This is the second annual report on the Merck Institute for Science Education partnership initiative with the school districts of Linden, Rahway, and Readington in New Jersey and North Penn in Pennsylvania. The report has been prepared by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Pennsylvania which is conducting a long- term evaluation of the Merck Institute partnership initiative.

The Merck Institute formed these school-business partnerships to strengthen elementary and middle school science education, and to raise levels of student participation and performance in science in the four school districts.

The primary goal of the partnership is to provide all children with strong inquiry-centered instruction that meets the emerging national standards in science. The strategy is to build local capacity to provide high-quality science instruction by enhancing the knowledge and skills of teaching staff, introducing new curricula and instructional materials, building systems of support for instructional improvement, and aligning policy around a new vision of science education. This systemic approach seeks simultaneous changes in several aspects of the school systems.

The secondary goal of the Merck Institute partnership initiative is to demonstrate the efficacy of this approach so that other corporations may emulate it.

Part One — Progress During 1994-95

The CPRE evaluation team has been tracking changes related to science education in the four districts - changes in local policy, capacity, instructional practice, and student participation and performance.

During 1994-95 all four partner districts took steps to develop more coherent and robust instructional policies in science as a result of the technical assistance, support, and resources provided by the Merck Institute. The four districts were giving higher priority to science which itself represents a major shift in policy. This shift was evidenced by increased professional development, instructional resources, and staffing for science. Three of the districts worked on revising their science curricula; all four began to examine how they assess student science performance

The key dimensions of instructional capacity are: the knowledge and skills of staff; the quality and quantity of instructional resources; and the school instructional culture, that is, the norms and routines that govern the instructional behavior of teachers. Over 1994-95, the partnership addressed the first two of these three dimensions. All four partner districts have increased the amount of professional development they offer in science. During the 1994-95 school year, all four districts adopted new inquiry-centered instructional modules for science, and provided teachers training in their use. However, there was concern that weak science backgrounds of some teachers sometimes limited their ability to take full advantage of these materials. The districts also strengthened their support for science instruction: one hired an additional resource teacher; two assigned teachers as mentors; three appointed individuals responsible for the maintenance of the new instructional modules; and one established a resource center. At the request of the Merck Institute, all four districts recruited teams of Leader Teachers in each school and agreed to provide them with seven days of release time during the 1995-96 school year. Starting in the 1994-95 summer, this cadre of teachers began a three-year commitment to participate in professional development activities that deepen their content knowledge of science and mathematics and enhance their skills in inquiry-centered instruction.

As a consequence of these activities, instructional practices are changing. The CPRE evaluation team observed teachers using activity- based approaches in 92 percent of the 50 science classes visited¹. Forty- three percent of the 69 teachers interviewed by the evaluation team reported that the new instructional inquiry-centered modules were easy to use and readily engaged students. However, the degree and the nature of the changes vary widely across classrooms, and change is limited by teachers’ subject-matter knowledge.

Over 11,000 students participated in activity-based science classes during the 1994-95 school year. Principals and teachers reported that students were more enthusiastic about science, and that students had more opportunities to be involved with science projects. Science was enjoying increased visibility in displays of student work, exhibits of living organisms, in family science events and science fairs.

The four districts have also worked hard to build parental and public support. Linden, North Penn, and Rahway have offered Family Science programs in several schools. Linden and Rahway have published newsletters on science for parents. Staff from the Merck Institute have met with numerous parent and community groups to build support for reform.

There is no adequate data yet available on student performance in science. Two of the four districts do no testing in science, and the tests used in the other districts do not measure performance in accord with the partnership’s vision of science instruction.

Part Two — New Vision, New Roles

The most significant development during the past year has been a major shift in the focus and role of the Merck Institute. The Merck Institute has shifted to a more proactive strategy by taking the lead in redesigning the reform initiative and in delivering professional development and technical assistance to the partner districts. The centerpiece of the new strategy is the Leader Teacher Institute, a long-term professional development initiative that includes intensive training in content and pedagogy for three consecutive years. The Leader Teacher Institute is intended to deepen the participants’ content knowledge and improve their skill in inquiry-centered instruction. The Leader Teachers are expected to change their practices, to improve the professional cultures of their schools and influence the practices of their peers.

The Merck Institute and its four partner districts have made a three- year commitment to the Leader Teacher Institute; the partnership has prepared a proposal seeking funding from the National Science Foundation to provide additional support for this work.

Observations by the CPRE evaluation team and participant responses to a baseline survey and a follow-up survey three months afterward deemed the Leader Teacher Institute 1995 summer program an overwhelming success. Leader teachers reported significant gains in their knowledge of science and their skills with inquiry-centered instruction. Over ninety percent of the participants rated the instructional staff as highly effective. Nearly half of the Leader Teachers who responded to the follow-up survey had used the materials and techniques acquired during the summer program after only two months into the new school year. The Leader Teachers see themselves as change agents, changing their own practice and sharing what they have learned with their colleagues, and they see the Merck Institute as critical to instructional reform.

Part Three — Strengthening the Partnership

The Merck Institute has come to see its efforts as a single partnership, and there is an increasing sense that the four districts also perceive that they are part of a larger initiative as evidenced in their enthusiasm about the Leader Teacher Institute, their increased work with Merck Institute staff, and their participation in cross-district activities. The Merck Institute reform strategy has shifted dramatically, and the Institute is now addressing all three areas of district capacity — the human resources, the instructional materials, and the institutional culture.

Despite the changes in the science instruction in the four districts, much remains to be done to achieve systemic reforms. The CPRE evaluation team encourages the Merck Institute and its partner districts to take the following actions to strengthen the partnership and its initiative:

• define their long-term expectations of the Leader Teachers, and the roles and activities they need to realize this vision;
• encourage more cross-district work on curriculum, assessment, and professional development to make efficient use of resources, encourage exchanges of ideas, and build the sense of a shared effort;
• work towards the adoption of local content standards that reflect the emerging state and national standards in science, and develop curriculum frameworks based on these standards;
• encourage the districts to examine and strengthen the alignment of science, mathematics, and technology and assist in building the interdisciplinary connections into the districts’ new curricula;
• implement assessment strategies that measure the partnership’s impact on student performance and participation;
• consider how to inform and involve parents and other stakeholders in the reform of science education;
• begin local discussions about articulation across the elementary, middle and secondary school settings; and
• work with partners to review district policies on professional development, teacher supervision, staff recruitment and other areas that influence the systemic reform of science education.