A Summary of RSI School Personnel’s Perceptions of the Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform

A Summary of RSI School Personnel’s Perceptions

of the Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform

Prepared

for

The NSF Rural Systemic Initiatives Evaluation Study

Jerry G. Horn

The Evaluation Center

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5237

April 2001

A Summary of RSI School Personnel’s Perceptions of the Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform

The Rural Systemic Initiatives Evaluation Study, a study sponsored by the National Science Foundation and conducted by The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University, is in part focused on the relationship of the potentially conflicting values in traditional rural communities with the current understanding of education/school reform and the goals of NSF-sponsored Rural Systemic Initiatives, including the six drivers of educational system reform. The NSF Systemic Initiative (SI) has been built on this assertion:

. . . that positive change in K-12 science and mathematics education will most effectively be achieved if pursued by means of a system-wide effort coordinated across educational settings, from the classroom to the statehouse, rather than by the traditional piecemeal approach (e.g., professional development of teachers in isolation from selection of curriculum materials, choice of assessment tools) of the country’s 15,000 autonomous districts.

Further, NSF recognizes “Six Drivers for Educational Reform”:

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.

2. Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

There are many perceptions and often distorted views of rural America. Sher (1977), said,

Just as the blind man holding the elephant’s trunk thought that the whole animal must be very much like a snake, while the other blind man, feeling its leg, thought elephants closely resembled trees, so too, distorted images of rural America have grown from vivid descriptions of small segments of it. For example, one popular image of rural America is that of an agglomeration of farmers and farm workers. Yet, as of 1975, over 80 percent of America’s rural population neither lived nor worked on farms. (p.1)

From the wheat fields of Kansas and the plains states, to the cotton and catfish farms in the South, to the fishing villages along the coast of Northern New England, to the oil and gas towns and communities of Oklahoma and Texas, to the mountain resort areas of the Rocky Mountain region, to the former coal company towns in Appalachia, to the native villages in Alaska, to the small retirement communities of Florida and the southwest, and to the rich farmlands outside major metropolitan areas in Michigan, Minnesota, and elsewhere where “hobby farmers” or farmers with full-time day jobs in the suburbs or cities live, rural America is warmly remembered by some and misunderstood by others.

Yet, Sher recognized the traditional heritage of pluralism (in rural America) and identified three implications of profound importance to the formulation of rural programs and rural policies.

First, rural initiatives must always be based upon the primacy of local circumstance. Policymakers who assume that the success of a particular policy in one rural area guarantees its success elsewhere, or who attempt to circumvent local traditions, conditions, and values are destined to eventual failure.

Second, today the term “rural” has little political currency. The greatest diversity of the rural population has encouraged political organizing in rural areas to emphasize various regional, racial, ethnic, economic, or occupational alliances, while concomitantly inhibiting the creation of a broad-based “rural” constituency. Thus, as a political entity, rural America currently equals far less than the sum of its parts.

Third, definitions of rural America are destined to be both population-based and arbitrary. Although intellectually and emotionally unsatisfying, it is both easier, and more accurate, to define rural America in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. Thus, the Census Bureau carefully defines “urban” and then classifies all that remains as “rural,” while statisticians and researchers continue to break out data into two categories: “metropolitan” and “nonmetropolitan.” We know in a general way that “rural” implies both small communities and low-population and density-based definitions are suggestive rather than definitive. (p. 2)

In his classic book on rural education, Nachtigal (1982) categorized rural communities as Rural Poor, Traditional Middle America, and Communities in Transition. Even today, these categories serve researchers well in attempts to understand the nature and dynamics of rural communities. By the very nature of the conditions for participation in the NSF Rural Systemic Initiatives program, only the Rural Poor qualify, i.e., “Eligible regions are those comprised of counties which are designated as categories 6-9 according to the County Types Code Classification, and in which 30% or greater of the school-age children (5-17) are living in poverty, as designated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.” (The ERS County Types Code, developed by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, represents an urban-to-rural continuum in which 0 represents the nation’s most urban counties and 9 represents the most rural counties.) Thus, according to Nachtigal, the following characteristics would apply to RSI communities:

Values: Traditional/commonly held

Socioeconomic: Fairly homogeneous/low income

Political Structure: Closed, concentrated, often lie outside local community

Priorities: Mixed and low

Earlier and continuing studies of selected communities among six RSIs in this study generally confirm the accuracy of Nachtigal’s characterizations. However, the categorization of a “school community” may not be as distinct as one might envision, since county schools often serve a number of communities that would fall within different categories. For example, a county school system in Appalachia might include one community on an interstate highway that is being developed to accommodate a growing recreation economy, which would reflect a Community in Transition. At the same time there may be another community in the same county served by a school that is “up in the hills” that can be reached only by a narrow dirt road, and it would clearly fit the description of a Rural Poor community.

Clearly, rural America and the schools serving rural communities have changed and will continue to change. Years ago, children attended one-room schools that were built within easy walking distance of families who lived and worked on farms. Later, school districts with multiple schools scattered across several square miles and often a number of small communities emerged, followed by countywide schools with possibly multiple elementary schools but a centralized secondary school campus, which became a popular organizational structure. Where county school districts were not formed, consolidation of two or more small school districts prevail. In total, the number of school districts have decreased with the notion of a “one best” model for schooling. While there are a number of reasons for this evolution, some of the more common reasons cited are the need to accommodate population shifts, economics, and presumed quality of this education/limited curriculum. The idea of “losing” your school (often the one you had attended) and a traditional point of pride for the community was not overwhelmingly popular, nor were these decisions popular within or among families in the communities.

At the state and federal levels, education is a popular issue among politicians. Efforts to improve, more recently described in terms of reform, are ongoing and will likely continue to be a politically rich issue in most states. Whether these reform efforts will be accompanied by more consolidations is an unknown, particularly with the charter school/school choice movement, which seems to favor smaller schools with increased interaction between teachers and students and parental involvement. However, it is not uncommon to hear or read statements about “too many inefficient small schools” or “too much money wasted on the administration of small schools.” Characteristically, these small schools serve rural areas.

The National Science Foundation has four goals for its RSI program:

1. the improvement of science, mathematics and technology education in rural, economically disadvantaged regions of the nation, including, but not limited to, innovative use of new technologies for interactive delivery of instruction, and the concomitant training of the teaching workforce to meet the demands of a new instructional paradigm

2. the preparation of a technologically competent workforce to enhance the infrastructure of economic development activities within a community or region, by strengthening the science, mathematics and technology instructional capacities of regional colleges and universities, particularly community and technical colleges responsible for technician education and lower division instruction of technical curricula, and for entry-level science and mathematics curricula of the future teaching workforce

3. the enhancement of scientific literacy and science understanding and appreciation among students and the general community in rural, economically disadvantaged regions of the nation

4. the development of community infrastructure to provide resources to sustain educational improvements, including economic development, governmental commitment, resource reallocation and community support and involvement in rural schools. (NSF, 1994, pp. 2-3)

This evaluation study began in December 1998 with support from NSF to address the following four objectives.

1. To develop a system of indicators around each of the identified six drivers of educational system reform

2. To determine the perceived relative importance and value of each driver and indicator for reform in RSI schools in selected communities

3. To determine the status of innovation/reform within selected communities with respect to factors thought to support or serve as barriers to innovation and education system reform

4. To determine the ways and the extent to which the perceived importance and value of the drivers and the characteristics of the community impact on systemic reform efforts and student achievement in mathematics, science, and technology

Initially, the study was to be conducted in cooperation with three operating RSIs (Appalachian, Delta, and the UCAN projects) with a completion date of December 2001. After one year, The Evaluation Center was asked to broaden its study to include three newly developed RSIs (Texas, Coastal, and Michigan projects), and the target date for completion was extended to June 2003. A mixed methods approach was developed to fulfill the objectives of the study, including case studies, document reviews, direct observations, and surveys. The study is directed by Dr. Jerry G. Horn, Principal Research Associate at The Evaluation Center, and he is supported by a carefully selected ten-member Research Advisory Team (See Appendix A), composed of nationally known experts in a variety of fields relevant to the goals of the project, e.g., rural education, education reform/innovation, evaluation, science/math education, educational measurement and assessment, curriculum and teacher education, and educational administration. With the expansion of the project, other consultants are contracted as needed to conduct various elements of the study, especially ongoing longitudinal case studies in the new RSIs.

Methodology

As mentioned earlier, a mixed-methods approach has been used in the evaluation study. To identify indicators of the various drivers of systemic educational reform, the Resource Advisory Team (RAT) engaged in a Delphi procedure that produced an extensive list that is used by the visiting team on the case studies. Initially, two school districts/communities from each of the initial RSIs (ARSI, Delta RSI, and the UCAN RSI) were selected, in cooperation with the RSI leadership, for case studies. In each case, a team of three or four persons, including at least one member of the RAT, spent a period of three to five days in each community. Each of the six case study reports (two from each RSI) were developed and are available through The Evaluation Center. (Because the three RSIs that were added to the study received funding in mid- to late 2000, it was decided that ongoing longitudinal studies would be more appropriate; and these studies, two to three per RSI, began in Spring 2001.)

In an attempt to determine the perceptions of local school personnel as to the extent to which the drivers are indicators of systemic educational reform and the locus of control for key elements of the drivers, a survey (See Appendix B) was distributed at each of the initial six case study sites. The local contact person managed the distribution and collection of the instruments; therefore, there was some variation in potential respondents from community to community. However, the survey included several items that captured the demographics of the respondents. The surveys were distributed and completed immediately after the case study visits, which occurred in 1999-2000. The RSIs with which each school district/community participated had been operational for a period of 3 to 5 years. In total, 524 completed surveys were returned and analyzed. The number of surveys included in the overall analyses by school study site are listed below:

Wagon Mound (NM)	41
Rockcastle County (KY)	83
Cocke County (TN)	232
Humphreys County (MS)	108
East Feliciana (LA)	28
Gila River Indian Community (AZ)	32
Total:	524

Results

The results of the survey (two school districts/communities in three RSIs) are presented in a number of tables, i.e., aggregated across all study sites (Tables 1-3), separately by each site (Tables 1a-3f), and comparative summary tables across the study sites (Tables 4 and 5).

In Table 1, descriptive information about the respondents is provided. About 25 percent of the respondents were science or math teachers, while half were teachers of subject areas other than science or math. More than 60 percent of the respondents were elementary school teachers; 81 percent were female; and 13.3 percent were in their first year of employment at this school district. At the same time, about one-third of respondents had more than 20 years of experience in education, two-thirds lived in the district, and most (77.9 percent) had lived there for more than 20 years. The respondents were largely Caucasian/white, not Hispanic (69.4 percent), but this figure is a bit misleading in that schools with a majority of African-American students also had faculties and staff predominantly made up of African-Americans. More than 40 percent of the respondents held graduate degrees.

Variations of the data by individual study sites/communities are evident in Tables 1a-f. For example, in the Gila River Indian Community (AZ) schools, none of the respondents were in their first year of employment in the district, while in East Feliciana (LA), 32.1 percent were in their first year and 60 percent had 5 or fewer years of experience in that district. Likewise, more than 60 percent of the respondents in East Feliciana did not live in the school district, as compared with only 21.7 percent in Rockcastle County (KY). Another example of the variation or, more precisely, the homogeneous nature of the faculty and staff with regard to ethnicity/racial identity is illustrated in the data for Humphreys County (MS), where 75.2 percent of the respondents were African American, and in Cocke County (TN), where 88.4 percent were Caucasian/white, not Hispanic. The most diverse school, in terms of ethnicity/racial identity of the respondents to the survey, was in Wagon Mound (NM), where 57.5 percent identified themselves as African American, 25 percent as American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander, and the remaining 17.5 percent as Caucasian/white/not Hispanic.

In terms of educational level of teachers, regardless of whether or not they are qualified/certified to teach in the area of their assignment, 36.6 percent of the respondents had graduate degrees, but 14.6 percent reported having less than a four-year college degree. Those without college degrees might be substitutes or teacher aides and thus without continuing responsibilities as a professional educator.

As a total group, one finds a fairly even distribution across the teachers’ “years of experience” option, but there is an indication of a slightly bimodal distribution at 1-5 years and >20 years. However, there is an interesting distribution with regard to whether they live in the school district in which they work, with slightly more than one-half living out of the district. Of those who do live in the district, 90 percent have lived there for >20 years.

Although the RSI program is focused on science, math, and technology, systemic educational reform impacts the entire school (K-12) and all subject areas in one way or another. We did not restrict the survey to only a single educational level or teachers from the targeted areas. As a result, the results of this survey represent the perceptions of a variety of persons, some of whom may not be directly involved in RSI activities. The purpose of the survey was to determine the extent to which school-related personnel agree that descriptive statements of the six drivers are perceived as a “valid indicator of systemic educational reform in your school” and the identification of the “group or authority (who) has the greatest control over each condition (drivers) in this school and community.”

In Table 2, the aggregated data related to the validity of the drivers as a reflection of systemic educational reform (in that school and community) are presented. In total, the respondents indicated high agreement (no mean less than 3.69 for any indicators), but the three highest are listed below:

# Administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students (0 = 4.13)

# Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice (0 = 4.06)

# Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports provisions of high quality math and science for each student (0 = 4.06)

The variance among the indicators ranges from 0.70 on “implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula” to 0.96 on “broad-based support from parents, policymakers, etc.” Among the various study sites, there was a fairly consistent pattern of responses, except for Humphreys County (MS) and Wagon Mound (NM), in which “improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved” was more strongly supported. By study site, the statements receiving the highest and lowest ratings are listed below.

Highest Rating

# Administrative support for all persons . . . to improve achievement—Rockcastle County (KY), Humphreys County (MS), Gila River Indian Community (AZ), and Cocke County (TN)

# Development of coherent, consistent set of policies that supports . . . (math and science teachers)—East Feliciana Parish (LA)

# Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved—Wagon Mound (NM)

Lowest Rating

# Broad-based support from parents, policymakers . . . for the goals and collective value of the programs—Rockcastle County (KY), Cocke County (TN), and East Feliciana Parish (LA)

# Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing student achievement . . —Humphreys County (MS), Wagon Mound (NM), and Gila River Indian Community (AZ)

In summary, there is strong support and recognition that the listed indicators, as extracted from the six drivers and included in the survey, are recognized as “valid indicators of systemic educational reform” in the schools in which the respondents are affiliated. Further, there is reasonably clear consistency in the perceptions of which indicators are the most valid and which are least valid. However, it should be repeated here that none of the indicators were rated 3.0 or less, the midpoint of the 5-point (strongly disagree to strongly agree) scale. Table 4 provides a summary matrix of means and standard deviations across all study sites for comparative purposes.

The locus of control or the perceived group or authority with the greatest control over each condition (driver) in the specific school and community is broken down by respondent type (i.e., teacher, building level administrator, etc.) in Table 3, by respondent type and school/community in Tables 3a-f, and as a comparative summary by school-community in Table 5. The response options were the same for each item, i.e., teacher, building level administrator, district level administration, or local school board, state department of education or state school board, and U.S. Department of Education or other federal government agency. In essence, this portion of the survey was intended to determine the extent to which each respondent perceived various groups to be in control over the predetermined driver. From this information, one could determine such questions as whether teachers perceive that they control the “implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice” or whether that is an area that is controlled by another force, i.e., district level administration, local school board, or some other entity. This is important information, because it addresses perceived role responsibilities and controls and gives direction to planned interventions and others engaged in facilitating systemic educational reform in these rural communities. In the situations included in this investigation, perceptions are likely based on experience rather than some hypothetical understanding of the issues.

The data in these tables (3, 3a-f, and 5) are percentages of respondents who chose that option. (While some comments indicated that authority/control was shared by more than one group, the respondents were forced to select the one option with the “greatest control.”)

For “implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula,” there is a clear indication that teachers are the ones with the greatest authority or control, with 53.4 percent of the respondents choosing that option (see Table 3). With regard to the “development of policies that support the provision of high quality math and science education,” district level administration or local school board was selected more often than other options (38.2 percent). However, the “U.S. Department of Education or other federal government agency” option was infrequently selected as being the primary locus of control.

“Convergence of the use of all resources” is thought to be controlled at the local level, but a surprising 36.3 percent selected teachers as compared with 31.6 percent for district level administration or local school board and 20.2 percent for building level administrator. “Broad-based support” is thought to be primarily the responsibility of the district level administration or local school board (49.1 percent), while 22 percent indicated building level administrator and 15 percent indicated teachers.

In terms of the “accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing student achievement,” the responses reflect considerable variance among all options except “U.S. Department of Education or other federal government agency.” However, the district level administration or local school board was perceived by 31.8 percent as the unit with the greatest authority or locus of control. The second highest option was “teacher” with 27.3 percent.

Clearly, the teacher group has the greatest control (54 percent) over the “improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved.”

In summary, the data in Table 3 indicate that most of the authority or locus of control for the conditions or drivers is perceived to be at the local level, with some modest support for the state level, i.e., state department of education or state school board. Clearly, teachers are perceived to have the greatest authority or to be the locus of control for two critical areas—implementation of a comprehensive standards-based curricula and the improvement of achievement of all students. At the same time, the district level administration or local school board was selected by a greater percentage of respondents than the building-level administrator on all conditions/drivers.

However, when you look at the responses by study site districts, some differences in the percentages are distributed among the response options (see Tables 3a-f and 5). Yet, teachers stand out as the primary authority with regard to the curricula; convergence of resources to support science and math; and improvement in the achievement of all students, including the historically underserved in all locations. Also, accumulation of evidence of achievement is perceived as a shared responsibility or for which there is dispersed authority among local and state groups.

Overall, it appears that the drivers, as identified and distributed by the National Science Foundation, are recognized as indicators of systemic reform among the respondents to the survey at the six study sites. Further, no major differences in the level of this support were found in comparing individual sites with the aggregated data. Since each site is located in a different state, some differences might have been expected; but such was not the case. Also, the Gila River Community site was composed of multiple schools that are not members of the same governing body but, again, the pattern of responses was the same as the others.

As to the locus of control or perceived authority for each driver, an overall perception is that it is at the local level as opposed to the state or federal level. Further, teachers, who also made up the vast majority of the respondents, perceive that possibly the most critical drivers (curricula, resources, and improvement of achievement) are within their control or authority.

In conclusion, the results of this survey suggest that the drivers are in fact indicative of systemic reform and may be perceived in that way in further aspects in the RSI study and that teachers should be the primary focus of reform efforts. However, in future phases of the study, the team should be conscious of barriers and the absence or presence of conditions and support systems that allow teachers to effectively assume and carry out this authority.

Table 1

Summary Description of the Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	25.9% 50.4% 3.5% 18.8% 1.4%
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	62.6% 13.2% 21.0% 1.4% 1.8%
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	18.8% 81.2%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	13.3% 23.8% 18.2% 20.9% 23.8%
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	7.7% 17.1% 16 .9% 25.2% 33.1%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	3.3% 6.5% 47.6% 42.0% 0. 6%
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	26.4% 4.2% 0% 69.4% 0%
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	67.5% 32.5%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	2.5% 5.7% 4.8% 9.1% 77.9%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	1.0% 3.7% 3.3% 6.4% 85.7%

*Includes a total of 524 respondents from the communities of Rockcastle County (KY), Gila River Indian Community AZ), Humphreys County (MS), Cocke County (TN), and East Feliciana Parish (LA).

Table 1-a

Summary Description of the Rockcastle County (KY) Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	38.6% 48.2% 7.2% 6.0%
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	37.3% 32.5% 25.3% 4.8% 0
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	27.7% 72.3%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	8.5% 23.2% 25.6% 19.5% 23.2%
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	2.5% 23.5% 19.8% 23.5% 30.9%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	0 0 17.1% 80.5% 2.4%
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	1.2% 0 0 98.6% 0
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	78.3% 21.7%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	3.1% 6.2% 7.7% 4.6% 78.5%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	0 3.6% 1.2% 4.8% 90.4%

F. Highest level of education

1.High school

2.Some college but less than 4 year degree

3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree)

4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate)

5.Professional degree

17.1%

80.5%

2.4%

G. Ethnicity/racial identity

1.African American

2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander

3.Asian

4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic

5.Hispanic

1.2%

98.6%

H. Current residency

1.Live in district

2.Do not live in district

78.3%

21.7%

I. Length of residency in district

1.<1 year

2.1-5 years

3.6-10 years

4.11-20 years

5.>20 years

3.1%

6.2%

7.7%

4.6%

78.5%

J. Length of residency in state

1.<1 year

2.1-5 years

3.6-10 years

4.11-20 years

5.>20 years

3.6%

1.2%

4.8%

90.4%

*Includes a total of 83 respondents from Rockcastle County (KY).

Table 1-b

Summary Description of the Humphreys County (MS) Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	17.8% 43.6% 4.0% 34.7% 0
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	68.2% 25.2% 0.9% 2.8% 2.8%
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	2.8% 97.2%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	14.2% 22.6% 23.6% 15.1% 24.5%
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	9.8% 16.3% 20.7% 21.7% 31.5%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	9.5% 24.5% 41.5% 23.6% 0.9%
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	75.2% 0 0 24.8% 0
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	91.6% 8.4%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	1.0% 1.0% 3.1% 13.3% 81.6%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	0 0 1.9% 5.7% 92.5%

*Includes a total of 108respondents from Humphreys County (MS).

Table 1-c

Summary Description of the Wagon Mound School (NM) Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	19.5% 51.2% 2.4% 24.4% 2.4%
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	35.0% 2.5% 55.0% 0 7.5%
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	14.6% 85.4%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	23.1% 41.0% 10.3% 10.3% 15.4%
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	17.1% 20.0% 17.1% 17.1% 28.6%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	2.4% 12.2% 48.8% 36.6% 0
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	57.5% 25.0% 0 17.5% 0
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	48.8% 51.2%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	5.0% 0 0 5.0% 90.0%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	14.6% 0 7.3% 7.3% 70.7%

*Includes a total of 41 respondents from Wagon Mound (NM).

Table 1-d

Summary Description of the Gila River Indian Community (AZ) Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	13.8% 62.1% 3.4% 20.7% 0
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	93.5% 6.5% 0 0 0
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	25.0% 75.0%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	15.6% 50.0% 21.9% 12.5 0
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	0 22.6% 12.9% 22.6% 41.9%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	0 0 65.6% 34.4% 0
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	0 28.1% 0 71.9% 0
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	15.6% 84.4%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	0 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	0 9.4% 18.8% 25.0% 46.9%

*Includes a total of 41 respondents from Gila River Indian Community (AZ).

Table 1-e

Summary Description of the Cocke County (TN) Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	26.9% 55.7% 2.4% 12.3% 2.8%
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	65.9% 4.4% 28.4% 0 1.3%
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	24.7% 75.3%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	10.4% 17.4% 14.8% 27.4% 30.0%
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	7.5% 12.6% 15.0% 29.9% 35.0%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	2.6% 1.3% 54.3% 41.8% 0
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	10.8% 0.9% 0 88.4% 0
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	66.4% 33.6%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	3.3% 7.8% 4.6% 6.5% 77.8%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	1.3% 2.6% 2.2% 4.8% 89.1%

F. Highest level of education

1.High school

2.Some college but less than 4 year degree

3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree)

4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate)

5.Professional degree

2.6%

1.3%

54.3%

41.8%

G. Ethnicity/racial identity

1.African American

2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander

3.Asian

4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic

5.Hispanic

10.8%

0.9%

88.4%

H. Current residency

1.Live in district

2.Do not live in district

66.4%

33.6%

I. Length of residency in district

1.<1 year

2.1-5 years

3.6-10 years

4.11-20 years

5.>20 years

3.3%

7.8%

4.6%

6.5%

77.8%

J. Length of residency in state

1.<1 year

2.1-5 years

3.6-10 years

4.11-20 years

5.>20 years

1.3%

2.6%

2.2%

4.8%

89.1%

*Includes a total of 232 respondents from Cocke County (TN).

Table 1-f

Summary Description of the East Feliciana Parish (LA) Respondents to the Survey of Perceptions on Drivers for Educational Systemic Reform*

Descriptor	Value
A. Role of Stakeholder:
1.Science or math teacher 2.Teacher of subject(s) other than science or math 3.School administrator 4.Other school personnel 5.School board member	33.3% 25.0% 0 41.7% 0
B. School level of responsibility
1.Elementary school 2.Middle or junior high school 3.High school 4.Center office of school district 5.Other	96.4% 3.6% 0 0 0
C. Gender
1.Male 2.Female	3.6% 96.4%
D. Length of employment in this school district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	32.1% 28.6% 10.7% 17.9% 10.7%
E. Total years of experience in education
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	14.8% 25.9% 14.8% 18.5% 25.9%

F. Highest level of education
1.High school 2.Some college but less than 4 year degree 3.Four-year college (Bachelor’s degree) 4.Graduate degree (Master’s, specialist, or Doctorate) 5.Professional degree	0 0 82.1% 17.9% 0
G. Ethnicity/racial identity
1.African American 2.American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander 3.Asian 4.Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 5.Hispanic	35.7% 0 0 64.3% 0
H. Current residency
1.Live in district 2.Do not live in district	39.3% 60.7%
I. Length of residency in district
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	9.1% 0 9.1% 27.3% 54.5%
J. Length of residency in state
1.<1 year 2.1-5 years 3.6-10 years 4.11-20 years 5.>20 years	7.1% 3.6% 0 3.6% 85.7%

*Includes a total of 28 respondents from East Feliciana Parish (LA).

Table 2

Summary of Respondents’ Perceptions of Valid Indicators of Systemic Educational Reform in Their School District*

Indicator	N	Mean	Standard Deviation
A. Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice.	511	4.06	.70
B. Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports provisions of high quality math and science education for each student.	513	4.06	.71
C. Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports excellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each math and science teacher (including all elementary teachers).	514	3.99	.83
D. Administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students served by the system.	512	4.13	.83
E. Convergence of the use of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and math 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.	516	3.92	.78
F. 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.	517	3.69	.96
G. 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.	511	3.77	.82
H. Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved.	509	3.96	.82