The four pillars were not introduced until the last year of our study will not discuss all parts of components
Note that not all categories are discussed
Consider mentioning as context that the goals of recruitment were to a) ernoll 75 students in each grade, target students of color and girls, and enroll all students who were interested regardless of past academic achievement or behavior
Students’ varying math levels was the most often mentioned challenge to scheduling students into cohortsCompeting activities and course offerings (too many electives were offered)
Using both ConnectEd units and home-grown ideas, teachers are assigning long-term, team-based, interdisciplinary projects such as designing, making - and sometimes blowing up - bridges, ramps, a Trojan horse and a NASA room with a radio telescope.
Note that most AOEs do not yet have rising seniors
Academy of Engineering: Discussion of the Implementation Study Institute for Staff Development Philadelphia July 11 – 13, 2009
Agenda Selected findings about the four components of the AOE Academy model from MDRC’s AOE implementation study of Cohort 1 Components of the AOE model Academy Development Curriculum Advisory Boards Work-based Learning Programs Panel Discussion Q & A
Overview Goals of the study Document the experiences of Cohort 1 Assess the effectiveness of partner supports
Overview Timeframe: 2007-2010 Recruitment YOP Implementation of the AOE Model Data Sources Site visits Phone interviews Observations of conferences and workshops Document analysis
Overview Cohort 1 AOEs A.J. Moore Burton Construction Trades, Engineering and Architecture East Evergreen Frederick Douglass Harmony Madison Morse Northwest Patrick Henry Spruce University High
Academy Development Recruitment Cohort Scheduling Staffing
Student Recruitment Almost all AOEs enrolled 60 or more students in the freshman class. Most of the AOEs served a large number of underrepresented minorities. A majority of AOEs struggled to achieve gender balance. A minority of AOEs used selective admissions criteria including minimum GPA and test scores and good citizenship.
Recruitment Challenges Attracting female students to the engineering field District admissions policies District recruitment policies Reputation of the host high school Difficulty in reaching out to middle schools
Cohort Scheduling A majority of AOEs did not cohort their students A few AOEs placed students in cohorts for a maximum of two classes or for three or more classes not including their PLTW class A small minority of AOEs cohorted their students for three or more classes including their PLTW class
Cohort Scheduling Challenges Students’ varying math levels Competing activities and course offerings Small numbers of students per grade level Keeping class sizes even in and out of the AOE Students seeing the same faces all the time Affording teachers dedicated to the AOE
PLTW All PLTW teachers completed the PLTW training and with few exceptions rate it as the most “intense” and “best training out there” Students seemed engaged with the PLTW curriculum. They loved “seeing the math come alive”, the hands-on projects, and software. Many teachers struggled to complete the PLTW curriculum in one year A majority of AOEs faced software or equipment issues at one time or another
PLTW Challenges Students’ math backgrounds Downloading the software Cost of updating software and purchasing new equipment Purchasing or shipping delays
Curriculum Integration Interest in integrated projects ran high in most AOEs; students in several AOEs were working on contextually rich and meaningfully integrated projects. PD on curriculum integration was wanted and appreciated - staff at one school had a ConnectEd coach and were planning on creating their own integrated project with support from the coach About half of the AOEs had begun using ConnectEd units and several more were working on getting their teachers trained to use ConnectEd.
Curriculum Integration Challenges Priority given to meeting state standards and preparing for state exams Students not in pure cohorts No common planning time Core teacher buy-in/comfort working ‘outside of subject area’
Advisory Boards Membership Structure Roles and Responsibilities
Advisory Boards The majority of AOEs reported strong, active advisory boards composed of both business and higher education partners Board contributions to AOEs mentioned : guest speakers, job shadows, curriculum guidance, support for events, mentoring and other support for students, recruitment support and internships Some AOEs were working with district level advisory boards
Advisory Board Challenges Getting national business connections to translate into committed business partners on local boards Defining the roles and responsibilities of Board members Finding the right balance between number of meetings and Board effectiveness Engaging all members of Board; not just a few
Work-based Learning Programs A majority of AOEs were actively thinking about or preparing for internships: Guest speakers Job shadows Career Fairs Mock interviews Resume preparation Some AOEs with upperclassmen were already offering internships and at least one AOE is now piloting internships with sophomores
Work-based Learning Program Challenges Economic times Age requirements, insurance issues and other logistical roadblocks Transportation Student motivation
Panel Discussion: Success Stories from the Field
Panel Discussion What factors led to successful implementation of the components of the AOE model? What obstacles, if any, did AOEs have to overcome for successful implementation of the AOE model? What challenges are you currently facing now that you are in your second year of implementation and what advice do you have for those cohorts who started after you?
Contact Information Mary G. Visher, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate MDRC 475 14th St. Oakland, CA 94612-1900 510.844.2247 email@example.com
Shelley Rappaport Research Associate MDRC 16 East 34th Street New York, NY 10016-4326 212.340.8893 firstname.lastname@example.org