|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 of 13 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 8 Number 17March 14, 2000ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2000, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education The Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative: Improving Science and Mathematics Student Achieveme nt in Economically Disadvantaged Rural Counties in Cen tral Appalachia Through a School-Based, Teacher Partner Approach Stephen A. Henderson Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative Wimberly C. Royster Kentucky Science and Technology CorporationAbstractThis article was written in response to "Top-Down, Routinized Reform in Low-income, Rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rur al Systemic Initiative, by Robert Bickel, Terry Tomaskek, and T eresa Hardman Eagle which was published in the Education Policy Analysis Archives as Number 12 of Volume 8 on February 21, 2000.Introduction "Top-Down, Routinized Reform in Low-Income, Rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative" is a descrip tion of the authors' opinions
2 of 13(apparently primarily one person's opinion) of the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative and one of the strategies utilized to provide infor mation regarding program improvement needs. The article does not accurately describe the ARSI project, is void of data, makes reference to unrelated research, fictionalizes the descriptions of personal observations, and includes more than fifty misrepresentations and /or false statements regarding the project. This rebuttal provides a more complete des cription of the ARSI project, describes the Program Improvement Review process an d its role in the overall project, and provides data which supports the program's over all effectiveness. It is apparent that the authors did not rev iew the available information regarding the ARSI project or chose not to use that information i n their article. ARSI has produced a number of publications and reports detailing the pr oject's activities. The Year 4 ARSI Annual Report, published on the ARSI website since November, clearly describes the ARSI project and successes experienced through this model. Other rural, urban, or state systemic initiative reports may be obtained from th e National Science Foundation. This rebuttal will focus on the following A RSI strengths which are inaccurately portrayed in the article "Top-Down, Routinized Refo rm in Low-Income Rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative": ARSI as a "bottom-up" reform initiative. ARSI as a multi-dimensional process utilizing the P rogram Improvement Review as one, of many, means of accomplishing ARSI's aims ." ARSI's potential to improve student achievement in rural counties in Appalachia. ARSI's focus of the uniqueness of rural schools. ARSI's successes in regard to science and mathemati cs program improvement and student achievement. The Program Improvement Review process and training procedures for potential reviewers. The Real ARSI Project The Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative ( ARSI) has made a major contribution in education reform through the implementation of a truly systemic school and district improvement model. Improved student achievement is being realized as ARSI focuses on K-12 students through the development and suppor t of catalyst schools designed to serve as models for other schools in their district The resulting catalyst districts serve as leaders for reform efforts throughout the region. The ARSI model is based on a "bottom-up" te am approach to school reform. A key component of the model is the development of teacher partners who are designated by their schools as mathematics and science leaders. T he teacher partner's work is supported by a team of professionals at the buildin g and district level including the building principal, ARSI district liaison, and dist rict superintendent. External support for the teacher partners and the development of catalys t schools and districts comes from five resource collaboratives located at university sites across Appalachia. The se collaboratives are staffed by a director and mathem atics/science specialists who, with support from university mathematics and science edu cators, provide training for teacher partners and direct services to catalyst schools in their region. Each catalyst school, led by the teacher partner, develops its own school imp rovement plan based on needs assessments, data analysis, and assessment of the i nstructional program. Implementation of the ARSI model has proved to be effective in providing both direction for school reform and a mechanism for tec hnical assistance to catalyst schools.
3 of 13ARSI has provided assistance through the developmen t of school leadership, access to national and regional resources that support mathem atics, science, and technology reform efforts, and improvement of the community su pport base. ARSI has made a major contribution through the development of stand ards-based curricula, science/mathematics content and pedagogy developmen t workshops for teachers, identification of high quality instructional resour ces, while providing extensive support for the key ingredient of the ARSI model, the teacher partner One of the tools used for assessing program improvement needs has been the Science and Mathematics Program Improvement Review. This instrument is used to assess the program's effectiveness against a set of standards developed around "best practices" which are consistent with mathematics an d science state and national standards. Needs assessment data gathered through t his process has been utilized in both school and district strategic planning efforts.ARSI as a "Bottom-up" Reform Initiative The ARSI project utilizes a school-based ap proach to program improvement. The basic premise of the ARSI model is that reform and improvement of science and mathematics programs is best done in rural schools through the teachers and principals in each school. The ARSI team, consisting of the te acher partner, ARSI district liaison, principal, and superintendent, has been the primary planning group in each district and is supported by the resource collaborative housed at a n area university. The ARSI emphasis has been on the identification of program needs, assistance in developing both short range and long range improvement plans, and i n the provision of technical assistance in the development of curriculum and sel ection of appropriate resources. Professional development has been primarily "job-em bedded." The primary functions of the teacher partner have included such activities a s mentoring of other classroom teachers, modeling inquiry teaching strategies, and assisting teachers plan for inquiry based instruction. A major service provided by the ARSI staff has been to assist schools and districts with strategic planning. The Program Improvement Re view has been a welcomed source of needs assessment data from which the teacher par tner, principal and other science and/or math teachers have constructed their own imp rovement plan. Based on the needs assessment data, ARSI has facilitated school and di strict reform efforts by providing professional development, assisting in the identifi cation of resources, and providing guidance in regard to curriculum development and in structional improvement. In no case, as implied in the article "Top-down, Routiniz ed Reform in Lowincome, Rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiativ e," has ARSI dictated how a participating school or district proceeds with thei r science and/or mathematics program reform efforts or constructed a "one-size fits all" approach to school/district assistance efforts. After a review of the first four years of t he ARSI project, Inverness Research Associates, the ARSI project external evaluator, ma de the following statements concerning the ARSI approach to school reform: "The ARSI model is developmental and works from the inside out. That is, ARSI starts by identifying and building leadership within the district through its work with teacher partners. The teacher partner, with the help of the district liaison, then builds a core group of t eachers and administrators who are committed to the reform effort. Eventually the reform effort may
4 of 13move to the level of district policycurriculum, pr ofessional development, etc.and then out to the community and national sce ne." "ARSI is a subtle reform effort that is steadily bu ilding within each district a grassroots group of teachers and district leaders people who are knowledgeable about and, increasingly, advocates fo r inquiry-based, student-centered, hands-on teaching and learning."The Program Improvement Review: One of Many Means t o ARSI's Goals The statement "The primary means of accompl ishing ARSI's aims is a one-day-one-school visit," indicates a lack of know ledge regarding the ARSI project. (Bickel et al., 2000) ARSI incorporates a wide vari ety of interventions and assistance to schools in their reform efforts. The primary means of accomplishing ARSI's aims is the utilization of "teacher partners" to mentor other t eachers, provide professional development, coordinate curriculum development effo rts, obtain quality resources, and work with parent and community groups to promote sc ience and mathematics education. The teacher partner is selected on the basis of his /her general leadership ability, skill as a mathematics or science teacher and potential for pr oviding assistance to other teachers. Teacher partners receive monthly training in both c ontent and pedagogy through the ARSI resource collaboratives. In addition to the tr aining and support provided by the teacher partner, professional development is being provided for teachers in participating district schools by both the ARSI curriculum specia lists and university math and science educators. Training is being provided in inquiry in structional techniques, authentic assessment strategies, data analysis, and standards -based mathematics and science content. In all cases, the training provided at the school level has been requested by the school on the basis of needs identified at that lev el. The Program Improvement Review is but one t ool, of many, utilized by ARSI to provide needs assessment data to schools involved i n the ARSI project. In fact, the Program Improvement Review is not a requirement for participation in the ARSI program and is utilized only at the request of the individual school. The process has proved so beneficial, however, that most schools ha ve voluntarily participated in the process and in several cases, districts (ARSI and n on-ARSI) have requested that the process be completed in all schools to provide data for program planning.ARSI Project Potential to Improve Student Achieveme nt in Rural Counties in Appalachia During the four and one-half years of the A RSI project, it has become clear that the school districts in Appalachia differ widely in the ir "readiness" and ability to participate in significant reform efforts. At the outset of the project none of the participating schools had district-wide curricula in science or mathemati cs aligned with their state or national standards. School leaders lacked a "vision" of qual ity mathematics and science programs which would provide direction for reform efforts. P rofessional development was primarily district based and generally focused on g eneric topics such as improving school discipline or improving student safety in sc hools. Although these topics are certainly important, teachers also need a consisten t, well-planned professional development program focusing on both content and pe dagogy.
5 of 13 Professional development, through the ARSI teacher partner has been one of the major foci of the ARSI program. There is clear evid ence that the quality of instruction is improving as a result. Improved instruction, use of standards-based materials designed to promote student inquiry, and well defined curricula focusing on state and national standards are now commonplace in ARSI schools and t he student achievement data, included in this document, show clearly that use of the ARSI model has resulted in positive results across the region. Another focus a rea for ARSI has been the development of policies, atboth the school and district level, which increasemathematics and science learning opportunities.Policies designed to increasethe breadth and rigor of programs and the support formathematics and science in Appalachian schools, havebeen implemented in many ARSI districts. See Figure 1.ARSI: Positive Results Across the Appalachian Regio n and in States Served by ARSI One of the most positive results of the ARS I project has been the development of skilled and committed leadership for mathematics an d science program improvement. "There is no doubt that the greatest contribution o f ARSI lies in this area: ARSI is helping districts identify, train and support local leaders who are knowledgeable about math and science reform and empowered to work towards change in schools and classrooms." (Inverness Research Associates, External Review Rep ort, 2000) ARSI's efforts in training teacher partners, ARSI catalyst school principals, and ARSI district liaisons have resulted in a district team that has provided extensive lead ership for science and mathematics program reform efforts. Student achievement data for ARSI catalyst schools validate the impact of the ARSI model. Catalyst schools that started the program du ring its first year (having had ARSI interventions for two full years), show a dramatic increase in student achievement in both mathematics and science. In science, students score d above the combined states' average and were significantly higher than comparison distr icts in the Appalachian region. Mathematics scores were slightly below the states' combined average, although the gap was significantly reduced, and students scored well above their Appalachian region counterparts. As would be expected, the gains for schools involved with the ARSI project for only one year are not as dramatic although ARSI catalyst schools that started the program in its second year demonstrate similar trends. Student ach ievement in science shows a similar percentage of improvement, as did the students from the inaugural year whereas the mathematics performance increased only slightly. Se e Figures 2 and 3.
6 of 13 In examining individual school data, the re sults are even more dramatic. See Figure 4. An ARSI school that has had a full range of inte rventions in science demonstrates the type of results achieved through the project. The s chool started with the Program Improvement Review which identified several weaknes ses including lack of a curriculum in science and little emphasis on inquir y-based instruction. After theimplementation of an aligned, standards-basedcurriculum and extensive staff development in inquiry basedinstruction, student achievement in science exceeded the state average in allassessed sub-domain areas whereas student achievementin all other content areas was below the state average. The data for another ARSI district with nin e (9) elementary schools is equally impressive. As in the previous example, the ARSI ca talyst school implemented an aligned, standards-basedcurriculum and provided inquiry-based instruction professionaldevelopment for teachers through the ARSI teacher partner.As can be seen in thegraph to the right, the
7 of 13 ARSI catalyst schoolscored above all other district elementary schools in every science sub-domain area. See Figur e 5 above. These data are not unique. 1999 ARSI school s' state assessment data is currently being analyzed. The preliminary results indicate su bstantial improvement for nearly all ARSI schools since the inception of the ARSI projec t in 1996.ARSI Project Focus on the Uniqueness of Rural Schoo ls "There is something about "rural-ness" that is important. These are small, closed communities. So, any effort to change the mind set, or to change the value system or the valuing of things, is difficult because it is a clo sed system. I think what we are seeing is a slow, steady battle to win hearts and minds--and having a local, well respected, well trained, well supported, well chosen teacher partne r is the way to go about it. As one district superintendent said, 'Mountain people are just old mules--it is easier to lead them than it is to push them." (Inverness Research Assoc iates, ARSI External Review, 2000) The ARSI project has been sensitive to the characteristics and needs of rural communities since its inception. Characteristics common to rur al communities have long been known to researchers and ARSI is cognizant of the necessity of attending to the specific needs of these communities if the school reforms initiated are fully implemented and persist beyond the years of ARSI involvement. I n addition to being rural, the Appalachian region school districts participating i n the ARSI project are similar in that they reside in counties with poverty levels of scho ol age children greater than 30% (according to the 1990 census) and USDA Beale Numbe rs 6 or higher. The principal ARSI goal, "to accelerate per formance in science, mathematics, and technology in Central Appalachia," addresses one of the major educational challenges of rural communities. Formal education attainment tend s to be lower in these areas. High school completion rates are lower than those in met ropolitan areas and fewer rural students complete college (Herzog & Pittman, 1995). Rural students are also less likely to take college preparatory classes (Stern, 1994) o ften resulting in the need for remedial classes in science and/or mathematics upon their entry int o a community college or university. Another goal for the ARSI project, "to deve lop a sustainable system providing students and teachers with timely, coordinated acce ss to educational resources and services ...." addresses the "isolation" of these c ommunities. Fewer institutions of higher education are located in rural areas and educators feel more professionally isolated than their metropolitan counterparts (Massey & Crosby, 1 983; Stern, 1994). "Through ARSI, each of these districts, especially the teacher par tners and district liaisons, have become affiliated with at least one university as well as other state resources such as national education laboratories, museums, and other NSF proj ects." (Inverness Research Associates, ARSI External Review, 2000) Rural areas often have difficulty attractin g and retaining mathematics and science teachers. This results in a large number of teacher s teaching "out of field" and generally these teachers are unfamiliar with current resource s for standards based mathematics and science instruction. A recent study by the Kentucky Department of Education showed that fully a third of the teachers in Kentucky lack the necessary mathematics background and certification to teach middle school content (C lements, Hartanowicz, and White, 1998). In many of the ARSI districts, the percentag e is even higher. The ARSI teacher partner has been a major factor in improving the qu alifications of mathematics and
8 of 13science teachers in the participating school distri cts. The social norms of rural areas value famil y, place, and community over other priorities. The school in a rural community is ofte n the "center" for community activities. (deYoung & Lawrence, 1995, Herzog & Out tnmabm 1995, Nachtigal, 1982, Stern, 1994) Recognizing this importance, increasin g "community engagement," has also been a major objective of the ARSI project.The Program Improvement Review: A Tool for Assistin g Schools in Identifying Science and Mathematics Program Needs Since the article, "Top-Down, Routinized Re form in Low-income, Rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative," was p rimarily a critique, be it uninformed, of the Program Improvement Review proce ss, it is important that the procedures utilized and the training program be exp lained. The Program Improvement Review is a program assessment process developed to provide schools an "outside" view of their programs as measured against a set of clearly identified standards. The process involves a site v isit to the school by a team of trained observers who collect data through interviews with the school principal, teachers, parents, and students, classroom observations, revi ew of the school's curriculum, review of instructional resources, and review of testing p rocedures and data. A classroom observation instrument is used in the Program Improvement Review which gu ides the reviewer's observations related to student-teacher and studentstudent interactions. Student engagement and interaction, as well as the teacher's questioning strategies, are critical pieces of the data collected related to in quiry based instruction. Following the site visit, the school is provided a written summar y of the site visitors' observations including recommendations for making improvements i n the instructional program. Debriefing with the site visit team occurs immediately following the visit. It takes approximately 10-12 hours to draft a report. After meeting with team members, editing, and publishing the report, the report is delivered to the school in 2-4 weeks. Although reported in the article that "The final report, usu ally written overnight and presented the next day," there has never been a case in which the report was generated over night and presented the next day. The Program Improvement Reviews are based o n "recognized good practice" and national standards as identified in a set of clearl y defined look-fors The look-fors are translated into a set of standards which help the r eviewer collect data from a variety of sources. The procedures utilized are modeled after the procedures designed by Fenwick English in his Curriculum Auditing process as utilized by PDK and site visit procedur es developed as part of the U.S. Department of Educati on's Blue Ribbon Schools Program The approach is not unlike the procedures utilized by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), North Central Associat ion, or other such accrediting agencies. The primary difference between the Progra m Improvement Review and these types of programs are the Program Improvement Revie w's specific emphasis at the program level No claims regarding "...easy-to-understand, easy to evaluate nature of education achievement in rural Appalachian Schools," have eve r been made by ARSI or the developers of the Program Improvement Reviews. Quit e the contrary. The reviews are only one piece of assessment data utilized in assis ting schools develop both short-range and long-range plans for improvement. The Program I mprovement Reviews were developed as a result of a specific need identified by local school districts. The standards and sub-standards are based on the classroom practi ces of experienced math and science
9 of 13educators and are consistent with standards as spec ified by NCTM and National Research Council. The Program Improvement Reviews, as designe d and utilized in the ARSI project, have never been used to evaluate a school or a school program. The ratings, comment s, and recommendations are a synopsis of the "one-day snapshot" and designed to provide schools with insight not normally found by "self-ev aluations," questionnaires, or other routinely used procedures. The instrument utilized in West Virginia wa s developed by West Virginia educators. The procedures described in the article, "Top-down, Routinized Reform in Low-Income, rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative," are specific to the West Virginia process which, as initially im plemented, is vastly different from the Program Improvement Review process utilized in othe r ARSI states. The project team at Marshall University developed their own procedures and instrument specific to West Virginia. ARSI gave permission to this team to adapt the instrument and, although much different the West Virginia instrument is referred to as a Program Improvement Review Because of the relatively short time that P rogram Improvement Reviews have been utilized, approximately 5 years, definitive results are just now being identified. Data are being compiled which shows clearly the impact of th e Program Improvement Review Process on individual school reform efforts as part of the ARSI project. In addition to individual school and district data, a database is currently being developed to identify trends among all schools reviewed and the specific needs of schools across Appalachia. As stated, the Program Improvement Review process i s an evolving one, based on identified best practices and formulated with much input from school clients both present and future.Science and Mathematics Program Improvement Review Training Program The "formal" training session consists a 6hour session focusing on the various aspects of the process including interviews, classr oom observation, and data analysis. The training day begins with an introduction to the process including the assumptions as well as the research and practice basis for the procedures utilized. A simulation is utilized to prepare reviewers for conducting the on -site interview sessions. To insure consistency in classroom observation reports, a sig nificant amount of time is spent on the observation and scripting of a classroom settin g via videotapes. This is followed by a comprehensive analysis of the participants' observa tions, a review of student assessment data and how this data is utilized, and a time for reflecting on actual school data for the purpose of preparing a summary report. In regard to the extended description of a "videotape segment" in the training tape in "Top-Do wn, Routinized Reform in Low-Income, Rural Schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative", it is important to note that this part of the scripted ob servation is approximately 2 minutes long out of a 30 minute training tape. This formal training session is followed by a "shadowing experience" in which the "trainee" participates in the data collection proce ss and assists with writing various sections of the summary report. In regard to the qu ality of the report provided the school, it has proven to be very important that potential reviewers participate in all phases of the site visit and report writing process prior to assuming the role of a program reviewer. It is also important to note that the West Virginia project (described in "Top-Down, Routinized Reform in Low-Income, Rural Schools: NSF 's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative") requested that they be allowed to devi ate from the normal training program.
10 of 13Although against its better judgement, ARSI complie d with this request.Conclusions ARSI's model, using a team approach to syst emic reform, has produced desired results, namely, standards based instruction in mat hematics and science, implementation of supportive policies, convergence of resources fo r mathematics, science and technology education improvement, a broader base of community support, and increased student achievement. The four main intervention approachesCatal yst Schools and Teacher Partners, Program Improvement Reviews, Community Engagement, and Resource Collaboratives/University Partnershipsrecognize th e importance of "bottom-up" strategies for school reform in rural schools. Amon g these interventions it has been stated: "The Program Improvement Review and Plannin g Process may be the most important of all the intervention strategies used b y ARSI." (Smith, 1999-2000) The Program Improvement Review does not ope rate in a vacuum. ARSI has focused on "school-based" leadership in the form of the ARSI teacher partner supported by the local district team consisting of the school principal, ARSI district liaison, and district superintendent. The ARSI resource collabor atives have served this model through the provision of professional development f or the teacher partners, assistance in the identification of quality mathematics and scien ce instructional resources, provision of leadership training for principals, and developm ent of networks with universities and other professionals who can assist in school reform efforts. The development of a skilled and committed leadership for mathematics and science program improvement has been one of the mos t significant results of the ARSI project to date. Because of ARSI's training, the di strict teams now have a "standardsbased vision" of mathematics and science instructio n which is providing direction for district reform efforts. It is also apparent that ARSI's focus on K12 students through the development and support of catalyst schools and leadership of the teacher partner has resulted in improved student achievement. Both aggregated state data and individual school data indicate the positive effects of the ARSI project. Because of th e success obtained, ARSI catalyst schools are beginning to serve as models for other schools in their district further validating the project's potential for school refor m in the Appalachian Region. The data, obtained after four and one-half years of ARSI activity, clearly indicate that ARSI is a major partner in the school improvem ent process for low-income rural schools in Appalachia.ReferencesAppalachian Rural Systemic Initiative. (1999). ARSI: Empowering Children With Mathematics and Science Lexington, KY. 3-9. English, Fenwick. (1988). Curriculum Auditing Lancaster, PA. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.Kannapel, Patricia J. and DeYoung, Alan J. (Fall, 1 999). The Rural School Problem in 1999: A Review and Critique of the Literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education Volume 15, No. 2, 67-79.
11 of 13 Smith, Keith. (Winter, 1999-2000). Implementing Sys temic Change for Math and Science in Rural Appalachia: The Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative. The Rural Educator Volume 21, No. 2, 3-8. St. John, Mark, Brown, Samantha, Carroll, Becky, Hi rabayashi, Judy, Horsch, Elizabeth, and Howard, Mike. (2000). Appalachian Rural Systemi c Initiative (ARSI): Final Report. External Evaluation Report.About the AuthorsDr. Stephen A. HendersonDr. Henderson is currently Director for the Appalac hian Rural Systemic Initiative. Dr. Henderson has extensive experience as a classroom t eacher, school administrator, and university science educator in Michigan, Virginia, and Kentucky. Dr. Wimberly C. RoysterDr. Royster is currently Principal Investigator for the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative. Dr. Royster directs Kentucky's Statewid e EPSCoR project and Annenberg Rural Challenge, and is a Vice President and Direct or of Scientific Research and Policy for the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation He has served as Dean of the Graduate School, Vice Chancellor, and Vice Presiden t of Research and Graduate Studies at the University of Kentucky.Copyright 2000 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. C obb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University
12 of 13 Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young UniversityEPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico email@example.com Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAV Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGS
13 of 13 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.comJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20009999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00161
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 8, no. 17 (March 14, 2000).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c March 14, 2000
Appalachina rural systemic initiative : improving science and mathematics student achievement in economically disadvantaged rural counties in central Appalachia through a school based, teacher partner approach / Stephen A. Henderson [and] Wimberly C. Royster.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 8issue 17series Year mods:caption 20002000Month March3Day 1414mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2000-03-14