Attracting PhDs to K-12 Education A Demonstration Program for Science, Mathematics, and Technology (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Proposed Demonstration Program
4 Proposed Demonstration Program
Pages 26-42
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 26... ...
The overarching goals of the proposed demonstration program are to work out ways of preparing new and recent PhDs to become certified K- 12 teachers, so that they can use their unique set of skills to significantly improve and transform K-12 teaching and learning in science, mathematics, and technology. By marrying the attributes of PhDs with the pedagogical and other teaching skills they acquire in the program, the nation will gain a 26
|
From page 27... ...
The next section discusses these four program features; this will be followed by a discussion of other program features that will be important for the program's success: recruitment, selection and placement, teacher preparation, and mentoring and leadership preparation. The final sections briefly discuss the demonstration program's structure, funding, and evaluation, closing with a brief look at next steps.
|
From page 28... ...
People with new and recent PhDs in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology are not evenly distributed among the states, and there are only a few places that might have enough of them to mount a viable demonstration program on their own. Fortunately, these people tend to be highly mobile.
|
From page 29... ...
(percent) Kansas 1,119 4,832 5,951 18.8 Kentucky 833 2,499 3,332 25.0 Louisiana 1,536 3,823 5,359 28.7 Maine 148 366 514 28.8 Maryland 3,623 8,288 11,911 30.4 Massachusetts 9,170 19,972 29,142 31.5 Michigan 5,339 16,031 21,370 25.0 Minnesota 2,656 7,062 9,718 27.3 Mississippi 705 2,182 2,887 24.4 Missouri 2,575 6,494 9,069 28.4 Montana 247 992 1,239 19.9 Nebraska 780 2,289 3,069 25.4 Nevada 145 386 531 27.3 New Hampshire 278 1,413 1,691 16.4 New Jersey 3,069 7,904 10,973 28.0 New Mexico 949 1,794 2,743 34.6 New York 19,888 34,016 53,904 36.9 North Carolina 4,157 10,439 14,596 28.5 North Dakota 241 927 1,168 20.6 Ohio 6,706 13,280 19,986 33.6 Oklahoma 1,443 4,164 5,607 25.7 Oregon 1,440 5,061 6,501 22.2 Pennsylvania 8,045 17,644 25,689 31.3 Rhode Island 628 2,999 3,627 17.3 South Carolina 895 2,522 3,417 26.2 South Dakota 101 450 551 18.3 Tennessee 2,207 5,446 7,653 28.8 Texas 9,634 16,233 25,867 37.2 Utah 1,472 4,205 5,677 25.9 Vermont 219 685 904 24.2 Virginia 2,473 6,967 9,440 26.2 Washington 2,763 7,598 10,361 26.7 West Virginia 330 1,251 1,581 20.9 Wisconsin 2,918 11,100 14,018 20.8 Wyoming 183 937 1,120 16.3 Total 157,700 360,708 518,408 30.4 SOURCE: Special tabulation from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients prepared for the committee by the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council.
|
From page 30... ...
The institutions that choose to participate in this demonstration program will likely already have ongoing partnerships with local schools, school districts, or larger geographical educational entities. If not, they will need to develop them.
|
From page 31... ...
, which reviewed the research results and recommendations of pror · 1 sessional organizations. As described in Chapter 3, as an addition to the deep content knowledge in their fields, the fellows need to develop both pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: that is, how to teach in general, and how to teach particular subjects.
|
From page 32... ...
However, actually obtaining certification should not be a requirement for remaining in the demonstration program or successfully "graduating." The committee notes that experience with scientists and engineers from defense-related companies who prepared to become teachers under the Defense Reinvestment Initiative (see NRC, 1999a) shows that fellows who do not achieve certification during their 2 years in a program may become certified after the program is over.
|
From page 33... ...
Therefore, the stipend level suggested is not expected to be a major barrier in recruitment, especially in states with pay scales similar to those of the states reviewed in Phase I To the base $35,000 per year stipend the committee adds an estimated $15,000 for benefits, $3,000 to cover relocation expenses, and $3,000 to cover travel, for an average total annual cost of about $56,000 per PhD.
|
From page 34... ...
The group that discussed recruitment at the committee's public workshop believed the population of recent PhDs in science, mathematics, and engineering is reasonably well defined, so that recruitment efforts can be targeted to the appropriate trade journals and organizations. Word of mouth is likely to be an important part of recruitment, particularly after the program begins, when current and former participants will be excellent resources for recruitment.
|
From page 35... ...
Furthermore, given the particular shortage of highly qualified teachers in urban and rural school districts, applicants should demonstrate interest and desire in teaching all students from a variety of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds and from different levels of academic preparation and achievement. Although it is important to select fellows who have a demonstrated commitment to K-12 education, it must be kept in mind that PhD students often carry heavy burdens to complete their work, so that they may not have had significant amounts of time for other activities.
|
From page 36... ...
for medical training. The applicants to graduate medical programs and the programs submit ranked lists of either their preferred programs (from applicants)
|
From page 37... ...
A third possible model is the selection and placement process used by the nine AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowships Programs. A1though the selection process varies somewhat among programs, they all screen the applications through an informal peer-review mechanism involving former fellows.
|
From page 38... ...
In particular, they thought that the national program should play the major role in providing transitional mentoring, the school district should provide navigational mentoring, and that other partners (e.g., universities, museums) should take the lead in providing developmental mentoring.
|
From page 39... ...
It would not be targeted at developing future school principals, school district superintendents, or other "leaders." STRUCTURE Although the Phase I report of this project (NRC, 2000a) raised the possibility of state programs, the committee concludes that the proposed demonstration program should be a national one.
|
From page 40... ...
. To estimate the administrative costs of the program, the committee looked again at the AAAS fellowship programs, particularly the Congressional Fellowship Program, and at the NRC Associateship Program.
|
From page 41... ...
At the committee's workshop, participants suggested that support for the demonstration program might come from a mix of federal, state, school district, private foundation, and industry sources. For example, foundations might provide seed money or start-up money, while, as just noted, states or school districts would be expected to support some local components of the program.
|
From page 42... ...
It is clear that just having the distinguished fellowship is not sufficient. Careful implementation will involve strong connections with participating local schools and districts, as well as strong and appropriate programs at the participating institutions of higher education and continuing contacts among the fellows.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.