed Full-Time

Immigrant Where?

Other Institutions How Long?

Registered Voter Employed Part-Time (less than 30 hrs)

Adult in Rural Area Where?

Correctional Facility How Many Hours?

Enrolled in College How Long?

Where? Unemployed and Seeking Employment

Enrolled in Voc-Tech School Unemployed and Not Seeking Employment

Where?
45

Please list the names and ages of the children, age 18 or under you have legal responsibility for:

Child’s Name Age School SSN Birthdate

Child’s Name Age School SSN Birthdate

Child’s Name Age School SSN Birthdate

Child’s Name Age School SSN Birthdate

Family Income

Range

Receiving GED

Have you ever attended

an Adult Education

Class?

Under $9,000 TANF Have you ever taken Yes No

the GED test?

$10,000 – $19,999 Disability When?

Yes No

$20,000 – $29,999 Unemployment Where?

Insurance When?

$30,000 – $39,999

Public Assistance Where? Instructor:

Over $40,000

Passed? Yes

No

The David School is not only committed to helping its youth, but also the parents of the youth.

Please check below all the areas in which you feel The David School could help you.

◊ Earn a GED ◊ Improve My Ability to Spell

◊ Earn Diploma from Alternative High School ◊ Improve My Math Skills

◊ Earn Other Training (Post Secondary, Mayo, etc.) ◊ Prepare for a Career in

◊ Enter the Military ◊ Register to Vote

◊ Get a Job ◊ Help Children with Their Homework

◊ Learn to Use Community Services and Resources ◊ Learn to use Banking Services

◊ Learn about Wellness/Health ◊ Obtain a Library Card

◊ Learn Basic Skills for Employment ◊ Obtain a Driver’s License

◊ Learn about Family Life Skills ◊ Receive U.S. Citizenship

◊ Participate in Activities at my Child’s School ◊ Learn English as a Second Language

◊ Improve Skills to Help Child Succeed ◊ Be Removed from Public Assistance

◊ Learn to Participate in the Civic/Community Activities ◊ Obtain Job Advancement

◊ Take the GED Practice Test ◊ Job Retention

◊ Improve my Ability to Read ◊ Take a Test to gain Employment (CLD, etc.)

OTHER:
46

Appendix B: Student Contract
47

STUDENT CONTRACT

I understand that it is a privilege to attend The David School, rather than a right. Further, I

understand that if I am to benefit fully from what the teachers and staff offer me, I must fulfill

certain responsibilities. Among These:

• I will become aware of the overall academic requirements and of the requirements of each

class, and with the help of my teachers, I will strive to meet those requirements.

• I will respect the rights of others, including my teachers, fellow students, and anyone who

works at the school or visits the school.

• I will attend classes every day. I realize that if I am not here, I cannot take advantage of

what The David School offers. I understand that I will not be able to graduate if my

attendance is less than 90 percent.

• I will come to school prepared to learn and I will do my very best while I'm here. I know

that just being here physically is not enough; therefore, I will bring my brain to school with

me every day, and it will be open and willing to learn.

• I will prepare myself to, be an independent person, able to set goals, make rational

decisions and help myself to a productive future. Before I am graduated, I will explore my

options and implement a plan to guide me after I leave here.

• I will have a positive attitude about myself, about the school, about learning, and about my

classmates. I know that I can make the best use of my time in school only if I have a

positive attitude. I also understand that only with a positive attitude can I relate well with

my teachers and my fellow classmates.

• I will strive to become the best person I can be. In doing so;

1 I will commit myself to being drug and alcohol free.

2. I will not curse or use inappropriate language around my teachers or my classmates.

3. I will not use any language, gesture or other sign that puts down other people.

4. I will be respectful of other people even when I disagree with them.

5. I will be courteous and polite in all my dealings with teachers and classmates.

6. I will obey the rules on smoking, transportation, lunchroom and other areas of the school.

7. I will keep myself physically clean and presentable.

8. I will feed my body and my mind wisely and well.

9. I will ask for help when I cannot solve a problem by myself.

Signature 

Name (please print) 

Date 
48

Appendix C: Post Secondary Education Plan
49

THE DAVID HIGH SCHOOL

POST SECONDARY EDUCATION PLAN

NAME: 

DATE OF GRADUATION: 

LONG TERM JOB/CAREER GOAL:

Physician specializing in Pediatrics

EDUCATION NEEDED:

Bachelor’s of Science

Major: Biology/Pre-Medicine

Prestonsburg Community College

Prestonsburg, KY

-andThomas More College

Crestview Hills, KY

PREPARATION:

High School Diploma - received January 23, 1997

Applications – PCC application completed and enrolled

Thomas More College application completed and submitted

Financial Aid Application - completed and submitted

ACT Test – taken December 14, 1996

SHORT TERM JOB/CAREER GOAL:

Working at Hardee’s Full-time

Looking for part-time or volunteer work in the medical field

PREPARATION:

Job Search

Resume – completed

I certify that outlined above is my Post Secondary Education Plan.

 

Student Principal

 

Date Date
50
51

Michelin Learning Centers

Project Location Greenville, Anderson, and Spartanburg, South Carolina

Grant Recipient State of SC Office of the Governor for the Michelin Tire Corporation

ARC Number CO 10947J

ARC Project Type Adult Literacy

Grant Amount $250,000

Matching Funding $85,551

Dates of Site Visit April 18-19, 2000

Site Visitors Brian Kleiner and Glenn Nyre

Project Abstract

Despite its growing prosperity, the Appalachian region of South Carolina has not yet outgrown

some of the social ills that afflict poorer rural areas. One of these is under-education, including

illiteracy and poor basic math and computer skills. From the perspective of many corporations,

an undereducated workforce can potentially compromise the quality of products and overall

profits. Thus, there appears to exist a growing interest among corporations in promoting the

continuing education of workers.

The flattening of organization in manufacturing operations in evidence at Michelin requires a

greater degree of responsibility, more flexibility, and a wider range of knowledge and skills on

the part of workers. It also requires that they are literate, competent in math, and computer

savvy. The ARC grant for the Michelin Learning Centers project was an initiative aimed at

improving the basic reading, writing, math, and computer skills of employees within the

Michelin Tire Corporation. Under the period of the ARC grant, the approach of this initiative

involved the installment of three learning centers, the crafting and use of an assessment

instrument for all current and new employees, and the design of a curriculum for use in the

learning centers for the remediation of skills, as well as for job training and other kinds of

continuing education.
52

Michelin Learning Centers

State of SC Office of the Governor for the Michelin Tire Corporation

A. Background

Community Characteristics

The Appalachian region of South Carolina is in the midst of a significant economic boon, as

informally evidenced by extensive business and housing construction and road improvements. Unlike

many more depressed Appalachian regions, new industries continue to move to the area because of a

business-friendly tax structure. In South Carolina as a whole, more than 300,000 jobs have been created

in the last 7 years, and unemployment is currently at a low 4 percent. Greenville is one of the largest

cities in the northwest area of the state, and within it and the surrounding area are a variety of large

corporations. They include, most notably, the Michelin Tire Corporation and BMW’s first full U.S.

manufacturing facility. According to a recent survey conducted by the Greenville Chamber of Commerce,

diverse industries are relocating to the area at a rapid pace. Service industries are growing the fastest,

with about 21 percent of new opportunities coming from this sector. Manufacturing and government

positions follow closely, with approximately 19 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

Characteristics of the Grant Recipient Organization

The grant recipient for the Michelin Learning Centers project was the Division of Education

within the South Carolina Office of the Governor. This office was charged with overseeing activities

within the project and allocating ARC funds to Michelin Tire Company to initiate adult learning centers at

its plants in the towns of Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson. Although the state controlled the grant

money and set some guidelines for the planning and implementation of the project, Michelin took most of

the responsibility for the project’s design and implementation during the period of the ARC grant.

The Michelin Corporation, founded in France in 1889, now employs over 120,000 people

worldwide and has a business presence in 170 countries. Michelin has 14 plants in North America, half

of which are located in South Carolina.
53

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

Despite its growing prosperity, this Appalachian region of South Carolina has not yet outgrown

some of the social ills that afflict poorer rural areas. One of these is a high level of illiteracy. Twentyfive percent of the adult population in South Carolina is at the lowest level of literacy (Level 1 –

“significant literacy needs”). Across the 46 counties in the state with populations of at least 5,000, Level

1 literacy ranges from 15 percent to 46 percent. Greenville County’s Level 1 literacy rate is 20 percent,

although the rate in the city of Greenville itself is 28 percent.

While concerns over levels of adult literacy are not new, the nature of these concerns has changed

significantly in light of the stringent demands of the workplace in the information age. In fact, one of the

National Education Goals states that “Every adult American will be literate and will possess the

knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship.” This is a recognition that many of those who need to improve their

literacy skills are not in schooling situations.

From the perspective of many corporations, an undereducated workforce can potentially

compromise the quality of products and overall profits. Thus, there is a growing interest among

corporations in promoting the continuing education of workers. This is especially true at Michelin Tire

Corporation, which has in recent years changed its means of operation on production floors within its

plants. Unlike traditional factory practices, wherein production workers are trained in a small number of

highly specialized skills, current Michelin practice involves an expansion and diversification of the skills

of its workers. Manufacturing operations now consist of “cells” or “teams” of 6 to 10 employees who are

cross-trained on each aspect of the cell.

One site visit interviewee explained this concept by using the metaphor of a wheel, where the

spokes represent team members responsible for the various domains that feature in the work and goals of

that team, such as maintenance, quality, safety, production, cost, and human resources. Each team

member is primarily responsible for one domain, but is trained in all of them. As a result, much decision

making is delegated into the hands of production floor workers, allowing a “business unit leader” to be

responsible for as many as 60 people across three teams, each with a supervisor, because less input,

guidance, and decision making are needed from management.
54

This flattening of organization in manufacturing operations requires a greater degree of

responsibility, more flexibility, and a wider range of knowledge and skills on the part of workers. It also

requires that they are literate, competent in math, and computer savvy. At the time of the ARC grant,

Michelin had determined that much of its workforce required remediation in basic skills such as reading

writing and math, and was computer illiterate.

Approach

The ARC grant for the Michelin Learning Centers project was an initiative aimed at improving

the basic reading, writing, math, and computer skills of employees within the Michelin Tire Corporation.

The original goals of the project were to:

• Establish learning centers in each of the three Michelin facilities in the Appalachian

region;

• Design an assessment instrument set within a job-relevant context;

• Implement the learning centers, providing learners with both traditional and

electronic education media in an educational setting; and

• Develop and enact a plan for informing employees about educational requirements

and opportunities.

Michelin’s promotion of the continuing education of its employees is evidenced in the following

statement published in its final report on the ARC-funded Michelin Learning Centers project:

The Michelin Lifelong Learning Centers are part of our vision to continue to provide for

the full development of the capabilities of our employees. We are striving to become a

Learning Organization characterized by an environment within which individual

employees are given opportunities to grow and develop in their knowledge and skills.

We view this as part of the lifelong learning process.

This commitment was also reflected in the company’s provision of resources, staff, and uppermanagement support for the learning centers initiative. Under the period of the ARC grant, the approach

of this initiative involved the installment of three learning centers, the crafting and use of an assessment

instrument for all current and new employees, and the design of a curriculum for use in the learning

centers for the remediation of skills, as well as for job-training and other kinds of continuing education.
55

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

At the time of the site visit, the activities initiated under the ARC grant were still active, with

significant modifications and expansions. Now a part of Michelin’s operating budget, with some

instructional support provided by the county’s adult education program, the three learning centers

continue to take in new learners. However, the purposes of their visits are different in that unlike the

period under the ARC grant, there is currently very little need for remediation. As detailed later, the

number of basic-skills-deficient employees has been reduced to almost none. In addition, new employees

must not only have either a high school diploma or a general equivalency diploma (GED), but also must

take a 4-hour screening test. The current and projected future focus of the Michelin Learning Centers is

the use of these sophisticated educational resources for the training of employees in a wide range of jobrelated skills.

C. Activities Undertaken as Part of the ARC Project

The activities undertaken for the project involved the coordinated effort of a team consisting of

the ARC grant manager, the corporate production training manager, three Michelin facility training

managers, three learning center coordinators, three workforce specialists, three learning center instructors,

one adult education director, and one adult education teacher. Players on this team arrived during

different phases and were responsible for different facets of the project. Meetings were held monthly

during the formative phase, and efforts were reportedly highly collaborative.

Establish Learning Centers

Before the advent of the Michelin Learning Centers, besides individual and sporadic cases of

tutoring in adult basic education, there was little done (aside from on-the-job-training) to promote the

continuing education of Michelin employees. Moreover, even if in 1992 there were a systematic effort on

the part of Michelin to encourage or require the continuing education of its employees, there existed no

onsite central locations to house such endeavors. For this reason, the first objective of the Michelin

Learning Centers project was to install learning centers on site at three of its plants in Appalachian South

Carolina.
56

Three learning centers were established at each of its Appalachian facilities -- one at US1,

Michelin’s Greenville plant; another at US2, in Anderson; and another at US3, in Spartanburg. An

important aim of the project was to provide learners with an attractive and comfortable environment

conducive to learning. As described in the final report on the project, “Every effort is made to remove the

pressures of the manufacturing environment from the learner’s mind while in the learning center.” In

addition, it was decided that the learning centers should be highly accessible and within easy walking

distance of the production floor. It was also noted, on the other hand, that centers should not be too close

to the production floor, because learners should be made to feel that their participation is private and

confidential. These conflicting pressures argue for a center location that is accessible and inviting, but not

too close to operations.

For the most part, the original learning center spaces installed during the ARC grant met these

conditions (although the one at US1 was in recent years moved out of the administration building to be

closer to the production floor, and the one at US3 moved away from the floor to the administration

building). Each of the learning centers was furnished with computers, small libraries, and comfortable,

divided workspaces. Each computer was fitted with appropriate software purchased with ARC funds

once the basic curriculum had been developed.

Design and Implement an Assessment Instrument

The second objective of the Michelin Learning Centers project was to design and implement an

assessment instrument with the ultimate aim of ensuring that all hourly employees had a level of basic

skills adequate for their job performance. The end result of this process was the crafting and use of an

assessment instrument known as the Workplace Skills Inventory (WSI).

In the design phase of the project, a review was carried out of standard tests of generic basic skills

for adults, such as the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). However, since one aim of the project was

to employ a “functional context approach” to learning (i.e., setting the instrument within a job-relevant

context), it was decided that a company-specific assessment instrument would be preferable, since it

would reflect the workplace skills in which the company was most interested. This was accomplished

through a review of research on workplace testing, close observation of production areas, and interviews

with workers in each plant regarding operations, tasks, and special jargon used within their work areas. In

addition, printed materials, such as time cards, were analyzed for required reading levels.
57

With these data in hand, the next step in devising the WSI involved writing tasks for inclusion in

the instrument that simulated job activities and at the same time tested relevant basic reading and math

skills. The draft of the assessment instrument was reviewed by project staff and by four adult education

directors, several workforce specialists, and an adult education professor at the University of South

Carolina. After consequent revisions, the project team included 12 tasks that formed the basis for the

WSI.

The WSI was then evaluated by testing it on applicants, rather than current employees. It was

determined that despite the instrument’s job-related content, applicants with strong basic skills and no

knowledge of tire building could be successful. Thus, the project team concluded that the WSI should be

considered a valid test of basic skills, and not a test of job knowledge.

Using the WSI, assessment was carried out at the three Michelin plants. Testing was originally

planned to be the first step in the process of recertification of production workers who were evaluated

every 2 years. However, to expedite this process and make way for further training programs, the testing

schedule was accelerated for some workers. It should be noted that Michelin tried to avoid treating the

WSI as a “test,” fearing that this would send the wrong message to workers who might feel as if their jobs

could potentially be threatened if they “failed.” In addition, the site visit liaison (who served as the

Greenville learning center coordinator and the main Michelin contact with ARC) explained that the WSI

is not a “scientific” instrument, meaning that it should simply serve as a rough measure of basic skills and

as an indicator of areas for improvement – basically, a diagnostic instrument.

As a result of company-wide testing, approximately 40 percent of production workers required

some form of remediation. As of June 1993, 1,759 employees were assessed (1,006 in Greenville, 481 in

Anderson, and 272 in Spartanburg), with 741 enrolled in the learning centers. The cutoff point for the

WSI was a correct response rate within the range of 87-95 percent, with 87-91 being marginal. The tests

of individuals who did not reach a score of 95 were reviewed to identify specific basic skills that needed

improvement. Those workers requiring some form of remediation were informed that they should attend

the learning centers’ programs.

Develop and Deliver the Curriculum

The curriculum for remediation developed within the learning centers involved an instructional

module addressing each task on the WSI, so that individual results could be reviewed by instructors for
58

areas needing improvement. In many cases, all that was required was a short coaching session on those

parts of the WSI that indicated areas in which improvement was needed. Although the project team

researched existing adult-oriented basic skills software systems, they determined that no one system

would be able to adequately meet the needs of all learners. They therefore decided that the learning

centers should include an array of customized resources, such as selected basic skills computer software,

books, workbooks, cassettes, and videos. Efforts were made to integrate job-related materials into the

curriculum.

A “prescription sheet” was developed for instructors that matched skill weaknesses with

appropriate lessons and a variety of resources to assist in remediation. For example, if an individual was

found to need work on “using table of contents, index, appendix, glossary, systems or subsystems,” he or

she might be instructed to refer to the following resources, including a job-related workbook, a book

chapter, and lessons from a computer software program:

• Michelin Manual Sections Exercise

• Document Skills for Life and Work, pp. 22-23

• *Activity -- Lessons 5 and 6, Sect.1

The final report on the project noted which features were considered important in selecting learning

center software:

• Appeal to adults through its visuals and its approach to the lessons.

• Have simple log-on and exit procedures.

• Teach the skills we identified through literacy task analysis.

• Be applicable for those who want to upgrade their skills to meet personal goals.

• Use up-to-date computer technology (CD-ROM, laser disk/interactive video).

• Provide training for learning center staff and teachers.

• Have a data management file.

• Have a toll-free telephone line for assistance.

The software selected for the learning centers included “The Ready Course: Reading to Educate

and Develop Yourself,” “Modumath,” “Skills Bank,” “GED 2000,” “I Want to Read,” and “French in

Action.”
59

The learning centers were staffed by instructors who were not Michelin Employees. Current

instructors told the site visitors that staffing learning centers with non-Michelin personnel is important,

because it allows workers to gain confidence in their teachers without fearing any negative repercussions

from slow or poor learning. One explained that, “Because I’m not a company employee, they know it’s

confidential, they can vent...”

The current instructors provided a set of characteristics necessary for a good learning center

instructor. Most importantly, they said an instructor must be a “people person,” i.e., someone who can

interact with people at all levels, put learners at ease, gain their trust, reassure them, and so on.

Instructors should also have a positive attitude, an education training background, and good computer

skills. He or she should be flexible, organized, and adaptable. One current instructor explained that the

position requires the wearing of many hats at once: “I’ve learned to be the most flexible person I’ve ever

met. I’ve been a marketing person, a teacher, and a coordinator.”

Develop a Communication Plan

The final objective of the Michelin Learning Centers project was to develop and implement a

communication plan to inform employees about the learning centers, the WSI, and the basic skills

improvement program. This aspect of the plan was critical not just in informing employees, but also in

enlisting the support of Michelin employees at all levels. At meetings that included supervisors, training

facilitators, plant managers, and the ARC grant manager, a communications package was distributed to

supervisors responsible for presenting information regarding the plan to employees in their charge. These

meetings included statements by plant managers aimed at convincing all in attendance of the importance

of continuing education and facilitating the development and maintenance of a competent, literate

workforce. Furthermore, supervisors took the WSI themselves in order to provide them with a better

understanding of the instrument.

The communications package included the following:

• Overhead transparencies of key points in the company’s Employee Development

Model, Manufacturing Certification Program, and new post-certification standards.

• Lifelong Learning Center brochures listing types of classes, software, and equipment

in the learning centers, as well as information on hours of operation and the names

and phone numbers of learning center coordinators and instructors.
60

• A short video featuring comments by the CEO of Michelin North American, a

message from plant managers, and a “movie tour” of the learning centers.

• A list of questions and answers about the learning center and details about

participation.

• A personal letter from the plant manager encouraging participation.

Additional efforts were made to spur interest in the learning centers, such as open houses with

refreshments and the offering of door prizes. Open house visitors were able to sit at computers to test the

software, look through the libraries, and register for prizes such as fishing rods, radios, and calculators.

D. Problems Encountered

Problems reportedly faced during the timeframe of the ARC grant mainly involved lapses in

communication among participating parties, some delays in program implementation and produce design,

and resistance to change on the part of Michelin employees. None of these problems seriously

compromised the aims of the project.

Communication and Buy-in

It is to be expected that profound changes in corporate policy will lead to some resistance to

change from within. There were two fronts of resistance to the Michelin Learning Centers project, one

from the ranks of the production workers and one from management. After learning of the new company

policy regarding basic skills testing, many of the production workers reportedly expressed concern and

apprehension. Many feared for their jobs, and efforts were taken to reassure workers that although they

would need to demonstrate sufficient basic skills in reading, math, and computer usage, they would be

fully and patiently supported in the process. In fact, this promise appears to have been respected, as

evidenced by the few remaining workers still yet to pass the WSI, in some cases even after several years

of continuing efforts.

Some workers were reluctant to visit the learning centers, reportedly fearing the stigma and

embarrassment attached to remediation. Further, many workers view voluntary continuing education as

unnecessary and burdensome. Indeed, over the lifespan of the Michelin Learning Centers, there have

been relatively small numbers of “volunteer” learners. Although it was explained that during the ARC
61

grant period, individuals came to the learning centers for such things as to prepare for their GED, to

practice on a computer, to learn typing, or to borrow a book, the majority of those who attended the

centers came because their jobs required it. This is to be expected, given that there were few incentives

for volunteer participation and workers put in long hours and had other personal responsibilities.

However, there were a few instances reported of employee’s spouses taking advantage of the centers,

which is encouraged, and some parents have come to the centers in order to brush up on certain skills to

help their children in mathematics classes and have even brought their children for homework assistance.

Resistance to the learning centers also came from above, with some in management not buying in

to the initiative. While the learning centers were implemented fully, two of the plants were not involved

in project planning, and this exclusion might have hardened their resistance. According to the final

report:

Too much had been decided by corporate and the early members of the Project Team

before the local plants were informed. When their input was sought, it was to determine

how they were going to implement our plan. We believe that this lack of input has had a

major effect upon the level of involvement we have gotten from some plant management.

Another problem was that the project team was not able to adequately coordinate with and

communicate information about the project with newer members of the team and other Michelin

departments, with the result being that collaboration was at times strained. For example, the final report

notes that months of effort went into researching motion software to run different laser disk programs. It

was then discovered that experts within Michelin’s Information Services Department had known what

item was needed from the start: “Hours of time [could have been saved] and lots of grief could have been

avoided had we known about and used this resource that was available to us.”

Budget Constraints

Several problems relating to cost were encountered. First, an insufficient amount of cost research

led to the late realization that the intended software was more expensive than anticipated. It was decided

that rather than furnishing each learning center with complete adult education software systems, a more

selective process was necessary. Second, budget constraints limited the kinds of hardware that could be

purchased by the project.
62

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

There was no outside evaluation of the Michelin Learning Centers project. However, an internal

evaluation was conducted using the CIPP model (Context-Input-Process-Product), employing interviews,

document analysis, observation, and test data. The evaluation focused on whether the project’s purpose

was agreed on by all parties (context), whether resources were adequate (input), whether procedures were

sufficient for accomplishing project goals (process), and whether the projects goals were achieved

(product). Evaluation was carried out during the formation of the project, as well as after the ARC grant

period ended, by learning center coordinators, corporate training staff, and workforce specialists on the

project team.

Dissemination

The site visit liaison noted that the Michelin Learning Centers project garnered considerable

interest from other companies and organizations. For instance, representatives from companies such as

Dupont and Milliken have visited Michelin in order to learn about the development of the learning

centers. In addition, presentations about the Michelin project were made to Continuing Education Deans

at Greenville Technical College and Tri-County Technical College, both of whom have become partners

in some of the more advanced technical training for employees.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

Sustainability

All three of the Michelin Learning Centers are continuing to operate some 7 years after the ARC

grant, and are fully funded and maintained by Michelin. This support reflects the company’s recognition

that a better educated workforce benefits the company as well as its employees. The site visit liaison

noted that, “People make those tires, and we want the best workforce possible.” In addition, the company

appreciates the potential value of the learning centers as facilities for all kinds of computer-based job

training. Indeed, the main purpose of the learning centers has transformed from remediation of basic
63

skills to training. It was explained that the learning centers are currently viewed as “a normal part of

doing business.”

Project Expansion

Although the learning centers are still active, their purposes and methods have changed

considerably since the period of the ARC grant. Nonetheless, the original ARC-funded learning centers

provided the impetus for the recognition that the educational resources available in the centers could be

used for many kinds of job training. The shift from remediation to training has resulted in a modified

curriculum and a broad set of resources within the learning centers. Learning center participation is

currently fairly robust at the three plants, but this is especially true at the US1 facility. For example,

during 1999, the US1 learning center had 662 users with 11,505 hours. From January to March of 2000,

it has already seen 289 users with over 4,300 hours.

The WSI has been phased out, since the vast majority of the Michelin workforce has successfully

passed it and a new test has been developed for new hires. It was explained that only 15 production

workers at US1, and only 5 at US3, have yet to pass the WSI test. These remaining individuals are being

provided with individual tutoring. For example, the US1 learning center invites volunteer tutors from the

Greenville Literacy Association to work one to one with workers still needing remediation. It should be

noted that no Michelin employee has ever been fired for failure to pass the WSI.

The expansion of the learning centers has involved the replacement of the original ARC-funded

computers, as well as the addition of software and other educational resources. The computers operated

within the learning centers are now leased. The US1 learning center currently leases 11 computers, 5 of

which are networked. US2 currently has 8 computers, and US3 has 6. Exactly half of the computers at

these learning centers are networked. Networking allows for training software that is available across

learning center facilities on the company’s intranet system. While US1 has by far the most software, all

of the sites have increased their inventory of software over the years.

Two of the three learning centers are currently staffed by instructors who are non-Michelin

employees. These instructors are paid in part as contract workers by Michelin and in part by local county

adult education providers. They serve mainly as facilitators within the learning centers, leading learners

to resources, advising on computer use, maintaining the centers’ operations, marketing the learning center

services to all levels of employees, and keeping close contact with supervisors to identify new learning
64

needs. The US3 learning center is no longer staffed by an instructor, since the majority of work done

there is training that requires little instruction. The learning center coordinator at US3 is available as a

resource, however, if problems arise.

As noted earlier, the new focus of the Michelin learning centers is on job training. This allows

individuals to self-train on their own schedules and avoids the difficulties of scheduling and coordinating

training classes. In addition, the learning centers provide an environment away from the production floor

that is conducive to learning. Examples of training include ISIS training (basic competence in a variety of

software programs, including Excel, NT, Netscape, Microsoft Word, Security, and ccMail), training for

level tests that employees must pass for promotions (e.g., algebra, trigonometry), operator maintenance

training, fork lift training, and so on. Much of the training software that is applicable across plants is

loaded on Michelin’s intranet.

Instructors noted that some resistance from workers and management to the learning centers

continues. For instance, many workers are still leery of computers, and few employees visit the learning

centers unless it is necessary for their jobs. One instructor noted that, “If you don’t have something they

think they need, they’re not going to come,” adding that some supervisors are less than tolerant about

workers who spend too much time in the learning centers, and that workers who sense this might be

apprehensive about attending. As one instructor said, “When a supervisor asks ‘When are you going to

be done up there?’ rather than ‘How is it going and what are you learning?’ a whole different set of

messages are being sent. We are trying to encourage the latter.” Volunteer participation might also be

rare because few incentives are offered and relatively little is done by management to promote voluntary

continuing education.

In addition, some of the technology-fearing old guard within upper management resists

movement toward making all training available on desktops, insisting instead that training continue to be

held in more traditional settings, such as the classroom or on the production floor. Persuading upper

management of the benefits of desktop training is an important current goal among learning center

advocates at Michelin.

Future plans include making Michelin training software available on the Internet so that

employees may train and learn at home. Moreover, with respect to the physical learning centers

themselves, Michelin appears to be committed to introducing “new ways of continuing to learn in that
65

environment.” As one company trainer said, “Even the office employees need to get away from the noise

and interruptions of their cubicles in order to concentrate in a learning environment.”

G. Accomplishments/Outcomes

Overall, Michelin employees are better skilled in reading, writing, basic math, and computers

than they were prior to the learning centers. This is evidenced by the few remaining workers still

requiring remediation in basic skills at the three plants. Further, the Michelin Learning Centers project

satisfied its principal objectives during the period of the ARC grant. With respect to the first objective,

learning centers were installed in three of Michelin’s Appalachian facilities. The centers were

conveniently located and provided comfortable and inviting spaces for learners. As for the second

objective, a job-related assessment instrument was successfully designed and implemented across the

three Michelin Appalachian plants. The instrument proved to be an adequate measure of employee basic

skill deficits and gaps.

The third objective of the project was to operate the learning centers. By June of 1993, 1,759

production workers had been assessed, and of these, 741 had enrolled in a learning center. Further, a

small number of employees voluntarily attended a learning center for a variety of purposes, such as GED

preparation, practice on computers, and improving typing skills. Given the current very low numbers of

workers still requiring remediation, the curriculum implemented in the learning centers appears to have

adequately addressed the basic skill weaknesses of participants.

Finally, with respect to the project’s fourth objective, a communication plan was developed and

carried out with a moderate degree of success. This plan was well devised and orchestrated, and it

provided a solid foundation for worker participation, as production workers were successfully informed

about assessment requirements. However, it should be noted that while workers were well informed

about the centers and assessment requirements, more might have been done to encourage voluntary

participation in continuing education activities. Nonetheless, given the project’s primary aim of

assessment and remediation, the communication plan did adequately address this goal.

In the years following ARC-funding, the learning centers have been sustained, expanded, and

modified. With the move away from remediation to the current emphasis on training, the learning centers

continue to serve significant numbers of learners. Still, relatively few workers attend a center for the
66

purpose of voluntary continuing education. Perhaps this is to be expected, given long work hours and the

pressures of daily life on production workers.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

The Michelin Learning Centers project was a fairly innovative one, especially in the early 1990s

when it was funded by ARC, and much was learned in the process of its design and implementation.

Many of the lessons learned, including those noted by project team members, as well as those resulting

from the site visit and subsequent analysis, are detailed below.

Planning, organization, and communication is critical. Ample time should be allotted for

planning the project. The planning period should allow the project manager to become familiar with

company operations and project team members. It should also be used to research assessment and

curriculum issues, as well as to identify the most appropriate kinds of hardware and software that are

affordable. In addition to good planning, a project should be well organized, with open lines of

communication among project team members. Strong organization and collaboration requires a clear

delegation of responsibilities. It also requires the clear communication of information regarding the

project to new team members.

A successful project requires certain qualities and qualifications of participating parties.

First, company upper management must have a positive view of and display commitment to the learning

centers. Site visit respondents emphasized that upper management must set the tone in support of

continuing education and that without such commitment, learning centers cannot be sustained.

The qualities and qualifications of learning center instructors are of vital importance to a project’s

success. These individuals must be technically oriented, organized, flexible, adaptable, and able to relate

to people at various levels within the company. Further, instructors should have a background in

education, training, and computers. It is preferable that instructors not be company employees, since this

helps in gaining the trust of learners.

Learning center coordinators should be people who believe in what they’re doing, are able to

interface with plant managers, and are able to run an “internal business” that exists to support the

operating units of the company and must market its services to the employees. They should also have
67

experience in training or other human resources functions, be well respected within their facilities, and

have a good knowledge of the company.

Give thoughtful consideration to center location, space, and curriculum. Learning centers

should be strategically located. That is, they should be easy to access, away from administrative offices,

and close to the production floor. On the other hand, centers should not be too close to the production

floor, so that the privacy of the learners is respected. In addition, centers should be inviting, comfortable

environments for learning.

As for curriculum, there should be a thoughtful selection of software after determining the needs

of the population. The curriculum should be flexible enough to accommodate the varying learning styles

of adults. A contextual learning approach should be employed to the extent feasible (given constraints of

cost), since learners should be able to readily see the relevance of their learning to their work.

I. Summary and Conclusions

The Michelin Learning Centers project highlights a significant avenue for adult basic skills

education within the workplace. Given recent changes in manufacturing operations and the need for a

more highly skilled workforce, learning centers provide a convenient source of education that can benefit

both workers and their companies. This is especially true for companies in regions with high rates of

illiteracy and poor basic math and computer skills among the workforce population. As Michelin and

other companies are discovering, in addition to supplying the tools for remediation, learning centers may

also provide a rich resource for computer-based job training.
68
69

Mobile Technology Project

Project Location Hiawassee, Georgia

Grant Recipient Towns County Middle School

ARC Number GA-12935-RI-302

ARC Project Type Dropout Prevention

Grant Amount $320,000

Matching Funding $80,000

Dates of Site Visit February 28, 2000

Site Visitors Gary Silverstein and Laurie Somers

Project Abstract

The Mobile Technology Project was designed to provide every student in the Towns County

(Georgia) Middle School with a laptop computer (teachers were provided with both a laptop

computer and printer). To take full advantage of the computers, the project was also used to

incorporate and transform curriculum materials and worksheets for all middle school classes,

including language arts, reading, social studies, science, and mathematics, into a laptop

environment. The vendor was responsible for (1) supplying the laptop computers, (2) providing

training in the use of the laptop computers to teachers, students, and parents, (3) providing

ongoing support for maintaining the laptop computers, and (4) providing teachers with

information about online resources that were aligned to Georgia’s curriculum.

The project has achieved all of the implementation targets and outcomes that were delineated in

the original proposal to the Appalachian Regional Commission. The provision of laptops to all

middle school students—coupled with extensive professional development and online

curriculum resources—has provided teachers an opportunity to modernize their instructional

practices. The project has also provided all students equal access to the Internet and other

emerging technologies. Our interviews with administrators, teachers, and students, as well as

our limited observations of classroom practices suggest that teachers and students are making

good use of their new opportunities.
70

Mobile Technology Project

Towns County Middle School

A. Background

Community Characteristics

The Mobile Technology Project was conducted by the Towns County Middle School in the city

of Hiawassee, Georgia (population 693). The school serves Towns County, an isolated region in northern

Georgia that borders Tennessee. According to U.S. Census data:

• Of the 8,529 residents residents in Towns County, 99.7 percent are white (1998 Census).

• Approximately 9.2 percent of county residents are between the ages of 5 to 14 years, and

approximately 24.3 percent are over the age of 65 (1998 Census).

• Of the county’s population age 25 and over, 31.7 percent are high school graduates, while

26.4 percent are college graduates (1990 Census).

• Overall, 12.9 percent of the county’s residents live in poverty, as do 18.9 percent of the

county’s youth age 18 and younger (1996 Census).1

• The median household income in Towns County is $27,324 (1996 U.S. Census estimates).2

Characteristics of the Grant Recipient Organization

Towns County Middle School was the grant recipient for—and primary beneficiary of—the

Mobile Technology Project. As grant recipient, the middle school was responsible for all aspects of

project implementation including identifying and working with a vendor (NetSchools) to equip middle

school teachers and students with laptop computers.

The middle school is part of the Towns County Comprehensive School complex. This building,

which also houses the county’s preschool and kindergarten programs, elementary school, and high school,

serves a total of 940 students. Towns County Middle School covers grades 6 to 8, and has 9 teachers and

 

1

 Tourism is the most prominent industry (Towns County is situated in a mountainous region that includes numerous lakes and two conference

centers), while the school and hospital are the two largest employers in Hiawassee. In addition, many residents work outside the county.
71

260 students. According to the school’s original application to the Appalachian Regional Commission

(ARC), over 40 percent of the students receive free or reduced-priced breakfast and lunch. In addition,

between 1991 and 1995, an average of 4.4 percent of the county’s students in grades 8 to 12 dropped out

of school (Georgia Department of Community Affairs, October 1996).

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

The project was used to provide laptops and 24-hour Internet access to all middle school teachers

and students. The purpose was to help middle school students overcome some of the barriers associated

with living in an isolated region—including a widespread lack of home access to learning technologies.

(Prior to the project, only 25 percent of students had access to a computer at home, and even fewer had

home access to the Internet.) The project was also designed to ensure that the school’s graduates would

be prepared to use technology in academic and professional settings, reduce the school’s drop-out rate,

encourage the parents of middle school students to utilize local adult literacy programs, and increase the

number of Towns County adults who attain GEDs. These last two expectations were especially important

to the middle school’s principal, who was quoted in the Atlanta Journal (November 28, 1998) as stating:

It is an awesome task to overcome a historical inertia of this magnitude, in that high

school dropouts tend to beget high school dropouts. In an attempt to combat this vicious

cycle of illiteracy, it is imperative to introduce a program in which students and their

parents are able to participate.

At the time of the application for ARC funding (December 1997), the school’s administrators had

already taken steps to enhance teachers’ and students’ access to learning technologies. Specifically, (1) a

computer had been installed in each elementary classroom, (2) computers had been obtained for a middle

school lab, (3) computers had been installed in all high school mathematics and English classrooms, (4) a

new technology lab had been added to the high school vocational department, and (5) wiring closets had

been installed in each wing of the school, enabling Internet connections in all of the school’s classrooms.

In spite of these enhancements, the school’s principal indicated that the low ratio of computers to students

hindered teachers’ and students’ use of learning technologies the classroom. Most of the middle school

classrooms were equipped with only two or three computers, and the lack of computers in homes

prevented teachers from assigning Internet-related research projects and homework assignments.
72

The school’s principal indicated that the idea for the project originated with his suggestion that

the school’s teachers be equipped with a laptop computer for increased access to the Internet for lesson

planning. The overwhelming response from teachers was that they placed a higher priority on providing

laptop computers to all of their students. In so doing, they stressed the need for all students, regardless of

their future plans, to be computer literate. (The proposal to ARC noted that “Today, computers are found

in retail stores, hotels and motels, fast food restaurants, health care facilities, convenience stores, and a

variety of other work places which may attract students after high school.”)

Approach

The Mobile Technology Project was designed to overcome these barriers by providing every

middle school student with a laptop computer and all teachers with both a laptop and a printer. To take

full advantage of the computers, the project was also used to incorporate and transform curriculum

materials and worksheets for all middle school classes, including language arts, reading, social science,

science, and mathematics, into a laptop environment. The vendor, NetSchools, was responsible for (1)

supplying the laptop computers, (2) providing training in the use of the laptop computers to teachers,

students, and parents, (3) providing ongoing support for maintaining the laptop computers, and (4)

providing teachers with information about online resources that were aligned to Georgia’s statewide

curriculum for middle schools.3 The proposal to the ARC delineated a series of project goals and

intended outcomes, including:

• Provide a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher.

• Provide a workshop for all middle school students and their parents in the use of the laptop

computers.

• Provide students with Internet access at school and at home.

• Provide free Internet setup and training for all students and their parents.

• Incorporate computer technology in all middle school classes.

• Automatically list homework assignments in an organized fashion at the end of each day.

• Maintain a school dropout rate that is equal to or less than the national average.

• Provide parents of middle school students with access to adult literacy programs.

 

3 At the time of the site visit, the vendor was providing similar services to approximately 20 other schools nationwide.
73

• Generate a 25 percent increase in the number of adults earning GEDs through online classes

and weekly consultation with the Towns County Adult Education instructor.

• Provide teachers with adequate technology and inservice staff development to enhance their

lesson planning, assessment of students’ progress, and capacity to conduct research and

writing.

• Provide the technology necessary for the preparation of student products that are typed and

neat in a format conducive to universally accepted criteria.

• Enable students to produce and maintain a school web site designed to enhance computer

literacy and provide school information.

• Enable students to communicate with other students throughout the nation and the world.

• Enable students to produce articles for the school newspaper and the local area newspapers.

• Enable students to create a retail store that sells a variety of items including student-created

and hand-crafted products.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

At the time of the site visit, all of the school’s 6th to 8th grade teachers and students had been

assigned their own laptop computers, and the computers had become a permanent fixture in the middle

school’s classrooms4 As more fully discussed later, all of the middle school teachers that we interviewed

were routinely using the laptop computers with their students in the classroom and exploring online

resources that were aligned with Georgia’s middle school curriculum. In addition, the school had

requested—and received—an additional $46,200 from the ARC to underwrite the cost of purchasing 30

additional laptop computers (the middle school indicated in its application to the ARC that it had

underestimated the number of computers that would be needed for the 1998-99 school year), and

extending the warranties for all computers.

To assure that project gains were not lost when 8th graders moved on to high school, all of the 9th

grade students who had participated in the Mobile Technology Project in the previous year had been

provided a more advanced laptop computer, which they will keep until they graduate from high school.

The principal also indicated that the plans were underway to assess the feasibility of eventually providing

laptop computers to all 5th grade students.

 

4 Consequently, the middle school computer lab installed prior to the Mobile Technology Project was transferred to the elementary school.
74

C. Activities Undertaken As Part of the ARC Project

During the site visit, we interviewed the middle school’s principal, most of the teachers, and a

small sample of middle school students to gain a better understanding of the factors that were critical to

the success of the Mobile Technology Project. This section provides an overview of these key factors and

issues, including the project’s technology; the training that was provided to teachers, parents, and

students; steps taken to build support for the project within the community; and steps taken to integrate

the use of technology into the classroom.

Technology

The equipment and technical assistance used to support the Mobile Technology Project were

unique in several respects. The laptop computers were designed specifically for young students. The

blue and gray laptops—compact enough to fit in a backpack—are housed in a sturdy plastic and titanium

case. All of the connections (e.g., for an external phone line) are enclosed with a rubber seal to repel

moisture. (In a November 28, 1998 article in the Atlanta Journal, a Towns County Middle School

teacher indicated that “You could spill a Coca-Cola on it (the vendor’s laptop) and it would rinse off.” To

demonstrate the computer’s durability, the principal pulled out his laptop during an interview and

slammed it down on his desk.) The laptops do not accept diskettes or CD-ROMs—thereby making it

more difficult for kids to add games and other noneducational materials (students can borrow an external

disk drive.) The cost per laptop was $1,600.5

Students’ laptops are connected to the school’s computer network through use of an infrared

wireless connection—i.e., Ceiling Access Points (CAPs)—that automatically connect students to a central

server when their laptops are activated. All middle school classrooms are equipped with ceiling access

points. Although a CAP’s range is limited to a single room, this use of infrared technology does enable

teachers to configure their classrooms without having to worry about extraneous cables that may violate

fire codes or the physical placement of the laptops. The CAP system provides for a quick and easy way

to exchange information between students and their teachers. For example, students’ work can be

transferred electronically from their laptops to individualized electronic folders on the school’s central

server. In addition, at the end of class, teachers can transmit homework assignments directly to each

student’s laptop.
75

The system installed on the laptop has several other features worth noting. First, when classroom

assignments are completed, the system automatically scores the work and provides immediate feedback,

including the correct answer, to the student. The system also provides teachers with an instant tally—for

individual students and the entire class—of which items (or topics) were answered correctly and

incorrectly. According to the teachers we interviewed, this tool saves time since they do not have to

inspect and correct each student’s completed worksheet and provides a means for assessing whether the

class (or an individual student) needs additional assistance with a given topic. Second, the use of the

CAPs enables school personnel to control some of the laptops’ functions from the school’s central server.

For example, e-mail and Internet access can be turned off for all students or for an individual student.

(This function might be used if students are using their laptops to take an exam.)

At night, students can use their laptops to complete a specific homework assignment, to complete

word processing, to conduct research on the Internet (the school functions as the students’ Internet

Service Provider), and to e-mail friends and relatives. Students keep their laptops throughout the school

year and return them to the middle school during the summer for cleaning and routine maintenance. The

middle school’s policy of holding the laptops also assures that students who move out of the area during

summer break do not take their computers with them.

The principal indicated that several factors guided his selection of the vendor. First, in addition to

furnishing the middle school with 270 computers, the vendor also provided a comprehensive package that

included (1) training for teachers, parents, and students, (2) onsite maintenance, (3) a process for

integrating the laptops into the classroom, and (4) a systematic approach for using the laptops to access

online resources aligned with Georgia’s middle school curriculum. Second, the principal liked the layout

and durability of the laptop computers and the wireless system used to transfer electronic information

between students, teachers, and parents. The Ceiling Access Points system and resulting lack of cords or

cables required to physically link computers with a central server was also viewed as an advantage, since

teachers could configure their classroom without worrying about the placement of the laptop computers

(although some parts of a classroom may not pick up the CAP’s signal).

 

5

 As discussed later, this figure covered the cost of the laptop computer and all related training—e.g., parents and students—and technical

support.
76

Training

An important component of the Mobile Technology Project was the onsite training that was

provided to teachers, parents, and students. The parent and student training sessions were designed to

introduce such key concepts (as how to care for computers, how to use a keyboard and a mouse, and how

to access and use the Internet. The teacher sessions covered all of these topics, and introduced an

integrated process for accessing online resources that were aligned with Georgia’s middle school

curriculum. Each of these components is discussed below.

Parents and Students. In August 1998, just before the laptops were issued, the vendor and

middle school sponsored a mandatory workshop for all middle school parents. (In subsequent years, this

same training has been provided to 6th grade students and their parents.) During the following week, all

middle school students were required to attend a 3-day Summer Computer Camp. Both of these

workshops covered a range of topics—including caring for the laptops, (e.g., keep the computers away

from extreme heat, lock car doors when the computer is inside the vehicle, re-charge the laptop’s battery

every night), connecting to the Internet from home, the need to monitor what children access on the

Internet,6 an introduction to Windows 95, (e.g., pulling up programs, creating files), instructions of how to

use the keyboard and the mouse, and the school’s acceptable use and liability policies. Students attending

the summer camp also received a T-shirt and a picnic lunch.

Students could not receive a laptop computer until after they attended a training session and at

least one of their parents had received training and signed a permission form. (Families that move to

Towns County during the school year are provided an instructional video that covers the workshop

topics.) The purpose of making training mandatory for parents was to (1) assure that parents and students

understood the need to care for the computers, (2) involve parents in—and get parents excited about—

their child’s education, and (3) maximize the likelihood that parents would also make use of the

computers, and thereby elect to further their own education (e.g., obtain a GED).7 A makeup session was

conducted for parents and students who could not attend the workshop.

Once students received their laptop computers, they continued to receive periodic training from

the vendor. Examples of topics included using the Internet and how to limit and refine online searches.

Teachers participated in these training sessions.

 

6

The project used Cyber Patrol to restrict students access to inappropriate material on the Internet.

7

At the time the project began, many of the parents had no prior experience with computers.
77

Teachers. At the time the project was initiated, teachers already had computers in their

classroom. According to the principal, teachers were required to use these computers for all

administrative functions. In addition, while these desktop computers were connected to the Internet, most

teachers were not routinely using learning technologies for lesson planning or other classroom activities.

The training—provided by the vendor—was designed to introduce teachers to computers and the

Internet, to enable teachers access standards-based online resources, and to help teachers integrate

computers and the Internet into their instructional activities. Specifically, in the months before the

laptops were provided to the students, the middle school teachers received the following instructions:

• Initial orientation. This 1-hour introduction to the vendor’s philosophy covered the use of

technology in the classroom. This session was also used to provide teachers with a

demonstration of the laptop computers they would be using in their classroom.

• Using the laptop computer. This 4-hour presentation covered such topics as the use of the

battery, modem, local area network (LAN) connection, and software. The session also

included a presentation on using specific programs, e.g., Windows 95, Microsoft Works.

• Using e-mail and the Internet. This 2-day personalized session was tailored to meet the

needs of individual teachers. (The content of these individualized sessions was determined

through a pre-assessment survey on e-mail and the Internet that was completed by all of the

middle school teachers.) Examples of topics included sending and receiving e-mails, creating

and using address books, using automatic spell checks, saving attachments, creating

subfolders to save e-mail messages, and Internet basics (e.g., URLs, hyperlinks, search

engines, printing, using toolbars, using bookmarks to facilitate access to favorite files, saving

pictures from an Internet site).

• Computer basics. This 4-hour presentation covered such topics as the use of the touch pad,

the mouse, and specific functions and activities (e.g., formatting diskettes, installing software,

viewing files and folders).

• Instructional software. This 10-hour presentation provided an overview of the types of

instructional software that were available for classroom use. As part of this session, teachers

were provided a $100 allowance to purchase software for their classrooms.

• Word processing. This 4-hour session covered topics related to using the laptop computers

for word processing.

Teachers continued to receive training after the laptops had been provided to their students. One

purpose was to keep teachers informed of new and innovative uses for learning technologies. Another

was to keep teachers engaged and inspired regarding the use of the laptops in the classroom. In the

future, training will also be provided to any new teachers who join the middle school staff. In addition,
78

the vendor has maintained close contact with teachers to assure that their individual instructional needs

are being met.

Onsite Technical Support

At the outset of the project, the vendor had two staff members who were available on an asneeded basis (e.g., 2-3 days per week) for onsite training and technical support. One individual was

responsible for maintaining the computers and the overall system; the other for assisting teachers and

students with how to use the computers and software (e.g., the online inventory of resources aligned with

the State of Georgia middle school curriculum).

By the time of the site visit, vendor staff had cut back their onsite time to approximately 1 day per

month. To take on the technical assistance role that was initially performed by the vendor, the school

identified a teacher who would serve as an in-house technology coordinator. (This individual had

previously operated the middle school’s technology lab.) In addition to teaching a series of computer

courses, the individual was responsible for maintaining the inventory of laptops, for answering teachers’

and students’ questions about the laptops, (questions and issues she cannot handle are passed on to the

vendor), for overseeing the use and repair of laptops, and for serving as the school’s primary point of

contact with the vendor.

Classroom Use

While teachers enthusiastically supported the decision to equip all middle school students with

laptop computers, it is not entirely clear, if they initially understood that this decision would effect their

pedagogy. Nonetheless, our classroom observations and interviews suggest that teachers are generally

enthusiastic about the laptops and have successfully integrated learning technologies into their weekly

instructional routine.

The principal stressed that the laptop computers are a tool that teachers can elect to use—or not

use—as they see fit. As such, teachers are not required to use the computers, and staff indicated that they

continue to rely on traditional methods as well. Some teachers initially tried to do too much with the

laptops, but have since concluded that some lessons still need to be conducted the “old fashioned way,”

and staff have discussed the importance of ensuring that the Internet not become the sole source of

information for teachers or students. For example, teachers and the school’s librarian indicated that
79

students are generally required to reference Internet and non-Internet sources (e.g., books, periodicals)

when preparing a research paper.

The principal further indicated that, while some faculty were initially reluctant to use the

computer in their classroom, all teachers have since embraced the use of laptops as one of many

educational tools that they have at their disposal. Any staff resistance was handled through a “positive

attitude,” and by constantly talking up the project and reminding teachers that the project initially was

their idea. Evidence of this last point—talking up the project—can be found on the Towns County

Middle School web site:

Did you know only 1% of the people in the world own a computer? That is a staggering

figure when we stop to realize that every Towns County Middle School student has a

take-home laptop computer. Now in the second year of our Mobile Technology Project,

we have even expanded to include Towns County High School students with a similar

project. And it is great that the parents of our students have access to this technology

every evening and weekend as well.

In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton stated, “We must empower parents

with more information and more choices.” Governor Barnes in an address to the Georgia

Association of Educational Leaders said, “Our future is in technology.” He went on to

say that we must “increase the level of technology training. The key to economic

development is in a pool of individuals trained in technology,” and that we must have

“technology driven students.” Well, that we do!

I am very pleased with our response to this global need in Towns County and with the

cooperation of the faculty and staff of Towns County Middle School, the Towns County

Board of Education, parents, students and the community at large. We are still the only

school in Georgia that can boast of this success, and it is all due to you. Congratulations!

Keep up the good work and have a good school year.

Sincerely, Stephen Smith, Principal, Towns County Middle School

During the site visit, we observed teachers and students using the laptops to prepare written

assignments and complete in-class worksheets. Because the computers did not need to be physically

linked to the school’s central server, the classroom was configured in a typical fashion—i.e., students

were not clustered in a corner of the room to enable links with a central server, nor were students facing

away from the front of the classroom to accommodate bulky PCs. This, in turn, appeared to minimize the

extent to which the use of the laptops hindered teachers’ ability to interact with individuals students or the

entire class.
80

In several classes, we observed students completing lessons that had been downloaded via

infrared technology to their laptops. Students in one class were using their laptops to work on an

electronic lesson designed to apply their knowledge of appropriate sentence structure. The teachers

moved around the classroom helping individuals with specific items and periodically addressing the entire

class about topics that appeared to be problematic for numerous students. The students that we observed

were fully attentive and focused on their task, which, teachers indicated, had not been the case when

students were required to complete these worksheets with pen and paper. When students finished work

on the exercise, they hit a submit key, which automatically scored the worksheet. The system then

provided immediate feedback on the proper way to complete items that were answered incorrectly.

Students scores were also automatically recorded on the teachers’ computer. (Several teachers

demonstrated how the system generates reports that summarize how each of their students performed on

several themes. They indicated that this information might eventually be used to target individual

students who require additional help in a given topic, as well as to identify topics that need to be

discussed with the entire class.)

In another class, students were using their laptops to type out a written assignment that they had

previously composed using pen and paper. Teachers in several classes indicated that their students

regularly use the system’s desktop publishing capabilities, e.g., to import photos and employ stylish fonts,

to improve the presentation of their papers and reports. Teachers also indicated that many of their

students prefer to use the laptop to type their notes during class, as opposed to using pen and paper.

According to the principal and teachers, the laptops’ impact in the classroom have been further

reinforced by the vendor’s efforts to provide staff with an online inventory of Internet resources that are

aligned with Georgia’s middle school curriculum.8 As part of this ongoing effort, the vendor has provided

individualized instruction in how teachers can use this resource to enhance their classroom instruction.

(These online resources include curricula that teachers could use to develop their lessons, as well as sites

that students could access when completing their homework assignments. School staff indicated that the

vendor frequently uses teacher feedback to modify its online offerings.) Once again, the principal

indicated that he views this online inventory as one of many resources that teachers have at their disposal.

He further stressed that the curriculum has not changed; rather, teachers now have access to significantly

more resources when determining how best to teach the curriculum.

 

8

At the time of the site visit, this online registry had only been developed for the district’s middle school teachers and students.
81

Partnerships

The project achieved its match by soliciting funds from several local businesses to purchase

individual laptop computers. According to the principal, this approach helped to create community

awareness about the project. The need to increase community awareness of—and support for—the

Mobile Technology Project was critical for two reasons. First, a number of the local business were

owned or operated by parents whose children would be using the laptops at home. As such, this was

viewed as another strategy for increasing parents’ involvement in their children’s schoolwork. Second,

the project was viewed as an opportunity to reinforce the relationship between the school and the local

businesses that would likely employ many of the community’s high school and college graduates. For

example, a representative from a local bank that contributed funds for the project visited the school to

demonstrate the electronic spreadsheets he routinely used at work.

Other local organizations that supported the project included the Towns County Adult Education

Center, the North Georgia Technical Institute (which provides adult literacy programs at the Towns

County Adult Education Center), and Young Harris College, which was slated to provide Internet classes

and Internet hookup to participating families (both of these tasks were eventually performed by the

vendor and the middle school). The link with the Towns County Adult Education Center was designed to

facilitate parents’ access to the facility’s literacy and GED programs. (The middle school’s Parent

Teacher Association held a bake sale to raise the funds needed to purchase the project’s first laptop.)

D. Problems Encountered

The project did not experience many of the delays and problems that are commonly associated

with classroom technology initiatives.9 Interviews with school staff suggest that this lack of obstacles

was due, in large measure, to the vendor’s equipment (e.g., the laptops and software worked as

advertised) and approach (e.g., vendor staff spent a considerable amount of time at the school and

responded quickly to issues as they arose).
82

Technical Problems with the Laptops

School staff did identify some minor technical glitches associated with the project. For example,

the initial batch of computers had to be modified—at no cost to the school—because faulty latches were

allowing the laptops to open spontaneously. The middle school’s technology coordinator described some

minor problems with the laptops, such as batteries not charging correctly, limited memory, difficulty

reading the LCD screen, difficulty viewing video), which can often be attributed to the excessive

battering students inflict on their computers. Another problem is that the laptops’ batteries need to be

charged every evening. Students who forget either to charge the batteries or to bring in their laptop can

borrow a 1-day loaner from the technology coordinator.

Technical Problems with the Infrared Technology

Teachers also described some problems with the infrared technology used to connect laptops with

the school’s central server. For example, reflections from tile floors can interfere with the system’s

infrared technology, thereby disrupting the laptop’s wireless link with the school’s central server. In

addition, if something or someone, for example, a teacher walking around checking on progress, gets

between the laptop and the CAP, the connection can be broken causing students who have not recently

saved their work to lose whatever they were working on. (The servers are designed to automatically save

students’ work every 15 minutes.)

Estimating the Number of Laptops Needed for the Project

The principal indicated that he initially underestimated the number of laptop computers that

would be required to equip students who began school in the middle of the year. As a result, the middle

school was required to request an additional $46,200 from the ARC to cover the cost of adding 30 laptop

computers to the original inventory. These funds were also used to extend the warranties on all 270

laptops purchased as part of the Mobile Technology Project.

 

9

 Examples of problems commonly associated with classroom technology projects include delays in obtaining equipment, widespread equipment

failure, underutilization, resistance to change, technological obsolescence, and inadequate infrastructure.
83

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

The principal indicated that while he appreciated the value of collecting and using evaluation

data, the school had not obtained any statistics that could be used to quantify the impact of the Mobile

Technology Project. For example, the project had not collected any pre- and post-implementation data on

students’ attitudes and aptitudes regarding computers and academics. Nor has the project systematically

assessed changes to teachers’ pedagogy or students’ learning styles. Problems preventing the collection

of these data included a lack of financial and staff resources, as well as the high rate of mobility of the

middle school’s students, which would hinder efforts to maintain longitudinal data.

Dissemination

The principal indicated that he has received numerous requests for information about the Mobile

Technology Project. Since the project began, the school has hosted numerous visitors from schools in

and outside of Georgia, soon after the site visit, the project received a visit from the State Superintendent.

In addition, the project has been featured on Atlanta television, as well as in numerous newspaper and

magazine articles including the Atlanta Journal, the Associated Press, and Appalachia, a magazine

published by the ARC. Finally, the principal has been invited to discuss the project at numerous

conferences across the State of Georgia and was a presenter at a recent ARC meeting on best practices. In

an effort to prepare for future presentations, the principal and his staff were in the process of developing a

Power Point presentation that outlined the history and impact of the Mobile Technology Project.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

At the time of the site visit, the Mobile Technology Project was in its second year of operation.

As such, the project had not yet faced the need to cover the longer term cost of maintaining and repairing

the laptop computers. (Part of the $46,200 in supplemental funding provided by the ARC in 1998 was

used to extend the warranties for all 270 laptops.) In addition, aside from the 30 additional laptops

purchased with the supplemental funding, there has been no need to expand the number of computers,

since incoming 6th graders inherit the computers that are turned in by exiting 8th graders. The principal

expressed confidence that when the time came, he would be able to obtain the necessary funding to assure

that the laptops remain a permanent fixture in all middle school classrooms. He also described efforts to

seek additional funding to extend the use of laptops to the school’s 5th graders.
84

By the time of the site visit, the principal had secured funding to purchase laptops for all 9th grade

students to use until they graduate high school.10 This came about because the project’s 8th graders

expressed concern that they would lose their unlimited access to computers and the Internet when they

entered high school. The laptops provided to the 9th grade students were less expensive and more

conventional than the computers used by the middle schoolers. The lower cost of the laptops provided to

the 9th graders—$1,000 per unit, as opposed to $1,600 for the machines supplied by NetSchools—reflects

several differences in the computers. First, the middle school laptops were sturdier so as to withstand any

physical abuse that might be occur through normal use by a while in the hands of 11 to 13-year-olds.

(The principal indicated that the computers provided to 9th graders did not need to be as durable since by

high school, students should understand the need to take better care of their laptops. Second, the laptops

used by the 9th grade students relied on low frequency radio waves to connect with the school’s central

server. As such, there were no costs associated with the installation of Ceiling Access Points in all of the

high school classrooms. Third, the high school teachers did not receive any professional development

from the project’s vendor, nor did they have access to an online inventory of resources that had been

aligned to Georgia’s high school curriculum. The high school’s technology coordinator indicated that 9th-

12th grade faculty would have access to other professional development that was designed to help teachers

integrate learning technologies into the curriculum. (The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Program,

which provided partial funding for the 9th grade laptops, requires that at least 30 percent of the grant

monies be used for staff development.)

The principal indicated that another reason 9th graders did not keep their original middle school

laptops through high school is that they needed access to computers with more memory to handle more

sophisticated software programs. In addition to having more memory, the laptops provided to the 9th

graders are equipped with a 266MHz Pentium processor and are designed to accept external disk drives

(for 3.5” 1.44MB floppy disks or CD-ROMs).

G. Accomplishments and Outcomes

As described in Section B, the Mobile Technology Project had a range of intended outputs and

outcomes. This section describes the extent to which the project was able to achieve its stated objectives.

 

10 Part of this funding came through the U.S. Department of Education’s Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) Program which supports

efforts to increase school and student access to educational technology.
85

The project has achieved all of the implementation targets and outcomes that were delineated in

the original proposal to the ARC. Specifically:

• All middle school students and teachers had been equipped with a laptop. In addition, all

students had been provided Internet access at school and at home.

• All teachers, parents, and students had received extensive instruction in the use of the laptop

computers and the Internet.

• Middle school teachers had received substantial amounts of inservice staff development to

enhance their lesson planning and instruction. In addition, teachers appeared to have

successfully incorporated computer technology in their classes. Teachers were also using the

laptops to assign homework to their students in an organized fashion.

• Students were using the laptops to prepare reports and other products that were typed and

neatly formatted. In fact, some of the students we interviewed suggested that this was one of

the project’s biggest achievements since they could produce professional-looking reports, and

no longer had to retype an entire paper because of errors on the first few pages.

• Teachers also indicated that their students were showing more pride in the content and

appearance of their work as a result of their enhanced word processing and Internet skills.

• Attendance in the middle school had increased by 1.36 percent, from 95.84 percent during the

first semester of the 1997-98 school year to 97.20 percent in the first semester of the 1998-99

school year. (The principal indicated that prior to the Mobile Technology Project, average

attendance across the three grades had already been considerably higher than the state or

national average.)

• Students had successfully produced a school web site that provided information about the

middle school. They have also used the laptops to produce articles and digital photos for the

school newspaper.

• Students have been using e-mail to communicate with other students throughout the nation

and the world. In addition to using the Internet to learn about other local and global cultures,

students have used e-mail to maintain contact with relatives and former classmates who had

moved out of Towns County.

• Students have created a retail store that sells a variety of items and have developed

spreadsheets and databases to keep track of sales.

• The parents of middle school students have increased their usage of adult literacy programs.

In its final report to the ARC, the project reported a 24 percent increase in participation in

GED and adult literacy programs at the Towns County Adult Education Center—from 161

adults during the first semester of the 1997-1998 school year to 199 during the first semester
86

of the 1998-1999 school year.11 In addition, the number of adults earning their GED

increased by 71.4 percent over the same period, from 7 to 12 individuals. While these

increases could be due to a variety of factors, such as changes in job skills needed to obtain

employment in the local economy and an influx of new families to Towns County), the

director of the Towns County Adult Education Center attributed at least some of these

advances to the Mobile Technology Project. For example, she indicated that some parents

want to keep pace with their kids or improve their own job skills.

The final report to the ARC provides evidence of other statistical achievements that have

occurred since the Mobile Technology Project was initiated. Specifically, middle school tardiness was

reduced by 0.13 percent across the three grades—from 99.73 percent during the first semester of the

1997-98 school year to 99.86 percent in the first semester of the 1998-99 school year. In addition,

discipline referrals have dropped—from 49 to 27 over the same period. The principal attributed at least

some of these changes to the positive environment and enhanced student pride that have resulted from the

Mobile Technology Project.

During the site visit, we were provided with several other tangible examples of how the Mobile

Technology Project has improved the classroom experiences of middle school students. Teachers

indicated that having access to the Internet and the vendor’s online inventory of resources aligned with

Georgia’s middle school curriculum had greatly improved their ability to enhance the quality and

originality of their lesson. In addition, teachers felt that their use of laptops had made it easier to engage

students both in and out of the classroom by making lessons more interesting, hands-on, and relevant.

Teachers also indicated that the depth and breadth of students’ papers and reports have also improved, in

large measure because students now have easy access to thousands of new resources. Several respondents

suggested that writing research papers had taken a new relevance, since students must also utilize a

myriad of skills—e.g., using technology, conducting appropriate Internet searches—that will be required

in college and/or the workplace.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

As part of the site visit, we asked administrators and faculty whether, based on their own

experiences with the Mobile Technology Project, they had any recommendations for other schools that

might want to adapt a similar approach. These recommendations and lessons learned are described

below.

 

11 The report also indicated that the number of adults enhancing their career skills was likely higher—given the fact that some parents use the

laptops to access GED and adult literacy programs.
87

Conduct a needs assessment prior to selecting an approach. The principal emphasized the

importance of documenting the need for the project (e.g., how many students lack home access to

computers and the Internet) through a formal or informal needs assessment. He also noted that data

collected prior to implementation (e.g., computer access, disciplinary referrals, attendance at adult literacy

classes) can also be used as a baseline for quantifying changes that occur after laptops have been provided

to students.

Use care in selecting a vendor and finalizing the package of options. The principal indicated

that he first learned of NetSchools while attending a conference. To identify a vendor, he recommended

attending technology or educational conferences and fairs, many of which are frequented by computer

vendors. He further recommended selecting vendors who are willing to visit the school to demonstrate

their merchandise and have a long history of supplying schools with educational hardware. He strongly

suggested that schools require their computer vendors to enter into written agreements regarding such

specifics as conditions under which equipment will be replaced at no cost to the school, and the amount of

technical assistance and training that will be provided to teachers. To the extent possible, the principal

and several others recommended that schools elect vendors that can provide a full package of services,

including hardware and software, onsite and timely technical assistance, and of in-service training in a

wide range of areas (e.g., operating equipment, using software, accessing the Internet, integrating

technology into the classroom) to teachers, students, and parents. Finally, the principal lamented that he

had not initially selected a 10-year plan that would have allowed him to periodically upgrade the laptops.

Take steps to ensure stakeholder buy-in. Several respondents emphasized that buy-in among a

wide range of stakeholders was a critical factor in the success of their project. As such, they

recommended that similar initiatives stipulate that parents be required to attend training before their

children can receive a laptop to maximize the likelihood that parents will work on the computer with their

children. In addition, the principal recommended that schools invest the time required to solicit financial

(and other) support from within the local business community to strengthen the ties between schools and

the local business that will ultimately employ the schools’ graduates. Finally, the principal strongly

recommended that administrators work with their teachers so that the laptops are viewed as an

opportunity, not an intrusion.

Focus on middle school students if resources are scarce. The principal recommended that if

resources are tight, projects designed to equip students with laptops should focus on children between the
88

ages of 11-14. In his view, children age 10 and younger are too “reckless” and generally lack the

maturity and skills to care for laptop computers. Further, elementary school students often need to spend

the majority of their classroom time focusing on other basic skills. He therefore suggested that while

younger students should be exposed to computers, they are still too young to have the laptops dominate

their educational time. The principal further indicated that because teenagers are already being inundated

with new things, it would have been harder to grab and sustain their attention with learning technologies.

As such, he suggested that teenagers have too many other competing interests and activities to get

“hooked” on working with computers outside of the classroom. The principal therefore decided to focus

on his 6th to 8th grade students, on the assumption that children between the ages of 11-13 would be most

enthusiastic about and capable of working on and caring for computers.

Assign someone full-time responsibility for laptop maintenance. The success of the laptop

project can be attributed, in large measure, to the fact that the laptops worked as advertised—and repairs

were generally made in a timely manner. As such, administrators and faculty indicated that other schools

would be advised to assign someone on staff the full-time responsibility of assuring that the laptops

remain in working order. During the first year of the project, the vendor had someone on site full time to

troubleshoot and help staff become acclimated to their use. By the second year, the middle school

technology coordinator had assumed a lead role, and the vendor only had someone on site once or twice

per month. The middle school technology coordinator further recommended that schools use the laptops’

serial numbers to identify machines that appear to be breaking down frequently and then determine

whether those problems are the result of the computer or its user.

Have a plan in place to anticipate student turnover. The principal indicated that high divorce

and job turnover rates have resulted in considerable turnover at Towns County Middle School. He

therefore recommended that schools prepare for such turnover by having additional laptops on hand for

students who enroll in the middle of the school year. These laptops can also be used as loaners when

students forget to charge their laptop’s batteries or leave the laptop at home.

Provide students with basic computer and typing skills in the school year before they

receive laptops. One teacher recommended that students be required to take a preparatory class in a

computer lab before they receive their laptops. The purpose would be to minimize the likelihood that a

lack of basic skills (e.g., using keyboards and a mouse, typing, accessing the Internet) remains a barrier

when the new system is introduced.
89

I. Summary and Conclusions

The Mobile Technology Project represents a good model of how technology can be used to

enhance learning opportunities in the classroom. The provision of laptops to all middle school students—

coupled with extensive professional development and online resources—has provided teachers an

opportunity to modernize their instructional practices. The project has also provided all middle school

students equal access to the Internet and other emerging technologies. Our interviews with

administrators, teachers, and students, as well as our limited observations of classroom practices, suggest

that teachers and students are making good use of the new opportunities afforded them.

Given the brief history of the Mobile Technology Project, it is not yet possible to predict whether

the middle school’s use of laptops in the classroom will be sustained over time. It does appear, however,

that the necessary ingredients are in place to keep the project operational, including dedicated and

enthusiastic leadership, a core of teachers who are willing to experiment with new instructional

techniques, and a vendor with a comprehensive approach for infusing technology into the classroom.

Finally, it is too early to tell whether the Mobile Technology Project will ultimately elevate and

enhance the longer term educational and career goals of the participating students. It is also too early to

assess how the provision of laptop computers will affect the project’s other intended beneficiaries—the

students’ parents. However, given the project’s potential to have a lasting impact on students and their

families, we recommend that the Towns County Middle School attempt to document participants’

educational and professional achievements over time. Even without baseline data, the resulting stories

should prove useful in determining the extent to which the school’s use of laptops enriched students’

views of their world.
90
91

Partnering with Parents for Successful Early Childhood Development

Project Location Eastern Tennessee

Grant Recipient Tennessee State Department of Education

ARC Number CO 10947H

ARC Project Type Preschool

Grant Amount $75,000

Matching Funding No matching funds

Dates of Site Visit March 16-17, 2000

Site Visitors Brian Kleiner and Kyle Snow

Project Abstract

Teenage pregnancy (often over generations) and the disintegration of extended families and

communities have resulted in the diminishing of parenting knowledge passed across generations

among many of eastern Tennessee’s Appalachian poor. Additionally, other social and economic

ills endemic to this region directly or indirectly touch the lives of children, leaving them

unprepared to adequately face the challenges of school and life. Partnering with Parents for

Successful Early Childhood Development was designed to address these problems. The project

targeted parents of children ages 0-5, years in which the foundation is built for healthy

development. The project’s general aim was to inform parents of at-risk children about

parenting practices that will spur healthy development.

The tools employed to accomplish the goals of the project were described as “three legs of the

milking stool.” The first leg was the dissemination of 20 “Smart from the Start” sheets

containing developmental information and suggested activities appropriate for each 3-month

period between birth and 5 years. The second leg involved free parenting classes providing

instruction to parents in techniques to promote their children’s healthy development. The third

leg involved encouraging parents to attend Adult Basic Education classes.

During the grant period, the most successful of the three legs was the parenting class component.

The project director, class teacher, and an external evaluation of the classes all revealed powerful

effects of class attendance. The Smart from the Start sheets were developed and distributed by

the end of the grant period. These have since been revised and continue to be distributed to atrisk parents. The efforts to encourage parents to also enroll in Adult Basic Education classes had

limited impact.
92

Partnering with Parents for Successful Early Childhood Development

Tennessee State Department of Education

A. Background

Community Characteristics

The main component of the Partnering with Parents for Successful Early Childhood Development

project was carried out in the Appalachian regions of eastern Tennessee. Tennessee/Appalachia consists

of the counties east of a line drawn from Macon County to Hamilton County. The primary site for the

project was Cocke County, located 40 miles east of Knoxville near the Tennessee-North Carolina border.

The economy of this region depends in part on strip mining and a small number of factories (e.g.,

ALCOA). The majority of the population is white and of Scotch Irish descent.

In 1990, 23.7 percent of Tennessee children under 6 years lived in poverty. Of those children

under 6 living in single-parent families with their mothers, 62.7 percent lived in poverty. According to

the Tennessee Kids Count Indicator, the per capita income in Tennessee in 1990 was 35th highest in the

nation (up from 42nd in 1979). This is not to say that poverty is endemic. The gap between the richest

and poorest families was the 5th highest in the nation in 1990, and 50 percent of Tennessee counties had

per capita incomes of less than $10,000 per year. Illiteracy and limited literacy are common, with a

statewide reading level of 5th grade. The majority of children living in poverty in Tennessee live in

single-parent families, are younger than 6 years, are white, and live in rural areas. Spending for education

in Tennessee (in 1992-93) as a whole is less than in 45 other states, averaging $4,009 per student

(compared to the national average of $5,598), and state and local expenditures for education in the state

are lower than all other states and the District of Columbia. Among the ramifications of these spending

patterns is the finding that 39 percent of kindergarteners are not prepared for school.1

Characteristics of the Grant Recipient Organization

The Tennessee State Department of Education received an ARC Commission grant for the

Partnering with Parents project. As contractor for the ARC grant, the state was responsible for project

implementation, including the appointment of subcontractors for different project components, such as the
93

development of the Smart from the Start sheets, as well as the administration and provision of facilities

for the parenting skills classes. Education in the state is funded primarily via sales tax, not property tax as

is more typical. As a result, many offices in the state department of education are consolidated to

combine federal and state funding sources.

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

The eastern part of Tennessee suffers from many of the social and economic ills that plague other

rural and urban areas of the country – poverty, hunger, physical and sexual abuse, drug and alcohol abuse,

poor hygiene, low education levels, and so on. Many of these problems directly or indirectly touch the

lives of young children, leaving them unprepared to face the challenges of school and life. Teenage

pregnancy (often compounded over several generations) as well as the increasing disintegration of

extended families and communities has resulted in the diminishing of parenting knowledge passed from

generation to generation among many of eastern Tennessee’s poor.

A host of parenting deficiencies has resulted from this state of affairs, such as poor hygiene

(unclean bottles, head lice among children), child abuse, and a lack of understanding of child

development. In addition, because of the fragmentation of communities, many parents do not have

knowledge of or access to resources available to them. Many parents in eastern Tennessee are forced to

raise their children under extremely difficult circumstances with few external supports. Further, these

children fall behind in their development to such an extent that they may never fully recover. Many enter

school lacking the fundamental cognitive, linguistic, social, and physical skills necessary for success.

Approach

The Partnering with Parents for Successful Early Childhood Development project was designed

to address these serious problems. At the time of the ARC grant, there existed no state-level programs

addressing early childhood development in the preschool age population in Tennessee.2 Unlike other

 

1

 Data provided in the project's application to ARC.

2

 It is not clear what, if any, local programs were in place. There were programs addressing teenage parenting, but these were aimed at pregnancy

prevention rather than parenting skills.
94

intervention efforts that focus on K-12, this project targeted parents of children ages 0 to 5, years in which

the foundation is built for all higher level cognitive, linguistic, social, and physical development. The

project’s general aim was to provide parents of at-risk children with information about parenting practices

that will spur healthy development and prepare their children for the demands of school and life. While

this information may be available through various avenues within the community, the project intended to

provide it in an easily accessible way, specially prepared for at-risk families.

The tools employed to accomplish the goals of the project were described figuratively by the

original project director as the “three legs of the milking stool,” where each leg is essential to its support.

The first leg included the dissemination of 20 Smart from the Start sheets, one for each 3-month period

between ages 0 and 5, containing developmental information and suggesting activities appropriate for

each period. The second leg involved free parenting classes, where parents could take their children and

be instructed in a wide range of skills and techniques to promote their children’s healthy development.

The third leg involved encouraging undereducated parents to attend Adult Basic Education classes.

The approach taken by the project was innovative in that it combined several previously distinct

efforts into a single coherent effort and developed project materials specifically targeting the population

of greatest need. Prior to the Partnering with Parents grant, a number of resources were available for atrisk parents. First, adult basic education courses were widely available throughout the state. The

project’s efforts were aimed at recruiting parents into these classes. Resources for families included a

local Teen Learning Center and the (then) emerging Family Resource Centers. The project conducted the

parenting workshops in conjunction with the development of a family resource center in the county. The

Smart from the Start materials were the brainchild of the original grant writer as a means of providing

parents with information about typical child development and with activities that they could use to

interact with their children in ways to promote healthy development. These were developed to be read at

the 5th grade level.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

The period of the Partnering with Parents ARC grant was from February 1992 to June 1993.

While ARC funding ceased in 1993, much of the work developed under the grant has been sustained and

expanded to the present time (see section F). For example, the Smart from the Start sheets continue to be

disseminated (but more broadly across the state), and parenting classes influenced by those under the

ARC grant are currently held under the aegis of the state’s Family Resource Centers.
95

C. Activities Undertaken As Part of the ARC Project

Parenting Classes

During the term of the ARC-funded Partnering with Parents project, the project subcontracted

with a school system in eastern Tennessee to create an “early childhood development laboratory and

activity center.” The Cocke County School System, 40 miles east of Knoxville near the Tennessee-North

Carolina border, was selected in response to an RFP, based on several factors, such as the availability of

accessible facilities and a high concentration of low-moderate income families. Parenting classes were

held in Newport, Tennessee, at the Ben Hooper Vocational School’s Teen Learning Center for 12-week

sessions, during evenings one night per week.

The first classes in the fall of 1992 served eight parents from at-risk families (along with their

children). Eleven families participated in the winter 1993 classes, and five parents took classes in the

spring of 1993 (without their children). Although parents were recruited in a number of ways, including

newspaper advertisements and referrals, the participation of nearly all parents in the classes was courtordered.3

 To regain custody of their children, these parents were ordered to attend class at least one night

per week. Children of these parents were brought to the class by their foster parents and cared for by a

project assistant.

According to the Partnering with Parents final report, the parents who participated in the classes

were for the most part “dysfunctional in the extreme. The clients lacked basic information on hygiene,

nutrition and elementary intervention techniques appropriate for young children.” The evaluator’s reports

for the classes held from 1992 to 1993 describe in sometimes disturbing detail the conditions of the

participating at-risk families. Consider, for instance, the following case:

Participant F was a 19 year old, never-married mother of two daughters, ages 2 months

and 21 months. She lived in a subsidized housing project and received AFDC. She was

a high school graduate with a drug abuse, mental hospitalization, suicide attempt history.

The father of the girls saw them frequently, but was reported to be physically abusive to

“F.” The maternal grandparents have physical custody of the 21 month old, and soon

after the completion of the class “F” also lost custody of her younger daughter. A home

 

3

 The project had developed a relationship with a local judge that allowed for court-order completion of the parenting classes to be a possible

sentence for parents brought before the court for cases of child maltreatment, or others who were brought to the court’s attention through

custody disputes.
96

visit by the instructor revealed unsanitary conditions such as “filthy baby bottles and an

inhumanly dirty house.” The baby was hospitalized for dehydration. “F” reportedly left

her babies at home unattended with great frequency.

Classes were about half lecture and half interactive instruction, where parents would practice

techniques with their children, based on the “active parenting” model. In addition, parents would watch

videos and do exercises from a workbook. Parents in the classes were taught a host of fundamental

parenting skills, including how to give a bath, how to provide basic nutrition, how to discipline a child

(avoiding corporal punishment), and how to encourage and support language development. Parents were

also taught about the developmental stages of their children and which behaviors to expect at each stage.

The teacher of the classes indicated that while she had no formal background in child

development, she attended active parenting classes in Atlanta and took a child development course at

Carson-Newman College. During the year of her service, she had one assistant who would care for the

children in the nursery while parents participated in the lecture part of the class. The project director

noted the class instructor’s skill and dedication to the project as fundamental to its success.

Smart from the Start Sheets

According to the project director, the strongest leg of the “milking stool” was the Smart from the

Start sheets. The simple but powerful and innovative idea behind the Smart Start sheets was to diffuse

vital parenting information to at-risk parents in the form of easy-to-read and attractive sheets that could be

posted at home on the refrigerator under magnets that accompanied them. With the sheets in plain view

at home, parents could have ready access to helpful information and suggestions appropriate to their

children’s age. Smart from the Start sheets provide information on cognition and motor skill milestones

of development, as well as recommended activities, safety and nutrition tips, and resource information.

Twenty sheets were developed on legal size paper, one for each 3-month period from ages 0

through 5. The project director explained that at that time, there was nothing readily available upon

which to base the Smart Start sheets. After making numerous queries around the state, he discovered that

some work had been done along these lines at the Johnny B. Watson Teen Learning Center in Memphis

(through the Memphis City Schools Collaborative Care Project), which was consequently subcontracted

to develop the Smart Start sheets.
97

The sheets are attractive and written at no higher than the 5th grade reading level so that parents

with poor literacy skills will not feel intimidated by them. Each sheet includes specific advice to parents.

For instance, the Smart Start sheet for parents of babies from birth to 3 months explains:

Your baby is an amazing little one. As a newborn, he needs you to hold him, rock him,

sing to him, and talk to him. He depends on you to feed and care for him. He likes to

snuggle and hear your voice. You should go to him when he cries and see what is wrong.

Don’t worry about spoiling him. He cries because he needs something: milk, a dry

diaper, warmth, or he may just be lonely or uncomfortable.

Also included in each sheet is information about what parents should expect (and not expect) in

their children at each stage of development. For example, the Smart Start sheet for toddlers 3 through 6

months lists some of the things they might do during this period:

• Laugh out loud.

• Reach for toys or people.

• Roll over.

• Hold head steady.

• Turn toward a familiar voice.

• Push up with arms while on stomach.

• Notice small objects.

• Sit up straight with help.

• Babble and coo.

Further, each sheet contains suggested activities that parents might do with their children. For

instance, the Smart from the Start sheet for 6- through 9-month-olds suggests the following “things you

can do everyday to help your baby grow”:

• Read to him daily. Show him pictures in books and point to and name the people, as well as

other things in the picture books.

• Place him on the floor on his stomach. Encourage him to move toward you by clapping your

hands and laughing.

• Roll a ball to him. As he grows and gets used to the game, he will try to roll the ball back to

you.
98

• Hide a ball or other object under a blanket while he is watching you and let him find it. He

will learn that objects-out-of-sight don’t disappear forever.

• Give him a pan and show him how to bang on it.

• Place round oat cereal on his highchair tray and let him practice picking it up and putting it in

his mouth. His eye and hand muscles will get stronger and begin to work together.

• Let him practice dropping unbreakable things like soft balls over the side of the bed in order

to learn what happens when he drops something.

During the period under the ARC grant, 320,000 Smart Start sheets and 25,000 refrigerator

magnets were produced and distributed through agencies that make regular contact with at-risk parents,

such as Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), EVEN START, county offices of Health, Human Services,

and Early Childhood Education Programs, and Displaced Homemaker Programs. This was an especially

effective arrangement with respect to WIC, since mothers are required to visit every 3 months, coinciding

with the Smart from the Start sheets. The Smart from the Start sheets were sent to these agencies

following an introductory letter explaining their purpose. According to the Partnering with Parents final

report, the Smart Start sheets were received enthusiastically by practitioners throughout the 50 counties of

Tennessee/Appalachia.

Adult Basic Education

The project director explained that the adult basic education (ABE) leg of the milking stool was

the weakest of the three. The stated goal of this component of the project was to “encourage illiterate or

undereducated parents to participate in Adult/Basic Education classes.” The reasoning behind

incorporating this goal into the project was that education presumably better equips parents to raise their

children.

In order to encourage parents to attend ABE classes, each Smart Start sheet and refrigerator

magnet displayed the toll-free telephone number of the State Office of Adult/Basic Education.

Unfortunately, the State Office received very few calls from interested parents during the year of the ARC

grant (although this does not preclude the possibility that some parents did attend ABE classes without

the State Office’s mediation).
99

D. Problems Encountered

Although the project encountered various minor problems, none significantly compromised the

project’s work.

Enlisting Parents for Classes

The most general problem facing the project was logistical – how to reach parents in the first

place? It seems to be the case that the most difficult step for a project of this type is establishing first

contact with at-risk families and persuading them (without offending them) that they might benefit by

learning more about parenting practices. However, the project director noted that parents seemed to

welcome the help when they could take advantage of it.

That most parents in the parenting classes participated by virtue of court order reflects the

difficulties of attracting volunteers. Additionally, even interested parents might be unable to attend the

classes because of lack of transportation or other reasons. In at least a few cases described to us, the

parenting class teacher would drive to the family's home to provide transportation.4 The final evaluation

report reinforces this point:

Due to the difficulty and frustration experienced in obtaining participants prior to each

session, it is suggested that careful planning to identify and recruit for future programs be

considered. Considering census data from Cocke County, an at-risk population is present

in great numbers.

Reaching At-Risk Parents

Similarly, although the Smart Start sheets were distributed through various organizations, many

parents in need do not show up at these places, or do so only sporadically. Thus, not all parents of at-risk

children could be reached via the mechanisms built into this project. Further, although the project

director was confident that the materials were being disseminated, it is not clear how they were presented.

For example, some services may have simply handed the sheets to the parents, while others may have

staff that sat down and reviewed the materials’ content and intent with parents.
100

Producing and Storing the Smart Start Sheets

The production and distribution of the sheets took longer than anticipated. While the delays in

production were primarily due to the need to write the sheets at an appropriate reading level, this delay

was likely a necessary one that has ultimately contributed to the project’s success, as it made materials

more accessible to a greater number of people. Another minor problem involved finding storage space

for the many boxes of Smart from the Start sheets and magnets. By the time of the site visit, all of the

magnets had been distributed (and are no longer produced), and boxes were stored at the central office,

but many were distributed across the state for local use and storage.

Staffing

Adequate staffing was another problem mentioned by site visit respondents. Although the

parenting classes included an assistant to care for the children during lecture time, it was explained that

additional assistants were necessary so that older children brought to the facility could also be cared for.

Encouraging Adult Basic Education

As mentioned earlier, the hotline for adult basic education classes received very few calls during

the period of the ARC grant. The project director and other respondents seemed to be at a loss as to why

this was the case. They did suggest, however, that many parents may have felt compelled to take the

classes for the sake of their children, but did not see the connection between their own education and the

ultimate effects it would have on their children.

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

During the period of the ARC grant, a third party at Carson-Newman College was subcontracted

to evaluate the parenting classes. Three separate evaluations were conducted, one for each of the three

 

4

 She also noted that in some cases this strategy was nerve-racking because of the prevalence of guns and/or unleashed dogs in many houses.

Further, in some instances the instructor drove many miles to the family home only to have the participants either be away from home or refuse

to go to the class, resulting in a wasted, often long trip.
101

class sessions conducted during the year of the grant. Each consisted of background information on the

class participants, developmental milestones and parenting skills pre- and post-tests, open ended interview

results, and commentary.

The background information provided in the evaluators’ reports presents a vivid and

disconcerting picture of the difficulties and conditions faced by the parenting class participants. One

example was presented earlier in this report. Consider one more case:

Participant G was a never-married 21 year old mother of a 30 month old boy. She was a

student in the adult high school, unemployed, and received AFDC and food stamps. “G”

and her son lived with five other family members, six dogs, and a cat in a rural three

room house. The house had no heat and low sanitation standards. The young boy’s

paternity was unknown, but the instructor made observations during home visits that led

her to suspect that the child’s maternal grandfather was his father.

Dissemination

The Smart from the Start sheets have generated a great deal of excitement in Tennessee, and the

project director said that the State Department of Education has received many calls and inquiries from

various sources wanting to distribute the papers to other audiences. For example, Carson-Newman

College and several other institutions have asked for permission to use the sheets in classes such as

nursing and applied child care. The Smart Start sheets are available and free for reproduction and are

currently being adapted for presentation on the web.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

Sustainability

After the ARC grant ended in 1993, the state took over funding, and this arrangement has

continued to the present day. The work that began under the ARC grant has been maintained, although

with some minor modifications. The parenting classes were used as a model for classes that are now held

under the aegis of the Family Learning Centers (FRCs) throughout Tennessee. The Smart from the Start

sheets continue to be produced and distributed in much the same fashion as they were in 1992-93. The

project director noted that the continuing work initiated under the ARC grant is supported wholeheartedly

by the state, with special commitment from the State Commissioner. It should also be noted that the
102

continued state funding is due in large part to the persuasive charge and vision of the Director of School

Support Services in the State Department of Education, who has been a leader in efforts to improve the

welfare of children in Tennessee. It appeared that her success in maintaining the state's interest was a

combination of a simple, compelling idea and persistence. The project also has developed relationships

with a number of service areas at the state level, including human services and its many offices, thus

distributing the costs across funding streams.

Current funding for the Smart Start sheets comes from a host of state agencies, including the

Office of the Governor of the State of Tennessee, the Department of Education, the Department of Health,

the Department of Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Mental Health,

and the Head Start Association. It was explained that since Tennessee is “resource poor,” agencies find it

mutually beneficial to collaborate and share resources. Interagency meetings are held at least once per

month. Clearly, one of the strengths of the Smart Start endeavor is its ability to galvanize support among

diverse organizations with varying purposes.

Future plans to procure recurring funds include garnering support from corporations (e.g.,

Walmart, Kmart, Federal Express). One possibility mentioned was to include the names of corporate

sponsors on each Smart Start packet. Also included in each packet might be coupons from those

companies that parents might use for their families.

Project Expansion

The work that began in the Partnering for Parents project did not end upon the expiration of the

ARC grant. The Smart Start sheets continued to be produced and distributed, but more widely to agencies

throughout Tennessee, rather than just within the Appalachian region of the state. Currently, the Smart

from the Start sheets are being revised, and the plan is to distribute them to new parents all at once in

calendar form, rather than one at a time. The sheets will now be enhanced to include additional activities

and more graphics, and they will be more attractive and readable. They will also be copied on thick

cardstock for better preservation. At the time of the site visit, the revised Smart from the Start sheets

were being carefully proofread and scrutinized, in order to avoid including any statements or images that

might be misleading and potentially harmful.

Another ambitious expansion currently underway involves making the Smart Start information

available on the Internet. At the time of the site visit, much of the Smart Start material had already been
103

programmed. The pages were visually impressive, engaging, and simple enough to be navigated by

unsophisticated computer users. It is hoped that the web Smart Start information will reach a greater

number of parents, even though many of those parents who use computers will be more affluent and

presumably less in need. Nonetheless, it is certainly the case that all parents could benefit from this

information. The Department of Education plans to announce the website some time in the spring of

2000 and hopes to have the web address published in state-wide newspapers.

As for the parenting classes, the original groundwork laid by the ARC funded classes was taken

up and employed by some of the state-sponsored Family Resource Centers (FRCs) in Tennessee, initiated

at about the same time as the “Partnering with Parents” ARC grant. It was apparent that the parenting

classes provided for by the ARC grant became a model for the delivery of such support services across

the centers in the state. The 104 FRCs in the state of Tennessee share a common mission: “to assist

families through information and training, and to help families learn to resolve problems through the

collaborative efforts of many disciplines within the community (educational, medical, psychological,

business and social services)....” FRCs offer services to at-risk families such as: resource and referral

information, family counseling, needs assessment, student groups, service learning projects, tutoring

programs, and parenting classes.

The director of the Cocke County FRC works as a teacher and social worker, and she has been

leading FRC parenting classes for several years. She explained that the work done in the original ARCfunded classes was very influential and served as a model for later FRC classes in that region. For

example, some of the content, materials, and pedagogic approach of the ARC-funded parenting classes

were later taken up in the FRC classes.

G. Accomplishments/Outcomes

The Partnering with Parents project set out to achieve three goals:

• To provide developmental information on each stage of infant/child growth and a listing of

age-appropriate parent-child activities for intellectual stimulation.

• To make this information available to all “at-risk” parents of children ages 0 through 5 years

within Tennessee/Appalachia.
104

• To encourage illiterate or undereducated parents to participate in adult basic education (ABE)

classes and parenting skills classes.

In general, each of these goals was at least partially achieved, with wide success in two of the

three “legs of the milking stool.” Respondents during the site visit further indicated that it seemed that

the most at-risk parents and children benefited the most from project activities. A summary of the

outcomes associated with each of the project activities is given below.

Smart from the Start Sheets

During the term of the ARC grant, 320,000 Smart Start sheets (and 25,000 magnets) were

produced and distributed through agencies that regularly come into contact with at-risk parents, such as

WIC and EVEN START. The sheets were well crafted and contain a great deal of helpful information

and advice about age-appropriate parent-child activities for intellectual stimulation, as well as information

on available resources, safety, and nutrition. That these materials were eventually placed into the hands

of parents is evident by the demands for new supplies of Smart Sheets from these agencies during the year

following the first distribution up to the present time. Although no data were collected to prove that

parents are making use of the sheets, the fact that they continued to be taken home by parents is partial

evidence of their usefulness.

Parenting Classes

The instructor of the parenting classes explained that her experience was one of the most valuable

of her life. She said that while many of the parents were resistant at first (and sometimes hostile), most

became receptive to learning over time and revealed a sincere desire to improve their parenting skills and

the welfare of their children. The story was told of one court-ordered male parent who complained

bitterly at first about having to come to “some blankety-blank” parenting class. Soon, however, this same

father could be found on his knees in class enthusiastically engaged in an activity in which he played the

role of a child. One mother who took the class told the instructor, “You saved my marriage.”

We were also told of another father, described as “a mountain man,” who had participated in the

parenting class and had had a history of child abuse. Some months after the class, this man was seen in

public lecturing another man who had openly hit his child. As explained by the instructor:
105

He put his hand on the man’s arm and said "that’s not the way to do that...," because he

had just learned three months before that you don’t just hit the kids. He had learned to

advocate, which is a real sign of change. You get this kind of “ripple effect” where

changes spread through a community.

According to the instructor, the most successful parents in the classes were “the ones who had been

emotionally abused in one way or another.” She suggested that these parents were most in need, and so in

the best position to benefit from any intervention. Some parents did quit the classes before completion.

For parents attending of their own initiative there were no consequences for leaving the program, but for

parents required to attend, the failure to complete the course was viewed as a violation of a court order.

According to the evaluators’ final report, the three sessions had an overall 71 percent completion rate.

The most rigorously evaluated component of the project was the parenting class component. For

session one, the developmental milestones pre- and post-tests on 25 items revealed that parents generally

gained in knowledge during the course (for the pre-test, correct responses ranged from 12 to 40 percent,

whereas for the post-test, correct responses ranged from 44 to 63 percent). As for the open-ended

interviews, the evaluators reported an increase in confidence among participants with respect to their

abilities as parents: “The participants conveyed a greater sense of affirmation in their role as parents.”

The evaluators’ conclusions for session one were consistent with those of the instructor – parents

who participated in the classes were enthusiastic and completed the course feeling empowered and more

knowledgeable:

The evaluators were amazed that the participants readily cited specific examples of new

information which they had gleaned.... Most of them noted having learned discipline

techniques as alternatives to physical punishment, developing a sense of support among

themselves, and seeing positive changes in the behavior of their child(ren).

It was noted that for classes to be fully effective, they would need to be more frequent and of greater

duration, since “private behaviors like parenting and attitudinal changes occur gradually over extended

periods of time.”

For session three, the evaluators’ conclusions were not all as positive. They noted that

participants were less committed and cooperative and did not appear to want to learn or make changes in

their parenting practices, presumably because all four were court-ordered to attend. In addition, they did

not bring their children to the classes. On the other hand, they state that these same participants held

“extremely positive impressions of the class.”
106

Overall, the evaluations lend credence to the importance and effectiveness of such classes.

Commenting on the parents’ perceptions of the class over the course of 1 year, the evaluator’s final report

states: “Each of these parents would enthusiastically recommend the program to other parents, as they felt

especially fortunate to have gained in their knowledge of parenting and to have experienced a vital

support network.”

With respect to the Smart Start sheets, no evaluation was done to determine their effectiveness.

Thus, while it is certain that the Smart Start sheets were distributed through various organizations, there

are no data to demonstrate how or if parents actually made use of them. The anecdotal evidence provided

during the site visit suggested that parents did use them, and that the information provided often resulted

in parents adopting new strategies with their children. It must be noted, however, that these changes were

seen primarily among parents also enrolled in the parenting classes.

Adult Basic Education Classes

The project director estimated that approximately six parents called for information about ABE

classes due to the Partnering with Parents project. Because the ABE classes did not systematically collect

data about how parents knew about the courses, it is not known how many referrals were due directly or

indirectly to the project.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

Although a variety of factors may have contributed to the overall success of the Partnering for

Parents project, it appears that the principal reason for its success was the inherent power of its

conception. This project, while relatively simple in its design, addressed a very real and urgent need in

impoverished community by providing parents with a straightforward and easily applicable set of tools

for improving the lives of their children. Without the information furnished through the Smart Start

sheets and parenting classes, many parents of at-risk children have little chance of gaining basic

knowledge of good parenting practices. As noted by the project director, “You get a product that is

immediately usable by masses of people and it will sell itself.”
107

Participation of programs: community buy-in is necessary. With respect to the Smart Start

sheets, the strength of this component’s purpose resulted in the enthusiastic willingness of those programs

enlisted (such as WIC and EVEN START) to distribute the forms to at-risk parents. The buy-in was

largely a natural process as various agencies realized that the Smart Start sheets were another avenue

through which they could achieve their own goals.

Simplified material is critical. The Smart Start sheets should be designed to be easily readable

(written at most at a 5th grade reading level), without containing a potentially overwhelming amount of

information. This will allow parents with poor literacy skills to understand and appreciate the material.

Moreover, more literate parents might find the sheets to be simply written but still very useful.

Class instructors should be caring and encourage parent networking. The success of the

parenting classes may have been due to several factors. First, although most of the parents participating

in the classes were ordered to attend as a condition for regaining custody of their children, many

displayed a hunger for guidance and help. According to the instructor, parents naturally formed support

networks among themselves, and many found the classes to be engaging and meaningful experiences.

The instructor noted that the interaction among parents might be the most significant aspect of the classes,

since it makes plain and provides a forum for discussion of their common problems and needs. Second,

the instructor told us that she cared deeply about the welfare of the parents in her classes and their

children, and she conveyed this through her teaching.

Considerable effort is required to encourage the participation of at-risk parents. It should

be noted that while efforts were certainly made to encourage parents to participate in ABE classes and

parenting skills classes, the obstacles to gaining the participation of at-risk parents on these fronts were

greater than anticipated. Future work should include mechanisms to help locate at-risk families and to

reduce the resistance of parents to new learning and education. This might involve more intensive

marketing and advertising.

Leaders are needed to articulate and argue for the project’s purpose. The sustainability of

this project was due in large part to the receptivity of the state and its recognition of the importance of

supporting at-risk families in the early development of their children. In addition, there were key figures

in place within the State Department of Education who were deeply committed to the mission of helping

at-risk children in Tennessee, had open lines of communication with the State Legislature, and were able

to procure the funding needed to implement their vision.
108

I. Summary and Conclusions

Parenting knowledge is not inborn, and its diffusion depends on strong extended families and

community support. When these social bonds become fragmented and teenage pregnancy recurs over

several generations, parenting knowledge may be severely compromised. Partnering with Parents for

Successful Early Childhood Development is a simple yet innovative and valuable project that addresses

this problem and would most probably benefit other at-risk populations around the country.

 

Projects such as Partnering with Parents would better advance their cause by documenting

outcomes in order to assess and demonstrate the impact of their activities. For instance, other

communities might be more encouraged to make use of the Smart Start sheets if there were evaluation

and documentation showing that at-risk parents benefit from these materials.
109

School Outreach Project

Project Location Jasper, Georgia

Grant Recipient North Georgia Community Action, Inc.

ARC Number GA 11307-93-I, GA 11307-94-C1

ARC Project Type Elementary Education

Grant Amount $115,500

Matching Funding $148,500

Dates of Site Visit March 1-2, 2000

Site Visitors Laurie Somers and Gary Silverstein

Project Abstract

The School Outreach Project provides families of at-risk kindergarten and first grade students in

three counties in North Georgia the individualized support necessary to maximize the likelihood

that children arrive at school healthy and ready to learn. Following a referral by a teacher, a

student’s parents are contacted by the outreach worker who offers to help with their child’s

academics and any other problem areas. Outreach workers then visit families’ homes to tell

them about the program and the types of services offered. If parents are interested, the outreach

worker secures parental permission for the child to participate. Significantly, the outreach

workers work with the entire family, including parents, grandparents, and other siblings. Most

often they help children with reading and mathematics and other enrichment activities, and

educate families about hygiene, stressing the importance of bathing and watching for head lice.

They provide access to multiple resources, such as referrals to mental health providers,

assistance obtaining Medicaid, transportation to doctors, and assistance in navigating complex

education, public assistance, and child care systems.

During the family’s first year in the program, the household is considered a “focus family,”

indicating that its members are provided weekly or twice weekly services. After that, the family

is a “contact family,” and the outreach worker makes infrequent checks with the family and

teachers to ensure that the problems have not returned. The outreach workers generally maintain

contact until the family moves out of the NGCA service area or refuses services.

For the children and families served by School Outreach, the project has met its goal of

improving school performance, self-confidence, social skills, and interest in learning. The

program is currently serving 125 children, 75 of whom are in their first year of intensive

services. It is clear from talking with outreach workers that the children and families all benefit

in some way.
110

School Outreach Project

North Georgia Community Action, Inc.

A. Background

Community Characteristics

North Georgia comprises the counties Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dade, Fannin, Gilmer,

Murray, Pickens, Walker, and Whitfield. The School Outreach Project has worked in different counties at

different times throughout its 10-year history. Under its Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) grant,

the project worked in Pickens, Cherokee, and Fannin Counties. Since then, Fannin County has dropped

out, and now the program operates in Gilmer County, along with Pickens and Cherokee. The 1997

populations were Pickens, 18,574; Gilmer 17,891; and Cherokee, 126,838.1 These counties were between

96.9 and 99.4 percent white in 1996. In 1993, poverty rates were 13.8 percent in Pickens County, 17.3

percent in Gilmer County, and 7.5 percent in Cherokee. Among families served by the School Outreach

Project, 99.0 percent are receiving some form of public assistance.

Characteristics of the Grant Recipient Organization

North Georgia Community Action, Inc. (NGCA) was organized in 1974 with funding from three

existing community and economic development agencies to serve six surrounding counties. NGCA’s

mission is “Helping People to Help Themselves,” and the agency administers a number of federal, state,

and locally funded programs for the counties’ low-income and elderly residents. Programs include

community outreach (to refer residents who are in need to appropriate agencies), energy assistance, food

assistance, a food bank, job placement and short-term job training, home-based family support, aid to

parents, child abuse and neglect prevention, a non-fixed-route transportation system, home delivered

meals for seniors, senior community service and activities programs, and the School Outreach Project.

NGCA has received several ARC grants, including School Outreach grants from 1989 to 1995 and

Mountain Area Transportation System grants in 1979 and 1980.

 

1

 Cherokee County borders Atlanta and has increased by almost 40,000 people since 1990 (40.6 percent growth), whereas the other counties have

only increased by about 4,000 (28.7 percent growth in Pickens County and 33.8 percent growth in Gilmer).
111

School Outreach began in 1988 at the Dug Gap School with funding from the United Way of

Northwest Georgia and the Whitfield County School System. In 1989, three schools were added with

funding from ARC and the Children’s Trust Fund Commission. Through 1990 and 1991 these funders

continued the grants and added two schools in Gilmer County, while Murray County began funding its

own school outreach workers. In 1993, ARC funding was used to expand the program into Cherokee,

Fannin, and Pickens County2 with local county matching funds. ARC funding for these counties was

continued for FY 94 and FY 95. After 1995, all School Outreach funding was provided by the state and

local school systems.

NGCA provides program oversight, hires and manages all outreach workers, intercedes with the

local Department of Family and Child Services, and meets other needs of these families.

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

The School Outreach Program began in 1988, growing out of several other family and home visit

programs administered by NGCA throughout the 1970s and 1980s. NGCA staff observed the intergenerational cycle of disregard for education. They saw that children whose academic, social, and

developmental levels were below their peers’ frequently had parents who, like their children, had attended

school irregularly or dropped out. Prior work with families in their own homes and requests for help from

teachers led NGCA staff to conclude that working within the schools was not enough. They found that

many parents simply were not aware of the influence they had on their children’s educational experiences.

Project staff listed a number of factors contributing to parents’ inability or unwillingness to support their

children’s education. The 1993 project application states:

Families live in neighborhoods where education is not seen as a high priority or as

something realistically attainable. Educational nurturing is not an accepted value for

parents who have not completed high school, who may be illiterate themselves, and who

live under the stressful conditions of low wage employment.

Feelings of inferiority, cultural differences, perceived unfriendliness of teachers, hostility

toward school for perceived wrongs, and limited communication and problem-solving

skills are the norm...

 

2

 This FY 1993 grant is the award being studied and surveyed.
112

For severely dysfunctional families, there may be problems with drugs and alcohol abuse,

absence of parental supervision and protection of children, nonacceptance of traditional

standards for hygiene and sanitation, impoverished living conditions, family violence,

and adult illiteracy. Communication between the parent and child is usually poor and

there is little or no parental encouragement and support.

NGCA staff believed that by providing regular support to families, in addition to direct academic

help for students, they could help ameliorate some of these problems.

Approach

The School Outreach Project provides families of at-risk kindergarten and first grade students the

individualized support necessary to maximize the likelihood that children arrive at school healthy and

ready to learn. Following a referral by a teacher, a student’s parents are contacted by the outreach worker

who offers to help with their child’s academics and any other problem areas. Outreach workers then visit

families’ homes to tell them about the program and the types of services offered. If parents are interested,

the outreach worker secures parental permission for the child to participate. Significantly, the outreach

workers work with the entire family, including parents, grandparents, and other siblings. Most often they

help children with reading and mathematics and other enrichment activities and educate families about

hygiene, stressing the importance of bathing and watching for headlice. Also, they provide access to

multiple resources, including referrals to mental health providers, assistance obtaining Medicaid,

transportation to eye doctors and dentists, and assistance in navigating the complex education, public

assistance, and child care systems, among others.

During the family’s first year in the program, the household is considered a “focus family,”

indicating that its members are provided weekly or twice weekly services, depending on their need. After

that, the family is a “contact family,” and the outreach worker makes infrequent checks with the family

and teachers to ensure that the problems have not returned. The outreach workers generally maintain

contact until the family moves out of the NGCA service area or refuses services.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

The project is currently operating in four schools in the three-county area and serving 125

children, 75 of whom are in their first year. Initially a program for kindergarten and first grade students,

it now works with children throughout elementary school. Most children beyond elementary school who
113

receive services were participants in the early grades or are siblings of currently participating children.

Five outreach workers (two at one school) are employed by School Outreach. Two have been involved

since the beginning of the project, and a third has been working there since the early years.

Funding is provided by the counties’ local school funding and state funds. The counties pay a

percentage based on the size of the school; Gilmer County pays more because two schools participate.

The NGCA executive director feels that local school funding support represents significant and critical

buy-in of local stakeholders.

One of the counties originally funded by ARC, Fannin County, is no longer participating. After a

new school principal and county superintendent came in, they decided not to fund the project in the

county due to financial concerns. NGCA has tried to continue the relationship with these families

through other programs.

C. Activities Undertaken as Part of the ARC Project

While the services in each of the counties differ slightly with each outreach worker and school

leadership team, the basic premises are the same. Over time, the services have changed, as principals and

teachers have looked beyond just academic needs and become concerned with the general well-being of

the children. Initially, attendance was viewed as the most critical problem; this has since given way to

hygiene and academic problems. In the years since School Outreach began, school policies have been

implemented that prohibit students coming to school with head lice and require students to be sent home

if they are found. Project staff also note that the schools and personnel involved also dictate some needs.

For example, one new principal has focused on addressing hunger, transportation, clothing, and providing

opportunities for socialization, not just academics.

Kindergarten and first grade students were initially targeted for project services because staff felt

they could have the greatest influence on the children’s future educational experiences by reaching them

early. The individual schools were selected by the county for their perceived need.
114

Referral System

The process begins when a teacher refers a student to School Outreach. Initially, the project used

a Factor Scale for Measuring Socio-Academic Achievement, which required teachers to rate each student

on nine factors (attendance, grades, aptitude and skills development, study and learning habits,

parent/school relationships, health and hygiene, transience/mobility, socialization with peers, and

response to adult authority) at the beginning and end of the school year. After receiving fewer referrals

than expected, project staff concluded that the form was too complex and time-consuming to ask teachers

to complete in the first weeks of the school year, particularly when they did not know the students.

The new form has a short list of areas of need (family, academic, health, hygiene, social,

emotional, financial, parent-teacher contact, other) and asks teachers to briefly indicate the specific

concern (two lines are provided). Teachers only complete the form for those students they refer. The

referral can be completed at any time during the year, and referrals can also be made verbally.

Teacher orientation to the School Outreach Project is provided at the beginning of each school

year. Outreach workers explain the purpose of the program, how their work can help the teachers, and

how children become involved. With a less structured referral form, staff have been training teachers to

apply to subjective criteria of needs as consistently as possible, to ensure that the children most in need

would be referred. The training is designed to inform teachers of the types of services provided for

students’ differing needs. The teachers and schools are not given any limit to the number of students they

refer, but outreach workers and principals suspect that they prioritize their students according to need

before making referrals.

Outreach workers generally have a brief conference with the referring teacher to make sure they

understand all that is known about the situation. At this point, the outreach workers sometimes must

prioritize their list of focus families. At least two outreach workers are too overloaded to follow up with

their current referrals.

Initial Visits

After conferencing with referring teachers, outreach workers make their initial visits to the

families’ homes. They begin by telling the parents that the school said their child might need some extra

help with reading and offer to leave some books and to work individually with the child. They also
115

indicate that the school suggested the parent might need some other help with the child, such as getting

around; they mention that the agency might have some extra food and ask if the parent ever needs more

food. Outreach workers offer the services in a very friendly way and typically do not mention the reason

the student was referred. Moreover, they present themselves as separate from the schools—not another

extension of an institution many families already fear—and act as an ombudsman who can help bridge the

gap between the school and home.

Most parents react very positively. Outreach workers have only seen one flat-out refusal in 5

years and attribute that to the parent’s fear that participation would result in the children being taken from

the home. Most of the families have not heard of the program because it is intentionally underpublicized

so that people do not think they are being picked on for being poor or deficient parents. However, the

outreach workers are quite visible; in fact, outreach workers have found that the children often feel

singled out in a positive way. They see the program as fun and feel important because they have their

own “special adult” who cares about them.

After meeting with the parents, the outreach workers report back to the teachers about the home

situation, what might be causing some the problems observed (e.g., lack of adequate home heating,

abusive father). At least one teacher commented that this knowledge does make a difference, and she is

better able to be patient and compassionate when she understands the issues.

Permission/Release Form

At the initial visit, each family is required to sign a permission/release form that allows outreach

workers to provide services to the child and family. This form allows NGCA to provide transportation to

school or doctor’s appointments, work with children after school hours, and provide other services they

see as critical. NGCA staff are not sure if the release is legally defensible (e.g., in the case that a child

was in a car accident while traveling with an outreach worker), but they are certain that it represents

parents’ support of their children’s participation.

Education Activities

One of primary reasons children are referred to School Outreach is for academics, low

achievement, and developmental delays. To this end, outreach workers provide a number of services and
116

activities designed to (1) help children in school, (2) teach parents to help their children, (3) convey the

importance of schooling to families, and (4) facilitate communication between the home and school.

The first thing the outreach workers do every day is check the attendance lists at their schools to

see if any of their children are absent. If the family has a telephone, they call to find out if the child is

sick. If not, they go to the home and bring the children in to school. Over time, they think that their

efforts result in better attendance and children arriving at school on time. If the problem persists, and the

family is not doing all they can to get the child to the bus, the outreach worker considers making a referral

to the Department of Family and Child Services.

Outreach workers routinely meet with teachers to understand the academic needs of the students.

They help with assigned homework, provide remedial lessons, and review skills with the children. They

create a workbook of phonics and other skill development activities that the children can do at home with

the parents. Most parents do not know where to begin in helping their children academically, particularly

when they themselves did not do well in or complete school. By working at home with both the child and

parent in a one-on-one sustained manner, the outreach worker promotes parent-child interaction, and the

parents can see the effect of their own behavior on their child’s interest in education. The outreach

workers familiarize themselves with each teacher’s curriculum requirements so they are not working

against the teachers or reteaching the same thing differently. They stress that they are there to

supplement, not replace, the teachers.

Outreach workers meet with teachers again at the end of the school year to review each family’s

progress and problems. They also have frequent meetings with principals to discuss children’s needs and

explain possible sources of current discipline problems.

One of the biggest problems identified in the project’s application was the lack of communication

between parents and teachers: “parents would not come in for conferences, would not respond to notes

sent home with the children, and would not take part in school activities. When communication did take

place, it was often unproductive or hostile.” Outreach workers convey the importance of parents

communicating with their child’s teacher, which not only helps parents understand how their child is

doing academically, but also shows the child the importance the parents place on education. The outreach

workers facilitate the meetings between teacher and parent, including providing transportation, helping

the parent understand that the interaction can be a positive experience (conferences are also held to give
117

praise to students), sitting in on the conference, and helping the parent understand that the teacher is on

the child’s side too.

Training Activities

School Outreach workers receive 3 to 5 days of training prior to working in the field. Topics

cover every area for which a student might be referred. For example, they are taught how to treat lice,

handle food safely, talk to teachers about specific reading problems, and understand stages of child

development and identify developmental problems. They conduct role-playing activities on how to

handle various situations, such as angry parents or extremely unhygienic homes. Training also includes

practice addressing and determining a course of action for actual referrals received in previous years. The

project director discusses how Department of Family and Child Services reporting is conducted and under

what circumstances NGCA is required to report. Outreach workers receive notebooks with all of the

forms, handouts on child development, and phone numbers for referrals to other agencies. Following this

training, new outreach workers work alongside veteran workers for about 2 weeks. They have the

opportunity to meet the children and families, understand the issues involved, and observe the veteran

outreach worker as she does her job. The length of time for the onsite training varies with trainees and

their experience. The project director goes on home visits when there has been a complaint about an

outreach worker and to spot-check new outreach workers.3

The outreach workers are paraprofessionals (professional social workers would generally earn too

much for the School Outreach Project) who have experience working with these issues, either as former

teachers, home health workers, mental health workers, or other similar areas. In addition to the training

prior to handling their own caseloads, all school outreach workers take advantage of any continuing

education program offered by community colleges or the county.

Activities Supporting and Strengthening Families

School Outreach workers focus on developing a rapport and trust with families. Without gaining

that trust, outreach workers suspect they would not have nearly as much success. The families, they say,

really must want to change. Moreover, an outsider coming in to a home and telling parents what they

 

3

 She spends about 30 percent of her time in the field. She also makes home visits in cases when the Department of Family and Child Services

calls with a problem in a focus family, when the parent has a problem with the outreach worker, or when a home situation is so extreme that an

outreach worker does not want to go alone.
118

need to do differently has little chance in making an impact. Part of gaining that trust is involving the

whole family. Outreach workers typically help siblings with homework, involve them in games and

activities, and provide any other support provided to the referred child. For one family, the outreach

worker has taken an infant sibling to the doctor to receive immunizations because the mother does not

have transportation while the father is at work. The outreach worker felt that as long as the parents were

worrying about the infant’s immunizations, they would not be helping with their other child’s reading.

Transportation is a big issue in the area. While there is a regional transportation system, it does

not have regular daily routes and is not accessible from most homes. Outreach workers can provide

transportation to children’s doctors appointments, group activities, school functions, and they drive

parents to group activities, parent-teacher conferences, and other events.

Outreach workers also organize a number of group activities for children and families. These

allow the families to get to know each other, spend some fun time with their children, and have a day they

can enjoy themselves. Activities are held once or twice a year, with one always around the beginning of

the school year when they also distribute donated school supplies to the children. Typically, these are

picnics, with educational games and socialization time. In the summer, the program sponsors field trips

to the zoo and aquarium and other activities for children and families, sometimes just a day at the park.

Funding is hard to obtain for activities that do not serve a purpose beyond fun and relaxation, and

consequently they are not held as often as staff would like.

Partnerships

Project staff indicate that the buy-in of the school systems, principals, and teachers is critical to

the functioning of the program. Aside from allocating funds for the program, school personnel are

integral to identifying the children and families who need assistance. Obtaining this buy-in is generally

not difficult once teachers and principals understand how the program works and how the children

benefit. Often teachers who have worked with the program for a number of years advocate among the

newer teachers. One of the schools provided the outreach worker her own classroom in the school, until

lack of space became an issue, and at least two principals view the outreach worker in their schools as

staff members integral to the daily work of the school.

NGCA has a contractual relationship with the Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS).

The agreement establishes a reporting mandate whereby outreach workers are required to report certain
119

home situations to DFCS. These include abuse and neglect, leaving a child home alone without regular

child care, extreme lack of hygiene, and other serious problems. Similarly, DFCS provides information

about their cases involving School Outreach families. The relationship between NGCA and DFCS

(which is associated with removing children from their homes) is not generally discussed with the

families. NGCA staff note that if families know about their work with DFCS, it is less likely that they

would trust outreach workers, allow them into the homes, or let them work with their children.

Local hospitals and health clinics provide School Outreach with many of the materials used in

outreach worker training, such as handouts and information on stages of child development.

NGCA has negotiated with the local Wal-Mart and Kmart stores to help support the families at

Christmas. Each year the outreach workers bring all of the children to the store during non-business

hours and allow each child to pick $100 worth of merchandise. Parents are required to wait outside while

their children make their own selections. As would be expected, most children select toys and games.

Project staff feel, and one mother interviewed agreed, that getting something for Christmas like all of their

peers is critical to these children’s feelings of self-worth and happiness.

Wal-Mart also donates books, returned but unsaleable items, and overstock, such as socks and

underwear, diapers, cleaning supplies, soap and shampoo, and other necessities throughout the year.

These items are distributed to families as needed. Outreach workers bring them to the home when the

children are at school so the children are not aware of these donations.

D. Problems Encountered

Lack of Resources for More Outreach Workers

Each of the outreach workers, NGCA staff, and the school principals indicated that there are far

more children who could benefit by school outreach services, but there are not enough resources to

support more school outreach workers. Outreach workers generally carry a caseload of 20 focus

families, and all of them have referrals that they have not been able to follow up. They fear that with

scarce resources, teachers are reluctant to refer all the students who need assistance.
120

Several outreach workers admitted that it is easy to become too invested in the families and

children. One outreach worker commented that they really have to like what they do because the job is

“filled with crying and worrying and feeling helpless.” In spite of trying to keep an emotional distance

from the families, they can never give up on a child, and since it is unlikely that all of the child’s needs

will be met, their work is never done. It seems likely that the outreach workers’ dedication keeps their

caseloads large. Program staff have also found that when outreach workers move past a friendly

relationship to a friendship with the parent, it becomes harder to work with the family. Parents may lose

respect for the outreach worker or start taking advantage of what the program can offer.

Low Pay Scale

The need for more outreach workers is compounded by the relatively low pay for the position.

Outreach workers earn $12,000 per year in a county where the median income (1994) is $18,150. They

work long hours and weekends and face very stressful, if not dangerous, situations. Mileage

reimbursement at $0.25/mile is well below the state rate of $0.31, and in a job requiring a good deal of

driving personal vehicles, this creates an additional hardship on outreach workers. One respondent

indicated that the project has made a conscious decision to keep salaries low so it can afford more

outreach workers—and, in turn, serve more families.

Teacher and Principal Buy-In

The outreach workers have found that while most teachers are entirely supportive of the School

Outreach project, some are less receptive. Some teachers and principals new to the schools felt that the

outreach workers were telling them that they were not doing their jobs right and that the outreach workers

were there to watch over their teaching. Project staff feel these are front-end issues that are easily dealt

with at the initial orientation session.

Both Pickens and Cherokee Counties have high teacher turnover. This not only necessitates an in

depth orientation for school staff each year, but also harms the continuity of referrals by teachers. A new

teacher unfamiliar with the school, the students, and the outreach project system likely would not know

the history of students involved and make it a priority to work with the system immediately. Again, the

outreach workers contact new teachers as soon as possible to explain the program and how it can help the

teacher.
121

Problems with Home-Based Family Services

School Outreach workers frequently encounter a number of other problems commonly associated

with home-based programs. Several outreach workers recounted instances of entering homes plagued by

domestic violence, drugs and alcohol, or simply angry and hostile parents. The workers are instructed

never to enter a home alone if they are afraid; they can ask the project director to go with them. They can

also refuse to enter a home in cases of extreme unhygienic conditions. They are instructed never to use

restrooms or to eat or drink in families’ homes.

NGCA staff have found that parents frequently lie to the outreach workers. While there is

nothing they really can do about it, they have found that the parents’ fear of a DFCS referral can be useful

in some cases. Outreach workers feel it is important that they have at least one way of convincing

families they need to take good care of their children, and they occasionally do this by threatening to refer

a family to DFCS, which often results in a child being removed from the home for a short time. Many of

the families involved have had some experience with DFCS and its ability to take a child from a home.

While they seem reluctant to use it, outreach workers find this to be effective when they are certain a

parent is lying or not complying with recommended changes.

Many of the families in the program move around often due to divorce, new jobs, or hiding from

an abusive spouse. This transience makes it difficult to work with and monitor a child, especially if the

family moves out of the county (even if into another NGCA county). Families rarely leave forwarding

information, and if the child’s new school does not offer outreach services or make a referral, he or she is

lost from the system.

Language Barriers

Cherokee County has a number of recent immigrants who speak only Spanish. Without NGCA

staff and outreach workers who speak Spanish, the program has difficulty working with these families.

They have found that the children often serve as translators for their parents.
122

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

Evaluation is not considered a priority by the NGCA staff as they balance limited resources;

serving more children is the primary goal. They have seen how difficult it is to show gains and successes

on paper and recognize the problem of attribution. Many of the children and families served by the

program participate in a number of other assistance programs, including other home-based and

intervention projects administered by NGCA. Outreach workers do collect report cards and attendance

reports and talk with teachers in an ongoing manner, but they say it is difficult to sort out all of the

intervening issues. They keep daily records of the families they visit and services provided, as well as

family contact records to track services provided to each individual family over time. However, no

systematic analysis has been done with these data.

Outreach workers track children’s progress informally as well, particularly for the cases where

they provide more intensive services and work frequently with the children over a number of years. Over

time they can observe positive effects of the program, but have trouble specifying exactly what the gains

are and whether they are measurable.

NGCA would like to do more in terms of evaluation, but recognize that an appropriate evaluation

would be very resource-intensive. They would like to establish a control group with matching students

from other schools, but it is difficult to gain access to students in nonparticipating schools. Also, the

project director would like to do a formal survey of principals and teachers to further understand the

impacts they have seen. She also thinks it would be useful for the outreach workers to complete the

original Factor Chart for each child annually. This would put the paperwork burden on the outreach

workers and not the teachers, and it would allow for some quantitative, even if subjective, analyses of

changes over time.

Dissemination

The project is careful not to publicize their efforts because of the nature of the program and

families’ reluctance to be considered “needy.” NGCA discourages articles or newsclips in local

newspapers or on local television and radio that directly discusses the School Outreach program. They

feel that any publicity risks nonparticipating families perceiving the program as associated with DFCS or
123

participating families being publicly humiliated. However, NGCA as the broader service agency is made

very visible in the community so that families can take advantage of the many services they offer.

An article highlighting the work of School Outreach workers and some of the families benefiting

from the program appeared in the Summer/Fall 1995 issue of Appalachia, ARC’s journal. Project staff

were not aware of any inquiries received from other rural communities as a result of the article.

NGCA’s executive director spends a fair amount of time talking with local funders, county

leaders, and even the governor about this and other NGCA programs, in the hopes of acquiring more

funding. Community Action Committees from other areas have visited the program, but staff are not

aware of any replication that has been done.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

The executive director’s attitude toward sustainability is relaxed and confident. He says that as

long as there is a need for the program, NGCA will provide for it. Currently, funding is provided by local

county boards of education, the state, and local corporate in-kind donations. He does not anticipate that

any of them will discontinue funding. He would like to see the program funded through the state

education department, but separate from state school funding, similar to funding for classroom aides.

The NGCA staff’s basic strategy is to make the agency visible in the communities. The agency

keeps the school boards constantly aware of the important services it provides and how the services are

important to the entire community, not just those who directly benefit (e.g., board members do not want

their children playing with children who have lice). By focusing broadly on NGCA’s work, they hope to

obtain funding that can support School Outreach and other NGCA programs.

G. Accomplishments and Outcomes

The intended outcome of the project, as stated in the application, is “that the ‘at-risk’ student,

with increased parental support and school involvement, will improve in [his or her] school performance,

self-confidence, and social relations, and will develop a stronger interest in learning and personal

accomplishment.” In the longer term, project staff hope that the “intensive family support in the early
124

primary school years can help establish lasting patterns of parental support of learning and sustained

success for the students, leading to high school completion.”

For the children and families served by School Outreach, the project has met its short-term goal

of improving school performance, self-confidence, social skills, and interest in learning.4 The project

director estimated that the program is currently serving 125 children, 75 of whom are in their first year of

intensive services. It is clear from talking with outreach workers that the children and families all benefit

in some way. One principal noted that they might not ever really see the difference they make, but they

have to believe that they will. Similarly, the NGCA executive director noted that the results of the

intercessions may not show until the children are in high school, but that they must still work with

primary grade students in order for the results to appear later.

Another principal indicated that there were fewer discipline problems as a result of the project’s

work with academic and social/emotional issues. She commented that many of the children served by the

project are angry at their families, at their economic circumstances, at the fact that they did not get a

Christmas present, because they do not have a warm enough jacket, or because they do not have someone

to count on. The anger results in discipline problems at school. But by having one person who

consistently spends one-on-one time with the child, the student is able to dispel some of the anger and

work on academics at the same time.

In many cases, the outcomes of the program may be in students’ attitudes, which are not easily

quantified. But principals, teachers, and outreach workers agree that many students appear more eager to

come to school and learn than prior to their participation. Both principals interviewed acknowledged that

the outreach workers have been critical in increasing attendance. Aside from transporting students to

school, the outreach workers have made students want to go to school (or let them know that they do not

have a choice).

In addition, their work has resulted in better parent-teacher relations. Parents seem more willing

and less fearful of coming to teacher conferences. PTA meeting attendance is also up in at least one of

the schools visited. Evidence of parents’ beliefs in the program’s success is also seen in the fact that

families have asked to have their children referred to an outreach worker. While few outside of those

 

4

 The long-term goal of reducing dropouts cannot be examined until the children are in high school. The first cohort served under the ARC grant

is just entering high school.
125

already participating know about the program, those that do have seen the benefits for siblings and

relatives and have asked to have other children participate.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

In order to successfully run an outreach program, the administering organization should

either be a multi-resource agency itself or have knowledge of and access to services provided by

other agencies in the community. That is, staff must have access to all community resources, such as

literacy services, community services block grant funding, energy assistance, transportation assistance,

food assistance, and other resources to meet families’ multiple needs. Staff should know about other

agencies’ resources and be able to direct families to them. For example, they should know that a certain

church has a food bank or that another one provides heating bill assistance. They should be able to locate

resources and services and help the families access them.

The schools’ buy-in to the program is critical. Teachers are be responsible for making the

referrals to outreach workers. Explaining the program to teachers and principals is an important first step

to getting their buy-in. After the program is up and running, continual interaction between outreach

workers and the school is important to keeping the program going. For example, referrals by teachers

must be followed up by outreach workers or teachers will not continue to make them.

Hiring the right outreach workers is critical. An outreach program requires dedicated staff

who are willing to put in long days and who are unafraid of going into unknown situations. Moreover,

they should come from within the community; this gives them a foot in the door, something for families

to relate to, and someone the families can trust. It creates an understanding that the outreach worker is

not just there feeling sorry for the family. An outreach worker must be genuinely interested in the

children’s welfare because children can see through false caring. School Outreach has had one male

outreach worker over time, and while they cannot discourage men from applying, they feel that women

are generally better suited to the job. The outreach workers mostly interact with the mothers, and

husbands might feel threatened if another man is working in the home twice a week. Also, the outreach

workers often work with children alone, and this is often perceived to be inappropriate when the outreach

worker is a male. The program must have good supervisors who lead by example and who have done and

are willing to do the outreach work themselves.
126

The referral structure must be flexible system. It must take the minimum amount of time and

effort to gather the maximum amount of information about the child. The School Outreach program was

able to reorganize its referral system when it was not working for them. Referrals must be simple for

teachers to complete, and verbal referrals should be allowed if that is what teachers want to provide. The

referral system is not designed to limit referrals but, rather, to locate the children most in need. If the

system is so complex that teachers are not willing to navigate through it, then the children cannot be

served by the program.

The outreach program must be seen as an independent organization. In order to keep the

trust and confidence of its beneficiaries, the program must be seen as entirely separate from families’

perceived stigma of the Department of Family and Child Services. Program staff should identify with the

broader agency (NGCA) and not School Outreach itself. Similarly, the program should be seen as

separate from the schools themselves, and not another extension of an institution many families already

fear.

However, outreach workers must work directly with teachers to best serve the children. They

should familiarize themselves with each teacher’s curriculum requirements so they are not working

against the teachers or reteaching the same thing differently. They stress that they are there to

supplement, not replace, the teachers.

The program must work with the entire family. The executive director cautioned that unless

an outreach program involves the whole family in the intercession, it is unlikely to be successful. Merely

providing short-term services to one child is not enough to change any family functioning, particularly

parental academic encouragement.

I. Summary and Conclusions

School Outreach is a viable project that would likely be useful in most rural—and urban—regions

around the country. (The project even serves some middle income children whose parents are not as

interested in education and school involvement as they might be.) A case study of the implementation of

the project cannot adequately describe the circumstances in which the outreach workers are working.

While outcomes have not been systematically documented, the outreach workers’ intense desire to serve

the families (and inability to give up helping children as they get older) is testimony of their belief in how
127

much they are improving the futures of these children and families. Future funding is not secure, but the

dedicated staff are strident in ensuring that the project continues to serve the families in the region.

The Outreach Program might benefit from better tracking of children during service delivery and

over time. By tracking in a consistent manner the services provided to each child and family, the program

would be able to identify how those services have changed. In this way, they can better understand how

the problems have lessened or changed, and the outcomes for children could be conveyed to potential

funders. While attribution will still be a problem, a qualitative review of service changes should still be

helpful. By seeing ongoing evaluation as a part of sustainability, the project may be in a better position to

attract funding—and then benefit more families.
128
129

The Science Center of West Virginia

Project Location Bluefield, West Virginia

Grant Recipient Alliance for the Arts, Ltd.

ARC Number WV-11511-94-I

ARC Project Type Mathematics and Science

Grant Amount $150,000

Matching Funding $202,000

Dates of Site Visit April 4-5, 2000

Site Visitors Nicole Bartfai and Glenn Nyre

Project Abstract

The Science Center of West Virginia is a hands-on science museum serving students and adults

in several counties of southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia. The purpose of the

ARC grant was to improve the quality of mathematics and science education in the area by

helping the new Center become more fully established. Funds were used to purchase 23 new

exhibits for the gallery. These included a Bone Zone, which contains the skeletal remains from a

variety of species, and the popular City Grocery, within which students learn a variety of skills

as they walk the aisles and “shop” for items. A van is used to transport a portable planetarium to

schools. The grant also enabled the Science Center to hire two full-time-equivalent staff.

The most frequent visitors to the Center are elementary and middle school students. These

students are provided the opportunity to discover exhibits on their own and can view a

presentation that is geared toward the current classroom curriculum. The Center has established

a good working relationship with the local school district and they work in collaboration to

encourage teachers to bring students to the Science Center.

The Science Center has grown in size and greatly expanded its services, programs, and local

influence over the years. The surrounding communities and their schools have been positively

impacted by the Science Center and will help to celebrate its sixth anniversary in July 2000.
130

The Science Center of West Virginia

Alliance for the Arts, Ltd.

A. Background

Community Characteristics

The Science Center of West Virginia is located in the town of Bluefield, in Mercer County, 10-

minutes from the Virginia border. According to 1999 U.S. census estimates, Mercer County’s population

was 64,132, down from 73,942 in 1980, and the majority of residents (93 percent) were white. From

1980 to 1990, Mercer County experienced a 12 percent decrease in population, while Bluefield itself had

a 21 percent decrease. Neighboring Tazwell County (Virginia) also experienced a decrease in population

from 50,420 to 47,400 during the period from 1980 to 1995. Residents have been forced to relocate to

find employment due to the decline in the local economy, which can be somewhat attributed to the

closing of the coal mines. Based upon 1996 census estimates, other economic indicators in Mercer

County Virginia include:

• A median household income of $25,046;

• 22 percent live in poverty among people of all ages; and

• 34.8 percent live in poverty among children under age 18.

In addition, according to the coordinator of elementary education for Mercer County, nearly all

elementary school children in the county (97 percent) are eligible for free lunches under Title I of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Neighboring Tazwell County has similar indicators. The

current director of the Science Center reported that statewide, only 15 percent of adults hold a bachelor’s

degree and 3 percent hold an associate’s degree.

Characteristics of Grant Recipient Organization

The Alliance for the Arts, Ltd., was organized in 1982 as a nonprofit, volunteer cultural

organization. Its initial activity was the formation of a community theatre, the Summit Theatre; the

Alliance later expanded its scope to include the establishment of the Science Center. The Alliance has

received several grants over the years, which have greatly increased the amount of science and cultural
131

activity available to youth and adults alike in this small rural community. In addition to private giving

from individuals and in-kind products and services from some local businesses over the years, formal

grants have been received from local sources such as the Bluefield Area Foundation, which provides

annual grants in support of education, and the Shott Foundation, which has provided funds for student

tickets to the Center, as well as the Pittsburgh-based Benedum Foundation, which includes education

funding for West Virginia among its priorities, and the Boeing Foundation, which has provided bus

transportation for school youth.

Overall, some $2.5 million has been raised in the last 12 years for the Summit Theatre, the

Science Center, and the building in which they are located. This includes a recent $1 million grant from

the State Building Authority, supplemented by county funds, which supported further renovations to the

building and $250,000 specifically for the Science Center, most of which was targeted toward purchasing

new exhibits and equipment. The Center continues to explore creative financing for its operations and

recently joined with the area’s Civil Air Patrol to request the donation of computers from the U.S.

National Security Agency.

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project Was Designed to Address

At its inception, the Science Center of Center of West Virginia was the only facility in this area of

the state that offered hands-on science education opportunities. Sunrise Science Hall, located in the state

capital of Charleston, also began offering some informal science education opportunities along with its

original art program focus about that time, but that facility is located some two hours north of Bluefield—

and largely out of reach of many of the area’s schools in terms of both travel time and expense. Sunrise is

also a more static viewing environment, with few interactive opportunities for visitors.

1

Another problem facing the region was a lack of resources and equipment in all schools to

adequately provide students with the 50 percent level of hands-on instructional time required by the

state’s 1993 science standards. At the time the ARC grant proposal was submitted, Mercer County and its

 

1

 The Science Hall has now become part of a larger planning effort in Charleston, the Clay Center for the Arts and Sciences, which will

eventually include an art museum and a performing arts center, including a concert hall. Current plans are that the renamed Greater Kanawha

Valley Foundation Science Center will occupy two floors of the complex and connect to a planetarium. Still, distance/access to this site remains

a problem for youth in the southern portion of the state.
132

neighboring counties had limited science resources available. The elementary education coordinator for

the county indicates that this is still an issue, but the situation has improved somewhat at the middle and

high school levels. Mercer County has begun to consolidate its schools over the past few years due to

enrollment decreases and there has been an increase in laboratory facilities and equipment at the

secondary schools as a result. The elementary schools however, have not experienced any real change in

this regard. For example, with school funding being allocated on a per-student basis, some of the smaller

schools, which have as few as 90 students, do not have excess funds to spend on science equipment.

Recognizing the dual necessities of increasing students’ accessibility to informal science education and

increasing science resource availability to schools in the region, the founder/president of the Science

Center, who then was also president of the Alliance, began raising money to create hands-on exhibits and

an active outreach program.

The purpose of the Center was not only to create access to science education resources, but also

to enhance student interest in mathematics and science. It was felt that as students became more engaged

in the learning of mathematics and science, their interest in taking more complete sequences of

mathematics and science courses and exploring careers requiring skills in these areas would

concomitantly increase. The director of the Science Center indicated that the Center is an important

mechanism for exposing youth to science, mathematics and technology careers, especially in a depressed

area in which there are few science or technology employers or role models to which youth can look for

inspiration in these fields.

Approach

The Science Center of West Virginia provides a comprehensive approach to hands-on activities in

science, math, and technology to students in the area. The Science Center operates a gallery where

visitors can interact with science, math and technology exhibits. Using the van purchased through the

ARC grant, the Center also provides in-school presentations with the StarLab. The StarLab is a portable

planetarium where up to 30 students can enjoy the night sky right in their own school. Another

component of the Science Center is that manipulatives are available for teachers to use in the classroom

upon request.

The Science Center also provides services to the entire community. Over the past couple of

years, the Center has increased its membership, and the director and president continue work in the

community to disseminate information about the Center. With a new director on board, the Center has
133

refocused attention on creating interactive exhibits for the students and on continuing these plans in the

future.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

The Science Center was fully operational at the time of the site visit, and preparations are

underway to celebrate the Center’s sixth anniversary in July 2000. Although the area continues to

struggle economically, the founder/president and the current director have been very successful in seizing

opportunities, leveraging resources, and engaging the interest and involvement of a broad spectrum of the

local community and surrounding area.

Science Center staffing at present includes the founder/president, who heads fundraising activities

and engages volunteers in the Center’s efforts (and who has always been a volunteer); the current Center

director, who replaced the first director in October 1997; an administrative assistant/office manager; and

two people who work in the exhibit area assisting visitors. A part-time custodian and a part-time

woodworker, who helps build exhibits, cabinets, and other necessary facility structures in order to save

purchasing costs, supplement their efforts. Some former staff are used on an as-needed basis to cover

absences and large events, as are community volunteers. Given the current and planned growth in the

number of Science Center services and activities, a full-time science educator is needed to take some of

the day-to-day burden from the director, so he can devote more time to administrative functions and

working more closely with the schools to develop additional exhibits and other learning materials.

Unfortunately, the site visitors were unable to view students at the museum, since groups that had

been scheduled to visit during the time we were there had rescheduled in order to attend a special event

the previous week. However, the director provided us with a detailed tour of the Science Center and both

explained and demonstrated various exhibits. Those responsible for Center operations have made a

decision to focus their efforts on either buying exhibits or constructing them in-house, rather than renting

them from companies or professional associations.

C. Activities Undertaken as Part of the ARC Project

The Science Center provides a multifaceted approach to science education by providing a gallery

with hands-on exhibits, school-site education with the StarLab, and science manipulatives that teachers
134

can use in their own classrooms. The gallery is located on the third floor of the old City Hall building,

now called the Center for Arts and Sciences. Admission is $5 per person. This is an increase from $3

2 years ago, although groups of more than 20 are charged only $4 per person. Exhibits cover several

content areas including earth science, physical science, mathematics, chemistry, and technology. Many of

the exhibits provide students with opportunities to conduct hands-on experiments. For example, one of

the exhibits demonstrates the theory of gravity and another the components of electricity. Most students

come to the Science Center during school/class field trips. Frequently, especially at the elementary level,

their teachers do not have extensive training in science, mathematics, and technology. The teachers

therefore often rely on Science Center staff to interpret the exhibits and help students explore them.

Visits require the supervision of one adult for every seven children. This necessitates the involvement of

parents and other community members who participate in the school visits and thus become exposed to

the Science Center themselves.

A typical class/school visit lasts between 2 and 21⁄2 hours, including an introduction to the facility

and its exhibits, a period of guided free time for exploration, and one or two demonstrations. Science

Center staff work with teachers to coordinate demonstrations so they complement current class content.

Often, a teacher will call Center staff ahead of time to ask if certain exhibits or demonstrations are

available that relate to topics that the students are studying in class. If not, the Center director frequently

tries to find the time and materials to construct small-scale experiments/exhibits and obtain other types of

resource materials that can be used for this purpose. He currently has a battery of materials upon which

he can rely to meet many of the requests he anticipates.

Start-Up Activities

The early development of and fundraising for the Science Center by the Alliance for the Arts

began in May of 1992, and in early 1993 it began educational programming primarily as an outreach

program, with staff going to area schools with the StarLab. There was not much of a physical presence at

that time, as basic renovations were being made to the building in which it would be housed, so the

exhibit gallery was not yet open. Nearly $500,000 had been raised and pledged for the facility, the

majority of which was for capital expenditures, and the majority of that for exhibits. The ARC funding

was considered critical to ensure the viability of the Science Center, with the publicity generated by it

sending a message of federal support for the effort to those individuals and organizations from whom

matching and additional funds were being solicited.
135

Exhibits

The ARC grant enabled the Center to hire two full-time staff and purchase and fabricate 23

interactive exhibits, several of which are still being used. These include a Bone Zone, which contains the

skeletal remains from a variety of species, and the popular City Grocery, within which students learn a

variety of skills as they walk the aisles and “shop” for items. They can consult a food pyramid chart to

help them make healthy selections, read recipes to help them decide what ingredients they need to

purchase, and pay the final bill and count the change they receive from the cashier. Other exhibits

demonstrate the theory of gravity and the components of electricity. Some of the exhibits were preassembled displays and others were developed and assembled by the previous director and staff at the

Science Center. The grocery store and several special exhibits are housed in the jail cells area of the Old

City Hall.

Visits to Schools

The Science Center also supports StarLab, a portable, inflatable planetarium that brings the night

sky indoors. Science Center staff drive to the many remote schools in the region and provide astronomy

lessons. StarLab can accommodate 30 students and fit in a space of 25 feet, with light fixtures no lower

than 13 feet. Reservations must be made 2 weeks in advance, and the cost for this outreach activity is

only $130 for one or two programs. A total of four programs have been created, each lasting

approximately 30-40 minutes. The two most popular among them are The Stars Tonight, which blends

mythology and science to explore the planets, stars, and constellations, and Planet Quest, which illustrates

the solar system. In addition to its mobile visits to schools, the StarLab is also used within the Science

Center itself. Groups of students can therefore enjoy the “night skies” during their visits to the Science

Center, if arrangements are made ahead of time. This is less costly ($30 per program), but is not always

as convenient for schools.

Prior to the ARC grant, the Science Center had to borrow vans from individuals in the community

for this purpose, which significantly limited the distance the StarLab could travel and reduced the

flexibility of its use. Once a van was purchased with ARC funds, the number of students who benefited

from the StarLab increased greatly.
136

Another form of outreach to the schools is through the use of science kits focusing on specific

scientific concepts and phenomena that the Science Center director develops with input from, and

sometimes the assistance of, area teachers. These kits are loaned to the schools, and can be distributed

through use of county vehicles, commonly referred to as the “Mercer County Pony Express.” The kits

provide additional equipment and materials that are not available in most schools and help teachers

adhere to the state’s hands-on experience requirement for science instruction. The Science Center

director stays abreast of changes in the state’s science standards, frameworks, and the learning outcomes

that are set for elementary students, especially, to ensure that the materials and approaches he develops

support them.

Summer Day Camps

A series of four 1-week Summer Day Camps is yet another activity of the Science Center.

Instituted 2 years ago for youth ages 12 and up, they operate from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. every day, with a new

topic each week. This summer’s topics are birds, including banding birds with a nationally prominent

birder; rocketry; astronomy; and radio astronomy. The latter three take advantage of the relationships the

Center has built with NASA (detailed later) and include an outdoor observation on one evening and a 2-

day visit to the world’s largest fully steerable telescope. The cost for participation in the Day Camps is

$80 per week, with a capacity of 15 youth. This allows the Science Center to break even on the costs

associated with operating them.

Ties to Local Schools

The Science Center has established a good collaborative relationship with surrounding

communities, schools, and other entities. In addition to traditional public school youth, other visitors

include students from religious schools, students being home-schooled, and members of organizations

such as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Perhaps the closest connection the Center has is with the Mercer

County schools. Each year the county pre-purchases tickets for entrance into the gallery, this year buying

3,000 tickets, which represented an increase from the previous year. The district plans to provide

additional funding for transportation in subsequent years. Unfortunately, teachers are limited to two

extracurricular field trips during a school year, and given other options for other purposes, many teachers

only bring their classes to the Center on one occasion during the year.
137

Another way in which the Science Center works with teachers is through professional

development workshops. In addition to those provided by NASA personnel, the Science Center also

sponsors workshops for interested teachers, and the director reported that they have been well attended

and well received. These sessions are especially important for elementary teachers, since they rarely have

received much exposure to mathematics and science in their teaching preparatory programs.

Other Center Activities

Special activities are also held at and sponsored through the Science Center, such as four

membership nights per year, which range in attendance from 150-300, depending upon the focus of the

event. The focal point of these events range from new exhibits at the Center to guest speakers. The most

recent membership night focused on a new computer designed to accommodate quadriplegic visitors.

The members were invited to learn and test the new computer. As a special event for students, last year

as part of National Engineers Week, the Center sponsored an “egg-dropping contest” in which competing

students from many surrounding counties packaged eggs in unique ways in hope of having them survive a

three-story drop from the top floor of the Science Center.

Special events draw large numbers of adults to the Center in addition to youth, and membership is

growing. The Center has a membership of some 500 people, which includes free admission for a year,

with annual membership categories including individual ($35), family ($60), supporter ($100+) and

benefactor ($1,000+).

In addition to its regular exhibit, classroom and office space, the Center also operates the Moon

Rock Café and a museum store that sells a wide variety of science-related manipulatives and other

associated objects, including popular items such as space exploration, nature, and other science posters

and a variety of Center tee shirts. Both of these units are currently operating at a break-even level.

Other activities funded by the ARC grant included promotional activities, such as the

development and distribution of brochures, and an increase in media advertising.
138

Partnerships

Strong partnerships have been forged with the local schools, area colleges, and business and

volunteer groups, and special relationships have been developed with entities such as the Civil Air Patrol

and NASA.

NASA involvement in the Science Center. The Science Center has developed a very close and

enviable relationship with NASA, especially Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, over the

past two years. Serendipitously beginning through an informal conversation between the current director

and a NASA employee who was visiting someone in the area, the latter asked if might be useful for him

to give a talk at the Center while he was in town. This relationship has been nurtured to a level at which

NASA personnel and exhibit materials make routine visits to the Science Center to provide professional

development workshops to area teachers and informal science education opportunities to students and

other area residents. These have included a recent week-long exhibit, with activities built around moon

rocks, a $240 million lunar materials disk (soil and mineral samples), and a rocket that NASA transported

to the site for display. The NASA contingent returned in May 2000 for additional events and is scheduled

again for late September.

The Center director has also established an institutional relationship with Project LOEB, which is

an initiative sponsored by NASA and National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This

project facilitates an exchange of weather information between schools, wherein students measure

elements such as air temperature, rainfall, etc., according to pre-established protocols on a daily basis and

send them to a central databank. Begun as a U.S. initiative by Vice President Gore, the project is now

international. Although the Science Center cannot participate as an official site because it has no students

of its own, the director is currently loaning equipment to schools that wish to participate and is planning

to offer LOEB protocol training to teachers.

Higher education involvement. The Science Center has made some progress in involving local

colleges in its activities. These include Bluefield State College, classified as a historically black

institution, and its branch campus, Greenbrier Community College Center, as well as Concord College,

located in nearby Athens, which is part of West Virginia’s state college system. Concord College has

begun using the Science Center’s facilities to supplement its mathematics and science teacher preparation

program, one of the most popular degree programs at the college. It is anticipated that the Blue Ice

Foundation, which sponsors learning activities dealing with Antarctica through an interactive, educational
139

web site for students and teachers, will soon sponsor a technology hub to be housed either at the State

College or at the Science Center. Either way, the two institutions will cooperate in its operation.

D. Problems Encountered

Staff Turnover

One of the recurring difficulties facing the Center is staff turnover. Given its limited budget, the

salary for part-time employees is just above minimum wage and staff frequently leaving after finding

higher paying jobs. For example, the office manager submitted her resignation on the first morning of the

site visit, having been offered a more lucrative position.

Although it is helpful that the city of Bluefield provides in-kind payroll services for the Center, it

then requires that anyone working 20 or more hours must be included in a retirement program. This

policy limits part-time employees to 19 hours and precludes the hiring of more full-time staff, since the

Science Center does not have funds to support a retirement program for junior staff.

Operational and Maintenance Costs

The Science Center is a nonprofit organization operating independently under the umbrella of the

Alliance for the Arts. It continually struggles to obtain the amount of money necessary to operate an

11,500 square foot, high-maintenance facility that experiences a lot of traffic and heavy use of its exhibits

by youth. The director indicated that the Center broke even during fiscal year 1999, largely due to

fundraising efforts that brought in approximately one-third of the needed revenue. The current $5

admission rate is estimated to provide about half of the actual costs associated with a visit. Science

Center staff continually work to update and change the gallery to provide new and exciting exhibits, but

these cost money. As mentioned previously, one way the Science Center has found to alleviate some the

costs associated with exhibits is by making many of them in-house, with the help of a local carpenter.

This requires a great deal of time, creativity, and dedication, but certainly reduces the costs associated

with obtaining and maintaining exhibits.
140

Lack of Financial Resources in the Community

Bluefield and most of the surrounding area have been experiencing a population loss as a direct

result of a serious, long-term decline in the economy. Some local industries have closed their doors, and

companies outside of the area have purchased others. The founder/president of the Science Center

commented, “The money we raised five and six years ago is no longer on the streets.” A few examples

highlight this fact: the type of mom-and-pop stores (e.g., drug stores, hardware stores and book stores),

that would have typically supported an enterprise such as the Science Center—for both civic reasons and

because their extended families are integral parts of the schools—have been replaced by large retail

chains located in the mall outside of town; the local wood pulp business is now owned by a company in

Germany; the telephone company is owned by a firm in New Jersey; the electric company is owned by a

company in a neighboring state; the newspaper and television station are owned out of state; and the

locally owned Pepsi Cola bottling and distribution plant, which could always be relied upon to provide

beverages at special events has been sold.

This situation severely limits the amount of money that is being recirculated back into the

community for many purposes and has impacted not only on the Science Center’s larger fundraising

efforts, but even the small donations it used to be able to obtain from local merchants in terms of services

and supplies. Operational funds are the most critical financial need of the Center at the present time, but

as every experienced fundraiser knows, it is easier to raise money for brick and mortar purposes, or in this

instance, for highly visible exhibits, than it is for day-to-day operations and maintenance.

“Ownership” of the Science Center

Although the Science Center has hosted schools groups from 22 West Virginia and Virginia

counties, there is a lingering notion among many that this is a “Mercer County facility.” It is often only

the special, blockbuster exhibits that draw those from more distant counties, and therefore the regular

services of the Center are used to the extent initially envisioned. Fundraising beyond the immediate area

is also hampered by this perception. Increased outreach will be possible if an additional science

professional is added to the staff, then that person and the director can make more direct marketing efforts

to the surrounding counties and schools to show them what types of services and activities are available

and to demonstrate how informal science education can help teachers meet their educational objectives.
141

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

Since the Science Center opened in 1994, it has recorded attendance at both the gallery and in the

use of the StarLab. In its first full year of operation, 24,902 people visited the hands-on museum. These

numbers have leveled off to approximately 13,000 attendees over each of the next four years (see Figure

1). The StarLab also served a large number of students at school sites during the first year (5,963). This

has leveled off to average approximately 1,000 students in each of the past three years (see Figure 2).

Since 1998, when the new director was hired, Science Center staff has monitored the number of

school groups, walk-ins, and members using its services, broken down by onsite and offsite use, as well

as by month. Visitation is low at the start of school and during the winter months, but it surges toward the

end of the school year. This is because some teachers use the visit as a “reward” for their students at the

end of the year, rather than as an instructional enhancement to complement their curriculum during the

year. The Center director is working with teachers to encourage the latter. Other heightened visitations

accompany special exhibits, such as the recent moon rocks and NASA rocket exhibits. (See Figure 3 for

a detail of visitor breakdowns for 1999.)

Figure 1. 1994-99 Annual Total Attendance

4,280

24,902

14,440

12,358 12,759 12,038

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Total Number of Visitors
142

Figure 2. 1994-99 Annual StarLab Participation

0

5,963

1,692

960 1,014 1,097

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Total Number of Visitors

Figure 3. 1999 Monthly On-Site Attendance

 By Visitor Type

155

467

730

196

117 158

332

257

82 100

161

64 74

132

2,991

957

1,462

498

285

16 0

205

321 280

101 65

297

88 143

74 122

57 11 32 39 43

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

January March May July September November

Month, 1999

Number of Visitors

Walk-Ins

School Groups

Members
143

A suggestion box located in the Center exhibit area serves to inform staff regarding what exhibits parents

and students find the most useful. Another way staff determine if displays are engaging students and

facilitating learning is by observing students in the gallery. Informal teacher feedback is also solicited

both during school visits to the Center and during the director’s visits to schools. This information is

extremely helpful to the director as he develops new learning materials and laboratory kits, works to finetune current exhibits, and creates and purchases new exhibits.

Dissemination

Brochures and flyers detailing the types of activities and services the Science Center can provide

are sent to schools and community groups. These approaches are also used to inform these audiences, as

well as the community at large, about new exhibits and special events. Another venue used to gain

exposure for the Science Center is the local media. Newspaper coverage has been very good, especially

regarding special events, and the Science Center director assisted the local Public Broadcasting Station in

its coverage of the recent lunar eclipse. In addition, images of the director demonstrating exhibits are part

of a public service announcement introducing a regular “what is going on in the area” segment on local

television. Dissemination on a broader scale beyond the immediate regions has not been a priority in the

past, given budget and time limitations, but staff intend to more formally disseminate information

regarding the impact of the Center and the StarLab on the community and its schools to a broader

audience in the future.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

Sustainability

Although it has been, and continues to be, a challenge, the Science Center has leveraged the ARC

grant to obtain visibility and additional funding. As a result, it has not only sustained operations but also

expanded them considerably. Plans for sustainability include obtaining additional contributions from the

community.

In the six years since receiving its ARC grant, the Alliance for the Arts has continued its efforts in

support of the Science Center, which has become an independently operating unit under the aegis of the

Alliance. The facilities have been renovated, the gallery/exhibit area has expanded, and relationships

have been developed with a number of organizations, all of which have enabled the Science Center to
144

grow and to continue providing informal science education opportunities to the surrounding area. Money

generated from admission is not sufficient to sustain the Center, but increasing admission cost is not a

viable option. Current plans include a fundraising effort in the community. Also, no plans exist to seek

funding through grants.

Project Expansion

Discussions have been initiated concerning the possibility of expanding square footage in the

current facility or elsewhere, and/or creating small branch centers out in some of the more distant

counties. Although the idea of having branches was raised as a possibility in the ARC proposal, this

option has not been feasible until recently, since the operation has now reached a size and stability that

those involved are now able to reconsider initiating such an effort.

G. Accomplishments and Outcomes

Evidence of the impact of the Science Center on student learning outcomes has not been

determined. The first state science test will not be administered until 2001, thus precluding any tracking

of changes in standardized test scores until well after that date. Other potential impacts, such as an

increase in the complement of high school mathematics and science courses taken, would have to be

tracked on a school-by-school basis, with too many external variables to trace changes to the Science

Center.

What currently exists are anecdotal reports of student enthusiasm while at the Center and

increases in their interest in mathematics and science upon returning to the classroom. Parents report that

their visits to the Science Center have been motivated by their children’s positive experiences there, and

both staff and volunteers report that their interest in becoming involved was spurred by their children.

Mercer County’s elementary school coordinator commented on the interest and involvement of teachers

in her schools, stating that “[visiting the Science Center] requires a lot of work for the teachers. Why

would they continue to come if it was not working?”

Chamber of Commerce staff report that the facility has presented them with an excellent selling

point for the community, and the recent increase in membership at all giving levels attests to the

community’s pride in and support of the services the Center is providing to youth and adults alike. As
145

one community member said, “How often do people in a town of this size anywhere in the country get to

see moon rocks and rocket ships up close and personal?”

Clearly, there now exists in this rural area a structure, a facility, and a resource that would not

have come into existence so rapidly and grown and engendered so much moral and financial support

without the impetus provided by the ARC grant and supplemented by the dedication and hard work of the

founder/president, the Center director and staff, and the Alliance for the Arts board. This is even the

more remarkable given the distressed economic environment of the area, a condition which may have

otherwise doomed, or at best severely restricted, such efforts elsewhere.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

Involve the community and be involved in the community. Community involvement is a twoway street, with many intersecting angles. The community has been there for the Science Center from the

very beginning, and its involvement was crucial in its establishment and continues to be critical to its

continuing operations. At the same time, the Center has not disappointed the community in providing a

good return on its investment. When the founder/president of the Alliance began to raise money for what

eventually became the Science Center, she originally envisioned a children’s museum. However, that

idea evolved into the concept of a Science Center as she visited both types of facilities throughout the

United States to get ideas. Her dedication and perseverance continues to be a mainstay for what exists

today.

Involvement in the community is an equally important element of working to increase students’

interest and involvement in science and mathematics. The Science Center found that working

collaboratively with schools, colleges, business and, other local entities was important to their continued

success. “Small communities tend to rely on each other”, therefore, it was important to make sure that all

were included. All parties “need to work together to make it work.” Otherwise, opportunities for the

students will not be maximized. The Science Center has been very successful in increasing community

involvement, as demonstrated in its increase in membership over the past couple of years. The

founder/president of the Center attributes this increase largely to the hard and effective work of the

current director: “You need a dynamic director who can engage the children, their teachers, their parents,

and the community.”
146

Establish clear and realistic goals. The director of the Science Center indicated that although it

might appear easier to meander through projects such as this without clearly set goals, the difficult

upfront work of establishing them actually simplifies both short-term and long-range decisions facing

nonprofit agencies. His primary goal is to ensure that the infrastructure is in place from which to provide

the facility’s services. This condition was not always stable in the early days of the Center, since after its

first year of operation, the exhibit gallery was closed for a three months while areas of the building were

being renovated. Office and classroom space was hampered as well, and this added to the already

difficult task of running a Science Center. Now, the Science Center is contemplating whether or not it

should expand or create branches, as discussed previously. Part of the success of the Science Center has

been its tendency to “grow slowly and deliberately,” and both the director and founder/president tend to

believe that their energies will be better spent concentrating on improving what currently exists rather

than spreading their resources too thinly.

I. Summary and Conclusions

The Alliance for the Arts demonstrated excellent stewardship in its use of the ARC grant to help

create the West Virginia Science Center, and the Center itself can certainly be judged a success in terms

of its current array of services, its stability, and its sustainability. The renovated Old City Hall, which is

now the Center for Arts and Sciences, is a centerpiece of the community and a great source of pride.

Plans for an expansion of activities and services to the area’s schools and the surrounding communities

reflect the enthusiasm of the Center staff, the Alliance and other supporters, but are tempered by the need

for slow growth in a time of economic challenge for the town of Bluefield, Mercer County, and the

surrounding area.
147

Science and Math To Go!

Project Location Clemson, South Carolina

Grant Recipient Clemson University for Anderson Oconee Pickens Hub

ARC Number SC-12415-I, SC-12415-C1

ARC Project Type Math/Science Education

Grant Amount $156,000, $50,000

Matching Funding $172,090, $97,665

Dates of Site Visit April 27-28, 2000

Site Visitors Laurie Somers and Nicole Bartfai

Project Abstract

Science and Math To Go! is an elementary curriculum, materials, and professional development

system. The model has five components: exemplary curriculum, materials support, professional

development, assessment, and community support. SMTG! uses research-based Science and

Technology for Children (STC) kits that correlate with state and national science standards and

provide approximately 9 weeks of hands-on learning on a given broad topic. The kits are

distrubuted through the Materials Resource Center, a centralized kit supply and refurbishment

center. Each kit is sent to a teacher with materials measured and prepared for 30 students and all

teacher materials needed for the 16 to 18 lesson plans, each designed for 45- to 55-minute

lessons. After the teacher returns the nonconsumable items, the kit is replenished with all

necessary materials. Prior to receiving a kit, each teacher participates in a day-long training in

inquiry-based learning and a day exploring, observing, and practicing with each kit the teacher

would like to use. Professional development also covers student assessment and integrating

science and math with other subjects.

The overwhelmingly positive response from teachers and students regarding their new science

and math opportunities—and sponsors’ interest in continuing the program—suggest that SMTG!

is indeed a success. Staff believe it has been successful because it acknowledges that the change

process is complex and lengthy and provides extended professional development and a support

system. Where other programs provide a short inservice and require teachers to gather their own

materials and consider themselves implemented, SMTG! provides a full complement of teacher

support. This allows teachers to do what they know best: teach.
148

Science and Math To Go!

Anderson, Oconee, Pickens Hub

A. Background

Community Characteristics

The Anderson Oconee Pickens (AOP) Hub of the South Carolina Statewide Systemic Initiative

(SCSSI) serves these three counties in upcountry South Carolina. The region is very much one in

transition; with the opening of a large BMW plant and other high-tech businesses moving into Greenville

County and along I-85 connecting Atlanta and Charlotte, the economy is booming. However, the more

remote regions outside of these areas remain untouched by the economic upswing. The counties vary

widely in demographics and economic status, from the bedroom communities of booming Greenville to

pockets of isolated, rural Appalachian poor. Oconee and Pickens Counties are each whole school

districts, and Anderson County encompasses five districts. The seven districts range from 2,500 students

to 15,000 students and include some city areas suffering from typical urban education issues and some

rural areas isolated from education resources. The population is mostly white, with some Hispanic

migrant workers in two of the districts and a small African American population in all seven districts.

Economic status of the region ranges from upper middle class suburban families and northern retirees to

middle class factory workers to the rural poor.

Aside from measurable population and demographic differences, the region is split somewhat

between communities that can garner strong support for education reform and those that are reluctant to

give any more funds to a district that is seen by some as squandering public money on administration.

One respondent commented that attitudes and perspectives of the citizenry regarding education spending

and concerns for quality change at the snowline, separating the mountain population from those in the

lower new economy, where reform is seen more favorably. Even so, the wealthiest, most homogenous

district has opted out of most SMTG! work, preferring to manage their own science curriculum reform

and to do things their own way. Each of the districts has different ideals, different operations, and

different expectations. That six of the seven districts came to some consensus around a curriculum and

per-student cost is seen as a triumph in itself.
149

Characteristics of the Grant Recipient Organization

The Anderson Oconee Pickens Hub is one of 13 regional hubs across the state of South Carolina.

The hubs were established in the planning for and receipt of a 1993 grant from the National Science

Foundation to begin a statewide systemic initiative (SSI) for education reform. The hubs were designed

to serve as math and science resource centers for the districts they encompass. They are charged with

expanding their regions’ use of and access to inquiry-based and exemplary curriculum materials.

Science and Math To Go! (SMTG!) represents about three-quarters of the AOP Hub’s work. Hub

staff are responsible for the distribution, collection, and refurbishment of the kits, including shopping for

and purchasing cost-effective consumable items for the kits. Staff specialists in science and math and a

teacher-in-residence coordinate and conduct professional development activities, train trainers, and

oversee all trainings. They track which kits each teacher is trained to use and, as time permits, visit

schools and classrooms. The Hub, with Clemson University as fiscal agent, manages all the project’s

finances, including billing each district annually for the number of kits ordered. The executive director

oversees all activities and, most recently, has spent considerable time seeking and working with corporate

partners and sponsors.

The Hub also provides some assistance at the high school level, helping to align courses with the

new state standards, implement block scheduling, and use calculator-based laboratory equipment to

integrate science and math. They are undertaking some early investigation of kits for the high school

level.

B. Project Overview

Problems/Disparities the Project was Designed to Address

Prior to the formation of the AOP Hub, one advisory board member from Clemson University

wrote a white paper describing SMTG! concept of a regional center to support teachers, and in particular

providing them materials support. While the concept did not make it into the overall SSI proposal, it was

grabbed by the Hub. The white paper described two overall problem areas: (1) inadequate student

achievement in, and poor attitudes toward, science and mathematics, and (2) inadequate public

understanding of (and consequently support for) scientific and mathematical endeavors, including basic
150

and applied research. More specifically, “hands-on, discovery-oriented experiences so critical to student

learning are often not available for a variety of reasons:

• Lack of time by teachers to seek and purchase supplies.

• General lack of space and equipment to prepare ‘hands-on’ laboratory experiences.

• General lack of equipment for student use.

• Lack of availability to store and maintain equipment.

• Lack of funds to purchase supplies and equipment.”

Additionally, project staff noted that many elementary teachers have little preparation in science content

knowledge and pedagogy. These teachers are frequently uncomfortable with any science beyond a

textbook or simply do not know what to do.

Moreover, the schools and districts, and thereby the Hub, also faced an inequitable distribution of

quality teaching materials. Hub staff defined equity both in terms of providing all students opportunity to

learn quality science content and reaching underrepresented students. They point to research, stating,

the benefit of hands-on education, especially in the areas of process and content, has been

shown to be disproportionately greater for students from lower socioeconomic, inner city,

or rural backgrounds as well as for students of lower abilities. Many academically or

economically disadvantaged students have difficulty succeeding in text-based classes due

to poor reading skills. In hands-on, inquiry-based programs, which by their nature do not

heavily depend on reading skills, disadvantaged children are on a more equal footing with

their classmates and succeed, often for the first time, in their school experience.1

Approach

Science and Math To Go! is an elementary curriculum, materials, and professional development

system. The model has five components: exemplary curriculum, materials support, professional

development, assessment, and community support. SMTG! uses research-based Science and Technology

for Children (STC) kits that correlate with state and national science standards and provide approximately

9 weeks of hands-on learning in a given broad topic. The kits are distrubuted through the Materials

Resource Center, a centralized kit supply and refurbishment center. Each kit is sent to a teacher with

materials measured and prepared for 30 students and all teacher materials needed for the 16 to 18 45- to

55-minute lesson plans. After the teacher returns the nonconsumable items, the kit is replenished with all

necessary materials. Prior to receiving a kit, each teacher participates in a day-long training in inquiry-

 

1 Making the Case for Teaching Science Using a Hands-on, Inquiry-based Approach, A Report from Bayer Corporation, Ted Spickler and

Christine McCreary, September 30, 1999.
151

based learning and a day exploring, observing, and practicing with each kit the teacher would like to use.

Professional development also covers student assessment and integrating science and math with other

subjects.

Status at the Time of the Site Visit

SMTG! currently operates in all the elementary schools in six of the seven districts.2 One math

kit and three or four science kits are available for each grade level through sixth grade (two for

kindergarten). The project has trained 650 to 700 teachers since it began. However, due to retirement,

moving, and changing grade levels, staff estimate they currently have over 400 teachers using kits.

Beginning with the 2000-2001 school year, kits and the requisite training will be available for middle

school science as well.

C. Activities Undertaken as Part of the ARC Project

Science and Math To Go! is based on a theory of teaching and learning that has seen a recent

upsurge in the education community. Inquiry strategies, while having been used by some teachers for

years, really came to the fore in South Carolina with the SSI when it charged the hubs to establish science

and math programs reflecting national standards. National standards put out by the National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research Council

necessitate an inquiry-centered approach. In an inquiry system, students learn through hands-on

investigations of scientific phenomena. Inquiry challenges students to make sense of what they observe,

to expand their understanding of underlying concepts, and to acquire the skills to do so. Inquiry asks

students to construct their own knowledge, which allows for a much deeper understanding of the concepts

than does reading about the knowledge and concepts. Materials that are developmentally appropriate and

research-based are critical. A variety of learning styles underlie inquiry, not just reading and memorizing

text, and inquiry involves phenomena that exist in students’ everyday lives, making the science and math

more accessible to all students.

For many teachers, inquiry-based teaching and learning is a new concept, one that was not taught

in preservice training. Moreover, it requires a deeper understanding of the content areas, and science is

 

2

 The seventh is using other science kits, but at least some teachers report that they are interested in picking up the SMTG! system.
152

not typically a large focus for elementary teachers. Thus, the program put out by SMTG! represents a

dramatic shift for many of the teachers involved. Providing a seamless system of curriculum,

professional development, materials support, assessment, and community support was, therefore, critical

to starting and sustaining the new program.

Start-Up Activities

Prior to making their way into all elementary schools in the six districts, or even applying for the

ARC grant, SMTG! staff lay the groundwork for a project that could grow. The first year after the SSI

began, 1994, was a textbook adoption year in South Carolina. Every 6 years, the state issues a list of

approved textbook and materials series from which districts can select curricula. Several districts selected

the Full Option Science Series (FOSS), a kit-based package. One district opted for the entire package

where other districts selected FOSS at a few grade levels. In some cases, district staff felt that many

teachers were not ready for the conceptual leap to a hands-on science curriculum. AOP Hub staff were

not sure FOSS presented the best kit options and gathered teachers together to display and discuss two

additional series, STC and Insights.3 After a 3-week workshop during the summer of 1995, 12 teachers

were equipped with the kits and spent some time tinkering with them and trying out lessons in a yearround classroom. Teachers found the STC kits most user-friendly and easy to learn, which prompted

enough interest that districts wanted to pick up the new curriculum. Unfortunately, STC was not on the

state adoption list, so the state would not provide financial support for the materials.

During the following school year, AOP Hub and district staff met to develop an acceptable plan

to help the districts work as a consortium to pilot the STC kits. 4 The districts were not in a position to

manage the distribution and refurbishment of the kits, nor were they able to provide the extensive

professional development protocol necessary. At the suggestion of a retiree involved in local politics and

the area’s Congressman, the AOP Hub went to the Appalachian Regional Commission for support.

 

3

 FOSS was developed by the Lawrence Hall of Science, STC by the National Science Resources Center operated by the Smithsonian Institution

and the National Academy of Sciences, and Insights by the Technical Education Research Center.

4

 SMTG! uses FOSS kits for kindergarten and is reviewing FOSS kits that may fill gaps in the new curriculum standards where there are not STC

kits available.
153

 The AOP Hub conducted several other activities to build a cadre of teachers who could help

support the project. Under the auspices of the SSI, the Hub held several Curriculum Leadership Institutes

(CLI) that followed a similar structure as the initial 3-week workshop. Over 50 teachers completed an

extensive application package, including a modified teaching portfolio, and were carefully screened

through interviews and classroom observations. That the teachers were willing to participate in such an

involved selection process is significant to AOP staff; it highlights the commitment and buy-in of the first

group of teachers to take on the conceptual change and of district administrators who encouraged their

application. Teachers gave up 3 weeks of their summer vacations to be prepared to implement the

inquiry-based strategy. Many of these teachers went on to be a part of the first cadre of teacher-trainers

for the SMTG! program.

Through the SSI, the Hub also conducted several Administrative Leadership Institutes attended

by 27 of 86 elementary principals. At these sessions, groups discussed best practices in science and math

teaching, including the development of an inquiry-centered program. These also generated interest and

buy-in for SMTG!

Alignment with State Standards

South Carolina has undergone a tumultuous period of drafting and revising standards in science.

The most recent version was released in January 2000 after almost 3 years of revisions, two governors,

and two state superintendents. Throughout the first few years of the project, SMTG! staff and teachers

were reaching to moving targets in determining what to teach and what could be done with a kit. In order

to justify the use of the kits, they had to be benchmarked against the standards. Committees of teachers

and others have gone through several versions of the standards, including the current version, to identify

the alignment of topics covered by the kits to those in the standards. This exercise gives credence to the

kits themselves and also helps Hub staff and teachers identify gaps in the kits, both so teachers can fill

those gaps with other materials and so staff can look for additional kit resources.

AOP Hub staff view the current (and final) standards as better than previous versions, but still

difficult to implement in some cases. Unlike standards in other states, South Carolina’s list grade-bygrade topics that should be covered. This creates a shift in at least one topic per grade level, requiring

SMTG! to shift some kits up a grade level. The implications are that teachers lose a kit they had

previously been trained to use and must be trained in a new kit, one which their students may have used in
154

the previous year. As with other standards documents, South Carolina’s identifies more topics for a given

year than a teacher can adequately cover using inquiry and discovery strategies.

Along with the new standards, South Carolina will be field testing a new state science

assessment, the Palmetto Academic Challenge Test (PACT), in spring 2001. Many teachers are unsure of

how the kits and the skills and thinking processes developed in an inquiry-based curriculum will translate

to standardized testing.

While South Carolina’s mathematics standards have not undergone the political challenges faced

in science, the math kits have presented different issues. Math has traditionally placed more emphasis on

the sequencing of lessons than the science; that is, skills build on one another. This makes rotating kits

difficult since many teachers would want to teach the same units at the same time. And this counteracts

the cost-effectiveness of rotating kits. Moreover, math manipulatives are more likely to be used in

multiple units than are science materials. Many teachers want access to the same materials all year long,

and since few math materials are consumables, each teacher would need a similar set of manipulatives.

Consequently, there were no math kits commercially available to SMTG! With the SSI’s emphasis on

science and math, Hub staff and elementary teachers who teach both subjects wanted to capitalize on the

successes and inquiry-based learning using kits. So SMTG! worked with math specialists and teachers to

develop one kit for each grade level. After researching and experimenting with different materials, the

Hub put the materials list out for bids and found a supplier to provide the required items. This contract is

now over, and staff are in the process of negotiating a new one.

Professional Development

The component to the SMTG! project that staff value most and from which they will not waver is

the professional development protocol required for teaching in an inquiry-based system and using the kits.

Providing professional development in what is seen as a conceptual shift in teachers’ practice is difficult

and time consuming. Ongoing training over a long period of time is necessary to help teachers make the

leap from a mechanical use of the kits to true inquiry. Trainers report they can see the shift in teachers’

lockstep implementation to their real understanding of how this is a different kind of teaching and

learning.

SMTG! specialists in science and math and the teacher-in-residence have made changes to the

professional development protocol over the years, largely based on teachers’ feedback. Most generally,

they follow a 3-day model where the first day covers inquiry, discussion of the concepts and strategies to
155

be employed and the constructivist learning cycle, modeling of implementation of the kits, and reflection.

The second and third days are based around an actual kit. A fourth day is optional for teachers who want

to be trained on another kit. In order for a teacher to be able to request a kit, he or she must be trained

specifically on that kit. Once they have had the first day of training on inquiry concepts, they need only

complete a day on each additional kit they would like to use. One trainer indicated that many teachers do

not appreciate the day spent on inquiry until they have been using the kits for a year; that is, they do not

truly understand inquiry until they have done it for a while. At that point, they know why the kits work.

She went on to say that trainers can tell where teachers are in their development in inquiry by what they

say about that day and its utility.

Until recently, teachers had to complete the overview training for science and then again for

math. The major modification to the training over time was to combine discussions of inquiry to include

both subjects. Because elementary teachers, except in departmentalized sixth grades, teach both subjects,

participating in both sessions became repetitive. Also, trainers have provided more structure to teachers’

exploration of the teacher’s guide provided in the kits; now, groups of teachers research and become

“experts” in topics included in the guide and on the science or math content included.

Most of the trainings cover multiple grade levels, and full group activities include something

from a kit for each grade level. The size of groups trained in a single session have ranged from 10 to 55

teachers, although 20 to 30 is optimal when handling the materials. Trainings are held at schools,

libraries, Clemson conference facilities, or at the Materials Resource Center itself. Hub staff and

Clemson facilities staff are currently negotiating with the building’s owner to renovate another section of

the building into a training facility. This would not only make scheduling trainings simpler, but it would

also minimize the materials that would need to be transported to off-site training locations.

Most of the training is conducted during the summer, and teachers give up their own vacation

days. Scheduling training during the school year is difficult, as teacher release time and substitutes are

limited, particularly with many other programs and inservices conducted. Several school principals have

asked SMTG! to conduct a training for all teachers in their schools. This has worked well because it

provides a large day-to-day support group for teachers implementing the kits.
156

Materials Support

The key component to the SMTG! system that makes using an inquiry-based approach possible is

the cost-effective materials support provided. As an example, a typical new science kit costs $4335 and,

on average, a consumable refurbishment set costs $97.50 from the supplier. To purchase three kits each

for 1,000 teachers costs $1,299,000 the first year and $292,500 each year thereafter, totaling $2,761,500

over 6 years. To rotate 1,000 kits among teachers and purchase only one new kit for each teacher costs

$433,000 plus $195,000 for refurbishment sets the first year and $292,500 each year thereafter, totaling

$2,090,500 over 6 years. But to purchase 1,000 kits, rotate three times and refurbish from a materials

resource center, where refurbishment of consumables and nonconsumables costs only $65, totals

$1,538,000. By rotating each kit through three classrooms per year and refurbishing from their own

stocks, using the SMTG! could save districts serving 1,000 teachers some $1,223,500 over 6 years.

Savings like these makes the program possible for districts to implement.

The Materials Resource Center began on the back porch of the old house maintained by Clemson

University that serves as the Hub’s offices. It is now housed in a warehouse facility rented by Clemson as

in-kind support to SMTG! and is filled with storage shelving and work tables and outfitted with a loading

dock. The efficiency with which staff and volunteers can refurbish the kits with pre-cut, pre-measured

materials is critical to SMTG!’s operations. Teachers comment that the greatest difference between these

kits and others on the market, and even the new kits direct from the supplier, is that each item used in

every lesson is ready to go. Teachers no longer have to measure and strip electrical wiring, cut wax paper

to the required dimensions, count the required number of pipe cleaners, or even hunt down a fine point

permanent marker and jumbo paperclips. The time required to do this pre-lab work cut into teachers’

planning time and time to learn the science content behind the activities. Nor do teachers have to

purchase lab materials themselves, as is otherwise the case for items not on the state adoption lists.

When a new kit arrives from the supplier, Carolina Biological Supply, it is emptied and supplies

are reduced to the minimum needed for a 30-student classroom. After providing materials to teachers for

several years, the materials support specialist pared down the needed items to just the amount needed for

each activity. For example, when an experience called for each pair of students to have an ounce of

vinegar, the kit did not need the gallon originally supplied. Similarly, when each student needed a sheet

of black paper, a whole ream was not required. Project staff researched and tested numerous

 

5

 Each math kit costs over $500 because there is no commercial vendor and therefore no economies of scale.
157

arrangements, containers, and quantities of each item and were able to reduce a classroom’s worth of

materials from two crates to one, reducing delivery costs as well. Materials for each lesson are counted

and placed in individual reclosable bags. After the materials are prepared, the kit is packed according to a

diagram of how items best fit into the colored crate designated for that grade level. Packing lists of

consumable and nonconsumable items with prices of each and instructions for repacking kits are included

along with suggestions forms and sheets for teachers to provide interesting stories of how students used

kits.

After delivering the first rounds of kits themselves, SMTG! staff researched delivery options and

eventually negotiated a special contract with UPS to ship the crates to individual schools and teachers and

pick them up 10 weeks later. Two weeks before UPS is scheduled to pick up the kits, teachers receive a

postcard from the Materials Resource Center reminding them to wash and dry all containers, activity

trays, reusable bags, and all other nonconsumable items. If materials are damaged, teachers are instructed

to throw them away, rather than returning them to the center. All leftover consumable items may be kept

by the teacher as long as they are transferred to different storage containers. Kits are packed according to

instructions, with heavy items on the bottom and breakable items secured. UPS brings the kits back to the

center, and the process begins again. Loss of materials has not been a problem; occasionally a teacher

forgets to pack an item, but it is easily retrieved.

Corporate and Community Support

Community support has been critical to the launching of the SMTG! program. There has been

remarkably little resistance to the implementation of a largely progressive, constructivist curriculum.

This is due in part to the fact that teachers have not given up textbooks completely. Most teachers are

using two or three kits throughout the school year, leaving time to cover topics not covered by any kit

through state-approved texts and other materials. Moreover, teachers have been encouraged to display

and discuss the kits at parents’ nights. The local press has also been helpful in explaining the program

and getting the word out to legislators.

Volunteers contribute heavily to the refurbishment of kits. University student organizations,

mostly from Clemson’s College of Engineering and the Sciences, and retirees come on a regular basis to

assist with unpacking used kits, preparing new materials to go in kits, and repacking kits for distribution.

Some retirees also help with locating additional corporate and community partners. A small number of
158

retirees, Clemson faculty, and parents volunteer in classrooms helping teachers monitor students’

discovery activities.

SMTG! has nurtured a number of linkages with local and South Carolina-based corporations. For

most, the initial component of the partnership is financial. Duke Power, Michelin, DuPont, and BMW

have all supported SMTG! financially. More intangible, and perhaps more important, is the sense of

significance of the projects these partnerships garner. The linkages have been an invaluable asset to

SMTG! when going to school boards; to say that these large companies, some not even located in the

AOP region, are supporting the project, is helpful. The companies have looked at the materials, the

program, and students using the kits, and have said that this is the type of science and math they want, and

they promote the skills that employees need. The challenge in working with the partners is convincing

them that they are not there to create new lessons and kits or to manufacture existing kits less

expensively.

Through the Hub’s linkages with the SSI and BMW, familiarity with the program has been spread

statewide and to the legislature and state department of education. Widespread knowledge of the program

is helpful in garnering further support. More broadly, SMTG! and the Hub also work closely with the

Association of Science Materials Centers (ASMC), a group of 130 member centers across the country and

in Canada, Mexico, and Sweden. The centers, while facing their own challenges, share their experiences

and solutions to problems and provide support to each other in changing an educational system. The

Hub’s executive director is the recent past president of ASMC.

D. Problems Encountered

Standards as a Moving Target

That South Carolina’s science frameworks and standards have changed frequently has made it

difficult for SMTG! to stabilize the system. Having to realign the kits has taken time and resources away

from training new teachers and training on additional kits. And with some kits moving grade levels,

teachers will have to train on new kits and will be unable to use some kits they already trained to use.

Staff have prioritized retraining by the kits they feel are most important for students, while taking into

consideration that students may end up using a kit they had seen in the previous grade (although this will

only be a problem for the first year after realignment).
159

While they feel they made the best kit choices, AOP Hub staff still recognize that selecting a

curriculum package that was not on the state’s textbook adoption list meant they selected something that

had no funding tied to it. However, they acknowledge that there will never be kits or other programs that

cover all of the standards, but with kits as the base and textbooks as extra resources, there can be a

complete system.

Capacity to Provide Professional Development

SMTG! has far more demand for professional development than it can meet. Teachers want to be

trained on new kits, and new teachers want the initial training. In addition, addressing the new standards

and assessments has strained limited the program’s training resources. Also, because teachers are trained

on each kit individual, it is hard to coordinate consecutive days of training for teachers who are already

trained on different combinations of kits.

Teacher Professional Development Time

Teachers have trouble finding time to participate in professional development activities, and

SMTG! has trouble coordinating the limited schedules of release time to get teachers and trainers out of

their classrooms. This has problem has been intensified by the accountability system and high-stakes

testing beginning in 2000 in math and 2001 in science. Finding time to conduct followup and reflection

activities is even more difficult. Moreover, new school-level report cards will combine teachers’ sick

days and professional development days, making teachers leery of taking more professional development

time. The state requires only 6 course “hours” of professional development every 5 years. Participating

in the almost 20 hours of professional development for a teacher beginning to use kits with no

recertification credit is far above what some teachers are willing to do. Still, staff estimate that overall,

more than half of the teachers using SMTG! materials participated during their summer vacation time.

Teacher Turnover

Several of the poorer districts are having trouble retaining teachers, both those using the kits and

trainers. As teachers leave, their schools are left with grade levels that have no teachers trained to use the

kits. One teacher suggested that perhaps the kits themselves would eventually help retain teachers

because they would not want to move somewhere that they did not have access to SMTG! materials.
160

Demand for Math Kits

Unlike science, there were no commercially available math kits for SMTG! to support. AOP staff

and teachers had to create them and contract with a supplier for the materials. This was a long, slow

process and drew time away from other activities, including providing professional development. One kit

was created for each grade level, but demand for additional math kits continues. While everyone hopes

that new kits will be developed in the coming year, researching and testing materials and then having kits

assembled is a lengthy process.

Student Assessment

Teachers still face somewhat of a mismatch between the content and skills in the kits and the

high-stakes tests, but staff expect that the new PACT exams in science will be better correlated than

current tests. The problem is twofold. Ultimately, as far as the school systems and the state are

concerned, the curricula employed should result in higher student achievement measured by the state

assessments; if the content and skills in the kits do not match those of the tests, this link may not be made.

On a smaller scale, student performance on individual lessons and units should be measured against the

standards. Without adequate assessments correlated to the standards and the kits, teachers may be unable

to adequately assess student performance. Teachers seem to be of mixed opinions as to how much of a

problem this is. Some teachers, possibly those who have been teaching longer, already have assessments

they can use for their students or they have an easier time using alternative methods. Other teachers,

possibly less experienced, would like more assessment materials provided with each lesson and kit.

Materials Capacity

Teacher demand for kits overwhelms the capacity of the Materials Resource Center to distribute

them, due both to the supply of kits and their refurbishment. While the center’s space has improved

dramatically over the early years, it still needs a more efficient shelving system and space for cutting and

measuring materials and repacking the crates. This will become even more of an issue as SMTG! begins

distributing kits for middle school and adding more math and FOSS kits to meet additional standards.

FOSS kits require teachers to do much more preparation work than even the new STC kits, including

providing many consumable items themselves. Having set a high standard with the STC kits, SMTG!

will be expected to do the same with FOSS kits.
161

Tracking Kits

SMTG! looked into and, in fact, purchased software and bar-coding equipment to make for more

systematic tracking of individual kits, but the software turned out to be incompatible with the computer

systems they have. Instead, kits are tracked on paper. While this is working, it is less efficient, and in the

long run, as more and more kits are distributed, it will become more difficult to monitor where each kit is

and to determine if a kit will be available for the period a teacher requests it. With the bar-coding, the

materials support specialist will also be able to use UPS’s online tracking systems more effectively.

Community Support

SMTG! has met with surprisingly little resistance to change that is typically felt with new

education programs. However, some teachers have resisted the program. Many will not volunteer to

come to a professional development session, and if they are “volunteered” by the principal, they come

unwillingly. Many teachers, they have found, simply do not have the background, and just do not want to

teach science. Others are not comfortable with such a different style of teaching and using the materials

in general.

Some resistance has come from the districts about having to pay so much for science. While the

price of the kits has come down dramatically, the current $16 per student is still far above the amount per

student most districts had been putting into budgets for elementary science. Staff have worked with

superintendents and others to explain the benefits of the program and lessen the “sticker shock” they

express. Some of the local districts also express concern about the time Hub staff spend working with

other hubs and districts, charging that AOP is there to serve local schools. However, the executive

director explains that in the long run, these are important seeds of investment. Statewide recognition is

critical to getting state approval of the curriculum and to gaining visibility with potential corporate

sponsors.

Alignment with Other Reform Programs

Several of the districts have undertaken models of school reform that are hard to mesh with the

SMTG! science model. One, the Cunningham model, focuses on literature and writing through longer

blocks of time. Each subject is given a certain amount of time during the day and week, and some
162

perceive that science gets shortchanged. In the model, science is integrated with other reading activities,

limiting the time for hands-on investigation using the kits. Schools that have implemented the model are

still using the kits, but it is unclear to what extent science teaching has really changed.

E. Evaluation and Dissemination

Evaluation

The Hub began the ARC grant period with several evaluators on board to design an evaluation

plan. Unfortunately, at the beginning of the grant, two left the region, and there was a personality conflict

with the third. Consequently, no formal evaluation was conducted.

Informally, several activities have been completed. The initial group of teachers to be trained

created portfolios of their teaching with the kits. These were used mostly for triangulation with other

evidence to determine if what staff were hearing was happening was actually the case. They were also

used for sharing with other audiences. While they are not asking teachers to complete portfolios

anymore, they are still asking teachers to reflect on their uses of the kits.

Staff meet regularly with a group of teachers, most of whom are also trainers, who are constantly

receiving feedback from other teachers. It was meetings of these groups that led to the restructuring of

the professional development protocol. Teachers also provide some feedback when returning kits. Along

with the packing lists, each kit contains some forms for teacher suggestions and problems. Staff have not

done anything systematic with responses, but they do review each one.

Hub staff recognize the need to gather more data and conduct some studies on the outcomes of

the SMTG! project. Several schools plan to do some comparisons between scores on the state math exam

of students who were exposed to math kits and students who only had regular instruction. Based on

teacher and student comments on the tests (scores are not yet available), the kits were very beneficial,

particularly in the areas of reasoning and problem solving. They hope these studies will yield some data

that can be shared with a broad audience, including legislators. In addition, Hub staff are planning to

look at teacher learning patterns to help understand why some teachers “just don’t get it” or do not use the

kits. They are expecting to find two explanations: either that the teachers’ preferred mode of learning is
163

too sequential, precise, and structured for some activities in the kits, or that teachers do not conceptually

understand that students need to investigate.

Dissemination

The AOP Hub is a partner in a grant from the National Science Resource Center (NSRC)

specifically for information dissemination about SMTG! and materials resource centers in general. Under

the grant, Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER), they set up partnerships

with other school systems and corporations to conduct leadership institutes to help districts with strategic

planning for implementing new science programs. AOP, Clemson, the SSI, DuPont, Michelin, BMW,

and Greenville County School District supported a 5-day Strategic Planning Institute in January 2000.

LASER events around the country, and South Carolina as a demonstration site in particular, have

legitimized many of the things the Hub was already doing and provided them additional resources as well.

SMTG! staff have participated in numerous events of the Association of Science Materials

Resource Centers and the National Science Teachers Association and have shared resources with

participants through conferences and the ASMC listserv. The Hub has also had visitors from Tennessee,

Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama; their visits typically consist of tours of the materials center,

classroom observations, talks with participating teachers, and a description of how the program works.

They are not yet to the point of a ritualized visitor program and hope to avoid having one.

AOP’s website has a wealth of information about the program, descriptions of each kit, research

and resources on kit-based learning, and a PowerPoint slide show of the experiences of a first grade class

using the Solids and Liquids kit.

F. Sustainability and Project Expansion

The biggest question facing SMTG!’s ultimate sustainability is whether the STC kits will appear

on the state textbook adoption list. If they do, state funding can be used for the purchase of new kits (and

potentially their refurbishment). If not, districts will continue to feel the budget squeeze to maintain and

expand their use. Staff report that districts are beginning to take ownership of the curriculum, particularly

as it becomes teachers’ expectations that the kits are the districts’ established curriculum. To roll back

now, when teachers are so pleased, would be politically difficult for districts.
164

Sustainability Strategies

AOP will be completing its third ARC grant in fall 2000. Staff will continue to write grants, but

they hope to begin to use grant money solely for professional development, not to purchase new kits and

materials. Staff believe their ARC grants have been critical to leveraging other funding both at the

beginning of the project and now. In fact, the ARC investment of just over $250,000 has grown to a $1

million project. Initially, the districts would only fund the program if theirs were the matching funds;

thus, the ARC grant was necessary to get them involved. Throughout the period, the ARC funds have

allowed for enough participants in enough schools that Hub staff could demonstrate the value, and

teachers’ relinquishment of vacation days, to other supporters. Staff knew they needed to reach a

minimum level of implementation before they could get the attention of the corporate sponsors.

District funding. AOP is currently working with each district to encourage them to make

SMTG! a budget line item. Currently, several of them have been “finding” extra money to fund the

program. But in order to continue to fund it, they need to plan to have available funds. This will also

show to teachers the districts’ buy-in and support of the program.

State funding. The most critical step in the long-term funding of SMTG! is getting the STC kits

on the 2000 state textbook adoption list. This would allow for the purchase and refurbishment of kits by

districts under state textbook funding. Districts would still pay for professional development and

associated materials, but Hub staff see that as a good way to force the issue of retraining teachers. Their

research on other kit implementation has shown that if no professional development is provided, kits are

simply not used. Moreover, retraining is a district responsibility even when traditional textbooks are

used.

The executive directors of the AOP Hub and the Pee Dee Hub, which is implementing its own

SMTG! program, have met with finance officers in the state education department to open a new source

of funds for refurbishing kits. After talks for some time, the department has authorized $750,000 for the

refurbishment of kits for districts that partner with a hub. Where usually the district pays for

refurbishment, now the Hub can refurbish kits and be reimbursed by the state. The executive director

attributes this to the fact that so many hubs are doing materials support for districts.
165

Approximately 10 percent of the AOP Hub’s funding through March of 2001 comes from

National Science Foundation support for the SSI. They anticipate this funding will continue through

2003 and that SMTG! will become a formal part of the SSI strategic plan. Eight of the 13 hubs are doing

some type of materials support now.

Corporate support. Hub staff expect that their corporate partners will continue to provide

support to the project. However, the businesses feel, and the executive director agrees, that ongoing

support of education programs is a state responsibility. They see themselves, rather, as catalysts for

change, and so will not ultimately fund a whole program once it is in place.

Selling the services. SMTG! staff are also considering a system where they could sell their

professional development and materials support to districts outside of the area. They would price the

services just at the break-even point to keep their not-for-profit status. Also, if negotiations with the

vendor of the math kits are successful, the math kits could be sold commercially with SMTG! receiving

royalties for each unit sold.

Project Expansions/Spin-Offs

Expansion of the available kits. While retraining teachers to use kits aligned with the new

standards is the priority, staff are also expanding the number of kits available to teachers. Beginning in

fall 2000, teachers of seventh and eighth grade science will have access to training and kits. These

teachers, having seen what the sixth grade teachers are doing, have been clamoring for these kits for

years. Also, SMTG! will be developing an additional math kit for each grade level in the coming year.

Expansion to other hubs. Staff at the AOP Hub have been working extensively with staff in the

Pee Dee Hub in the northeast corner of the state. With 21 districts in 19 counties, the Pee Dee Hub is the

largest, the most poverty-impacted, and the most rural, but it operates with the same staff and budget as

other hubs. Through the SSI, Pee Dee staff learned of SMTG! and in 1998 brought five teachers to a

SMTG! training. The group of first through third grade pilot teachers, who had participated in Pee Dee

Curriculum Leadership Institutes, used the kits in their classrooms and were convinced this was a system

the Hub should adopt. The following year the group expanded to include fourth through sixth grade

teachers, and AOP staff came to Pee Dee to conduct another training, assisted by the new cadre of Pee

Dee trainers. The group continued to expand to a total of 250 teachers, and now all 21 districts have

bought in to the system and 19 are actively participating. The AOP executive director also assisted them
166

in garnering corporate sponsors. The Pee Dee science specialist indicated that they would not be where

they are today without the AOP Hub’s assistance and experience.

Pee Dee professional development is structured around 2 full days of training plus 1 day of

followup later. By having a followup day, teachers had time to practice using the materials and have the

opportunity to bring back student work and share their experiences with other teachers.

Future Plans

In addition to adding more kits in math and adding middle school science kits, Hub staff plan to

continue to spread SMTG! materials throughout the schools and to teachers who have not yet volunteered

to participate. Also, because the program is no longer in the first wave of teachers, those most

committed, they will be adjusting the professional development system to reflect differing needs of

beginning teachers, reluctant teachers, and those with less of an understanding of an inquiry approach.

Hub staff and teacher leaders are continuing to provide support prior to the new state testing

being piloted in spring 2001. They are anticipating the types of items on the test will be like those on

NAEP and TIMSS and are drafting similar items to help teachers prepare their students and align kit

activities and assessments to these. Since NAEP and TIMSS include many open-ended items, they expect

there will be a good match.

G. Accomplishments and Outcomes

Staff and teachers report that inquiry is closing the gap between high and low achievers. Students

are more engaged in the activities and enthusiastic about science. Teachers associate high interest with

more learning. When a group of 20 first graders were asked how many wanted to be scientists, almost all

raised their hands. SMTG! has brought a subject that was typically put on the back burner in elementary

schools to the fore. Moreover, science is now being taught in a systematic, connected way, rather than

through fragmented lessons based on teachers’ previous science background or available materials.

Student understanding improves through this more coordinated learning.

While there are no hard data on changes in student achievement, anecdotal evidence suggests to

teachers and staff that traditionally low-achievers are doing better in science than before because the
167

hands-on activities address the multiple learning styles of students. Where some students did poorly

before because science was based largely on reading text and writing answers, they now can work with

their hands and observe scientific phenomena. One teacher commented, “the kits ask students to think

harder than they do for other subjects, and they like it! They leave the children wanting to learn more.”

Another said, “lower achieving students shine when given the opportunity to talk and use manipulatives.”

And if the recent administration of the math PACT testing is any indication, having had so much

experience with reasoning and problem solving is sure to help students.

According to teachers, the kits provide better science opportunities for lower grades than were

otherwise available. In a first grade class, there have seen an increase in discussion and sharing between

students. Students also have the opportunity to write about science almost every day. In math, students

are doing more cooperative work and much more problem solving than when they used to do rows of

arithmetic. Problem solving is an area many teachers said they avoided in the past.

Several teachers reported that classroom management is easier, even with the vast amount of

materials and student-driven tasks involved. While more monitoring of individual students must be done

with all the materials around the classroom, students are more engaged and attentive to the tasks. This

has resulted in fewer discipline problems in many classrooms. One sixth grade teacher in a

departmentalized school reported that students with behavior problems in all of their other classes are

well-behaved, active participants in her science class. Several teachers reported that students have asked

to stay in through recess to complete their experiments or have asked to take items home to share their

findings with their families. Another teacher said that her students were borrowing nonfiction sciencerelated books from the library for required free reading, where third graders generally select more simple

storybooks.

Teachers had a difficult time explaining how their pedagogy and teaching strategies have

changed. One teacher described the change: “you don’t tell the kids what to look for and don’t give all of

the definitions up front. The lesson begins actually after [the kit is opened]. The students do [the

experiment] and then figure out why they’re doing it. It keeps them interested.”

Teacher attitudes toward science have also improved. Teachers’ jobs are made easier by not

having to prepare so much for science activities, and they are learning more science themselves. They no

longer have to purchase math and science materials out of pocket. While the specter of the high-stakes

assessment looms and some teachers are uncertain as to the connection between the kits and the tests, they
168

are confident that if they know more science and are more comfortable teaching science, their students’

performance should reflect that.

Project staff report that they have raised the bar for equity, but have not yet created equitable

opportunity to learn. The standard for good science teaching is higher than ever before, and they have

brought many teachers closer to the bar, but there are still too many schools where the quality of science

teaching students have depends on the teacher they get. Staff know this is still not good enough for

equitable learning opportunities.

H. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities

Learn from people who been through this already. AOP staff worked with a number of other

regions that were implementing a similar system before advancing too far on their own. They have since

helped other areas follow in their footsteps. They point out that there is a lot of expertise and many

models for these systems, and while every context is different, often the issues, if not the solutions, are

similar. The National Science Resources Center and the Association of Science Materials Center have

been invaluable to SMTG!

Ensure that the impetus for change comes from within the district. While the Hub did much

of the legwork in representing and pushing the inquiry-based approach through the use of the kits,

teachers and district staff had indicated that they wanted the change and provided that support throughout

implementation. But it was after the presentation and display of various kit options and a meeting where

the seven districts decided to work together that the project really got started. Also, because it is not a

mandated change in most schools, teachers who do participate take ownership of the program. Without

the ongoing support and buy-in of teachers who volunteer for professional development and actually use

the kits regularly, SMTG! would not have been as successful.

Retain a common set of core principles, but be adaptable. SMTG! has a core set of beliefs

and practices, centering mostly on the content and length of professional development, that they have held

to steadfastly. However, when teachers complained about the redundancy of the inquiry sessions for

science and math, they were willing to adjust procedures in a way that did not compromise the core

beliefs and practices. They are cautious not to sway from what they know teachers need regardless of

what the teachers say.
169

Treat materials support as a business. Traditionally, say Hub staff, educators have been

willing to share ideas, support, and materials for free. However, they have found that they need to think

as if they are providing a service that has a monetary value. This includes literal buy-in, as well as

figurative. They have seen that when goods and services offered do not cost anything, they are treated as

having no value. Thus, the districts give of their money and teachers of their time. In fact, staff have

discouraged districts from providing teachers with incentives, such as stipends, for participating. They

feel this brings in teachers for the wrong reasons and breeds inequality among teachers attending. While

educators tend to avoid marketing, they acknowledge that they would not be where they are today without

having a marketing attitude, if not a plan. They call this being “strategically opportunistic.”

Build a small group of people who are fanatical about what they do. Change is hard, and

science at the elementary level is harder and not a priority. But with a staff with dogged determination,

the Hub made good use of what they view as a 3-year window of attention before the next reform

bandwagon rolled in. SMTG! has a cadre of fanatics in each district, mostly teachers, but some principals

and district office staff, and in a few of the corporations; they can count on these people to push the

reform.

Cultivate insiders. To facilitate change, it is important to know the landscape and the players in

the system. By cultivating support among key members of the participating school districts, the AOP

staff has been able to continue pushing the system toward change. Helpful too is that key AOP staff are

former teachers and district officers from the area.

Train at least two teachers from each school initially. The first group of teachers trained were

teachers who had volunteered to participate. Hub staff found that while they were committed, these

teachers were working too much in isolation and lacked day-to-day support from other teachers just

beginning with the kits. It would be useful, then, for a project just starting out to suggest teachers come

with a colleague when first participating.

I. Summary and Conclusions

The overwhelmingly positive response from teachers and students regarding their new science

and math opportunities—and sponsors’ interest in continuing the program—suggest that SMTG! is
170

indeed a success. Staff believe it has been successful because it acknowledges that the change process

is complex and lengthy and provides extended professional development and a support system. Where

other programs provide a short inservice and require teachers to gather their own materials and consider

themselves implemented, SMTG! provides a full complement of teacher support. This allows teachers to

do what they know best: teach.

The program could be—and in fact, has been—successful in a variety of regions and contexts.

While staff recognize that it is not right for everyone, it is a system that is growing around the country.

Models do differ, but they follow similar professional development and teacher support requirements.