This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant REC-9819347. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Driver 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Driver 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Driver 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

as written by Emil Sztanyo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

As representatives for The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University and the site visit team, we thank the many people in the Whittemore-Prescott Area School District who supported the work of this evaluation.

The director of ancillary services and RSI local facilitator, Marilyn Herriman, was the integral link in making all contacts and arrangements for each of our visits. She and the building principals, guidance counselor, teachers, office staff, school board members, students, and community members were gracious with their openness and hospitality. They offered insight rich with thought and honest introspection. The RSI regional coordinator, Brent Cooley, arranged to be present at all meetings and was a valuable resource. As his time permitted, the RSI Principal Investigator, Stan Delidow, was also present and contributed to discussions. Additionally, several school district administrators and staff continued to answer requests for documents or clarification of issues over the many months of this observation period. We enjoyed our time with each of you.

We present this report as a fair and accurate snapshot of the Whittemore-Prescott school community and its efforts to tackle the mission of providing ever-improving and challenging science, mathematics, and technology education for its youth.

We extend our sincere appreciation to Ms. Sally Veeder for her expert editing and patience with us as we developed the final report. Certainly, our work in conducting the visits and preparing the report would not have been possible without the entire support staff at The Evaluation Center.

Initiatives of this kind—even in the best of circumstances— require great amounts of energy and coordination of effort. Whittemore-Prescott’s geographic and demographic situation is unique and challenging. We recognize and acknowledge the significant efforts that have been made to this point on behalf of the students in this district.

The Evaluation Center (EC) at Western Michigan University (WMU) is engaged in a study of the Rural Systemic Initiatives program (RSI) with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Fundamentally, the RSI program is intended to improve science, mathematics, and technology education in rural, economically disadvantaged regions of the nation through approved collaboratives involving K-12 schools, four-year colleges and universities, communities colleges, community organizations, and other organized stakeholders.

This evaluation project began in 1999 based on a plan to examine selected RSI collaboratives —the Appalachian, Delta, and UCAN. EC staff decided to conduct case studies in two communities in each of the three chosen collaboratives as the core of the project. Since these collaboratives had been operational for two or more years, a “post hole” type case study was conducted. A visitation team of two to four professionals conducted interviews and focus group meetings with teachers, administrators, students, and selected members of the community. The team also reviewed documents and observed classrooms and facilities over a period of three to five days. The team “lived” in the communities during the time of their study-visits in an attempt to more fully understand the context of the school and the environment in which the RSI was engaged. The case study reports were completed, reviewed at the local level for accuracy, and submitted to the National Science Foundation. The findings and reports were also disseminated at meetings of professional groups of science, math, and rural educators as well as to other researchers as requested and deemed appropriate.

In 2000, the NSF asked the EC to expand the study to include three new RSI collaboratives and to extend the project through May 2003. The new collaboratives added to the study were the Texas RSI, the Michigan RSI, and the Coastal RSI. The same overall objectives for the evaluative study were applicable to the new RSIs with four additional questions introduced. The four issues relate to new or alternative forms of student assessment, the contextual factors of the communities that support educational reform, the processes and conditions that facilitate effective operations, and the use and value of technology in the RSIs.

The Texas RSI became operational in early 1999 and expanded into southern and northern groups in 2001. The Coastal and Michigan RSIs became operational in 2001. It was not reasonable to conduct case studies in the same way as we had done with mature RSIs. Thus, it was decided that longitudinal studies (three or four visits over a two-year period) should be conducted in three school communities in each of the new collaboratives.

Visitation teams were formed and began gathering data during the 2001-2002 school year. The last visit of a study team to each of these case study communities was made in Fall 2002.

Each case study visitation team was composed of at least one project staff member and usually one or two members of the Research Advisory Team (RAT).

The RAT member was selected for a visit on the basis of his/her special expertise or experience with an issue or condition determined to be a relevant factor in that case study. A case study visitor’s guidebook was used to provide direction and format for the interviews in addition to specific and general questions to be addressed.

The case studies mainly were designed to reflect our understanding of a school community’s interacting factors that either support educational reform or tend to serve as barriers. The role of the RSI in the reform effort was given special attention. The RSI may be one of several independent initiatives for school improvement, but it should be a major source of input with regard to math and science. Clear evidence of impact including consideration of different types of evidence reflecting student learning is important. Valued outcomes of the RSI program that we looked for include traditional forms of student assessment; enrollment in advanced science, math, or technology courses; pursuit of careers requiring strong science, math, or technology backgrounds; and student work samples from independent investigations.

We were aware of factors that are commonly discussed in comparing rural schools with suburban and urban schools. We conducted the case studies as objective visitors to selected communities without preconceptions about the benefits or problems caused by school consolidation; depth/breadth of science, math, and technology offerings; qualifications of teachers; etc. We were interested in schools from the perception of the community and the values they have for education and schooling. Education research literature indicates that decision making, power brokering, and written and unwritten understandings are parts of the fabric of “doing business” in rural communities. Clearly, the RSI project was a major intervention from the “outside,” and we were interested in how that approach works in different types of communities. While all of the case study sites are rural and poor, each is quite unique in terms of its history, racial and ethnic makeup, property values, governmental jurisdiction, etc. All these factors play a part in the success or lack of success in educational reform. Thus, we attempted to trace the lineage of public education in each community. We also tried to identify the significant events that have contributed to the shaping of public education in these areas. This is, in reality, a story about the community from the eyes and ears of outsiders, but with a strong sense of understanding about rural schools and communities.

The Coastal RSI case studies focused on the school district communities of Charles City, Virginia; Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and Marion, South Carolina. In Michigan the evaluation project looked at two traditional public school communities—Baldwin and Whittemore-Prescott—and one state approved and funded charter school that serves a Native American community—Nah Tah Wahsh Public School Academy. The case study school communities in the Texas RSI collaborative were Carrizo Springs, Clarendon, and Pittsburg.

The Michigan Rural Systemic Initiative (MiRSI) to Improve Science, Mathematics and Technical Education is a consortium of 16 school districts and one Native American academy. Ten of these rural districts are geographically arranged from the Saginaw Bay area and points north on Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The remaining 6 sites can be found throughout the Upper Peninsula. The principal investigator and director of this collaborative’s RSI project has been Dr. Stanley Delidow. There are 5 regional coordinators for MiRSI. Recently (Fall 2002) NSF and MiRSI staff have discussed the possible discontinuance of funding for this consortium. Some administrative changes are possible.

The Michigan RSI works collaboratively with universities, community colleges, Tribal Colleges and other agencies to promote local capacity for systemic reform. Regional coordinators are charged with developing relationships with school administrators and personnel, school board and community members. These coordinators act as facilitators of and conduits for interpersonal networking and information sharing within the school districts. Additionally, they act to connect the districts with their broader communities and, ultimately, with the larger sphere of national education expectations.

Further information regarding MiRSI is available on the project’s Web site <http://mirsi.org/>.

The MiRSI regional coordinator for the Whittemore-Prescott Area School District is Brent Cooley. Members of the evaluation team who participated in site visits to this school district included Dr. Jerry Horn, Mrs. Gloria Tressler, Dr. Brian Lotven, and Dr. James Jess. After an initial orientation visit by Drs. Horn and Lotven on September 10, 2001, the first full site visit occurred on December 3-4, 2001, with follow-up visits on May 20-21, 2002, and November 11-12, 2002. Additional person-to-person telephone or e-mail contacts were made by individuals on the case study visitation team as needed.

The land of this area was originally inhabited by Sauk Indians, followed by Chippewa, Ottawa, Menominee and Algonquin. The white pine forests provided plentiful shelter. The Rifle, Au Gres, and Pine Rivers continue to offer excellent sources of trout, chinook, coho, and smelt fishing. Trading posts began in the 1830s with the first white settlers from France. The 1880s brought the great lumber boom. Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools (W-P) draws its student body from three counties—Arenac, Iosco, and Ogemaw. West Branch is the county seat and largest city in Ogemaw County. The evaluation team stayed in West Branch, since there are no public lodging facilities in the Whittemore-Prescott community. This required a drive of approximately 30 minutes from the hotel to the administrative offices, high school, and elementary schools. En route, we saw a fairly consistent landscape of well-kept, cultivated fields; dairy farms; and well-maintained farm structures and other housing that reflected the values and work ethics of the ancestors who settled the area. Scattered groves of trees and shrubs provide good habitat for wildlife. Permanent deer stands were visible among the trees or along likely deer trails. Deer have flourished over the past 20 years; and this provides both recreation and economic benefits to the area through hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor activities. They also contribute to potential hazards for auto travel while being a menace to farmers and gardeners. Along the road, we saw piles of round stones along fence lines and along the edges of the plowed fields. These stones, marked by the effects of the grinding, churning, and slow movement of glacial snow and earlier ice ages, have to be “picked” from the fields as each spring brings a new batch to the top of the soil. Winters tend to be long and cold with a seasonal snowfall accumulation of approximately 40-50 inches in Iosco County. Yet, each year in the spring, life is renewed. The temperatures warm and the snow melts, which generates a newness and beauty that is hard to imagine if one has never experienced this phenomena.

Farming and land ownership were once the marks of wealth, but production agriculture is an annual gamble. Will the crops make? Will the prices be high enough to cover the costs of seed, fertilizer, and fuel let alone the purchase of new or replacement equipment? Hope and reliance on what their ancestors depended on for a living are the ingredients of the people who developed and inhabited this area. Proud immigrants, largely from Scandinavian and other European countries, brought their languages, cultures, religions, tools, seeds, farming techniques, etc. to these new lands to improve their living conditions and to pursue a new life with more freedom in all respects. Before them, a variety of Native American Indian tribes occupied these vast and rich lands lying between or among three of the Great Lakes (Michigan, Huron, and Superior). Today, the farmlands are generally occupied by older persons whose children have moved away or are farmed by families of which one or more of the adults have second jobs in surrounding towns. In simple terms, income from family farms alone cannot support the families with one or more children who are planning or at least considering taking over the family farm business.

Fishing, hunting, and other outdoor winter and summer activities are favorites of the locals. The availability of these is enough for many persons to value this area and the lifestyle it provides. There is an annual “Safety Day” on the school calendar in November. In some places this is referred to as “St. Antler’s Day” since it is really the opening of deer hunting season. Our last site visit coincided with Safety Day week. The local gas stations were stocked with deer bait, and the anxious hunters were fueling their off-road vehicles. In fact, at the high school they were having difficulty drumming up enough male student volunteers for an upcoming school activity because many would be hunting with their families that weekend. The principal said they would rely on the female students that weekend. We learned about “deer camp” and other related lingo as we visited.

Traveling from the hotel in West Branch to school district offices, we passed sparse and modest housing that was mostly well kept. We also saw a few small businesses that looked to be deserted and one very small, yet operational, convenience-type store. While the roads were not heavily traveled, casual greetings were exchanged between drivers of passing automobiles. Yellow school buses had fanned out across the countryside to gather children and youth for schools. One imagines that the daily gathering of small groups of students awaiting transportation to school has changed little over the generations.

Students arrived at school from their various forms of transportation—school bus, parent’s car, car pool, or their own cars—with backpacks and other paraphernalia in tow. The type and quality of the student-driven vehicles ranged considerably, from castoff family cars to nearly new sporty cars and pickup trucks. We were told that many of the parent and car pool drivers were on their way to jobs outside the community. The orderliness of this movement was notable. There appeared to be considerable interaction among students getting on and off the buses, regardless of their obvious age differences.

The land around the cluster of schools and the district’s administrative offices was flat without any homes or farm buildings nearby. However, young dairy cattle could be seen across the road that runs in front of the school. We did not observe any communal areas in the towns of Whittemore or Prescott such as municipal buildings, medical facilities, bookstores, libraries, movie theaters, video stores, restaurants, grocery or department stores.

Arenac, Iosco, and Ogemaw Counties have median household incomes and percentages of children below poverty level of $27,758 / 27.6 percent, $27,140 / 21.9 percent, and $25,383 / 26.8 percent respectively.

Michigan is reported to have a median household income of $38,883 and 18 percent of children below the poverty level (slightly better than the United States’ statistics of $37,005 and 19.9 percent).

The main towns or cities that students come from are Whittemore, Prescott, Alger, and Mills Township.

During our case study visit, we were invited to take an extended, narrated driving tour of several other sections within the school district’s boundaries. Our tour driver was the current school board president who is also the owner of the only plumbing business in the school district. Thus, he was very familiar with the area, the residents, and even the recent history of the land and housing ownerships.

It was reported that approximately 70 percent of the students in the school district come from the area of Skidway Lake (Mills Township). This community surrounds a small lake and is made up of probably a few hundred dwellings that are small, cabin-like structures. Many of these were constructed as summer or vacation homes by some of the more well-to-do visitors from Flint, Detroit, etc. Over the years these houses have not been well maintained. They now are rented or sold as low cost housing for people on welfare who are moving here from the city. This brings a very different element of society into this historically farming community and school district.

Most of these dwellings were dilapidated, badly worn, and neglected. Piles of rubbish, abandoned cars, discarded household appliances, and the like were strewn over the properties. The houses/cabins were at various angles to each other—not appearing anything at all like a planned neighborhood. They had no streets, lanes, driveways, or paths. It looked as though many dwellings as possible were placed in all types of geometric arrangements on someone’s property. There were a few bicycles, but no playground or backyard swing sets. There were no stores or community buildings in this area. In referring to the condition of this setting, we were told several times “this is what we’re up against.” Many families have migrated to the Skidway Lake area in search of low-cost housing and favorable welfare practices.

While on the Skidway Lake tour we saw two young ladies (approx. 18-20 yrs old) walking by the side of the road with babies in strollers. They were the only people we saw in this whole area. Some distance away was one medical clinic and a tiny library where students on home-release are told to go to do their schoolwork rather than stay at home.

Our tour guides noted the homes of some “hard-working people.” These well-cared-for homes were modest by most standards. All were in remote areas—no town or amenities anywhere nearby.

Over time a key feature of this area—the 13,500-acre Prescott Ranch—became the Mackinac Land and Cattle Company. This ranch, that now has approximately 8,000 acres, remains the largest contiguous area of cultivated farmland east of the Mississippi River. However, the land and cattle company employs only about 30 local people. Currently, the National Gypsum Company is the highest source of tax revenue in the area. The school district is the largest employer. Beyond family employment in generational farming, there are few other job opportunities for high school graduates in this area. However, the local plumber/school board president is a living example of how an entrepreneur can create a job with a good income. Still young (in his fifties), he has largely withdrawn from the day-to-day operations of the business and transferred them to his son. With no other competition for plumbers in a two-county area, it appears that this family-owned service business has provided a good living. The family owns a nice home on 50 acres of local land and 80 additional acres of recreational and investment property in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

About 30 percent of the students in the Whittemore-Prescott School District are characterized as “imports” from urban areas (i.e., Flint, Detroit, etc.). They are described as lacking a sense of belonging to the community. Many of them are said to be from dysfunctional families, single parent families, and/or living in foster homes or with grandparents. It was said that some of their parents and guardians do not know the grade level in which their child is enrolled or even the names of their teachers.

We were informed that there is a very high poverty rate among elementary students. Further, we were told that the reported poverty rate for the high school level is likely to be lower than that reported for the K-8 level because the older students would be hesitant to make a claim for the free or reduced-price lunch program. On a subsequent site visit, teachers reported that the free or reduced-price lunch percentage among their students can be as high as 80 percent.

The racial profile of the Whittemore-Prescott district seems uniformly Caucasian.

Prescott High School, originally built by the WPA

, was destroyed in a fire in May 1941. Students had to go to various other towns such as Hale, Whittemore, or Sterling if they wanted to continue their high school education. In 1944 they were able to transfer into school districts that were accredited (Whittemore and Sterling). In 1955 the Whittemore High School building was aging, and the district needed to expand its tax base. With this in mind the superintendent of the Whittemore school district approached school board members from Prescott. Eventually, a broader group of school districts joined forces to look for ways to build a new, shared high school.

Distance was an issue in the negotiations among districts since was shorter to travel from Prescott to Whittemore than to travel from Prescott to Sterling. Also, it was important that the new school configuration be a K-12 school. This served to motivate interested parties who did not have a high school to engage in serious planning but also complicated negotiations with those who were threatened with loss of “their own” high school. Some representatives from the interested districts contacted Senator Charles Prescott. Through estate managers, 40 acres of the Prescott Ranch (now called the Mackinac Land and Cattle Company) located between the towns of Whittemore and Prescott were sold in exchange for $1. A new high school was built by 1958. In the 1970s students in grades 1, 2, and 3 attended school in Whittemore; those in grades 4, 5, and 6 attended the Prescott Elementary School. Around 1972 junior high classes were set up in a new north wing built onto Whittemore-Prescott High School. Previous to this, the junior high classes were held at the Sherman Elementary School. A new elementary facility that jointly serves both communities was built in the1997-98 school year. This turned out to be fortuitous timing. The junior high school had been relocated to the old Prescott elementary school building for about five months when a serious fire occurred in September of 1998. The alternative education building shared its vacant rooms with the displaced junior high students until their building was repaired in April 1999. The alternative education program began in 1985. It is now housed in the former Whittemore Elementary School building.

We spoke with three different groups of community members over the course of our three site visits. Their perceptions and comments are reported below.

During our first visit, the current superintendent, who was relatively new in this position and lived outside the district, did not recognize the two older gentlemen who were present as representatives of the community. One of the gentlemen was the father of the secretarial assistant to the director of ancillary services.

He was also a prominent landowner and farmer who had served on the local school board. This gentleman’s grandson is recognized as a local legend, and information about him and the hardships and successes in his life have been widely disseminated in the local media. The other community representative was also notable: he owned the local funeral home and had served on the school board for 25 years. Both these men had been deeply involved in formation of the Whittemore-Prescott School District.

High school wrestling and football teams have been very successful at the state level, and football provides a rallying point for the community. Indeed, the students we interviewed listed school activities and sports (as a player or spectator) as the main things to do in the Whittemore-Prescott region. These youth said they do a lot of traveling with their parents to other towns for sports—to the Silverdome in Pontiac, for instance. These activities give the students an opportunity to go outside their community with a reason to be proud. In the neighboring towns of West Branch and East Tawas, W-P students and teachers say their school is referred to as “cow pie high.” Since there are few part-time jobs in the W-P district area, several students work in establishments on “hamburger hill” in West Branch or in one of the locally owned restaurants or businesses in towns outside their district.

The current school board president said there is an “astronomical problem in our district in the way kids are getting their perceptions on what they can do in life. I don’t know how we’ll ever overcome it!” He went on to express his views about a substantial segment of current residents, saying that “many have made a living without ever working.” He further lamented that “this used to be an area of good ethics, values . . . then we had an influx of welfare people with no desire to do anything, and at the same time discipline suffered to the school children, values have suffered.” “I encouraged my kids to go to school because I wanted them to do better than I did.” Some former residents are moving back to the area to get out of the city, and he remains hopeful this will have a positive effect.

The picture painted of the current Whittemore-Prescott school community contrasts with the stories older residents provided about the history of strong farming families in the area. These longtime residents also reported their own children as successfully graduating college and pursuing careers such as the ministry, aviation (airline captain), and plumbing. And when asked “What would your kids say about the education they got here?” they replied that “A 34-year-old son was not prepared technology-wise for college, but now he has an advanced degree,” “Another son is moving back here with his three children,” and that “[their] other children have pride in their experience here.”

Community members gave further insight to the mind-set of the Whittemore-Prescott region. Although it was restated that there still are some strong generational farming families in the district, the general malaise attributed to most families was paralleled in the reported attitude of the former high school principal. After more than 20 years as principal, this gentleman was “let go.” His view was that the MEAP (Michigan’s state assessment) was not important, curriculum was not important, and the state was not important. He was quoted as saying, “We can teach these kids for 20 years, and they still won’t pass the MEAP.” His pronouncements about education were well known to those we interviewed. In fact, during additional interviews with administrators, the attitude that students in Whittemore-Prescott couldn’t achieve was credited to these repeated statements.

The current Whittemore-Prescott school board was reported to be evenly divided on education issues. They also were said to be aware of the RSI and committed to its cause. The current board president strongly expressed his concern that the board should look at outside agencies other than RSI because, as he said, “RSI may not always be with us.” He added, “Now we need to implement to students receiving the curriculum . . . not just have the curriculum sitting on a shelf.” Although we were told that curriculum is a priority of the local board, we were also told that its members do not wish to attend RSI meetings. They delegate others to “go ahead and do it.” In essence, community members describe a hands-off school board. The December 2001 meeting’s attendees said the district had a good administrative team in place at that time. Subsequent discussions suggested that the school board takes a very hands-on approach to school personnel issues, especially those involving the support staff (noncertified staff) who tend to live and vote in the district in greater numbers than the administrators and certified staff.

Shortly after our May 2002, visit the then-sitting superintendent left his job. An interim superintendent was appointed for the 2002-2003 school year. He was a retired administrator living in the area. It appeared that there was no active search for a new permanent superintendent.

When asked about the type of experience it is to serve on the school board, the past and present members replied that, “You’ve got to be satisfied to be criticized,” and that you “always have people who expect you to do things that can’t be done.” Most contacts among community members, parents, and the school board members concern nonacademic issues about individual students. They put it this way: “Depending on the issues, you’ll get a lot of calls, usually about things that happened to their children in school and for personal things rather than business.” “We never got calls about academics.” “We would get calls about a student not being allowed to play ball.” At the second case study visit (Spring 2002), a focus group of community members echoed those sentiments. They thought the school board wastes time hearing many complaints from parents that would be better directed to the teachers or building principals. Further, they observed that new school board members usually want to make changes and do a good job, but then find out there may not be enough money.

We were told that Michigan’s Proposal A (a tax restructuring in the 1990s) was a windfall for Whittemore-Prescott schools. In fact, we were given multiple and varying accounts of the status of this district’s finances. They ranged from having a recent shortfall of $350,000 to having a fund equity for the past two years. The last school bond election passed by only one vote, which allowed them to build the new elementary school. It is not clear as to how one should interpret this close vote. On the one hand, the new configuration and structure was passed by a razor-slim margin. On the other hand, the issue was approved, which some may consider a significant event in not very good economic times in Michigan. Also, this may be an indication of the overall support for this district’s schools and the movement to consolidate the buildings onto the developing central campus. Previous millages were passed regularly, but they said now this is difficult to do. Community representatives said that “people want to give money if they know what it’s used for.”

We heard from a much larger community focus group during our second visit. It included a church pastor, a chiropractor, a former mayor/current legal secretary, a grocer, a massage therapist, a former school board member/current city clerk/4th grade paraprofessional, a former Prescott village council member/current special education paraprofessional, and a former elementary school teacher/current substitute teacher/farmer. With its array of personal experiences, this group offered a wide-ranging discussion that, along with expressing pride and appreciation for their community, also seemed to vent longstanding frustrations with the school district and life in general in this area.

Some issues were brought forward such as residency for school district administrators and teachers, millages, availability of textbooks, the nature of being on the school board, and the rate of turnover of school board members. Participants also mentioned the need for the school district to offer extracurricular activities even if students with limited free time must pick and choose activities to take part in. Community members were concerned that living outside the district keeps many teachers and administrators from being completely vested in the schools and reflects on the expectations and outcomes.

The community members thought their locale was unique because “the kids here need to work their way through school.” They don’t have malls or skating rinks, so they get jobs. The group went on to note that about half the population of Prescott is on welfare, another quarter is retired, and family expectations are going down.

•better participation in school parent-teacher conferences (spring conferences were suspended for lack of participation)

•more participation on village boards (they can’t keep a full village board in Prescott; members are paid $10 a month)

•more openness on the part of the school district to offers from professional community members to give in-school training to students on topics such as health

A lengthy discussion incorporated people’s feelings and observations about overall expectations of the community for student success in math, science, and technology fields. The group said it was a “constant challenge” and concern to help students make connections between what they see in class and the rest of their lives. “There aren’t a lot of good examples for kids from the adults in the community . . . and it’s the school’s opportunity to bridge that gap.” The group recognized the importance of activities like a career day and said they could use more opportunities like this and at an earlier age to help kids realize what doors they may be closing by not taking certain preliminary courses in school.

One participant expressed her view as a parent of a student who did quite well in Whittemore-Prescott schools and then went on to fail an entry level course in college. While not removing responsibility from her child, she wondered whether this outcome was a result of unexceptional preparation and grade inflation in high school, a poor college instructor, or a combination of both.

Community members revealed their worry that students weren’t being adequately prepared to make the transition from high school to college. A situation that greatly concerns them is when students who have gotten into trouble are pulled out of school to be homeschooled by parents who may have a third-grade education. They say there is no homeschooling oversight by the state of Michigan. These same students routinely come back to the school district when the next academic year begins. Subsequently, they tend to “fit-in” even less well than before they left. This focus group stated that the most important factors for students are parental influence and peer pressure. We were repeatedly reminded on our site visits that school and staff may offer the most stability in the lives of many, if not most, of their students.

The focus group spoke highly of 4H and Future Farmers of America organizations and the involvement of the Farm Bureau in providing a field trip for fourth graders. However, no one at this meeting was aware of the Agriculture Committee

that had been formed by parents and other community members. They expect the science, math, and technology curriculum of the schools to (a) demonstrate the practical side of these fields, (b) be interesting, and (c) produce students who can go on to higher education seamlessly.

Our final visit allowed us to meet a different group of seven parents from the community. Two teacher partners and the MiRSI regional coordinator were also in attendance. The consensus from these parents was that they were happy here. Their children are some of the better students. One parent thought that her children were “successful in spite of this district” and that residents “struggle here as a district” especially with graduating students who cannot read adequately. As a group their major concern was for the students who fall through the cracks and wondering whether one should just “write it off like a business loss.” They suggested that classes be broken down to more specific subjects, that parents volunteer in the actual classrooms, and that the courses include more hands-on group work.

Community members, other than those seated on the current school board, seemed to be hearing about the MiRSI project for the first time through the meetings we held during all three visits.

Districtwide average class size was reported as 23 students and should be maintained at that level for the 2002-2003 academic year. There are no charter schools in the district. We were told the special education population was approximately 177 out of a total enrollment of 1406 (or 13 percent) for the 2001-2002 school year. Teachers and administrators made several comments that they think they have a high number of students requiring special education in their district.

Most students with visible manifestations of disability were observed together as a class using the library at the elementary school. Inclusionary methods of educating students with moderate and severe disabilities were not observed.

We did not formally tour this facility or observe any of the preschool or kindergarten classes. This building also houses the board of education and main administrative offices.

The elementary building is new and attractive. It is also well-equipped and houses a full gymnasium with bleachers. This school has separate wings for grades 1-3 and 4-6, including separate playgrounds at opposite ends of the building. There are individual hallways for each grade. On the hallway walls were several exhibits of artwork using a wide variety of media and incorporating some mathematical concepts such as tessellations. We observed third graders in a computer lab. Each student was working individually on various programs. We arrived as they were finishing an assignment and could pick their own program for the time remaining in the class. The software looked age-appropriate, challenging, and engaging. Students were quiet and busy.

In May 2002 an hour was spent in the first grade classroom observing a teacher and 17 eager students. The classroom ceiling was covered with a rain forest that had been used to study a previous science unit. The walls were covered with displays of student work. The student desks were grouped in fours, so that students could work in pairs or small groups. The students were attentive and well disciplined. If the students started to stray from what they were supposed to be doing, the teacher would call “time” and count backwards—“three, two, one”—then say “listen” and everyone was back on task. The classroom instruction was fast paced, yet the students were constantly being checked for their understanding throughout the lesson. On the day of the visit, the students were being taught about the four parts of an egg. The teacher started the lesson with the students sitting in a group on the floor. She explained what they were going to learn that day. She showed them several examples of different types of eggs and gave the students an opportunity to touch and observe them as they were passed around the group. Following that exercise, the students were told to go to their desks. At their desks, each student was given an egg and the teacher taught them how to crack it open, so that they could observe its four parts. The next few minutes were spent with the students cracking open their eggs and identifying its four parts. The teacher went around the room helping those students that were having a problem identifying all four parts. After the students threw away their eggs and cleaned up their desks, the teacher used the overhead to review the four parts of the egg and gave the students a worksheet where they were asked to identify the four parts of the eggs on paper. The following day she would be bringing hard-boiled eggs to class and the students would compare how a cooked egg compared with a raw egg. The students would have an opportunity to eat their hard-boiled egg at the conclusion of the lesson. On the third day, the teacher said she would be bringing Jell-o eggs in a variety of colors to class for the students to observe and eat as a culminating activity. Prior to studying the egg unit in science, the teacher integrated eggs into her math class where the students counted out a dozen eggs and fractions thereof.

During our first visit the elementary school principal was busy with a student “meltdown,” so the assistant principal escorted us around the building. We were able to speak only briefly with the principal at the conclusion of the building tour.

The physical environment of this school would be a dramatic change for a student promoted from the new, bright, and clean elementary school. The junior high school was the most poorly maintained of all the facilities. The classrooms were messy and cluttered. Stagnant, murky water filled the science lab aquariums. The air quality was unpleasant and stale during both the winter and spring visits. The classroom floors were gritty and needed sweeping and washing. The staff at this school seemed to have a good rapport and attitude. This is the only school building located in Prescott. The other school facilities are in Whittemore.

On our first visit a teacher told us about service learning (i.e., putting out mats for the wrestling team for after-school practices or shoveling snow around the school buildings). Students were assigned as team leaders for this work. They were to organize their workers and report back to the teacher. We were told about exploratory classes available in Spanish, French, greenhouse work, and job application/checkbook skills. It was near the end of the school day, and the greenhouse class was outside raking rocks and spreading mulch in their garden. The students had decided on a garden design. The new greenhouse and the surrounding growing areas were being prepared for planting and use. It was explained that the students planned the gardens, and some of the plantings were related to specific questions raised by the students and/or suggested by the teacher. It was clear that the teacher in charge of the greenhouse project was very interested in this activity and this type of instruction. It appeared that there was a real opportunity for “place based” learning and/or science activities that would have some relevance to the environmental setting of the school. On our second visit five months later some plants were visible in the greenhouse.

The May 2002 visit allowed us to observe two sessions of the same science course. One was held in the classroom, the other was in the library. The classroom session consisted of a 1-2 minute session labeled “brainstorming” to get students thinking about types of devices that can be used to convey sound when not within a normal voice contact area. The teacher used an overhead projector and wrote with a grease pencil on the overhead transparencies. The classroom had a small T.V. (due to its size and position it was difficult to see) connected to a computer. The students were expected to develop a 5-7 page Microsoft PowerPoint presentation of this topic. They were instructed to keep the presentation simple and not to use Encarta. The majority of time in this class was centered on a competitive vocabulary game in which teams of students needed to compose a sentence about the topic of light using words already provided on individual pieces of paper. The members of the team held up a word or words as they lined up in their assigned positions in the classroom. The fastest team with a sentence that made sense was the winner.

The second session of this class was held in the library the next day. The students were grouped (two or three to a group) around computers as they completed Microsoft PowerPoint presentations on the topic of “communications.” The teacher reported they had already completed the science topics of light diffraction, light filters, and electromagnetics including hands-on activities. It was also revealed that there were plans to develop a computerized districtwide inventory for scientific equipment and supplies. MiRSI would reimburse the staff for the time they spent working on this task.

The junior high students have two opportunities to take part in Career Day field trips. Traditionally held in the spring, Career Day was moved to the fall in the 2002-2003 school year to avoid scheduling conflicts. Table 1 lists the names of the businesses and industries that students could opt to visit by choosing a prearranged tour package of three to five locations. Geographically, some of these locations are approximately 60 miles apart.

The principal was at our disposal during both visits. He is new as a principal–having been a social worker at this same school for a few years previous to this assignment. He spoke at length about his background and how it impacts the way he does his job. He also lives outside the district in a town approximately 22 miles away. This principal seems quite engaged in what goes on in his building. He requires his teaching staff to follow, annotate, and regularly submit reports about curricular benchmarks for science and math. His office door was always open as he kept his eye on all that transpired. His secretary was located in the outer office where students and visitors would first approach.

The high school building is an attractive facility with a rather traditional form of architecture common to those built in the 1970s and 1980s. The corridors of the school are long, clean, and lined with a variety of displays including class and athletic team pictures and trophies. The often-mentioned prowess of the athletic programs at this school is clearly demonstrated by the presence of championship trophies and awards. A small conference room near the main office probably serves the needs for parent conferences and other purposes when only two or three persons are involved.

Not far down the hall from the principal’s office is the gymnasium that was being used as an assembly hall for the presentation of annual honors and awards. Tens of awards were presented, and the students seemed to applaud each announcement with an almost equal level of enthusiasm. The awards were for a range of accomplishments in athletics, academics, leadership, service, etc. Some awards included scholarships provided by outside community organizations. The superintendent, principal, and others who were presenting awards sat in a long line of chairs on the basketball court in front of students who were seated on the bleachers on one side of the room. The attire of both teachers and students was casual, which was probably typical, although this was not an ordinary day during the school year. The student behavior was quite good, with no noticeable signs of supervision. Occasionally, a student would exit the gymnasium to attend to other responsibilities without inquiries from teachers or other supervisors. In other words, there seemed to be a mutual level of trust among the teachers and administrators and the students.

In December 2001 we observed an applied algebra lesson in which the teacher used an overhead projector. Instead of writing the steps of a math problem on the blackboard, she engaged the class in problem solving and wrote in marker on the overhead transparency. It appeared to be a meaningful activity/application of math (involving runners in a 400-meter race).

We briefly looked at a science class in which the students were listening to the teacher speak about grades and returning assignments. We had no observations of students or teachers using technology or engaged in direct laboratory work. However, in discussions with three high school science teachers, they reported an increasing use of the laboratory as an integral part of the instructional process.

In May 2002 we observed a similar math class. The classroom was a square space easily accommodating 25-30 students, 2 at a table. The teacher’s desk and workspace was at the front of the room. The room had 2 operating computers and an overhead projector at which the teacher provided much of the instruction. On that day, she was conducting a review of some algebraic computations and introducing some new material. Much of the instruction consisted of students responding to questions or requests for solutions to the problems generated by the teacher and presented on the overhead projector.

At one point during this class, several students got up from their seats and left the room with their books and materials without any interaction with the teacher. Upon inquiry, it was explained that these students left the school at this time each day to catch a bus to attend vocational classes. Vocational courses are offered by the Iosco Regional Educational Service Agency’s School-to-Work Tech Center and the Bay Arenac Career Center. The cost of these programs is partially paid by the local high school out of per-pupil funds received by the state. The Bay Arenac Career Center can cost approximately $5,000 per student per year.

In November 2002 we were able to observe courses titled Calculus, Sophomore Physics, Biology, and Computer Academic Technology (CAT). The math classroom had several colorful posters advertising how a student could earn “MEAP dollars” to exchange for extra credit on homework and tests. This is an incentive proposed by the teacher for the noncalculus math classes. Each correct answer on a sample practice MEAP question yields one MEAP dollar. There is a limit on these each week. Calculus students arrived for the first hour class and spent approximately 15 minutes watching Channel One and then listening to school announcements. Twelve senior students (seven males and five females) seemed well engaged in this class. Some were displaying various levels of attention, yet all looked comfortable with the content. The instructor was well versed in the content and had a good rapport with his students as he had them solve equations and contribute to the class. This was a classic lecture-based presentation with the addition of a graphing calculator that was wired to the overhead projector. The teacher periodically entered equations to the calculator and the resulting graph was visible from the projector. The room also contained a closet with several brand new temperature/motion probe devices. At the time of this observation, these probes had not yet been used. The teacher showed the observer the results of some group work he leads twice a year. He takes this calculus class to do depth, temperature, and PCB measurements on a local river. The data are then graphed. The results looked like the class puts all their data together and makes one report instead of each student producing his/her own report. This teacher stated that his methods of teaching have been the same across the time frame before and during RSI involvement. The influence of RSI was visible in the form of notations on the corner of the blackboard concerning which curricular benchmarks were being addressed in the current lesson. The benchmarks were noted by number code, not by narrative or other description.

The Sophomore Physics lab had approximately seven lab benches with three to four students per bench. The equipment for two experiments on flow rate was already set up for the students by the teacher. He also had previously prepared reporting sheets for the students to fill in the data from their experiments. Students were generally engaged in the laboratory activity, but were not required to write any lab reports or to do any complicated computations. They were required to take a test on the lab material every week. Although the teacher verbally asked them to think about what was happening in their experiments, we observed no in-depth discussions with or responses from the students. The observer informally spoke with the students individually and they revealed that they were enjoying the hands-on work. Approximately half who were asked responded that they were planning to continue with Chemistry and Zoology. A few students gave the strong impression that they would be finished with science at the end of this course. There were new (2001) physics textbooks in the corner of the room. The teacher informed the observer that although it was a good thing to have these new books, there were not enough of them for all his students. The walls were decorated with curricular benchmarks as reminders to all of the goals of this particular course. Interestingly, the walls also displayed a new initiative by the Michigan Department of Career Development--Six Career Pathways (1-866-MYGOALS). This program appears to steer students into learning tracks dependent upon their career goals.

The current biology teacher is relatively new to the school district and teaching (less than three years), and he serves a dual role as the agricultural science teacher as well. In looking about the biology classroom-laboratory, there is clear evidence of his association with Future Farmers of America and the agricultural education community. Some students take courses in both areas, but there is an intended application to the agricultural science curriculum. For this community, this makes those courses fairly popular and probably serves the needs of most students.

The biology teacher seems to be trying to establish himself with the students and to encourage a hands-on laboratory approach. During one period of observation, he had modified a laboratory exercise in a manner that he thought would help the students understand some rather complex biochemical concepts. The lab activity was not completed during the time he was observed, so it is not clear how the students performed. However, there is evidence that he is trying to improve student learning and has taken the time to redesign instruction for that purpose.

The principal was present and accompanied us on our initial tour. He called himself “brand new” in this position in the Fall of 2001. As he greeted some students by name he told us of his intentions to make changes and improvements. He lives about 54 miles away from the school, which may present an obstacle to his progress. He said he would like to move closer to the area to be a part of the community. The main office area of the school is small with a chest-high counter separating visitors from the receptionists. Students and teachers casually come and go around the office. Office staff are friendly and seem to know most of the students by first name.

A young girl with a developmental disability was sitting alone–smiling and vocalizing in the cafeteria. Her job was to wash the lunchroom tables. She was present for all the lunch periods we observed. We did not observe any peer interaction with her. Although the school staff seemed pleasant to her, they often told her to be quiet when she vocalized loudly–even if the room was empty at the time. A small variety of fresh food was served directly onto trays–no dishes. The students were well behaved and sported average appearance of dress code and grooming. There was no “shock” clothing. Actually, compared with some public high schools, they were fairly conservative. The cafeteria was divided by a glass wall into a junior-senior room and a freshman-sophomore room. Decorations on the walls had been supplied by the students (traffic light, neon sign, photos). The principal said the lunchroom is known as the student “lounge,” which reflects the atmosphere they wished to create.

This building is located on another campus. The facility is old and quite worn. In fact, on our first visit the gymnasium was closed and dark—the ceiling was peeling and looked to be falling down. It was mentioned that this was supposed to be repaired—but there were no specifics on a time line or what would be done. On our subsequent visit five months later, the gymnasium was repaired and open for use. It looked to be set up with lunch tables at midday. During our first December visit several of the classrooms in use were quite dark or dimly lit with only a few of the ceiling lights turned on. In one science class the teacher was waiting while the class copied sentences that were underlined on an overhead transparency. It appeared that students in a few classes were hanging around waiting for something. There was a great deal of Christmas decoration in this and all the other buildings. The second site visit in May showed the same casual nature of students coming and going through the building. We were told that starting time for classes is flexible since students are allowed to go outside for lengthy smoking breaks between classes. In general, there seems to be an informal system that governs the comings and goings in this building. This was also seen to some extent at the traditional high school. We were told the census at this alternative education school is about 50-70 students depending on the time of year. This adult and alternative education program draws from an even wider geographical area than the three counties included in the Whittemore-Prescott district. A day-care facility, available for the students’ children, is housed in this alternative education building. The day care facility accepts infants as young as six weeks old. Accordingly, a class is offered here called the “ABCs of Parenting,” and it was mentioned a few times during our visit.

We were able to observe an alternative high school science class during the May 2002 visit. This class had eight male students. They were starting a series of experiments about human digestion. On that day they were working on protein digestion. The teacher had premeasured the larger amount of hydrochloric acid needed for the whole class, preheated water, and did hands-on modeling of how to weigh pepsin powder using weighing paper. The students poured their own aliquots of acid, pepsin solution, and pepsin-HCl mixture, fire polished and cut measured lengths of glass tubing, sucked egg whites into the glass tubing, and held the tubing in the hot water till the egg was cooked. They were instructed to think about what would happen in the three beakers over the next few days. They were instructed to watch and rank the processes of digestion in the three beakers by looking at the cloudiness of the liquid surrounding the egg-filled tubing and rating it on a scale of “low, medium, or high.” There was no discussion overheard concerning writing a lab report. No textbooks or lab manuals were visible in the classroom. The students referred to tattered slim folders that contained a few sheets of paper and were kept in a box in the classroom.

Two of the eight students responded positively to the site visitor’s question about their interest in math, science, or technology careers. One, however, was just teasing and wanted to be an accountant. The second was interested in archaeology and said he plans to attend a community college.

There was a new microscope that connects to a T.V. screen in this classroom. The microscope was not in use during our observation. Otherwise, it was reported and observed that scientific equipment is very scarce. It needs to be borrowed from the traditional high school, which is several miles away.

The principal was not present for our tour of this facility during our first visit. During our second visit the principal’s presence was visible throughout the school during class time. He is said to be personally engaged with the students under his charge in multiple roles as principal, guidance counselor, and at times the source of gas money for visits to a local community college.

This school district has experienced a number of administrative changes over the past few years. The director of ancillary services and the alternative high school principal were the only administrators in place when the school district chose to become a part of the Michigan Rural Systemic Initiative. Thus, there was a need to “bring them up to speed” on the nature of the project and RSI commitments made by others. It appears that the RSI regional coordinator, Brent Cooley, has done a good job in that regard with the principals and the three RSI teacher partners.

Each building administrator seems to have his/her own style of leadership and working with teachers and students. The elementary principal seems heavily engaged in the day-to-day or even moment-to-moment activities of the school. The junior high school principal comes from a social work background, and this experience surfaces when he talks about the educational priorities of his school. His interactions with teachers are friendly and casual, yet businesslike. At the traditional high school level, the principal moved from an English classroom teacher position to this administrative role. He identified some issues he thinks need to be addressed and has made some progress in that regard. These changes range from making new contracts with soft drink machine venders to increasing mathematics and science graduation requirements. The alternative high school principal is also a strong presence in his school since he also has the job of guidance counselor. All of these administrators seemed particularly interested in the welfare of the students and the teachers over which they have supervisory responsibility.

With regard to the dynamics of interaction between the principals and the superintendent (the gentleman in this role during the time frame between our first two visits December 2001-May 2002), there appeared to be an amiable relationship in which neither party or group was inclined to blame the other for any shortcomings of the school, its outcomes for students, or the workplace environment.

A select group of current Whittemore-Prescott students gave their perspectives of life in this rural Michigan area. During our December 2001 visit, we spoke informally in the high school’s library with two students from the alternative education program, three from the high school, and four from the junior high. The high school principal, high school science teacher, four administrators, and representatives of MiRSI were also present and listening to what the students had to say. These particular students expressed an interest in science and math. They told us the high school’s required one-semester Computer Academics and Technology course helped familiarize them with keyboarding, spreadsheets, databases, job applications and resumes. They said high school students use word processing “for every class, reports, and yearbook work—creating pages” and “students use computers every day.” The seventh-graders also reported taking a one-semester course in computers, while the eighth-graders say they use computers every day for assignments that make use of Encarta (“for looking up facts about a state,” etc.) or PowerPoint. The students from alternative education reported they used computers at the same level that the typical high school students did (i.e., Microsoft Works, Excel, PowerPoint). It was reported that the elementary school students engage in an accelerated readers’ program that uses computers to test reading comprehension. They also use computers “to count and read.” One high school female works with computers at her job in a physician’s office.

Reports of their science experience were mixed. Their interests in science ranged from enjoying the “bookwork” to “experiments, dissecting, and labs.” Junior high students were asked if they did calculations along with density experiments and the like. They answered, “Not really.” The senior high schoolers had no time in their schedules for any science classes that year. These students had taken the two science courses required for graduation. One student had taken an advanced physics course. No one present had taken any chemistry or agricultural science.

The junior high girls said they enjoyed mathematics because “you use it so much that you get to like it.” Their male counterparts favored doing “equations” as part of their nightly homework in science and math. The students said the high school offers senior math (including some trigonometry), statistics, and calculus. Currently, five students (not present at this meeting) take calculus. Calculus may only be offered every other year or may become a long-distance course.

In sum, the high school students liked their teachers and thought they were knowledgeable in their subject areas and cared about the students. Academic requirements were viewed as minimal because most of them could be completed before the twelfth grade. The high school offers a mixture of applied and theoretical courses in math and science. Students reported that the MEAP test scores are useful for scholarships and for qualifying for dual enrollment in college classes. There was discussion about the popular method of taking high school courses for dual credit (i.e., high school and community college credits) through Alpena Community College. The local school district pays the tuition for the college courses (approximately $266 per course), while students are responsible for paying about $12 per class plus the cost of the required books. This arrangement is a good financial deal for students, but it is also a potential burden for the school. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, sending students to the vocational schools is quite expensive at $5,000 per student per year. The high school principal expressed his desire to bring some changes to this dual enrollment system. By the time of our third visit, the district had changed this system by only granting 4 instead of 5 credits for an A in a dual credit course. According to the high school principal, this resulted in greatly reduced registration for these courses for the 2002-2003 academic year.

We asked if the students’ career plans included a math, science, or technology background. Their career aspirations included architect, doctor, English teacher, legal secretary, third grade teacher, elementary or early childhood education, secondary education–junior high math, defense attorney, and law enforcement or parole officer. Their reasons for gravitating to these careers were derived from personal experience, e.g., “I lived near a lawyer . . . I got in trouble . . . it might be nice to keep someone out of trouble and spare them what I went through.” Those interested in teaching careers said, “You watch how teachers taught you and influenced you,”

“I come from a big family . . . and help a girl in third grade . . . it’s inspirational . . . I work well with that age group; it feels good.”

Five students indicated they would move back to the Whittemore-Prescott area if the opportunity arises. Two had no desire to return once they leave the area. Two declined to comment. They thought an architect would have good job opportunities in New York City and a physician should look for work at a larger hospital than the local one in West Branch. One student’s response to the question, “Where do you tell people you come from?” was “Michigan.” Their list of the best aspects of their school and community included “You know everyone,” “It’s small . . . it’s not too small . . .and people move here and adjust so easily,” “. . . a lot more one on one . . . if you need help, teachers are right there,” “Teachers actually become your friend . . . you see them in classes and out in the community . . . it’s a very involved community,” “Teachers are understanding,” “I think a lot of people look down on our school . . . it’s small and in the middle of nowhere. I think the atmosphere is awesome and I could never transfer anywhere–ever!” “A lot of teachers give out their home phone numbers,” and “Yes, I have called.” Additional comments included “We have a lot of leadership in our school . . . teachers push students . . .,” “[there is] lots of interest in the students” “[The teachers are] not in it for the money . . . they’re in it for you . . . they love their job.” Examples of teacher involvement with students included committees, help with the junior prom, college applications, and offering extracurricular activities.

Of the three high school students present, two were planning to be roommates at Saginaw Valley Community College and one was planning to attend Central Michigan University. They all wanted to stay fairly close to home. One expressed her confidence in going to college by saying, “I’d like it . . . I like meeting new people . . . to understand their cultures.”

When asked how often school would be mentioned at their home dinner tables, all students agreed school would be discussed daily.

The May 2002 visit included another set of interviews with high school students selected by our hosts. These interviews revealed an unusual sense of thought and planning about their careers. One young man, whose family operated a large dairy in the community, had developed a considerable amount of confidence and poise. It appeared that he had been given significant responsibility in the family business for a number of years and he had developed leadership skills through his work with the Future Farmers of America (FFA). He viewed both these experiences as very valuable in terms of skills, work ethics, and sense of responsibility. He had enough confidence to want to be selected for a state level officer in the FFA. His academic program included enrollment in most of the science and math classes that would lead to a strong preparation for science or a related agricultural area.

Two girls, 1 a senior and 1 a junior, were similarly committed to making the most of what the school had to offer as well as accumulating 24 to 28 hours of college credit before completing high school. One girl planned to be a physical therapist and the other one hopes to become a nurse. Privately they seemed proud of their school but, at the same time, they were obviously a bit ashamed of their school being called “cow pie high” by kids from neighboring communities.

Junior high students were represented once again at an interview during the May 2002 visit. Three eighth grade students were interviewed—1 boy and 2 girls—concerning their interest and education in science, math, and technology. All the students took Basic Science in seventh grade, which covered the study of plants and animals, and were currently taking Physical Science as eighth graders. They said that they were among 30 students out of 130 in their grade that qualified and opted to take a course in prealgebra as seventh graders and then in algebra as eighth graders. The remaining students in their class enrolled in general math as seventh graders and basic math or prealgebra as eighth graders. The students were familiar with the science classes that would be offered to them when they were in high school. They indicated that they would all be taking a general science course their first year in high school, followed by the courses of Biology, Biology II, Chemistry, Physics and possibly Space Science.

These junior high students said they enjoyed hands-on types of activities most in their math, science, and technology subjects. Their eighth grade science teacher offered them the most opportunities to do hands-on learning, and they said they learned the most from her and enjoyed her class the best. Nevertheless, hands-on learning was not observed at the junior high school.

After completing high school, the male student said that he planned to work with his dad as a handyman. He said that he can learn a lot from him. He thought his dad made a good living as a handyman and he didn’t see any need to go to college. One of the girls indicated that she planned to go to college to study medicine. The other girl said she wanted either to work for the police in corrections or crime investigations or possible study law. All three students said they would use math, science, and/or technology when they finished their schooling. The male student said that his dad used a lot of math in his work as a handyman. All three students had computers in their homes, and computers have become an important part of their everyday lives. The girls understood that science would play an important role in their planned professions. The students indicated that there were jobs in their area of Michigan that required math, science, and/or technology skills. During their Career Day experiences they had opportunities for shadowing experiences, which included working with a local animal veterinarian, a handyman, and other local businesses that all used math or science in one way or another in their work.

On a scale of 10, the students rated their science instruction “9 to 9½,” their math instruction an “8,” and their technology instruction a “5.” They said the school’s technology instruction needed the most improvement and that the school needed more computers and time to use them during class. These junior high students thought that more time was needed in math to work on problems and tasks they didn’t understand. All 3 students thought their science instruction was good and commented that their teacher worked at their level and they understood what they were learning. When asked, “How many students have computers in their home?” the students settled on the figure 56 out of 100 have computers at home. They said a lot of families will sacrifice other things in order to have a computer in their home.

One of the girls said that she would be busy over the summer attending sports camps, working on 4-H projects, helping her dad in his store, and taking a vacation. The other girl would be busy baby-sitting and helping her uncle at his restaurant in West Branch. The boy would be busy mowing lawns and going to boy scout camp where he would be an instructor for a merit badge. The students indicated that a lot of students their age do nothing over the summer.

The students didn’t have anything else to add about their science, math, and technology instruction in school. They said they were looking forward to going to “cow pie high.” What they liked most about their school reiterated the sentiments we heard during our first visit—the school district was small, friendly, and you got to know everyone and “everything.”

The high school guidance counselor conducts yearly entrance and exit interviews of the senior high school students. She also provides a survey with a self-addressed, stamped return envelope approximately 6 months after they graduate. About 4 to 12 graduates return to visit in December of their graduation year to speak with the current students. Overall, the respondents from the Class of 2001 had praise for their teachers as good mentors; really liked the opportunity and challenge of taking the Alpena Community College courses as dual enrollment; and had some serious concerns about teachers not being qualified in content areas and the need to keep a full staff of administrators. Table 2 offers samples of their insights.

In December 2001 we met with seven current members of the teaching staff, six of whom were female. They were asked, “Why are you engaged in MiRSI? What motivates you?” Their responses included, “I want to see where our holes are,” “[I] personally want [the] district to be on the cutting edge,” “We are rural, but have urban problems,” “to see where we’re at . . . to compare with other schools like us, not to compare with St. Clair Shores, etc. . . and how to correct things.” They commented on how much they enjoyed meeting and sharing ideas with other math and science teachers from rural areas while attending the MiRSI-sponsored conference on Mackinac Island. They said there is too much transience in their district—a high turnover of students coming from urban areas. They thought that these particular students have no sense of belonging and don’t want to establish relationships because they know they’ll be moving again. They added that many bring social and psychological baggage by being part of disrupted family units, coming to live with grandparents, or accompanying adults who have trouble adjusting to ruralness themselves.

“[These students] have been on the fringe of or affiliated with gangs, so they look for that when they move here.” And “They tend to be more active with the court systems and probation.”

The curriculum of this school district, like almost all we have studied, is being driven by the mandated state assessment tests. In Michigan, this is the MEAP. The teachers said that “the MEAP and state standards help teachers understand what students should have in K-12 schools and at other levels.” They reported that in the past there had been little communication between the elementary and junior high school faculties and those of the high schools. However, now they consider the combination of filling the new position of director of ancillary services and MiRSI’s involvement in the district as changing the situation dramatically. The teachers said this basically provides “consistency for students and teachers.”

Teachers thought the state science curriculum was “very well written.” One teacher had volunteered to work on developing the newest version of the MEAP. Some were steadfast in their belief that the MEAP does indeed reflect the state’s science standards and that “if everyone followed the benchmarks, there would be no problem.” However, they thought that when teachers are told “You must do this,” they tend to react negatively. They said that some teachers are not comfortable using the state science curriculum/MEAP because they are not familiar with it and don’t keep it right in front of them. They added that these standards “help teachers who change grades to know what to do” and “they help keep continuity among various districts in the state of Michigan.”

Overall, the teachers seemed to agree that high-stakes testing would not be a problem if the following were done or considered:

•“It’s just in the presentation . . . especially in the math and social studies sections.”

They think they “have been extremely competitive [on the MEAP] for eighth grade science except for last year.” During our second site visit, we queried junior high school teachers about this dramatic drop in scores. They offered the following as reasons:

•They had larger class sizes in eighth grade that year (30-35 students per class).

•“Changing [curricular] benchmarks may have backed up on them at different levels, and maybe some got missed.”

•[High school] juniors take the MEAP and say, “What’s in it for me?” They say many have no self-motivation; many will be going to trade school or directly to the job market.

•Michigan offers $2,500 for higher education (from tobacco lawsuit money) to students who score a “1” or “2” in all categories (except social studies) on the MEAP. This district’s students would not be using this option because they lack self-motivation to continue their education beyond high school.

•As teachers, use the same terminology and ideas in the classroom as those on the MEAP.

Their opinions on why people relocate to this area reiterated previously noted concepts:

They said that “One of our biggest problems [is] no [parental] encouragement for education in general.” There usually is a very low number of responses to phone calls or notes from teachers. They mentioned that 28 percent of parents came to the most recent conferences held at the high school. They cited poverty, in general, and distance, specifically, as making remediation of problems more difficult in a rural area than in a more populated one. They repeated their belief that getting “parent buy-in” is the hardest part of making progress in math, science, and technology education.

We asked if they could note any additional positive aspects or suggest anything else that would encourage math, science, and technology work among Whittemore-Prescott students. Their responses included these:

•“theater—going to a play and learning how to dress and behave” (as a way to learn skills and behaviors that need to be generalized for a successful future)

The teachers were certain they will be able to sustain RSI benefits because they were already reforming/revising the curriculum before involvement with RSI. They said RSI helped move things along faster. RSI helped “to get more buy-in from other teachers.” It also provided funds for “release time to meet with other teachers and hash things out.” They stated that RSI “has allowed this to be seen as a K-12 continuum.”

•“ . . . can suggest [to fellow teachers that] they can still use teaching methods and content they’re comfortable with.”

The teachers echoed community members’ comments that the 4-H Cooperative Extension with Michigan State University and the FFA are helpful in teaching science by sponsoring field trips and science camps.

The second site visit in May 2002 did not reveal any change in these perceptions. The teachers met with us as several separate groups over the course of the two-day visit. These groups were high school math teachers, high school science teachers, districtwide technology teachers, alternative education math and science teachers, junior high school math and science teachers, and elementary school math and science teachers. Overall, teachers expressed satisfaction with the RSI-driven efforts that have taken place. To that point, these seemed to be focused on voluntary, mutual observation in their classrooms. Many noted the comprehensive K-12 in-service training session in which teachers from each level of schooling, except the alternative high/adult school, presented a lesson. The teachers—who were separated into groups for either math or science— then had the opportunity to offer constructive criticism to one another on the presentations. Math teachers chose to address the same theme at each educational level, and science teachers coincidentally taught on a theme-basis also. The benefits of this one-day activity were expressed to us as follows:

•“We could pass on information of what was covered [in a subject] to the [teacher of the] next year.”

•“In math . . . we watched a concept develop through the grades . . . so we knew what to expect from the kids.”

Again we were told how RSI provided monies for them to pay substitute teachers so they could meet with one another during the school day, instead of after school, when they would be tired. The MiRSI encourages the district to use the same substitute teachers to offer some consistency for the students.

In May 2002 we met with the junior high math and science teachers. They thought they could use more training to make better use of the existing technology in their school. Perhaps, they suggested, a teacher partner could come in to train them on how to use and subsequently teach students to use a graphing calculator. They complained that their Internet access was quite slow, they needed to schedule time at computers, and they typically assign three students per computer. They reported that their students are required to take about ¾ of a school year in computer classes at this junior high level (i.e., seventh and eighth grades only). For math class they have used a motion sensor to graph the movements and velocity of a person walking to school. Temperature probes have been used in science classes to produce histograms and bar, circle, and line graphs. Comprehension of these concepts is assessed on the Michigan MEAP test. The junior high science and math teachers listed the following as the most important concepts they teach: (a) graphs, (b) interpreting and analyzing data, and (c) writing knowledgeably in a clear and concise manner. These teachers wished for smaller class sizes; assistance from parents, aides, or volunteers; time to work with peers in same subject and grade level; and time to get activities organized. They were also interested in having cross-curriculum training that would include all subjects such as language arts. The junior high teachers said they learned they “need to be a little more flexible.” Teachers say they try to raise awareness of career applications of math and science concepts during class time. Although the last “Math Night” brought in 30-50 parents and students as participants, another one has not been offered in over a year. There appeared to be no plans to replicate or replace this type of activity. Junior high teachers think there is evidence of improved student achievement due to activities funded by the RSI program because their students are now comfortable with “constructed response.”

Currently, no advanced placement (AP) courses are offered in Whittemore-Prescott schools. When we inquired about the availability of AP courses, the high school guidance counselor said she suggested this to teachers 15 years ago. The counselor reported to us that staff “did not want any part of this.” That seemed to be the end of that subject. If a high school student wishes to dual enroll by taking courses for high school and college credit through Alpena Community College, he must apply by taking the MEAP a year earlier than usual. This, the teachers said, contributes to lowering the district’s overall high school MEAP scores.

Summer school is run for elementary grades and the junior high only. This is an assigned placement for academic or attendance issues. It is not an optional source for enrichment of math, science, or technology.

The alternative education staff and student populations are small and may be thought of as unique in many ways. Nevertheless, their comments during our May 2002 visit seem to mirror the district as a whole. For instance, alternative education teachers didn’t know what was expected of them or how they were involved in and what the “end result should be” with regard to the RSI program. These sentiments copy those of the junior high teachers who were happy with RSI activities so far, but were not aware of any next steps. Moreover, the teacher partners for the local RSI, who were assigned in March 2002, also articulated that they “are still unclear of what to do” and “what MiRSI can do for them.” Nevertheless, some of the 45 teachers at the elementary level were expressing a readiness for more than the mutual teacher observations.

Various groups of teachers seemed to have a wide range of levels of knowledge and application of the intended RSI reforms. For instance, the junior high teachers have the benchmarks with them daily and are expected to annotate and submit them to the principal weekly. The elementary teachers are also required to use this “implementation tool.” The traditional high school teachers were reviewing the benchmarks that already had been organized and compiled. They would be expected to follow them during the next academic year (2002-2003). The November 2002 classroom observations confirmed that benchmarks are being posted in the classrooms for continuous reference.

Secondary math teachers appear to be a cohesive and supportive team of professionals. All were certified to teach the courses to which they were assigned, and they had begun to make good progress in aligning both the written curriculum and the actual content of classroom instruction with the state standards and benchmarks. Overall, they view their MEAP scores in math as being “okay,” with not much change in recent years. Certainly, they have hope and desire for improvements. They proposed that MEAP scores might improve if the better math students could take the math MEAP early, as sophomores. Due to the scheduling of various portions of the MEAP, considerable time may pass between the time that a student takes the content as a class in high school (or junior high) and when they encounter that subject matter as part of a standardized or MEAP test item. These comments conflict with others from teachers saying that taking the MEAP early to get admission to dual credit classes hurts the overall school scores. As of the 2001-2002 academic year, it was possible for a student to take a sequence of math courses in eighth and ninth grades that would complete their requirements for high school graduation. Later we were informed that the increase to three years of high school mathematics was approved for the 2002-2003 academic year. This additional year of math requirement was grandfathered in to apply to the freshman who will graduate in 2006. The applied math courses are still in place. Moreover, we were told that a sequence of Applied Algebra I and II, and Personal Finance is offered for students who may not be able to “get through” to graduation with traditional algebra and geometry courses.

The math teachers expressed a general feeling that students are apathetic about math and science and see little relevance for it in what they plan to do in everyday life.

This group of math teachers reported having little contact with MiRSI, but they expressed support for the ideas it represents. They were unsure what resources MiRSI could provide; therefore, they were unsure what to expect.

With regard to technology, generally, two computers are available in each high school instructional classroom–one for the teacher and one for student use. While there is a computer lab, the teachers were unsure of its purpose and schedule. Except for graphing calculators, they reported little use of the computer in their math instruction.

The high school science teachers thought they had aligned the curriculum sufficiently with the benchmarks and standards and that students will have good opportunities to improve their achievement scores. The ninth grade life science course has been a problem in that there have been four teachers (all unqualified) over the past three years. Teachers expressed their concern that because of the recent three consecutive years of unqualified life science teachers, students have suffered academically and also have lost interest in science. With the current staffing arrangement, they hope that weakness has been corrected.

The three high school science teachers were advocates for their courses and thought that one teacher could have a noticeable impact on student achievement and interest. Thus, they felt it was important for there to be strong teachers and stability in the science program. Not uncommon for a school with a very low number of students, there was some concern about the achievement (specifically reading ability) of one class (ninth grade); teachers estimated that the average reading level for this group of students was about fourth grade.

When queried about their perception of evidence of achievement in science, the teachers listed the following:

During the last year, the high school science teachers added laboratory time to their instruction, which gives a better balance and is more interesting to the students.

The main involvement of this group of science teachers with the MiRSI has been assistance in aligning the curriculum with state standards and benchmarks. For the future, they hoped the RSI would facilitate their networking with teachers with similar responsibilities in other school districts and help them assess needs and develop a plan for improvement.

Operationally, the three teachers have their own areas of responsibility. There is not a specific budget for science, so they request materials as needed. Innovative ideas were expressed that would require resources beyond the usual operational budget, i.e., a greenhouse, etc.

The alternative education math and science teachers indicated that they don’t have copies of the science benchmarks and are unclear how to coordinate consumer math skills with the existing benchmarks for math. They said there was a careers class required at this school and that having brochures from other schools, community colleges, and businesses was their method of raising awareness of science, math, and technology fields. Subsequently, we learned the careers class incorporates job interview training, resume writing, and similar activities but does not seem to target any careers in science, mathematics, or technology.

The following statement by teachers of alternative education seems to apply to many youth, regardless of academic or social status: “There is a giant gap between a student stating he wants to do something and then starting towards that goal.” For alternative education graduates one-quarter may go on to some college, one-half most likely will stay in the local community, and one-quarter will fulfill a personal goal by enlisting in the military.

All three elementary teachers have taken part in the RSI training sessions organized and run by Brent Cooley. During their “Tuesdays with Brent,” top priority was given to aligning benchmarks with their curriculum. They have been observing how benchmarks are being used and how classroom behavior reflects the teaching of the benchmarks. The elementary teachers thought there needed to be more encouragement for additional teachers to get involved in the training. They said about half the elementary teachers were involved—which was a good start. However, they thought the involvement should extend to everyone on staff and to the community. They especially would like parents to become aware of what the school is doing to improve instruction in the areas of math, science, and technology. The training they were receiving had caused them to become more focused on what they were doing in their classrooms. The novice teacher in the group said that new teachers were more familiar with teaching to standards and benchmarks because they were taught how to use them through their teacher training. He thought that tenured teachers needed to be brought up to speed on using standards and benchmarks in their classrooms. He added that some were reluctant to change their style of teaching at this stage in their career.

All three elementary teachers were enthusiastic about the work they were doing with the RSI and thought it was helping them become better teachers by being more focused on what they were trying to accomplish in their classrooms. The two more experienced teachers were hometown people who were teaching as a second career. All seemed to enjoy the teaching profession.

The May 2002 visit included a separate interview with the local RSI team—three teacher partners, one district administrator, and the MiRSI regional coordinator. The teacher partners listed their wishes for the impact of RSI three years from now as follows:

•an organized curriculum that is effectively aligned with state standards, benchmarks, and the MEAP tests

•improved MEAP scores and more students going into science and math postsecondary programs and careers

•more collaboration among teachers, which can only happen with an outside catalyst

In terms of measuring their success, this is how teacher partners described how they would like to be judged:

•would like to be compared with schools of similar size to theirs; would like not to be compared with much larger or wealthier districts in Michigan

•would like to be rated “above the average” [notably not targeting an “A” rating]

The teacher partner concept is in the early stages of implementation at Whittemore-Prescott. Even the teacher partners themselves were uncertain of what duties and responsibilities might make them most effective in this district. There have been questions about what the teacher partners do and what other teachers can expect from them. The teacher partners get release time for their work and receive an annual stipend of $1,000 from MiRSI. Occasionally, they have left the school campus for working lunches elsewhere. This has not gone unnoticed by other teachers.

The work of the teacher partner is described in a “Letter of Understanding” between the school district, the MiRSI, and the teacher partner. The responsibilities of the teacher partner are listed in that document:

•will work with administration, MiRSI, and the district staff to increase student achievement in math and science

•will train over the course of the program to gain additional information and expertise in both content and pedagogy with regard to math and science

•will use release time to work with other professionals on research-based model lessons with staff. Support for this effort will come from MiRSI.

•will assist in the use of core data to assess the progress of student achievement

•will attend monthly regional meetings of Teacher Partners and state meetings twice a year; support for which will come from MiRSI

•will work with other MiRSI Teacher Partners in Michigan and elsewhere on teaching strategies both at meetings and via electronic communications, with support coming from the program

The role of the Teacher Partner is just that: a teacher partner. This role is not meant to be a quasi-administrative position but a true educational - instructional leader that works with other professionals in the district in delivering quality math and science instruction to the district’s students.

This sections combines notes from meetings we had with various groups of administrators over the course of a year.

Our December 2001 visit introduced us to a relatively new superintendent (less than 2 years on the job). He expressed his perspectives on the academic and financial status of his district. His self-description was, “I am not a bean counter.” He explained various aspects of the financial status of his district and his related concerns. He was especially concerned about the erratic nature of several families moving in and out of the district throughout the school year and its effect on head count enrollment with subsequent state funding. The superintendent also commented that although the community places a high value on sports, these activities cannot be the driving force for what goes on in the schools. Soon after our second site visit in May 2002, this superintendent was in the process of leaving this district due to irreconcilable differences with the school board. At our final visit in November 2002, an interim superintendent was in place. Unfortunately, his health status prevented our meeting and interviewing him at that time. Other administrators and the school board president confirmed a net profit of approximately $80,000 this year, mostly due to teacher retirements without full replacement.

Board members are elected at large from across the school district. It is not clear whether or not there is much competition for the board seats. The school district is the largest employer in the area. The administrators indicated that the teachers’ union (Michigan Education Association) includes both certified and noncertified staff. The majority of certified staff and the superintendent live outside the district and therefore cannot partake in the local elections. However, most noncertified personnel (bus drivers, custodians, paraprofessionals, support staff) live in the district and therefore may control the local vote. It was said that this union’s members “elect” the school board. Consequently, except for a few board members, there has been strong support by the board for continuation or increases in the wages and benefits for noncertified personnel. These union members/voters have been very powerful and have negotiated some costly elements into their contracts. For example, part-time employees receive full health benefits. The upshot of this is a sense that much time is spent in board meetings on behalf of personnel grievances or other issues that are not central to the students and the curriculum.

We were told that, overall, there are low levels of parental expectation and involvement for their children’s educational success. Some members of the current administrative team summarized the local educational climate this way: “There are three levels of expectations [in the community]—college, school-to-work, and welfare as a career.”

When we asked who was the power group among local parents, the answer was the “working class people” who are said to be more verbal than the “college” expectation group. The noncertified union members who work within the school district were said to be part of this working class group.

On the opposite end of the parental involvement spectrum there was a local agriculture committee composed of parents and community members including a retired teacher who works in the agricultural field, large scale farmers, and veterinarians. The agricultural science committee was classified as mostly “school-to-work” people who along with the “college” group were characterized as a “gray area” as far as influence and power. This committee has proposed a curriculum in agriculture science to the local school administration. The curriculum includes information from the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Curriculum Framework. It appeared that there was a strong lobby among the longtime resident families for attention to this area. For this setting and with an emphasis that might generate student interest, the plan looked very plausible. Both the school board and administrators’ perceptions and reactions to this proposal were confusing. The discussion of this issue seemed quite matter-of-fact and included their contention that the community will begin looking for a strong ag-science teacher. As follow-up we asked how difficult it is to get math and science teachers in this area. We were told that it’s hardest to get agriculture science teachers. Moreover, after hearing about the need to let the industrial arts teacher go due to the lack of students and maybe some other reasons, one wonders whether the agriculture science curriculum is seen as a potential drain on a limited budget. In addition, there was neither a sense of enthusiasm for this curriculum nor any evidence that it was being pursued actively by students, teachers, or administrators. It seemed that this curriculum proposal was not widely known among the science teachers. After hearing how dismal parental involvement was overall, the actions of this pro-agriculture science parent and community group seemed to be a beacon of light. There was no mention of this proposed program during our subsequent site visit in the fall of 2002.

MiRSI first met with representatives of Whittemore-Prescott school district (W-P) in the fall of 1998. Considering MiRSI an available resource, if needed, the W-P administrators continued the task of aligning their curriculum and establishing benchmarks in mathematics. The superintendent and his director of ancillary services concurred that RSI funding made the process move more quickly once there was official intervention started in November 2000. Our second visit (May 2002) found teachers echoing these comments by saying that RSI and its regional coordinator helped them get organized in their reform efforts. This was necessary because the teachers said they “were overwhelmed” when they started to coordinate curricular benchmarks with the MEAP. RSI money mainly supports teachers’ release time (i.e., pays for substitute teachers), which allows them to attend professional development activities and/or work on improved efforts to strengthen the math and science curriculum during the school day.

The director of ancillary services directs regular after-school meetings of a K-12 team that concerns itself with core curriculum content for each subject area. Additionally, she oversees subject area cluster meetings during the school day. Substitute teachers are provided so that one teacher from each grade may attend. The clusters have purposeful overlap as they meet in the following groupings: grades K-3, 3-6, and 6-12.

District administrators at the December 2001 meeting strongly agreed on the most disenfranchised or underserved groups of students in this school district with regard to math, science, or technology education. They identified these as the group attending the alternative high school and the group of students coming from dysfunctional families. These administrators noted that neglected and abused children who are quiet by nature and don’t “act out” are highly at risk. This, they said, was mainly due to the fact that staff may not be aware of a problem. They encouraged one another to search actively for the very quiet student who may be having serious difficulties but will not come forward. As the junior high school principal framed it, “we must look at the bigger picture . . . at the human conditions of the students . . . not just education as a business.” He also stressed that he would like to emphasize real-world applications of science with the students in his charge. This principal requires his teachers to submit annotated and dated science and math benchmarks/lesson plans weekly. He said he was more interested in the “how” to the teaching.

A discussion of the willingness of teaching staff to adapt to change in curriculum or methods was paired with frank talk about the very high turnover rate of administrators. For instance, after having three high school principals in five years, the attitude at the high school was described as “waiting for the next shoe to drop.” The high school principal said the response to benchmarks is positive among math teachers, but not as strong among science teachers. The adult/alternative education principal attested to his staff being readily willing to change. As a veteran administrator of standing in the district, he affirmed that his staff was given the freedom to be creative which has led to “great hands-on work” in math and science. However, observation and discussion with alternative high school staff revealed that extremely limited materials have been available for such hands-on type of education. The technology coordinator supported the view that the stability at the alternative high school (i.e., the principal has been there for ten years) and the comfort level with teachers leads to “flexibility.” Students from the alternative high school are included in the regular state testing program (MEAP). The alternative high school principal further noted his school’s goal was to surpass the traditional high school’s MEAP scores. It was stressed that alternative education was not “the end” for students. If attendance, grades, and discipline improve, a student may return to the regular high school. In fact, the alternative high school principal asserted, “We’ve had quite a few go back!”

A technology curriculum was approved by the board of education. It outlined a plan to address basic word processing skills, database work, and to keep hardware updated—by replacing student computer labs every five years, on a rotating basis of labs. District representatives were applying for funds for this hardware. An extensive technology plan for the years 2002-2007 is available for viewing on the Web at <http://www.wpas.net/techplan.html>. Administrators reported that they were “making strides” in technology education by having some in-service training on Microsoft PowerPoint and digital camera use. Every teacher has a digital camera and laptop or desktop computer compliments of $103,000 received in 2001 from a state of Michigan program called The Teachers Technology Initiative (TTI). In addition, staff were exploring the benefits of providing students with personal data assistants (PDAs) like the Palm Pilot. They were interested in starting this experiment with enough PDAs to supply three classrooms.

Dual enrollment in courses offered through the local community college has been available to traditional and alternative high school students. This seemed to be an issue of concern among administrators. An example that was offered as to how this worked as of the 2001-2002 academic year follows:

•If a student earns an A in the community college course, he gets five points instead of four.

•Sometimes other colleges will not accept the credits for these courses if they were also used to satisfy high school requirements.

Standardized testing was discussed—the MEAP, ACTs, SATs, etc. The administrators were not sure of any correlation between these tests. The high school principal encouraged his students to compete and do better on the required MEAP test by offering incentives such as drawings for a car or a color television. He proposed doing the same with nonrequired standardized tests such as the ACT or SAT.

The elementary school principal forwarded some comments to us during our December 2001 visit. He wanted us to know that (a) teachers at the elementary level aren’t always comfortable with math and science; (b) they just started to talk about and to arrange having elementary teachers observe other teachers who indicate they are more comfortable with and enjoy teaching math and science; and (c) even as “a math/science person,” his opinion is that if students can’t read, they won’t be able to be successful at math and science either. In fact, in a much more direct manner, other administrators stated their concern that the elementary school teachers were not adequately prepared to teach science.

The administrative team has been meeting regularly twice a month with the superintendent during the 2001-2002 academic year. The members of this team say that depending on the issue, they would probably develop a united front before presenting an issue to the local school board.

Building and district administrators said that “articulation of information is the biggest change” since MiRSI began. They acknowledged that high school staff in general was somewhat older and more resistant to change. The MiRSI teacher training sessions continued to focus on standards-based instruction as of May 2002. Three teacher partners, the local RSI facilitator, and the RSI regional coordinator represented Whittemore-Prescott schools at a June retreat in Sault Ste. Marie. This 2½ day meeting “started some goal setting” for the 2002-2003 school year. It also resulted in the three teacher partners asking to meet as a group with administrators in August 2002 and thereafter to have one teacher partner meet with the administrators on a monthly basis. This may indicate that the teacher partners are beginning to take a more active role in the education reform process.

Driver 1. Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice, including student assessment, in every classroom, laboratory, and other learning experience provided through the system and its partners.

Available documents illustrated curricula planning that was based on state standards (Item 1.1). One teacher showed us that she used benchmarks developed by W-P to guide her classes (Item 1.3). No active hands-on experiments, use of instrumentation, or manipulatives were used during any science or math class we observed on our first visit (Item 1.4). We did see some use of instrumentation and hands-on experiments during our subsequent visits. There was teacher-student interaction in all classes (Item 1.5). We observed only one instance of planning and teaching across disciplines and that was with Spanish and French classes (Item 1.11). It was reported that the elementary school art teacher uses cross-discipline planning in her classes. RSI courses are offered across K-12 levels (Item 1.13); however, they are not extensive in their academic reach. For instance, there are no advanced placement courses offered. Curricular benchmarks were posted in some of the classrooms we observed as reminders to both teacher and students of the goals of the course. The junior high school principal required his teachers to submit weekly annotated benchmarks.

Driver 2. Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that support provision of high quality mathematics and science education for each student; excellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each mathematics and science teacher (including all elementary teachers); and administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students served by the system.

It was noted by several staff and administrators that RSI monies have allowed them to provide release time (i.e., substitute pay) for teachers to attend planning meetings concerning curriculum. RSI also funded time and money for some teachers to attend 3-day conferences on Mackinac Island and Sault Ste. Marie (Item 2.14). There were no complaints of inadequate time allowances for curriculum activities (Item 2.7). Teachers and administrators noted that they conduct regular core curriculum team meetings (Item 2.19). Building principals generally appeared to be more focused on managing the day-to-day operations of their schools. They did not portray themselves in leadership roles for systemic reform. Nevertheless, the junior high principal requires his teachers to use and annotate course benchmarks weekly, and the high school principal has taken steps to increase the math and science requirements for graduation. As a group they expressed great confidence and dependence on the local MiRSI facilitator/director of ancillary services to provide the leadership needed to improve the school district’s curriculum. The director of ancillary services noted that even if RSI monies were discontinued, she thinks the teachers would continue their work in much the same manner.

Driver 3. Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics education—fiscal, intellectual, materials, curricular, and extracurricular—into a focused and unitary program to constantly upgrade, renew, and improve the educational program in mathematics and science for all students.

Although it is a rural and generally poor district, Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools does collect and spend an average amount of money per student as the rest of the state of Michigan. Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services identifies the Whittemore-Prescott average teacher salary at $47,276 as comparable to that of the state of Michigan (in 2001). It further states that “The district’s operating expenditures of $7072 per student are on par with the state and peer group averages. . . . the district’s per-student operating expenditures have increased by an average of 7.5 percent per year, which is greater than the average state increase, but comparable to the average annual peer increase. The district’s trend reflects an average increase in total operating expenditures of 5.9 percent per year coupled with a 1.4 percent average annual decrease in full-time equivalent enrollment over the same time period” (Standard & Poor’s Observations, p. 13).

Funds from a multimillion dollar grant to Saginaw Valley Community College were used to pay for teacher in-service training sessions (Item 3.2). The topics of these training sessions were “constructed response in academic areas” and “making benchmarks come alive.” Technology is present in the forms of laptop computers (Item 3.3) and digital cameras for each teacher and computers in most classrooms. Resources were converged to acquire the teachers’ laptops and cameras by applying for the state of Michigan’s TTI monies. However, observation and testimony were weak regarding use of technology on the part of MiRSI personnel, administrators, teachers, and students. The mainstay of software application use is Microsoft PowerPoint.

Driver 4. Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the community for the goals and collective value of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program, the evidence gathered about its successes and its failures, and critical discussion of its efforts.

Active participation by parents and others is notably absent from this initiative. Local efforts to involve or inform them of the RSI were not evident. However, when asked to attend group meetings as part of our site visits, the parents and community members were quite engaged and interested in the topic at hand. They seemed eager to pursue this reform effort and readily brought new ideas to the table. One parent group (Agricultural Science) has tried very hard to organize and present a proposed curriculum to the school board and administrators (Item 4.6). Their efforts do not seem to be getting any serious consideration. It was sensed that the administrators and teachers saw this more as an annoyance. Ironically, the teachers’ and administrators’ main complaint was the lack of parental/family support for the schools and students.

Teachers say they try to raise awareness of career applications of math and science concepts during class time. As a method of getting parent/community involvement, “Math Night” brought in 30-50 parents and students as participants. Unfortunately, another session has not been offered in over a year. There appeared to be no plans to replicate or replace this type of activity. Perhaps out-of-district employment or farm-related work is an obstacle for some to attend school-related functions. Nevertheless, sports-related activities are noted as quite popular and well attended by this community.

Local community colleges provide eligible high school students an opportunity to take almost two years of college coursework while still in high school. However, there is no indication that this is directly or indirectly related to MiRSI as a form of broad-based support for reform efforts or as a means of encouraging study at more challenging levels of math, science, or technology.

Table 1 shows how the local community is used to promote awareness of careers through the annual field trip taken by seventh and eighth graders. At this point a sharpened focus on careers that involve higher levels of math, science, or technology is not evident.

There were several instances when teachers from multiple sites within the school district were not fully aware of the local work or purpose of the Michigan RSI.

Driver 5. Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing student achievement through a set of indices that might include achievement test scores, higher level courses passed, college admission rates, college majors, advanced placement tests taken, portfolio assessment, and ratings from summer employers and that demonstrate that students are generally achieving at a significantly higher level in science and mathematics.

Michigan’s standardized testing results must be viewed with extreme caution due to continuously changing tests, grade levels at which some tests are administered, and reporting categories. The state’s MEAP information Web pages declare the following in reference to each science and mathematics assessment: “Direct comparison cannot be made with previous test scores and the scores for 2002. The 2002 test is a new test with new reporting categories and standards.”

For further information please see the following Web sites: http://micims-cluster.state.mi.us,

Passing the MEAP is achieved by reaching the top level on a three-level scale or by reaching one of the top two levels on a four-level scale. An uninformed reader reviewing Table 3 may think that Whittemore-Prescott eighth graders went from 11.4 percent passing science in 2001 to 72.2 percent passing in 2002. This same jump in scores is parallel to that seen for the state of Michigan average of 19.7 percent passing science in 2001 to 66.6 percent passing in 2002. The same situation is seen with the fifth grade math scores over the same period of time. The change in the reporting categories from a three-part to a four-part system has resulted in 2002 becoming another baseline year for tracking student progress in Michigan. It is notable that at the high school level Whittemore-Prescott has improved both its math and science MEAP passing percentages, while the state average has fallen a bit. However, the 2002 Whittemore-Prescott MEAP achievement percentages remain lower than the state for all grades of math and science, except for eighth grade science.

Whittemore-Prescott’s ACT assessment scores (Table 4) are close to state and national averages for science reasoning and mathematics for the 2000 and 2001 graduating class years. The 2002 class’ scores dropped even though there was a consistent percentage of students with core academic preparation taking the tests.

An alternative method of showing achievement has been pursued by reviewing the numbers of students enrolled in all science, math, and technology courses, and especially in courses beyond those that are required. Table 5 outlines the mathematics, science, and technology courses available and the numbers of students enrolled for the ’00-’01, ’01-’02, and ’02-’03 school years.

A few significant changes by way of student enrollment in science, math, and technology courses should provide a solid basis of education in these areas. However, there is an even division of the freshman population who enrolled in mathematics this year (N=118). Half are taking the applied algebra courses geared for the vocational students while the other half are taking the regular algebra series and geometry. The bright spot for mathematics is calculus enrollment jumping to 13 this year (from 5 and 8 in the two previous years). The administrators accounted for this jump in enrollment by their active recruitment of students. They said they spoke personally to some students to encourage them to take this course.

No student is enrolled in the basic physics class for this academic year (2002-2003). Basic chemistry had the greatest increase in enrollment this year (from 11 to 45 students). Additionally, the number of students taking the one-semester course of Anatomy & Physiology doubled from 12 to 24 in the 2002-2003 school year. These could be good signs of students taking on challenges in science depending on the rigor of the course content.

Except for the calculus class that looked as though it could be challenging for those 13 students, no observations showed a demand for high-quality, self-directed, complete work from students. Such things as preparing one’s own prelab tables and charts to fill in with expected findings, struggling to decide what formula to use to interpret lab findings, writing up a presentable lab report, and researching a topic before (or after) a lab is done were not observed or spoken about. Computer exercises are heavily skewed toward using Microsoft PowerPoint with no mention of using computer software that can handle mathematics or statistics.

No advanced placement courses are offered at Whittemore-Prescott and there are no AP test scores to report.

Driver 6. Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved.

The Whittemore-Prescott area school district was 97.4 percent white in 2000 with the largest percentages of minority students being Hispanic (1 percent) and Native American (1 percent). Students in this district who are historically underserved are the poor. Among these is an element of families that is transient and often the recipient of welfare and other social services. Many of these families were also described to us as dysfunctional.

Mathematics and science achievement on the MEAP tests by female students at the high school level in the Whittemore-Prescott school system needs special attention. Not only is the percentage of eleventh grade females reaching an excelling rate in mathematics or science at 0.0 percent for 1999, 2000, and 2001, but the percentage of females achieving a passing rate in either of these content areas remains a small fraction of that of the males (Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Service 2001 data). The high school class of 2002 data provided to us by the director of ancillary services looks much improved for passing both science (51.2%) and math (53.6%) and somewhat improved for excelling at math (7.3%). We must continue to bear in mind the change in the math and science MEAP tests in 2002. Unfortunately, the excelling rate by female students is still at zero for science. We brought this situation to the attention of the administration via a follow-up telephone call. As yet, no special circumstances have been identified to explain this situation.

Table 5. Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools Courses of Interest for RSI: Student Enrollment	Academic Year 2000-2001						Academic Year 2001-2002						Academic Year 2002-2003
	Grade Level						Grade Level						Grade Level
	9th	10th	11th	12th	Alter.	Total	9th	10th	11th	12th	Alter.	Total	9th	10th	11th	12th	Alter.	Total
	Number Enrolled at Each Grade Level					Total	Number Enrolled at Each Grade Level					Total	Number Enrolled at Each Grade Level					Total
Science
Freshman Science	44	1	0	0		45	42	0	0	0		42	52	2	0	0		54
Applied Biology (10-11)
Biology I	32	1	9	3		45	69	4	8	6		87	51	3	11	8		73
Biology II	0	1	6	4		11	0	3	5	9		17	0	1	8	7		16
Biology III													0	0	0	1		1
Botany/Plant Science	0	5	6	10		21	2	4	12	6		24	0	9	10	4		23
Applied Chemistry	0	0	6	2		8
Chemistry	0	0	16	3		19	0	0	5	6		11	0	19	12	14		45
Chemistry II	0	0	0	5		5
Earth & Space Science
Environmental Science	0	0	4	13		17	0	8	7	6		21
Sophomore General Physics	0	30	1	0		31	0	13	0	1		14
Sophomore Advanced Physics	0	60	1	1		62	0	44	0	1		45
Sophomore Physics (10)													19	59	2	1		81
Physics (11-12)	0	0	0	1		1	0	0	2	4		6
Zoology/Animal Science	0	8	6	10		24	0	5	13	12		30	1	3	6	7		17
Advanced Physical Science
Anatomy & Physiology	0	0	9	9		18	0	2	2	8		12	0	3	11	10		24
Astronomy & Geology
TOTALS	76	106	64	61		307	113	83	54	59		309	123	99	60	52		334
Mathematics
Applied Algebra I	32	7	0	0		39	52	5	0	0		57	48	1	2	0		51
Applied Algebra II	0	17	2	0		19	1	7	1	0		9	11	17	1	2		31
Algebra I	24	8	5	1		38	33	10	4	3		50	40	21	2	0		63
Algebra II	0	23	17	2		42	0	15	16	9		40	0	24	6	3		33
Geometry	19	29	9	3		60	21	14	5	6		46	19	21	4	0		44
Transitional Geometry	0	5	2	1		8	0	5	1	0		6	0	7	0	0		7
Senior Math/Trigonometry	0	0	6	5		11	0	0	19	5		24	0	0	11	9		20
Calculus	0	0	0	8		8	0	0	0	5		5	0	0	0	13		13
Personal Finance	0	1	5	10		16	0	0	6	16		22	0	1	7	10		18
Statistics & Probability	0	0	0	2		2	0	0	6	2		8
Math 123	0	0	3	2		5
High School Proficiency Test
TOTALS	75	90	49	34		248	107	56	58	46		267	118	92	33	37		280

Table 5. (continued) Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools Courses of Interest for RSI: Student Enrollment	Academic Year 2000-2001						Academic Year 2001-2002						Academic Year 2002-2003
	Grade Level						Grade Level						Grade Level

Table 1. Whittemore-Prescott Junior High School Career Day Sites
Spring 2002 Field Trip (students visited three sites)	Fall 2002 Field Trip (twelve preplanned tour packages were available; each included at least three sites)
Ace Hardware	Ace Hardware
Bailey's Flower Shop	Army
Bernard Building Center	Bernard Building Center
Coast Guard	Carter's
D.E. Greene Family Chiropractic	Coast Guard
Darton Bow (archery bows)	Coyles Restaurant
Dean Arbour Ford (car dealership)	D.E. Greene Family Chiropractic
EMS station	Darton Bow (archery bows)
Falker Veterinary Clinic	Dean Arbour Ford (car dealership)
Farm and Pet Veterinary Clinic	Falker Veterinary Clinic
Healing Hands (massage)	Farm and Pet Veterinary Clinic
Holiday Inn	Glen's Market
Huron Sports and Fitness Center	Gold Star
Iosco County News	Healing Hands (massage)
Kayes Kut and Kurl	Holiday Inn
Kids Korner Day Care Center	Huron Sports and Fitness Center
National Gypsum	ITT Industries
Quality Inn	Jacques & Kobs Funeral Home
Sleep Clinic	Kayes Kut and Kurl
State Police Post	Kids Korner Day Care Center
Stepping Stones (day care)	McDonald's
Stoney Acres Collision	Richardson's Chevrolet
Tawas Door	Rifle River Recreation Area
Tawas St. Joseph Hospital	Rose City Greenhouse
Taylor Building Products	Rose City Post Office
Team Hodges Car Dealership	Sheriff's Department
Water Treatment Plant	Sleep Diagnostics
West Branch Industries	SS Building & Trades
West Branch Regional Medical Center	Standish Fitness & Exercise
West Branch Veterinarian Services	Standish Rehabilitation
Whittemore Fire Department	State Police Post
WKLC (radio station)	Stoney Acres Collision
	Tawas Bay Players
	Tawas St. Joseph Hospital
	Tawas Tool
	Team Hodges Car Dealership
	West Branch Orthopaedics
	West Branch Regional Medical Center
	West Branch Veterinarian Services
	Whittemore Fire Department
	WKJC
	WKLC (radio station)

Table 3. Comparison of Achievement for Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools and the State of Michigan Public Schools
Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools MEAP Summary as of November 2002
Subject	Grade	Year of Testing
Subject	Grade	2000	2001	2002
Math	4	65.3% Satisfactory	59.8% Satisfactory	53.6% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	8			37.9% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	WP High School	52.1% Passing Levels 1 + 2	48.2% Passing Levels 1 + 2	57.9% Passing Levels 1 + 2

Science	5	38.2% Proficient	39.2% Proficient	62.6% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	8	28.0% Proficient	11.4% Proficient	72.2% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	WP High School	47.9% Passing Levels 1 + 2	40.5% Passing Levels 1 + 2	56.8% Passing Levels 1+ 2

State of Michigan Public Schools MEAP Summary as of November 2002
Subject	Grade	Year of Testing
Subject	Grade	2000	2001	2002
Math	4	74.8% Satisfactory	72.3% Satisfactory	64.5% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	8			53.8% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	Graduating Class	64.8% Passing Levels 1 + 2	68.4% Passing Levels 1 + 2	67.0% Passing Levels 1 + 2

Science	5	43.6% Proficient	41.6% Proficient	73.2% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	8	24.2% Proficient	19.7% Proficient	66.6% Passing Levels 1 + 2
	Graduating Class	55.6% Passing Levels 1 + 2	60.3% Passing Levels 1 + 2	59.2% Passing Levels 1+ 2
Notes: Source--http://michigan.gov Slashed lines indicate that a standardized test in that subject was not given at that grade level that year. Please use caution when reviewing test passing percentages when the achievement reporting system has changed from a three-level to a four-level system. In a three-level system only the highest level is considered passing. In a four-level system the highest two levels are combined to indicate the percentage of students passing.

Table 4. Comparison of ACT Average Scores for Students with Core and Less than Core Academic Preparation Combined
Whittemore-Prescott	Number	Mathematics	Science Reasoning
1999-2000	17	19.4	21.6
2000-2001	42	21.0	21.5
2001-2002	43	18.8	20.2
Michigan
1999-2000	73918	21.0	21.6
2000-2001	72450	21.1	21.6
2001-2002	71882	21.2	21.6
National
1999-2000	1065138	20.7	21.0
2000-2001	1069772	20.7	21.0
2001-2002	1116082	20.6	20.8
Source: ACT High School Profile for Whittemore-Prescott High School Graduating Class of 2002 Executive Summary