texas regional collaboratives 2015-16 final evaluation · pdf filetexas regional...

TexasRegionalCollaborativesforExcellenceinScienceandMathematicsTeaching 1

Texas Regional Co l laborat ives 2015-16F inal Evaluat ionReport

NOGA156944047110001CarolL.Fletcher,Ph.D.

DeputyDirectorUTAustinCenterforSTEMEducation


TableofContentsProgramOverview..........................................................................................................................3

Mission.....................................................................................................................................................3ProgramDescription................................................................................................................................3TRCNetwork............................................................................................................................................4

ProgramParticipantProfiles..........................................................................................................8InstructionalTeamMembers...................................................................................................................8TeacherParticipants.................................................................................................................................8

ServicesProvidedtoParticipants.................................................................................................11ProfessionalDevelopmentAcademies...................................................................................................11ProfessionalDevelopmentProgramEvents...........................................................................................12Mentoring..............................................................................................................................................13

ProgramOutcomes......................................................................................................................14ContentAreaFocus................................................................................................................................14MathTeacherContentKnowledge........................................................................................................14

ImmersionModel.........................................................................................................................19Overview................................................................................................................................................19ImmersionGrades/Subjects,Campuses,andTeachers.........................................................................20

ImpactonStudents......................................................................................................................21StudentsServed.....................................................................................................................................21ImmersionStudentOutcomes...............................................................................................................21AdditionalStudentOutcomeData.........................................................................................................28

ComputerScienceProfessionalDevelopment.............................................................................28Overview................................................................................................................................................28TRCCollaborativeWeTeach_CSSub-Awards.........................................................................................29WeTeach_CSProfessionalDevelopment...............................................................................................29WeTeach_CSCertificationPreparation..................................................................................................30CertificationIncentiveProgram.............................................................................................................32WeTeach_CSAccomplishments.............................................................................................................34

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................34

AppendixA:InstructionalTeamMembers...................................................................................36MathITMsbyRegion.............................................................................................................................36ScienceITMsbyRegion..........................................................................................................................40

AppendixB:ProjectMeasuresbyCollaborative..........................................................................46


TexasRegionalCollaborativesforExcellenceinScienceandMathematicsTeaching(TRC)

ProgramOverviewHeadquarteredatTheUniversityofTexasatAustin (UTAustin)Center forSTEMEducation, theTexasRegionalCollaborativesforExcellenceinScienceandMathematicsTeaching(TRC) isanaward-winningstatewide network of 57 P-16 partnerships that provides sustained and high intensity professionaldevelopment to P-12 teachers of science andmathematics across the state. This infrastructure of 40institutions of higher education collaborating with the Texas Education Agency (TEA), all 20 TexasEducationServiceCenters (ESCs),schooldistricts,andbusinesspartners,hasa25-yeartrackrecordofdesigning and implementing exemplary professional development using research-based instructionalmodels,materials,andbestpractices.MissionThe TRC’s mission is to provide Texas science and mathematics teachers with support systems ofscientificallyresearched,sustained,andhighintensityprofessionaldevelopmentandmentoringtoassistthem in the implementation of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The TRC’s programsequipteacherswiththeknowledgeandskillstoengagestudentsinmeaningfulscienceandmathematicslearning experiences. Activities are designed to improve students’ scientific, mathematical, andtechnologicalliteracy,andinspirethemtopursuescienceandengineeringrelatedcareers.ProgramDescription TheTRChasthreebasiccomponentsofprofessionaldevelopment.First, InstructionalTeamMembers(ITMs) from each Regional Collaborative are assembled to provide training to classroom teachers.InstructionalTeamsideallyconsistofprofessorsofMathematics,MathematicsEducation,MathematicsSpecialists, Science, Science Education, Science Specialists and Master Teachers in each region.ProfessionalDevelopmentAcademies(PDAs)areprovidedbytheTRCtoITMsfromacrossthestatetofocusinstructionontheprioritiessetbytheTRCandTEAandtoimprovethequalityandeffectivenessofprofessional development provided to teachers. PDAs enhance the knowledge and skills necessary todevelop,sustain,andfacilitatehighqualityProfessionalDevelopmentProgramsineachregion.Second, each Regional Collaborative develops a Professional Development Program (PDP) thataddressesboththeTRCandTEAprioritiesfortheyearandtheuniqueneedsofteachersintheirregion.ThePDPisprovidedtoanetworkofScienceTeacherMentors(STMs)orMathematicsTeacherMentors(MTMs) frommultipledistricts ineachregion.Aminimumof20STMsandMTMsfromeachRegionalCollaborative is required, but several Collaboratives serve double that number. The PDP consists oftraining to improve teacher science content knowledge, instructional skills, classroom practice, andleadership capacity. In 2015-16, STMs received an averageof 116 contact hours andMTMsaveraged110contacthoursofprofessionaldevelopmentintheseareas.ThroughexperienceswiththeRegionalCollaboratives,STMsandMTMsbecometrueleadersinscienceandmathematics education in their schools anddistricts. Tomaximize the investmentmade in theseindividuals,STMsandMTMsarerequiredtomentoradditionalteachers,termedCadreMembers(CMs),


throughout the year, and serve as resources for improving student experiences in science andmathboth regionally and statewide.Using thismultiplier effect, the TRC scales up the number of teachersservedacrossthestateatarelativelylowcostwhileatthesametimebuildinglocalcapacityinindividualschools and districts to lead improvement. Somementoring occurs informally through the sharing ofideas and expertise on a campus level, team teaching, and coaching. In addition,many STMs/MTMsprovide formal training and outreach through workshops on science topics such as chemistry andphysics,andmathematicstopicssuchasalgebraicreasoning,formativeassessment,aligninginstructionandassessmenttotheTEKSandStateofTexasAssessmentofAcademicReadiness(STAAR),aswellasothermorespecificlocallybasedtraining.ThismentoringmodelgivesSTMsandMTMsanopportunitytogrowprofessionallyas leaderswhileremainingclassroomteachers.Suchprofessionalgrowth isnotoftenencouragedwithintheconfinesandlimitationsoftraditionalschoolculture.Thismakesparticipation in the TRCespecially valuable to experienced teacherswhowish to improvetheir knowledge, skills, and leadership without leaving the classroom. Although CMs are required toreceive an average of 12 documented hours of mentoring, training, and support, most projectsexceeded this requirement. Both Science andMathCMs received an averageof 19hours of training.Many individual teachers that participated as CMsduring the 2014-15project year chose to increasetheir level of commitment and become STMs/MTMs for the 2015-16 program. Each of thesecomponentscontributestotheoverallgoalofimprovingthequalityandrigorofclassroomscienceandmathematicsinstructionforP-12students.TRCNetworkDuring the 2015-16 grant period, the TRC issued sub-awards to support 57 Regional Collaborativesacross the state, including 33 Regional Science Collaboratives and 24 Regional MathematicsCollaboratives.EachRegionalCollaborativeconsistedofapartnershipamongnumerousorganizationsandstakeholderswithavestedinterestinqualityscience/mathematicsinstructionincludinginstitutesofhigher education (IHEs), school districts, charter schools, private schools, Education Service Centers(ESCs), and business and industry. Every ESC region in the state is served by one or more RegionalCollaboratives.TheScienceandMathematicsRegionalCollaborativegranteesarelistedbelow.ScienceRegionalCollaboratives

1. Region1ScienceCollaborative/Edinburg2. TAMIURegionalScienceCollaborative/Laredo3. UT-RGVRegionalScienceCollaborative/Brownsville4. TexasStateAquariumRegionalCollaborative/CorpusChristi5. Region3ScienceCollaborative/Victoria6. Region4ScienceCollaborative/Houston7. GalvestonCountyRegionalScienceCollaborative/Galveston8. LakeHoustonRegionalScienceCollaborative/Humble9. RiceUniversityRegionalScienceCollaborative/Houston10. UniversityofHoustonRegionalScienceCollaborative/Houston11. Region5ScienceCollaborative/Beaumont12. Region6ScienceCollaborative/Huntsville13. TexasA&MUniversityRegionalScienceCollaborative/CollegeStation14. Region7ScienceCollaborative/Kilgore


15. UT-TylerRegionalScienceCollaborative/Tyler16. Region8ScienceCollaborative/MountPleasant17. Region9ScienceCollaborative/WichitaFalls18. Region10ScienceCollaborative/Richardson19. UT-DallasRegionalScienceCollaborative/Dallas20. Region11ScienceCollaborative/FortWorth21. UniversityofNorthTexasRegionalScienceCollaborative/Denton22. NorthCentralTexasCollegeRegionalScienceCollaborative/Gainesville23. Region12ScienceCollaborative/Waco24. Region13ScienceCollaborative/Austin25. UTeachPrimaryRegionalScienceCollaborative/Austin26. Region14ScienceCollaborative/Abilene27. Region15ScienceCollaborative/SanAngelo28. Region16ScienceCollaborative/Amarillo29. Region17ScienceCollaborative/Lubbock30. Region18ScienceCollaborative/Midland31. Region19ScienceCollaborative/ElPaso32. Region20ScienceCollaborative/SanAntonio33. OurLadyoftheLakeUniversityRegionalScienceCollaborative/SanAntonio

MathematicsRegionalCollaboratives

1. Region1MathematicsCollaborative/Edinburg2. UT-RGVRegionalMathematicsCollaborative/Brownsville3. Region2MathematicsCollaborative/CorpusChristi4. Region3MathematicsCollaborative/Victoria5. Region4MathematicsCollaborative/Houston6. LakeHoustonRegionalMathematicsCollaborative/Houston7. Region5MathematicsCollaborative/Beaumont8. Region6MathematicsCollaborative/Huntsville9. Region7MathematicsCollaborative/Kilgore10. UT-TylerRegionalMathematicsCollaborative/Tyler11. Region8MathematicsCollaborative/MountPleasant12. Region9MathematicsCollaborative/WichitaFalls13. Region10MathematicsCollaborative/Richardson14. Region11MathematicsCollaborative/Ft.Worth15. NorthCentralTexasCollegeRegionalMathematicsCollaborative/Gainesville16. Region12MathematicsCollaborative/Waco17. Region13MathematicsCollaborative/Austin18. Region14MathematicsCollaborative/Abilene19. Region15MathematicsCollaborative/SanAngelo20. Region16MathematicsCollaborative/Amarillo21. Region17MathematicsCollaborative/Lubbock22. Region18MathematicsCollaborative/Midland23. Region19MathematicsCollaborative/ElPaso24. Region20MathematicsCollaborative/SanAntonio


AsshowninTable1, theTRCnetworkserved721Texasschooldistricts (includingpublic,charter,andprivate schools) and 1,955 campuses, training 7,609 educators and reaching 646,765 students. ThestatewidedistributionofTRCcampusesisshowninFigure1.

Table1.NumerofDistricts,Campuses,TeachersandStudentsServed

Math Science CombinedDistricts 458 596 721Campuses 907 1,414 1,955Educators 3,153 4,456 7,609Students* 268,005 378,760 646,765*Studentnumbersarebasedonanaverageratioof85studentsperteacher.

Figure1.StatewideDistributionofCampusesServed

During the 2015-16 grant period, 40 Institutions of Higher Education partnered with RegionalCollaboratives across the state to provide high quality science and mathematics professionaldevelopment.Whilemanyofthesewerefiscalagentsasnotedpreviously,otherspartneredwithESCstoprovidecourseworkandtrainingtoteachers.


IHEPartners• AmarilloCollege• AngeloStateUniversity• BaylorUniversity• BlinnCollege• BrookhavenCollege• CiscoCollege• DelMarCollege• Hardin-SimmonsUniversity• HowardPayneUniversity• LamarUniversity• MidlandCollege• MidwesternStateUniversity• NorthCentralTexasCollege• OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity• RiceUniversity• SamHoustonStateUniversity• StephenF.AustinStateUniversity• TexarkanaCollege• TexasA&MUniversitySystem

o TexasA&MInternationalUniversityo TexasA&MUniversity-CentralTexaso TexasA&MUniversity-CollegeStationo TexasA&MUniversity-Commerceo TexasA&MUniversity-CorpusChristio WestTexasA&MUniversity

• TexasTechUniversity• TexasWomen’sUniversity• UniversityofDallas• UniversityofHouston• UniversityofHouston-Victoria• UniversityofNorthTexas• UniversityofTexasSystem

o UniversityofTexasatArlingtono UniversityofTexasatAustino UniversityofTexasatBrownsvilleo UniversityofTexasatDallaso UniversityofTexasatElPasoo UniversityofTexasMedicalBrancho UniversityofTexas–PanAmericano UniversityofTexasofthePermianBasino UniversityofTexasatSanAntonioo UniversityofTexasatTyler


AdditionalinformationaboutthestructureandreachoftheTRCcanbefoundatwww.theTRC.org.

ProgramParticipantProfiles

InstructionalTeamMembersInstructionalTeamMembers(ITMs)areresponsibleforplanning,designinganddeliveringprofessionaldevelopment to P-12 teachers. In addition to IHE faculty members who are largely content experts,other ITMs included Education Service Center science and mathematics specialists, informal scienceproviderssuchasmuseumstaffmembersandK-12scienceandmathematicsadministrators.In2015-16,atotalof340ITMsparticipatedintheTRC,including205ScienceITMsand135MathITMs.AsshowninFigure2,scienceprofessors(24%)representedthelargestnumberofITMs,followedbymathspecialists(20%),sciencespecialists (16%),andmathprofessors (12%).Allprojects includedaSTEMprofessorasrequiredbyMSP.AlistingofITMsbyCollaborativeisprovidedinAppendixA.

Figure2.DistributionofITMsRoles

TeacherParticipantsDuringthe2015-16programyear,atotalof4,456scienceeducatorsand3,153mathematicseducatorswere served by the TRC. Figures 3-4 and Tables 2-6 describe the characteristics of TRC teacherparticipants. Note: Teaching assignments include multiple grades and subjects; thus the sum of thenumberofteachersinthefiguresandtablesbelowmayexceedthetotalnumberofmathandofscienceteachersprovidedabove,andthesumofthepercentagesmayexceed100%.

24%

12%

6%3%20%

16%

8%

3%8%

ScienceProf

MathProf

EducationProf

EngineeringProf

MathSpecialist

ScienceSpecialist

MasterTeacher

InformalScienceEducator

Other/Coach/Teacher


Figure3.NumberofTRCMathTeachersbyGradeLevel

Figure4.NumberofTRCScienceTeachersbyGradeLevel

Table2.SubjectTaughtbyTRCMathTeachers

Subject Number PercentElementaryMath 1373 44%MiddleSchoolMath 1248 40%AlgebraI 546 17%AlgebraII 223 7%Geometry 257 8%MathModels 137 4%Calculus 53 2%AP/IBMath 33 1%Math-Other 267 9%

41132

187 225

346 378 359

558 586676

502414 396

340

0100200300400500600700800

Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

50 108 159 201299

387

803704

808987

662510 513 473

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Table3.SubjectTaughtbyTRCScienceTeachers

Subject Number PercentElementaryScience 1675 38%MiddleSchoolScience 1761 40%IPC 52 1%Physics 207 5%Chemistry 241 5%Biology 560 13%AP/IBScience 83 2%Science-Other 531 12%

Table4.TeachingLevelbyTRCMathandScienceEducators

Math Science Number Percent Number Percent

Elementary 1208 38% 1476 33%MiddleSchool 1199 38% 1815 41%HighSchool 622 20% 902 20%ElementaryAdministration 35 1% 44 1%MiddleSchoolAdministration 22 1% 43 1%HighSchoolAdministration 14 <1% 19 <1%Other/NA 53 2% 157 4%

Total 3,153 4,446

Table5.Specialization/RolebyTRCMathandScienceEducators

Math Science(BasedonAPRParameters) Number Percent Number PercentRegularCoreContentTeacher 2789 88% 3946 88%AP/IB 8 <1% 30 1%Gifted/Talented 35 1% 76 2%SpecialEducationTeacher 163 5% 115 2%TeachersofELL 54 2% 129 3%Non-TeachingMathCoach 80 3% 0 0%Non-TeachingScienceCoach 0 0% 128 3%Paraprofessional 24 1% 32 1%

Total 3,153 4,446


Table6.TRCMathandScienceTeacherProfile

MathMTMs ScienceSTMs MathCMs ScienceCMsAcademicMajorinMathorScience 32% 50% 27% 39%AlternativelyCertified 34% 43% 27% 32%AverageYearsofTeachingExperience 11 11 6 5AverageYearsofTRCExperience 2 3 1 2

ServicesProvidedtoParticipants

ProfessionalDevelopmentAcademiesTheTRCplansPDAstoalignwiththeprioritiesoftheTEAandtheneedsofteachersascommunicatedbyTRCProjectDirectors.Table7listsallPDAsdeliveredbetween9/1/2015and8/31/2016aswellasthenumber of event contact hours and Instructional Team Members from the Regional Collaborativestrained. Once Regional Collaboratives attend PDAs, they can then turn this training around to theteachers in their Collaborative. Typically, there is a school year delay between ITM training andturnaroundtoteachersbecauseRegionalCollaborativesarerequiredtosubmittheir instructionalplanfor grant funding prior to completion of all PDAs. Table 8 outlines the scale-up teacher training thatresulted in 2015-16 from the PDAs provided in 2014-15. TheGeometry in Construction events weredirecttoteachertrainingratherthanthetraditionaltrain-the-trainerPDAmodelandthereforedidnotresultinadditionalscale-upteachertraining.

Table7.PDAsProvidedbytheTRC

StartDate EndDate EventTitleEventHours

NumberofAttendees

09/23/2015 09/24/2015 ProportionalReasoningintheMiddleGradesPDASept2015 12 39

09/28/2015 11/19/2015 KeepCalmandJavaOn-JavaFundamentals* 32 40

01/09/2016 01/09/2016 TRC:LearningBasicComputationalThinkinginScience-Day1 8 26

01/12/2016 01/14/2016 FormativeAssessmentinMathematics 24 50

01/25/2016 01/29/2016 WestEdMakingSenseofScience:PlanetEarth 40 41

03/21/2016 05/11/2016 KeepCalmandJavaOn–JavaFundamentals* 32 4403/28/2016 04/07/2016 KeepCalmandJavaOn–JavaProgramming* 12 1004/11/2016 04/28/2016 TRC:OracleAcademyAlice* 12 13

04/25/2016 04/28/2016 IRIS:UnderstandingEarthquakesintheEarthSystem 18 42

05/09/2016 05/10/2016 MathLeadershipInstitute(MLI)1:NumeracyintheMiddleGrades 12 37

05/11/2016 05/12/2016 MLI2A:NCTMPrinciplestoActionintheMiddleGrades 12 28

05/11/2016 05/11/2016 MLI2B:FocusonAlgebra-ConductingaCongress 6 18


StartDate EndDate EventTitleEventHours

NumberofAttendees

05/12/2016 05/12/2016 MLI2C:FosteringAlgebraicReasoningThroughtheUseofBursts 6 17

05/13/2016 05/13/2016 MLI3A:NCTMPrinciplestoActions-SupportingPLCandBookStudyGroups 6 17

05/13/2016 05/13/2016MLI3B:BuildingConceptsofProportionalReasoningThroughtheUseofGraphingCalculators

6 28

05/16/2016 05/25/2016 KeepCalmandJavaOn–JavaProgramming* 12 1707/18/2016 07/22/2016 KeepCalmandJavaOn-JavaFundamentals* 40 1308/01/2016 08/04/2016 GeometryinConstruction 30 2608/01/2016 08/11/2016 KeepCalm&JavaOn-JavaProgramming* 12 9

Total 332 515*FundedbyOracleAcademy

Table8.2015-16Scale-upTrainingtoTeachersfrom2014-15PDAs

PDA Science MathStartDate

EndDatePDA

Participants

ScaleUp-NumberofAttendees

BiologyRoundRobin X 9/10/14 9/11/14 53 740GraphingTechnologiesforAlgebraInstruction X 9/15/14 9/16/14 25 124

DMI:ConnectingArithmetictoAlgebra X 9/22/14 9/26/14 25 581

WestEdGenes&TraitsPDA X 1/26/15 1/30/15 36 1381EarthScienceRoundRobin X 4/22/15 4/23/15 41 2256LearningandTeachingGeometrywithaFocusonProportionalReasoning

X 5/6/15 5/8/15 35 781

FocusonAlgebraPartIII:ExponentialFunctionsMay2015 X 5/19/15 5/22/15 32 365

Argument-DrivenInquiryPDA X X 6/1/15 6/3/15 25 651

ProfessionalDevelopmentProgramEventsAs discussed above, Regional Collaboratives scaled-up training from PDAs and developed their ownprofessionaldevelopmentprogram(PDP)inordertocreatealocal,supportivenetworkbetweenhighereducationandP-12schools,buildteacherscontentknowledgeandinstructionalskills,anddeveloptheleadershipcapacityofteacherstosupportprofessionallearningcommunitiesbothwithintheTRCandintheir respective schools and districts. Collaboratives’ PDPs consisted of a combination of requiredexperiences and other options from which all MTMs/STMs select to customize their professionaldevelopment portfolio. The TRCmonitored the Instructional Timeline for each Regional Collaborativequarterlytoensuretrainingrequirementsandgoalsweremet.


ForMath Collaboratives, a total of850 events and6,672 contact hours of trainingwereprovidedbyMath Collaboratives to Texas teachers, with 5,336 (80%) of the hours focused specifically on TEAtargetedfocalareasrelatedtoalgebraandalgebraicreadiness.AcrossallMathMentorsandCMs,theteachers received a total of 136,598 contact hours of Math PDP training. Table 9 below shows thenumber ofmath PDP events by the topics that they covered. Note: Some events related tomultiplecontenttopics;thusthesumofeventsinthetableexceedsthenumberofeventsreportedabove.

Table9.PDPEventsProvidedbyMathRegionalCollaboratives

MathEventContent/Topics NumberofEventsNumbersandOperations 394Algebra 526Geometry 245ProblemSolving 433ReasoningandProof 214Calculus 12Technology 168Measurement 154ProbabilityandStatistics 108

ForScience,atotalof876eventsand7,742contacthoursofprofessionaldevelopmentwereprovidedbytheScienceCollaborativestoTexasteachers.Projectsreportedthat5,037(65%)ofthosehourswerededicatedto improvingteachercontentknowledge intheTEAtargetedfocalareasofBiology,MiddleSchoollifescience,andEarthScience.AcrossallScienceMentorsandCMs,theteachersreceivedatotalof 203,838 contact hoursof SciencePDP training. Thenumberof sciencePDPevents areprovided inTable10bythetopicsthattheycovered.Note:Someeventsrelatedtomultiplecontentareas;thusthesumofeventsinthetableexceedsthenumberofeventsreportedabove.

Table10.PDPEventsProvidedbyScienceRegionalCollaboratives

ScienceEventContent/Topics NumberofEventsScientificInquiry 332EarthScience 403PhysicalScience/Physics 212Chemistry 132LifeScience/Biology 326EnvironmentalScience 151Technology 170

MentoringMostCadreMembersreceivedtheirtrainingthroughmentoringprovidedbySTMsandMTMs.MathandScienceTeacherMentorsprovided18,041totalhoursofmentoringtothecolleaguesandpeersintheirdistricts. Regional Collaboratives required mentor teachers to maintain a log of mentoring servicesprovided,withmostprojects requiring initialsofCadreMembers in the log toverify that traininghadoccurred.MentoringserviceshaveimprovedconsiderablysincetheTRCStateOfficebeganrequiringthe


written commitment of a district administrator to allow mentor teachers the time and structure toprovidesupporttotheirCMs.ManyprojectsareusingdistrictProfessionalLearningCommunitiesasthevehicleforprovidingthisstructuredprofessionaldevelopment.

ProgramOutcomes

ContentAreaFocusUsing student achievement data, the TEA specifies the content focal areas formath and science. AllRegional Collaboratives are required to provide at least 40 hours of content training to teachersdesigned tobuild teacher contentknowledge.TheTRCassesses teacher contentknowledgebasedoncontentandconceptsaddressedinthestatestandardsspecifiedbyTEA.MathematicsContentFor the 2015-2016 school year, proportional reasoning and solving problems involving non-wholenumbers in geometric and algebraic contexts were the focus areas for grades 6- 8. Projects wereencouraged to focus their algebra-related PDP events on applying understanding of functions usingmultiple representations for real-world situations. Challenging math process standards for all gradelevels involveproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking,especiallydecidingwhich informationtouse,howand when to use certain tools and representations, and how to communicate those decisions andresults. Professional development programming targeted these needs through the use of research-basedprofessionaldevelopmentapproachesandassociatedmaterials.Professional development also helped teachers to learn how an understanding of computations andoperations in the younger grades builds toward robust algebraic understanding. Further, theprofessional development supported teaching numerical reasoning for all learners and addressed theneeds of struggling students through effective teaching strategies, such as the use of multiplerepresentations,richmathematicaldiscussions,andformativeassessments.ScienceContentForScienceCollaboratives,focusareasfor2015-2016wereEarthandSpaceScienceinthemiddleschoolgrades and Biology in high school. Project activities supported educators to teach earth science andbiologyconceptstodiverse learnersandtoaddresstheneedsofstrugglingstudentsthrougheffectiveinstruction including theuseofhands-onand inquiry-basedclassroomactivities,effectivequestioningstrategies and formative assessment. Specific content and associated Student Expectations (SEs)addressedintheprofessionaldevelopmentincludedthefollowing:

• Earth and Space: Lunar Cycle 8 (7B);�Characteristics of the Universe 8 (8A, 8C, and 8D);ErosionalFeatures8(9C);and,�Earth,OceanandWeatherSystems8(10Band10C)

• Biology:�InheritedTraits6A-C,6G;�Biomolecules4B,9A-B,9D,11A;and,�Interdependence12C,12F

MathTeacherContentKnowledgeMath TeacherMentorswere assessed at the beginning and end of the school year using one of theLearningMathematics for Teaching (LMT) standardized assessments. Each LMT assessmentmeasures


teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in one of several domains. For the2015-2016 school year, there were 692 MTMs in the TRC that completed both pre- and post-assessments. Five different assessments were used, including two for elementary school teachers:NumberConceptsandOperations(NCOP)andPatterns,Functions,andAlgebra(PFAK-6);and,threeforteachersattheupperelementaryandmiddleschoollevels:Patterns,Functions,andAlgebra(PFA6-8),ProportionalReasoning(PR),andGeometry(GEO).Table11showsthemeansandstandarddeviationsforeachassessment.

Table11.MathPre-PostContentAssessmentDescriptiveStatistics

AssessmentNo.of

TeachersPretestMean

PretestStandardDeviation

PosttestMeanPosttestStandardDeviation

NCOP 92 -0.10 0.80 0.12 0.80PFAK-6 108 0.01 0.95 0.22 0.93PFA6-8 172 -0.03 1.12 0.18 1.09PR 249 -0.02 0.78 0.28 0.82GEO 71 -0.22 0.86 -0.10 0.83Paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess the difference in means between pre- and post-assessments for each test using an alpha level of .05. Due tomultiple comparisons beingmade, theBenjamini-Hochbergprocedure(withafalsepositiverateof.05)wasusedtocontrolfortheinflationoftheType1errorrate.Resultsshowedthatteachersmadestatisticallysignificantgainsintestscoresforall assessmentswith the exception ofGeometry (t (70) = 1.915, p=.06). For theNCOP test, teachers’averagegainwas.22standarddeviations,t(91)=3.04,p<.05.ForbothversionsofthePFAassessment(K-6and6-8),teachersshowedanaveragegainof.21standarddeviations,t(107)=2.56,p<.05,andt(171) = 4.14, p<.05, respectively. The largest average gain was seen among teachers taking the PRassessment,whoscored .30standarddeviationshigheronaverageontheposttestthanthepretest,t(248)=6.37,p<.05.Effectsizes(Cohen’sd)forthepre-topost-testgainsweresmallaccordingtostandardconventions.Formost assessments, however, effect sizes were above the average typically found for professionaldevelopment programs using the LMT assessments to gauge program impact on teacher knowledge.Phelps, Jones,Kelcey, Liu,andKisa (2013)1averagedeffect sizesacross259professionaldevelopmentprograms formath teachers. Effect sizesonvarious LMTassessmentswere calculatedbydividing thedifference inmeans by the standard deviation for the pre-test scores. Effect sizes for the TRC werecalculatedaccordingthesameconvention,resultingineffectsizesof.27(NCOP),.22(PFAK-6),.19(PFA6-8),and.38(PR).Forcomparisonpurposes,effectsizesfoundbyPhelpsetal.(2013)areincludedwiththeresultsinTable12.

1Phelps,G.,Jones,N.,Kelcey,B.,Liu,S.,Kisa,Z.(2013).Developingempiricalbenchmarksofteacherknowledgeeffectsizesinstudiesofprofessionaldevelopmenteffectiveness.PaperpresentedattheSocietyforResearchonEducationalEffectivenessSpringConference,Washington,D.C.


Table12.MathPre-PostContentAssessmentResultsandEffectSize

TestMean

DifferenceStandardDeviation

Phelpsetal.(2013)EffectSize

TRCEffectSize

S.E.ofthe

Meant df p-value

NCOP 0.22* 0.70 .21 0.27 0.07 3.04 91 .003PFAK-6 0.21* 0.84 .17 0.22 0.08 2.56 107 .012PFA6-8 0.21* 0.67 .12 0.19 0.05 4.14 171 >.001PR 0.30* 0.73 N/A 0.38 0.05 6.37 248 >.001GEO 0.12 0.55 N/A -- 0.07 1.92 70 .060*Statisticallysignificantincreasesatp<.05

ScienceTeacherContentKnowledgeScience TeachersMentors were assessed at the beginning and end of the program year tomeasurepotential content knowledge gains from participating in the TRC professional development program.Two assessments were used: Biology - Biological Systems, and Earth Science - Flow of Matter andEnergy.Assessment scores for the twoscience testswereanalyzed fordifferences inmeansbetweenthepre-andpost-testadministrations.Scoresof1081STMs,including327forBiologyand754forEarthScience,whocompletedboththepreandpostassessment,wereconsideredfortheanalysis.MeansandstandarddeviationsforeachassessmentarereportedinTable13.

Table13.MathPre-PostAssessmentDescriptiveStatistics

TestNo.of

TeachersPretestMean


PosttestMean

PosttestStandardDeviation

Biology 327 53.19 19.76 61.41 18.25

EarthScience 754 58.00 16.58 66.00 16.54Apaired t-testwas conductedand showeda significantdifference t(1080)= -10.519,wherep<0.001and t(1080) = -15.368,withp <0.001 for both theBiology andEarth Science assessments, confirmingthatteachersscoredhigheratthepost-testforbothassessmentswithgainsof8.22and8.03standarddeviations respectively. Figure 5 illustrates the content knowledge gains between the pre- and post-assessmentforBiologyandEarthScience.


Figure5.ScienceContentAssessmentKnowledgeGains

The overall effect sizes of d=0.43 for the Biology assessment and d=0.48 for the Earth Scienceassessment indicateamedian improvement fromthepre- to thepost-test. For comparisonpurposes,the table below shows a summary of findings for the mean difference between the pre and post,includinga95%confidenceinterval.

Table14.SciencePre-PostContentAssessmentResultsandEffectSize

TestMean


TRCEffectSize

t df p-valueConfidence

Interval(95%)

Biology 8.22* 14.13 0.43 10.519 326 <.002 6.68 9.76EarthScience 8.03* 14.35 0.48 15.368 753 <.002 7.01 9.06*Statisticallysignificantincreasesatp<.05

ProjectMeasuresThevastmajorityofRegionalCollaborativeseithermetorexceededtheirprojectmeasuresasoutlinedintheStatementofWork.Detailsontheperformancemeasuresfor individualRegionalCollaborativesareprovided in the2015-16TRCComprehensiveProjectReport4 located inAppendixB.Onaverage,MathematicsCollaborativesachieved103%oftheirgoalfornumberofMTMsand110%oftheirgoalof100hoursforanaverageof110hourstrainedperMTM.MathCollaborativesalsoserved516moreCMs than required by contract and provided their CMs with an average of 19 hours of training,exceedingtherequired12hours.In Science, projects served 113% of the STMs that they had contracted to serve and exceeded theaveragecontacthoursrequiredforSTMsby16hours(116actualaveragecontacthourscomparedto100 required). CM hours averaged 19, exceeding the required 12 hours and Science Collaborativesservedanadditional725moreCMsthantheirgrantsrequired.Theseprojectmeasures reflect the leveraging that theTRCnetworkuses to support teachersbeyondtheMSPgrant.Almosteveryprojecthasawaitinglistofdistricts,campusesandteacherswhowouldliketoparticipate.Manyprojectsleveragetheirownlocalfundsandresourcestoservenumerousteachersbeyond those the TRC grant can support. The breadth and scope of the TRC network results in a

53

58

61*

66*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Biology

EarthSciencePost-TestMean

Pre-TestMean

*Statisticallysignificantincreasesatp<.05


synergisticreturnontheinvestmentforallstakeholders.Highereducationpartners,EducationServiceCenters,informaleducatorsandbusiness/industryallcontributedinvariouswaystolocalCollaborativeeffortstoserveasmanyteachersaspossiblewithsustainedandhighqualityprofessionaldevelopmentthrough the TRC. Table 15 outlines the achievements of the Regional Collaboratives and Figures 6-7document the degree to which these achievements exceeded the requirements set for in theStatementsofWorkforallRegionalCollaboratives.Asevidenced,projectsexceededexpectationsinthefour primary deliverables outlined in the Statement of Work: number of STMs, number of MTMs,numberofScienceCMs,numberofMathCMs.

Table15.ProjectMeasures

Teacher Number AverageHoursMTMsserved 867 110STMsserved 1282 116MathCMsserved 2286 19ScienceCMsserved 3174 19MathImmersionCMs 212 25ScienceImmersionCMs 295 29

Figure6.TRCTeachersServedvs.StatementofWork

Figure7.TRCTeacherContactHoursvs.StatementofWork

01000200030004000

STMs MTMs ScienceCMs

MathCMs

1282867

31742286

1140 839

24491770

TeachersServed

StatementofWorkGoal

050100150 116 110

19 19 29 25

1… 100

12 12 24 24AverageHoursEarned

StatementofWorkGoal


ImmersionModel

OverviewTheTRCcontinuedto implementadesignforschool level interventioncalledthe ImmersionModel inthe2015-16projectyear.Inanimmersionschool,everyteacherataspecifiedgradelevelmustreceiveTRCtraining.Assuch,whencampuslevelstandardizedtestscoresareusedtoexaminetherelationshipbetweenTRCtrainingandstudentachievement,avalid inferencecanbemadeaboutthisrelationshipsince all teacherswho impacted student scores that year had received TRC training. During 2015-16,everyRegionalCollaborativewasrequiredtoidentifyaminimumoffiveimmersioncampusesforwhomtheywouldprovideprofessionaldevelopmentservices.Therearetwodistinctadvantagestotheimmersionmodel.First,researchhasshownthatwhole-schoolprofessionaldevelopmentmodelsaremoreeffectiveforsystemic,long-lastingchange,andhaveamorepositiveimpactonstudentlearning.Providingacoherentprogramofprofessionaldevelopmentforanentire grade level, as described in the immersionmodel, is a good step in this direction. The secondadvantageisrelatedtoprogramevaluation.OneofthegreatestchallengesforaRegionalCollaborativeis designing a plan that adequately measures the impact of professional development on studentachievementinameaningfulway.Ideally,RegionalCollaborativeswouldmeasurestudentachievementat the teacher level.However,accessingstudentdataclusteredby teacher isextremelydifficultgiventhe current design of the Texas student data collection system. To dealwith this challenge, RegionalCollaborativesarerequiredtoutilizeanimmersionmodelthatprovidesprofessionaldevelopmenttoallteachersatacampusataspecifictestedgradelevelforthepurposeofcollectingcampuslevelSTAARdata.WhiletheTRCandsponsoringagenciesbenefitfromreceivingarichdatasetforfurtheranalysis,studentscanbenefitfromthismodelaswell.

Intheimmersionmodel,projectsmustrecruitateamofMentorsandCMsthatrepresentall teachersonacampusatatestedgrade level/subject forthepurposeofcollectingcampuslevelStateofTexasAssessmentofAcademicReadiness(STAAR)data.Identifyingaspecifictestedgradeleveltotarget,andofferingafullimmersionprogramforstaffmembersthatteachatthisgradelevelonmultiplecampuses,facilitatesamorevalidmechanismfordeterminingtheimpactoftheprogramonstudentachievementatthecampusratherthanteacherlevel.Keyfeaturesoftheimmersionmodelinclude:

• Identificationofthetargetedgradelevelorhighschoolsubjectforwhichaprojectwillcollectstudentdata.ThismustbeagradeorsubjectforwhichaSTAARtestisadministered.

• IdentificationofATLEASTFIVECAMPUSESthatagreetoallowallteachersatthetargetedgradelevel to receive TRC training. Projectsmust havewritten agreementswith campus leadershipoutliningwhoistoreceivetraining,howthetrainingwillbedelivered,andwhen.Allcampusesmustfocusonteachersatthesamegrade/subject.

• EachimmersioncampusMUSThaveATLEASTONEMENTORteacherfromthetargetedgradeleveltrainedbytheTRC.OtherteachersatthetargetedgradelevelmaybementorsortheymaybeCMs.

• If there is only one teacher at the targeted grade level on a campus, that teacher mustparticipateasaSTMorMTM.Animmersioncampusmayonlyhaveoneteacheratthetargetedgradelevel.


• Immersion CMs at the targeted grade level MUST earn on average 24 CONTACT HOURS ofprofessionaldevelopment fromaRegionalCollaborative.This trainingcanbeallmentoringorcanbeacombinationofmentoringanddirecttrainingfromtheTRC.

• Teachersatthe immersioncampuswhoarenotassignedtothetargetedgrade levelmayalsoparticipate in the TRC asmentors or CMs. Non-immersion CMs that are not assigned to thetargetedgradelevelareonlyrequiredtoreceive12hoursoftraining.

ImmersionGrades/Subjects,Campuses,andTeachersAcross the 24Mathematics Collaboratives, 149 campuses participated in the immersionmodel and atotalof596teacherswereservedthroughimmersion.Figure8illustratesthedistributionofimmersioncampusesacrossallMathCollaboratives.ThelargestnumberofimmersioncampusestargetedGrade8math classes with Algebra I classes representing the second highest number. However, the highestnumberofImmersionteacherswasinGrade5,followedbyGrade8andAlgebraI.

Figure8.ImmersionTeachersandCampusesinMathematics

Acrossthe33ScienceCollaboratives,191campuseswereservedthroughtheimmersionmodelencompassingatotalof516teachers.STAARtestingforscienceisonlyadministeredatGrades5,8andBiology;thusthesearethetargetgradesforImmersioninScienceCollaboratives.AsFigure9shows,thelargestnumberofImmersioncampusesandteacherstargetedGrade8Science,followedbyGrade5Science.

Figure9.ImmersionTeachersandCampusesinScience

8

13

26

7

6

48

41

33

30

193

44

40

134

122

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Grade3

Grade4

Grade5

Grade6

Grade7

Grade8

AlgebraI

#ofTeachers

#ofCampuses

51

130

10

136

305

75

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Grade5

Grade8

Biology

#ofTeachers

#ofCampuses


ImpactonStudents

StudentsServedEvery Regional Collaborative targets professional development to teachers that work on high needscampuses.AsevidencedbyFigure10,studentethnicityishighlyrepresentativeofstatedemographics.As previously noted, the average student-to-teacher ratio in the TRC is 85 students per TRC teacher.Thus, it is estimated that TRC direct to teacher services impacted instruction for at least 646,765students.GiventhatmanyMentorTeachersservedbytheTRCactuallyworkasInstructionalCoachesinschoolsanddon’treportwholeschoolstudentdata,theimpactislikelytobeevengreater.

Figure10.TRCStudentDemographics

ImmersionStudentOutcomesWhiletheprimaryrecipientofTRCservicesistheclassroomteacher,theTRCalsostrivestomeasuretheimpactofprofessionaldevelopmentatthestudentlevel.However,becauseTEAdoesnotreportstudentachievement by teacher, the challenge of assessing this distal outcome is great. Thus, the TRC hasimplemented strategies to improve the validity of any evaluation of TRC impact on studentachievement. First, the TRC required all Regional Collaboratives to identify at least 5 immersioncampusesatwhichevery teacherat the targetedgrade level inwhichaSTAARtestwasadministeredwould be trained. Targeting professional development at the school level allows the TRC to examinecampusSTAARdataratherthanindividualSTAARdatatoassessimpact.TheTRCisworkingthroughtheEducationResearchCenteratUTAustintomatchTRCteacherprofessionaldevelopmentdatatostudentdata to analyze student impact. Below are preliminary findings from a study comparing outcomes ofstudentsinTRCimmersioncampusestooutcomesofstatisticallymatchedstudentsatcampusesthatdonothaveTRCteachers.

2% 1%

12%

48%

34%

3%

Asian

AmericanIndian/AlaskaNative

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic/Latino

Caucasian

TwoorMoreRaces


PreliminaryResearchFindingsThepurposeofthisstudywastoevaluatetheabilityoftheTRCtoimpacttheeffectivenessofteacherswho received TRC professional development asmeasured by changes in student scores on the Texasassessments.ResearchQuestionsMath

1) WhenallAlgebraIteachersinaschoolaretrainedbytheTRC(immersioncampuses),dotheirstudents perform better on the state’s Algebra I end-of-course assessment than matchedstudentsatschoolswithoutanyTRCAlgebraIteachers?

2) WhenallGrade8Mathteachers inaschoolaretrainedbytheTRC(immersioncampuses),dotheirstudentsperformbetteronthestate’sGrade8MathassessmentthanmatchedstudentsatschoolswithoutanyTRCGrade8Mathteachers?

3) WhenallGrade5Mathteachers inaschoolaretrainedbytheTRC(immersioncampuses),dotheirstudentsperformbetteronthestate’sGrade5MathassessmentthanmatchedstudentsatschoolswithoutanyTRCGrade5Mathteachers?

Science4) WhenallGrade8ScienceteachersinaschoolaretrainedbytheTRC(immersioncampuses),do

theirstudentsperformbetteronthestate’sGrade8ScienceassessmentthanmatchedstudentsatschoolswithoutanyTRCGrade8Scienceteachers?

5) WhenallBiology teachers ina schoolare trainedby theTRC (immersioncampuses),do theirstudents perform better on the state’s Biology end-of-course assessment than matchedstudentsatschoolswithoutanyTRCBiologyteachers?

MethodsToanswereachoftheresearchquestions,thesamebasicprocesswasfollowed.TheAlgebraIanalysisisusedasanexample.First,allstudentswhotooktheAlgebraIend-of-courseexamduringthespringsof2012, 2013, and 2014 were selected. Only Algebra I scores for the standard STAAR version wereincluded,andifstudentshadmorethanonescorethenthehighestscaledscorewasselected.Foreachstudent,theMathscorefromthepriorschoolyearandpriorgradelevelwasidentified.Forexample,ifastudenttooktheAlgebraIexaminGrade8in2014,thenthestudent’sMathexamscaledscoreinGrade7 in 2013 was used. Students who were enrolled in schools that were identified as TRC immersioncampuseswere flagged as students in the TRC Immersion group, and studentswhowere enrolled inschoolsthathadnoTRC-trainedAlgebraIteacherswereflaggedasnon-TRCstudents.Once the TRC and non-TRC students were identified, propensity score matching (PSM) was used tostatisticallymatchanon-TRC student toeachTRC student. For thePSM, the followingvariableswereincluded: gender, ethnicity, economicdisadvantaged status, grade level inwhichAlgebra Iwas taken,the school yearAlgebra Iwas taken, and theprior year’smath scaled score.Genderwas coded1 forfemaleand0formale.Fourvariableswerecreatedtoencodeethnicityandforeach1wasusedforYesand 0 for No: Black, Hispanic, Other, andWhite. Economic disadvantaged status was coded 1 if thestudent received either free lunch, reduced price lunch, or other public assistance. Finally, the TRCtreatmentvariablewas1forTRCstudentsand0fornon-TRCstudents.


Aone-to-onematchwasusedforthePSMsuchthateachTRCstudentwasstatisticallymatchedwithanon-TRC student. These two groups of students were then analyzed using ordinary least squaresregression; thedependentvariable (DV)wastheAlgebra Iscaledscoreandthe independentvariables(IV)wereallofthevariablesusedinthePSM.InTexas, STAARscienceassessmentsareonlyadministered inGrades5and8and inBiology. For theGrade8scienceanalysisforResearchQuestion4,nosciencescoresareavailablethepriorschoolyearsotheGrade 7math and reading scoreswere used as covariates. For ResearchQuestion 5, the BiologyassessmentisnormallyprecededbytheGrade8scienceassessmentandstudentswhohadbothscoreswereincludedintheanalyses.ParticipantsThedemographic characteristics of the students included in the analysis for ResearchQuestion 1 areshowninTable16,withatotalof6,644studentsineachgroup.

Table16.DemographicCharacteristicsofAlgebraIStudents

Ethnicity Non-TRC TRC Percent

White 2,485 2,489 37%Hispanic 3,149 3,138 47%

Black 737 740 11%Other 273 277 4%

Gender Male 3,401 3,401 51%

Female 3,243 3,243 49%EconomicDisadvantage

No 2,975 2,977 45%Yes 3,669 3,667 55%

SchoolYear 2012 416 416 6%

2013 3,240 3,246 49%2014 2,988 2,982 45%

ThedemographiccharacteristicsofthestudentsanalyzedtoanswerResearchQuestion2areshowninTable17,andtherewasatotalof18,501studentsineachgroup.


Table17.DemographicCharacteristicsofGrade8MathStudents

Ethnicity Non-TRC TRC PercentWhite 4,108 4,110 22%

Hispanic 11,059 11,058 60%Black 2,865 2,866 15%Other 469 467 3%

Gender Male 9,335 9,334 50%


No 5,612 5,613 30%Yes 12,889 12,888 70%

SchoolYear

2012 2,975 2,975 16%2013 6,764 6,762 37%2014 8,762 8,764 47%

Table18showsthedemographiccharacteristicsofthestudentsanalyzedtoanswerResearchQuestion3,withatotalof1,758studentsineachgroup.

Table18.DemographicCharacteristicsofGrade5MathStudents

Ethnicity Non-TRC TRC PercentWhite 462 461 26%

Hispanic 1,171 1,170 67%Black 93 93 5%Other 32 34 2%

Gender Male 908 909 52%

Female 877 876 50%EconomicDisadvantage

No 528 529 30%Yes 1,257 1,256 72%

SchoolYear 2012 499 499 28%2013 1,286 1,286 73%2014 - -

The demographic characteristics of the students included in the analysis for ResearchQuestion 4 areshowninTable19,withatotalof16,550studentsineachgroup.


Table19.DemographicCharacteristicsofGrade8ScienceStudents


Hispanic 9,608 9,447 57%Black 2,122 2,135 13%Other 598 756 5%

Gender Male 8,246 8,229 50%


No 6,179 6,215 38%Yes 10,371 10,335 62%

SchoolYear 2012 4,675 4,675 28%

2013 11,875 11,875 72%2014 - - 0%

ThedemographiccharacteristicsofthestudentsanalyzedtoanswerResearchQuestion5areshowninTable20,andtherewasatotalof4,040studentsineachgroup.

Table20.DemographicCharacteristicsofBiologyStudents


Hispanic 1,265 1,265 31%Black 814 815 20%Other 436 437 11%

Gender Male 1,990 1,991 49%


No 2,471 2,472 61%Yes 1,569 1,568 39%

SchoolYear 2012 4,040 4,040 100%

2013 - - 0%2014 - - 0%


ResultsTheresultsoftheAlgebraIregressionanalysisrevealedthattheTRCImmersiongroupdidsignificantlybetter than the non-TRC group (t = 4.75,p < 0.0001). (SeeTable 21.)On average, students at a TRCImmersion school did 26.39 points better on the Algebra I assessment than their matched non-TRCpeers,afteraccountingfordifferences inpriorMathperformanceandthedemographicvariables.Thevarianceaccountedforbythemodelwas0.33.

Table21.AlgebraIResults

Factor Coefficient StdErr t pTRCImmersion 26.39 5.55 4.75 <0.0001SchoolYear -156.73 5.82 -26.93 <0.0001EconomicDisadvantage -133.21 6.13 -21.71 <0.0001GradeLevel -290.85 8.32 -34.96 <0.0001Black -182.22 16.05 -11.36 <0.0001Hispanic -174.84 14.38 -12.16 <0.0001White -85.72 14.44 -5.93 <0.0001Gender 27.08 5.56 4.87 <0.0001PriorMathScore 0.57 0.01 39.63 <0.0001Constant 321255.60 11677.81 27.51 <0.0001

As evidenced inTable 22, the results of theGrade 8Math regression analysis revealed that the TRCImmersiongroupdid significantlybetter than thenon-TRCgroup (t =10.89,p <0.0001).Onaverage,studentsat aTRC Immersion schooldid9.75pointsbetter than thematchednon-TRC students, afteraccounting for differences in prior Math performance and the demographic variables. The varianceaccountedforbythemodelwas0.15.

Table22.Grade8MathResults

Factor Coefficient StdErr t pTRCImmersion 9.75 0.90 10.89 <0.0001SchoolYear -38.41 0.95 -40.44 <0.0001EconomicDisadvantage -26.33 1.07 -24.51 <0.0001Black -34.40 3.59 -9.57 <0.0001Hispanic -20.66 3.46 -5.96 <0.0001White 5.82 3.54 1.64 0.101Gender -2.37 0.90 -2.64 0.008Grade7MathScore 0.14 0.00 65.80 <0.0001Constant 78818.56 1909.87 41.27 <0.0001

The results of the Grade 5 Math regression analysis revealed that the TRC Immersion group didsignificantly better than the non-TRC group (t = 5.24, p < 0.0001), as seen in Table 23. On average,studentsataTRCImmersionschooldid14.41pointsbetterthanthematchednon-TRCstudents,afteraccounting for differences in prior Math performance and the demographic variables. The varianceaccountedforbythemodelwas0.54.


Table23.Grade5MathResults

Factor Coefficient StdErr t pTRCImmersion 14.41 2.75 5.24 <0.0001SchoolYear -640.67 11.60 -55.22 <0.0001EconomicDisadvantage -24.92 3.29 -7.57 <0.0001Black -9.05 11.85 0.76 0.445Hispanic 5.48 10.34 0.53 0.596White -3.95 10.48 -0.38 0.706Gender 0.38 2.76 0.14 0.890Grade4MathScore 0.75 0.01 58.96 <0.0001Constant 1290125 23337.6 55.28 <0.0001

AsshowninTable24,theresultsoftheGrade8ScienceregressionanalysisrevealedthattheTRCgroupdidsignificantlybetter thanthenon-TRCgroup(t=12.82,p<0.0001).Onaverage,studentsataTRCImmersion school did 41.95 points better than the matched non-TRC students, after accounting fordifferences in prior Math and Reading performance and the demographic variables. The varianceaccountedforbythemodelwas0.63.

Table24.Grade8ScienceResults

Factor Coefficient StdErr t pTRCImmersion 41.95 3.27 12.82 <0.0001SchoolYear -3150.88 16.09 -195.81 <0.0001EconomicDisadvantage -41.03 3.86 -10.63 <0.0001Black -95.46 9.48 -10.07 <0.0001Hispanic -83.17 8.57 -9.71 <0.0001White 1.05 8.77 0.12 0.905Gender -118.02 3.30 -35.71 <0.0001Grade7ReadingScore 1.59 0.02 72.11 <0.0001Grade7MathScore 2.02 0.02 99.48 <0.0001Constant 6340753 32361.6 195.93 <0.0001

Further, the Biology regression analysis also revealed that the TRC Immersion group did significantlybetter than thenon-TRCgroup (t =14.24,p <0.0001). (SeeTable25.)Onaverage, studentsataTRCImmersion school did 95.34 points better than the matched non-TRC students, after accounting fordifferencesinpriorScienceperformanceandthedemographicvariables.Thevarianceaccountedforbythemodelwas0.56.


Table25.BiologyResults

Factor Coefficient StdErr t pTRCImmersion 95.34 6.69 14.24 <0.0001EconomicDisadvantage -68.33 8.05 -8.49 <0.0001Black -183.68 13.58 -13.52 <0.0001Hispanic -231.78 12.42 -18.67 <0.0001White -150.42 11.58 -12.99 <0.0001Gender 25.23 6.78 3.72 <0.0001PriorScienceScore 1.14 0.01 77.59 <0.0001Constant 1529.05 39.09 39.12 <0.0001

SummaryFor each of the five research questions, the students at TRC Immersion schools scored significantlyhigheronthestate’sSTAARassessmentthanthematchedstudentswhoweretaughtatschoolswithnoTRCteachers.LimitationsTheresultsarelimitedbecauseofthelackofTRCandnon-TRCteacherdataforsomegradelevelsandsome school years. For example, the Biology analysis is based solely on students’ scores from 2012because thiswas theonly year forwhich therewas substantial numbersof TRCandnon-TRCBiologyteachers.

AdditionalStudentOutcomeDataAlongwithcollectingandanalyzingstudentoutcomedataforimmersioncampuses,theTRCaskedeverySTM and MTM to submit answers to the following questions based on the STAAR data for theirclassrooms.Thesequestionsarespecificallyaskedby theU.S.DepartmentofEducation in theAnnualPerformanceReportthatTRCisrequiredtocomplete.1. NumberofstudentstaughtbytheTeacherMentor2. Numberofstudentsfromquestion1withstateassessmentdatainmath/sciencefor20163. Numberofstudentsfromquestion2whodidnotmeetstandardonthestateassessment20164. Numberofstudentsfromquestion2whodidmeetstandardonthestateassessmentin2016

This data is based on teacher self-report. For consistency, all teachers were asked to report on firstadministrationonlyandtheEnglishlanguageversionofthetestonly.Toeliminateconfusion,teacherswereonlyaskedtoreportonSTAARandEnd-of-Course(EOC)data,notTAKS.ComputerScienceProfessionalDevelopment

OverviewIn2015-16,theCenterforSTEMEducationatUTAustinreceived$1.3millioninadditionalfundingfromthe TEA in order to provide professional development and resources to build capacity for computerscience (CS)educationacrossTexas.TEA’s investmentwas leveragedto raiseandadditional$500,000from corporate and foundation partners to scale up the CS-related services provided to Regional


Collaborativesandeducatorsacrossthestate.AlloftheCS-relatedworkisorganizedunderaninitiativecalledWeTeach_CS.

Aligned with the TRC services, the Center for STEMEducationspearheadedthemultifacetedWeTeach_CSinitiative which consists of multiple componentsdesignedtoincreasethenumberofcertifiedcomputerscienceteachersinTexas,andtoassistCSteachersbyproviding workshops and resources. Figure 11illustrates various strategies implemented byWeTeach_CS to achieve this end, including a CSNetwork Blog; WeTeach_CS website; a variety ofworkshops and conferences; in-person trainings; anonlineCSCertificationPrepcourse;andaCertificationIncentiveProgramwhichprovidesa$1,000stipendtoeducatorsobtaining certification to teachCS in Texashigh schools. In addition to the TEA, WeTeach_CSfunders and partners include: 100Kin10, AT&T,Google, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, TechNet, ECEP, andTexas Alliance for Computer Science Education(TACSE), LOGO Foundation, and UT Austin ComputerScienceandLearningSciences.

TRCCollaborativeWeTeach_CSSub-AwardsIncorporatinganddisseminating theWeTeach_CS strategies throughout theTRCnetwork, sub-awardswereprovided to the following six Regional Collaboratives to build CS education capacity in 2015-16:Region 1 Science Collaborative, Rice University Science Collaborative, Texas A&M University CollegeStationRegionalScienceCollaborative,UTDallasRegionalScienceCollaborative,Region18MathematicsCollaborative, and UT Tyler Regional Math Collaborative. UT Austin ran a Central Texas ComputerScienceCollaborative.In conjunctionwithUTAustin’s Center for STEMEducation and additional IHE partners, the RegionalCollaboratives provided and/or offered opportunities for their educators to participate in CSprofessional development events such as the following: WeTeach_CS Certification Prep workshops;KeepCalm&JavaOnonlinecourses;CollegeBoardAPSummerInstitute:ComputerScience;Bootstrap:VideoGameProgrammingwithAlgebra trainings; Introduction toCodingandComputational Thinkingworkshop;Gaming,RoboticsandScratch/Codingworkshops;TeachingCSwithTITechnologyworkshop;Hands-on with Computer Science workshop; Hands-on with Hardware workshop; CS Principles Mini-Conference;andtheWeTeach_CSSummit.Atotalof302contacthoursofCSprofessionaldevelopmentwasprovidedacross theseevents.Metricson thesub-awardeeseventsandattendeesare included intheoverallWeTeach_CSfindingsreportedinthefollowingsections.

WeTeach_CSProfessionalDevelopmentThroughout the year, TEA and partner support allowed for numerous CS professional developmentopportunitiestobeprovidedinordertoassistteachersinintegratingcomputationalthinkingintotheir

Figure11.WeTeach_CSStrategies


courses and/or to prepare for the CS certification exam. As shown in Table 26, over 700 educatorsparticipatedacross24events,whichprovidedatotalof345contacthours.

Table26.SponsoredCSProfessionalDevelopmentEvents

EventTitle StartDate EndDate Hours AttendeesLearningBasicComputationalThinking 01/09/2016 01/09/2016 8 26STEMpreneurshipTeacherWorkshop 01/23/2016 02/28/2016 12 14TeachComputerScience-JanuaryRegion1 01/29/2016 01/30/2016 16 25WeTeach_CSMini-Conference 02/24/2016 02/25/2016 12 58AppliedCoding101-Day3 03/05/2016 03/05/2016 6 24Hands-OnwithHardware 03/19/2016 03/19/2016 4 12Hands-OnwithRaspberryPi 03/26/2016 03/26/2016 4 13Hands-OnwithProgramming 04/09/2016 04/09/2016 4 11Hands-OnwithSecureComputation 04/30/2016 04/30/2016 4 11Bootstrap:VideoGameProgrammingwithAlgebra 05/14/2016 05/17/2016 18 20

IntroductiontoGamingforSecondaryTeachers 05/20/2016 05/21/2016 14 19

WeTeach_CSSummit 06/07/2016 06/09/2016 20 267Robotics101 06/13/2016 06/14/2016 14 25UT-DallasCSSummerInstitute 06/13/2016 06/27/2016 36 12SustainITSTEMbridge2016 06/13/2016 06/30/2016 14 6CodingandScratch 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 7 20TeachingComputerSciencewithTITechnologyWorkshop 06/27/2016 06/27/2016 6 20

Bootstrap:VideoGameProgrammingwithAlgebra 06/27/2016 06/28/2016 12 42

Four-dayTraining-of-Trainers(TOT) 07/05/2016 07/08/2016 24 12FirstBytesTeacherWorkshop 07/06/2016 07/08/2016 20 15IntroductiontoCodingandComputationalThinking 07/06/2016 07/08/2016 24 20

CollegeBoardAPSI(forNEWteachers) 07/11/2016 07/14/2016 24 15CollegeBoardAPSI(forEXPERIENCEDteachers) 07/25/2016 07/28/2016 24 15

LogoSummerInstitute 08/01/2016 08/03/2016 18 24 Total 345 726

WeTeach_CSCertificationPreparationWeTeach_CSWorkshopsInTexas,teachersmustpasstheCS141CertificationExaminordertoteachCShighschoolcourses.Toaddress the lackofqualifiedCShigh school teachersand low incidenceofCScertificationsacross thestate,theUTAustinCenterforSTEMEducationdevelopedandfacilitatedtheWeTeach_CSCertificationPreparationprogramwhichprovidesreviewandpracticeforteachersinterestedinpreparingfortheCS141CertificationExam.Theprogramstartedasafacetofaceworkshopbringingteacherstogetherfor


twodaysof reviewof keyCS concepts andunderstandings.As shown inTable 26, over260 teachershaveparticipatedinthein-personworkshopssincetheywerefirstofferedinthesummerof2015.

Table26.WeTeach_CSCertificationPrepWorkshopParticipation

EventHost StartDate EndDate ContactHours AttendeesUTAustinSTEMCenter 07/25/2015 07/26/2015 12 16UTAustinSTEMCenter 10/12/2015 10/13/2015 12 40UTAustinSTEMCenter 01/13/2016 01/14/2016 12 47ESCRegion1RGVScienceCollaborative 01/29/2016 01/30/2016 12 26UTAustinSTEMCenter 03/14/2016 03/15/2016 12 43UTAustinSTEMCenteratHoustonISD 03/22/2016 03/23/2016 12 60ESC18MathCollaborative 05/06/2016 05/07/2016 12 16UTDallasScienceCollaborative 07/18/2016 07/19/2016 12 16 Total 96 264

WeTeach_CSOnlineCourseDue tohighdemand,a six-weekonlineEdXEdgeexpandedversionof the coursewasdevelopedandoffered for the first time from June-August of 2016. Over 1,000 teachers signed up, and about 500activelyparticipatedthroughoutbywatchingandreadingpreparedmaterials,doingpracticeexercises,and taking quizzes. The majority (60%) of the participants in the online course were high schoolteachers,28%weremiddleschoolteachers,8%wereelementaryschoolteachers,and4%wereschooladministrators.AbouthalfoftheparticipantshadBachelor’sdegreesandhalfhadMaster’sdegrees.Theteachershadabroadrangeofexperience, teaching fromoneto30years,withabouthalfcertifiedtoteachinSTEM-relatedareas.However,fewonlinecourseparticipantshadanyexperienceteachingCS.Manypartipantsattendedanin-personWeTeach_CSworkshoppriortoparticipatingtheonlinecourse.Overall,theonlinecourseparticipantswhocompletedthecourseexercisesandquizzesdidbetterinthecoursethanthosewhodidnot fullyparticipate.Allbutsixof theteachers that tookallof thequizzespassed thecourse,witheight teachersearninga100%on theexam.With incrementalattrition tobeexpectedastheonlinecourseprogressed,atotalof307participantstooktheonlinecourse’sfinalexamandmorethan250earnedover80%ontheexam(whichisthepassingscoreforthestate’scertificationexam)andachievedCPEcreditsforsuccessfullycompletingthecourse.CSKnowledgeGainsA diagnostic assessment of CS knowledge was administered to all of theWeTeach_CS online courseparticipants at the beginning of the course. The 25 items on the diagnostic assessment wereadministered to participants again on the final exam, allowing for a pre-post comparison of their CSknowledge on the domains covered in the CS certification exam. These CS assessment scores wereanalyzed fordifferences inmeansbetween theprediagnostic assessment and thepost courseexam.Scoresof273participantswhocompletedboththepreandpostassessment,wereconsideredfortheanalysis.MeansandstandarddeviationsforeachassessmentarereportedinTable27.


Table27.CSPre-PostAssessmentDescriptiveStatistics

TestNumberofTeachers

PretestMean


PosttestMean

PosttestStandardDeviation

CSOnlineCourse 273 0.39 0.19 0.82 0.20Apairedt-testwasconductedwithasignificantdifferencet(272)=-27.77,wherep<0.001confirmingthatteachersscoredhigheratthepostcourseexamwithagainof.433.Theoveralleffectsizeofr=.74indicatesincreasedCScontentknowledgefromthediagnosticstesttothepostcourseexam.Table28shows a summary of findings for the mean difference between the pre and post, including a 95%confidenceinterval.

Table28.CSPre-PostAssessmentResults

TestMean


TRCEffectSize

t df p-valueConfidence

Interval(95%)

CSOnlineCourse .43* .26 .74 27.77 270 <.002 .40 .46*Statisticallysignificantincreaseatp<.05

CertificationIncentiveProgramThrough the Certification Incentive Program (CIP), teachers can receive a $1,000 stipend for earningcertificationtoteachCSingrades8-12.FromSeptember1,2015throughSeptember29,2016,almost600individualsbegantheCIPapplicationprocessthroughtheCenterforSTEMEducation.Todate,162CIPapplicantspassedthecertificationexam,submittedalltherequiredpaperwork,andreceivedthestipend.Thisisatremendousincreaseoverthe14pre-serviceteacherswhoobtainedaCScertificationduring2014-15.All162CIPstipendrecipientstodatewereTexasresidents,andtheirgenderwasequallysplitwith50%male and 50% female participants. As shown in Figure 12, almost two-thirds (64%) of the stipendrecipientswereCaucasian,15%wereHispanic/Latino,14%wereAsian,and5%wereAfricanAmerican.

Figure12.EthnicityofCertificationIncentiveProgramStipendRecipients

64%15%

14%

5% 2%

Caucasian

Hispanic/Latino

Asian

AfricanAmerican

TwoorMoreRaces


Nearly all (96%) of the CIP stipend recipients to date were classroom teachers. For the classroomteachers,73%taughtathighschool,20%atmiddleschool,and7%atelementaryschoollevel.Atotalof94Texasschooldistrictswererepresentedacrossthestipendrecipients,andoverhalf(51%)workedatTitle1schools.More than two thirds of those who reported getting certified in 2015-16 had participated in theWeTeach_CSCertificationPreparationprogram.Anecdotally,teachersreportedthatparticipatingintheWeTeach_CS workshop and doing the online course was a great combination to prepare for thecertificationexam.TheCenterforSTEMEducationiscurrentlyconductingresearchtodetermineifthereisevidencetosupportthatidea.CertificationandWeTeach_CSCertificationPrepParticipationWhile there were about 80 teachers from 14 other states participating in the WeTeach_CS onlinecourse,most everyone that took the coursewas fromTexas. Figure 13 shows the distributionof theover 750 teachers around the state that participated in the Certification Prep Programs throughSeptember26,2017,withdataonthosewhoearnedtheirCSteachingcertification.

Figure12.DistributionofWeTeach_CSCertificationPreparationParticipants


WeTeach_CSAccomplishmentsKeyaccomplishmentsachievedbytheWeTeach_CSinitiativefromSeptember1,2015throughAugust31,2016arehighlightedbelow:1. Provided24,010contacthoursoftrainingto1,352Texaseducators,representing697schoolsand

339 public, private, and charter school districts in computer science, computational thinking,coding,andprogramming.

2. Supported104 in-service teachers tocompleteCScertification inTexasascomparedto14pre-serviceteacherswhoobtainedaCScertificationduringthesametimeframein2014-15.

3. Developed and deployed a free, six-week, online course to support Texas educators seekingGrades8-12ComputerSciencecertification.Atotalof255educatorssuccessfullycompletedthecourse.

4. Secured funding from the Texas Education Agency and 100Kin10 to support $1,000 stipend forTexaseducatorswhobecomecertifiedtoteachCS.

5. Organized first CS Principles Mini-Conference (http://www.thetrc.org/cs-principles-mini-conference/) February 24-25, 2016 which provided training to 45 Texas educators withrepresentativesfromtheCollegeBoard,BJC,code.org,MobileCSP,ThrivinginOurDigitalWorld,andAlabama’sCS4HSallpresentingtheirresourcestoteachers.

6. Organized inaugural WeTeach_CS Summit (http://www.thetrc.org/weteach_cs-summit-2016/)June7-9,2016,providingprofessionaldevelopmenttoover200educators,K-12,focusedonbuildingtheCSEducationCommunity,andconnectingTexaseducatorswithstateandnationalleadersandresourcestoteachCSandcomputationalthinking.

7. Organized statewide meet-up for CS Education advocates (http://www.thetrc.org/statewide-cs-effort/) in conjunction with Grace Hopper celebration. Partnered with Texas Alliance forComputer Science Education (TACSE), which is now CS4TX, and NSF’s Expanding ComputingEducationPathways(ECEP)Alliance.

8. Trained78TexaseducatorsinJavaprogrammingthroughfreeonlineprojectcalledKeepCalmandJavaOninpartnershipwithOracleAcademy.

9. Trained42TexaseducatorsinBootstrap:VideoGameProgrammingwithAlgebra.10. In partnershipwithOracleAcademy, awarded first twoCSChangeMaker awards to Texas high

schoolCSteachersandfirsttwoCSMini-grantstoelementaryandmiddleschoolsteachers.11. PartneredwithTACSE,Technet,TexasComputerEducationAssociation(TCEA),TEALSandothers

tolaunchCS4TX(http://cs4tx.org).12. Engaged numerous business and nonprofit partners inWeTeach_CS includingOracle, 100kin10,

AT&T,Google,Microsoft,IBM,theAustinChamberofCommerce,andEdTechAustin.

ConclusionTheTexasRegionalCollaborativessuccessfullycompletedandexceededtherequirementsset forthbytheTexasEducationAgencyforthe2015-16fundingcycle.TRCservicegoalsregardingbothnumberofteachersservedandhoursoftrainingprovidedwereexceeded.EvaluativefindingsrevealedthatinbothMathandScience,mentorteacherssignificantly improvedtheircontentknowledgerelatedtotheTRCfocus areas. Further, significant differences were found between student outcomeswhen comparingstudents in Immersion campuses to matched students in non-TRC campuses. Immersion campus


students scored significantlybetteronGrade5Math,Grade8Math,Algebra1,Grade8Science,andBiologySTAARassessmentsthandidtheirmatchedpeersatschoolsthatdidnothaveanyTRCteachers.Inadditiontothequantitativedatadescribedinthisreport,TRCleadershipandstaffconsistentlyreceivepositivequalitativefeedbackfrompartner institutions,ProjectDirectors, InstructionalTeamMembers,school administrators, and most important, teachers, about the transformational impact of the TRCprogramonSTEMeducationinthousandsofschoolsacrossTexas.AsampleofthatqualitativefeedbackalongwithadditionaldetailsabouttheTRCprogramandservicescanbefoundontheTRCwebsiteatwww.theTRC.org.AstheTRCmovesintothe2016-17programwithatotalof62RegionalCollaboratives,welookforwardto continuing to educate, support, and inspire Texas STEM teacherswhowill engage andexcite theirstudents to excel in science and mathematics and explore careers in science, technology andengineering.TheTRCservesasanexemplarymodelofcollaborationandwin-winrelationshipsamongstate agencies, institutions of higher education, education service centers, and school districts, whohave joined forces to synergistically transform the culture of STEM education for teachers, students,schoolsystems,andcommunitiesacrossTexas.


AppendixA:InstructionalTeamMembers

MathITMsbyRegionRegion ITMName Institution Role01 Dr.JamesTelese TheUniversityofTexasatBrownsville Edu.Prof.01 Dr.ImmanuelEdinbarough TheUniversityofTexasatBrownsville MathProf.01 Dr.JengJong(David)Tsay UniversityofTexasPanAmerican MathProf.01 Dr.AaronT.Wilson UniversityofTexasPanAmerican MathProf.01 Mr.BenjaminAvalos RegionOne MathSpec.01 Mr.JoseFranklin RegionOneESC MathSpec.01 Mr.RamonGuzman RegionOneESC MathSpec.01 Mrs.IrmaMoreno RegionOneESC MathSpec.01 Mr.JoseRamos RegionOneESC MathSpec.01 Mr.FernandoRosa RegionOneESC MathSpec.01 Ms.SaraTudon LosFresnosCISD MathSpec.01 Mr.ArnulfoAlaniz MercedesISD MathTeacher02 Mrs.ToniNorrell EducationServiceCenter,Region2 MasterTeacher02 Mr.RichardRupp DelMarCollege MathProf.02 Mrs.HolliHorton EducationServiceCenter,Region2 MathSpec.02 MsCindyLopez EducationServiceCenter,Region2 MathSpec.03 Dr.RichardoTeixeira UniversityofHoustonVictoria MathProf.03 Mrs.LauraDeiss Region3EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.03 Mrs.KristiGreaves Region3EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.03 Mrs.DebbieHumphreys IndependentConsultant MathSpec.03 Mrs.PamelaYosko Region3EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.03 Mr.NicholasCowey LowerColoradoRiverAuthority Other03 Ms.LauraSprinkle Region3EducationServiceCenter Other04 Mrs.MelissaChristensen HumbleISDElementaryMath

CoordinatorK12/IHEAdmin/Staff

04 Ms.LeighHollyer UniversityofHouston MathProf.04 Dr.WilliamJasper SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.04 Dr.MarySwarthout SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.04 Dr.SharonBenson Region4ESC MathSpec.04 Mrs.SanaBrennan Region4ESC MathSpec.04 Mrs.YvetteHenry Region4ESC MathSpec.04 Ms.KimSeymour Region4ESC MathSpec.04 Mrs.RachelSmith HumbleISDMathSpecialist MathSpec.04 Mrs.JoniThrift HumbleISDMathFacilitator MathSpec.04 Ms.AnneWilliams HumbleISDMathSpecialist MathSpec.


Region ITMName Institution Role05 Dr.TracyJohn

ZaloomBensonLamarUniversity Eng.Prof.

05 Dr.JacquelineVallin-Jenson LamarUniversity MathProf.05 Mrs.ChristieLaFleur McGraw-HillEducation MathSpec.05 Mrs.KayOlds Region5ESC MathSpec.05 Mrs.JannaSmith Region5ESC MathSpec.05 Mrs.BrookeLucio IndependentConsultant Other06 Dr.MaxColeman SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.06 Dr.BethCory SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.06 Dr.DustinJones SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.06 Dr.ValerieSharon SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.06 Dr.MarySwartout SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.06 Mrs.SusanBohan Region6EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.06 Mrs.BrandiKeel Region6EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.06 Mrs.TonyaPreston Region6EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.07 Mrs.RebaShumacher RebaShumacherandAssociates

ConsultingCoach

07 Mrs.CynthiaSherman UniversityofTexasatTyler Edu.Prof.07 Dr.LesaBeverly SFASU MathProf.07 Dr.JaneLong SFASU MathProf.07 Dr.NathanSmith UniversityofTexasatTyler MathProf.07 Dr.SarahStovall SFASU MathProf.07 Mrs.LeesaGreen Region7ESC MathSpec.07 Dr.SherryMorton Region7ESC MathSpec.07 Mrs.LaTonyaWhitaker Region7ESC MathSpec.08 Ms.RondaJameson TexasA&MUniversity-Texarkana Edu.Prof.08 Mrs.JamieAshby TexarkanaCollege MathProf.08 Mrs.LisaEllermann Region8EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.08 Mrs.S.KayStickels Region8EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.09 Dr.DitikaGupta MidwesternStateUniversity Edu.Prof.09 Dr.DittikaGupta MidwesternStateUniversity Edu.Prof.09 Mr.LeeSeman BurkburnettISD MasterTeacher09 Dr.LindaFosnaugh MidwesternStateUniversity MathProf.09 Dr.DawnSlaven MidwesternStateUniversity MathProf.09 Ms.LindaBorchardt BurkburnettISD MathSpec.09 Mrs.DianeHubbard Region9ESC MathSpec.09 Mrs.SherriLane Region9ESC MathSpec.09 Mrs.TaleighaMurray WichitaFallsISD MathSpec.10 Dr.SevincSengor SMUCivilandEnvironmental

EngineeringDeptEng.Prof.


Region ITMName Institution Role10 Mr.AminLalani UniversityofTexasatDallas MasterTeacher10 Mrs.BiancaCoker Region10ESC MathSpec.10 Mrs.BrittanyGoerig Region10ESC MathSpec.10 Mrs.MelodyLloyd Region10ESC MathSpec.10 Mrs.BethLoughry Region10ESC MathSpec.10 Dr.SallyHicks UniversityofDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.JacobMoldenhauer UniversityofDallas Sci.Prof.11 Ms.SaraFlusche NorthCentralTexasCollege Edu.Prof.11 Ms.CathyBanks TexasWomen'sUniversity MathProf.11 Dr.TomButts UniversityofTexasatDallasprofessor

emeritusMathProf.

11 Ms.AzielWilson NorthCentralTexasCollege MathProf.11 Ms.WendyCurtner ESCRegion11 MathSpec.11 Ms.FaithSchwope ESCRegion11 MathSpec.11 Ms.NancyTrent ESCRegion11 MathSpec.11 Dr.LisaBellows NorthCentralTexasCollege Sci.Prof.12 Dr.MienieDeKock TexasA&MUniversityCentralTexas MathProf.12 Mr.JaredDisher EducationServiceCenterRegion12 MathSpec.12 Mrs.BeckyRalston EducationServiceCenterRegion12 MathSpec.13 Dr.MarkDaniels UniversityofTexasatAustin MathProf.13 Mrs.SusanHemphill Region13ESC MathSpec.13 Mrs.VirginiaKeasler Region13ESC MathSpec.14 Dr.JonathanMitchell Hardin-SimmonsUniversity MathProf.14 Mrs.KathyHale Region14ESC MathSpec.14 Mrs.LeslieKoske DentonISD MathSpec.14 Mr.JohnLally Region14ESC MathSpec.14 Mrs.KaylaSwanzy Region14ESC MathSpec.14 Mrs.CarolStringfellow WylieISD MathTeacher15 Ms.CynthiaBishop AngeloStateUniversity MathProf.15 Dr.KarlHavlak AngeloStateUniversity MathProf.15 Mrs.LeslieMartin EducationServiceCenterRegion15 MathSpec.15 Mr.RichardRoper EducationServiceCenterRegion15 MathSpec.15 Ms.MandySmetana EducationServiceCenterRegion15 MathSpec.16 Ms.MaryJaneCruz WTAMU MathProf.16 Dr.NickFlynn WTAMU MathProf.16 Ms.MacyKohler AmarilloCollege MathProf.16 Mr.GreggLawler WTAMU MathProf.16 Dr.PamLockwood WTAMU MathProf.16 Ms.KimberlyMcGowan AmarilloCollege MathProf.16 Ms.BrendaFoster Region16ESC MathSpec.


Region ITMName Institution Role16 Ms.TammySwartz Region16ESC Other17 Dr.JerryDwyer TexasTechUniversity/Dept.ofMath

andStatMathProf.

17 Mrs.DianeChavez InstructionalConsultantwithTSTEM MathSpec.17 Ms.CherylWood Region17ESC MathSpec.17 Mrs.JennyGaona Region17ESC Other17 Dr.DavidLamp TexasTechUniversity Sci.Prof.17 Mrs.MichelleSedberry Region17ESC ScienceSpec.18 Dr.AngelaBrown SulRossStateUniversity MathProf.18 Dr.WarrenKoepp UniversityofTexasofthePermian

BasinMathProf.

18 Dr.ReyDuran Region18EducationalServiceCenter MathSpec.18 Ms.KylieFrizell Region18EducationalServiceCenter MathSpec.18 Ms.KrystleGaeta Region18EducationalServiceCenter MathSpec.18 Mrs.KarenHaynes Region18EducationalServiceCenter MathSpec.18 Mrs.MichelleRinehart Region18EducationalServiceCenter MathSpec.18 Mrs.DianeUtsman Region18EducationalServiceCenter MathSpec.19 Mr.AnthonyAlvarez UTElPaso MathProf.19 Ms.NormaAllieRobles CommunityMember MathSpec.19 Mrs.VeronicaHernandez EducationServiceCenterRegion19 Other19 Ms.PatriciaJuarez EducationServiceCenterRegion19 Other19 Mr.JefferyStrom EducationServiceCenterRegion19 Other20 Mr.EarlBullock UniversityofTexasatSanAntonio

CollegeofEngineeringEng.Prof.

20 Mrs.ElaineMarschall Region20 MathSpec.20 Mrs.BrandiSimpson Region20 MathSpec.20 Mrs.NancyRodriguez Region20 ScienceSpec.


ScienceITMsbyRegionRegion ITMName Institution Role01 Dr.GregorioGarcia BrownsvilleISD Edu.Prof.01 Dr.ReynaldoRamirez,Jr. TheUniversityofTexasatBrownsville Edu.Prof.01 Dr.MiguelGonzalez UniversityofTexasPanAmerican Eng.Prof.01 Mrs.MelissaCigarroa ISLA InformalSci.Edu.01 Mr.EmilioBarrientos BrownsvilleISD MasterTeacher01 Dr.HectorContreras BrownsvilleISD MasterTeacher01 Mr.PeterGonzalez UnitedDaySchool MasterTeacher01 Ms.IrmaRamirez BrownsvilleISD MasterTeacher01 MsSylviaEscobar RegionOneESC MathSpec.01 MsMargaretBaguio UT-NASA'sTexasSpaceGrant

ConsortiumOther

01 Dr.JavierCavazos TheUniversityofTexasatBrownsville Other01 Dr.DanielMott TAMIU Sci.Prof.01 Dr.GenePaull TheUniversityofTexasatBrownsville Sci.Prof.01 Dr.NicolasPereyra UniversityofTexasPanAmerican Sci.Prof.01 Dr.JuditRies UTMcDonaldObservatory Sci.Prof.01 Ms.DeniseMolina HarlingenCISD Sci.Teacher01 Ms.EldaChristian RegionOneESC ScienceSpec.01 Ms.YuridiaPatriciaGandy RegionOneESC ScienceSpec.01 Mrs.LucilleGonzalez UnitedISD ScienceSpec.01 Mrs.MonicaMenchaca UnitedISD ScienceSpec.01 Ms.ClaudiaPalizo UnitedISD ScienceSpec.01 Ms.MargaretRaleigh RegionOneESC ScienceSpec.01 Mrs.MonicaUrdiales UnitedISD ScienceSpec.02 Ms.LesliePeart TexasStateAquarium-FlintHillsSTEM

CenterInformalSci.Edu.

02 Ms.LauraPeck TheRobertWellmanPlanetarium InformalSci.Edu.02 Mr.JRJones IndependentConsultant Other02 Ms.KatMills SchoolSpecialty Other02 Dr.MarkBesonen TexasA&M-CorpusChristi Sci.Prof.02 Dr.WillSager UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.02 Ms.IbetCaro ESC2 ScienceSpec.02 Ms.RobinFord IndependentConsultant ScienceSpec.02 Dr.SherylRoehl TexasStateAquarium-FlintHillsSTEM

CenterScienceSpec.

03 Ms.LesliePeart FlintHillsResourceCenterforSTEMEd-TSA

InformalSci.Edu.

03 Mr.J.R.Jones IndependentConsultant MasterTeacher03 Ms.KatMills SchoolSpecialty Other03 Ms.LauraSprinkle Region3ESC Other03 Dr.TaniaAnders TexasA&MUniversity-CorpusChristi Sci.Prof.


Region ITMName Institution Role03 Dr.WillSager UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.03 Ms.LauraDeiss Region3ESC ScienceSpec.03 Dr.SherylRoehl Region3ESC ScienceSpec.04 Dr.WallaceDominey UniversityofHouston Edu.Prof.04 Ms.PearlineWilliams-

BrownSoutheastRegionalTexasSTEMCenter Edu.Prof.

04 Ms.AliciaSimmons UniversityofTexasMedicalBranch K12/IHEAdmin/Staff

04 Mr.HeatherBrown UniversityofHouston MasterTeacher04 Ms.ValerieClem-Blackburn SoutheastRegionalTexasSTEMCenter MasterTeacher04 Mr.MatthewCushing RiceUniversity MasterTeacher04 Mr.AndrewKapral UniversityofHouston MasterTeacher04 Ms.ErickaLawton RiceUniversity MasterTeacher04 RikkiLookingbill UniversityofHouston MasterTeacher04 Dr.MichaelMary RiceUniversity MasterTeacher04 Dr.WilliamJasper SamHoustonStateUniversity MathProf.04 Ms.AnneDouglas Region4EducationServiceCenter Other04 Dr.DavidAlexander RiceUniversity Sci.Prof.04 Dr.CarolinaAvendano RiceUniversity Sci.Prof.04 Dr.EdgarBering UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.04 Dr.AnnCheek UniversityofHoustonDeptofBiology

andBiochemistrySci.Prof.

04 Dr.MargaretCheung UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.04 Dr.ElizabethEich RiceUniversity Sci.Prof.04 Dr.RebeccaForrest UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.04 Dr.CliffordHouston UniversityofTexasMedicalBranch Sci.Prof.04 Dr.JohnHutchinson RiceUniversity Sci.Prof.04 Dr.MicheleMarquette UniversityofTexasMedicalBranch Sci.Prof.04 Dr.CarolynNichol RiceUniversity Sci.Prof.04 Dr.DonnaPattison UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.04 Dr.StephenPennings UniversityofHouston Sci.Prof.04 Dr.MargueriteSognier UniversityofTexasMedicalBranch Sci.Prof.04 Ms.SallyWall SoutheastRegionalTexasSTEMCenter Sci.Prof.04 Ms.EdriceBell Region4EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.04 Mrs.ShannanBurke HumbleISD ScienceSpec.04 Ms.LisaMccorquodale HumbleISD ScienceSpec.04 Mrs.DodieResendez Region4EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.04 Mrs.DonnaUllrich HumbleISD ScienceSpec.04 Ms.JenniferWellman Region4EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.05 Dr.JasonMixon LamarUniversity,Educational

LeadershipEdu.Prof.

05 Dr.RyanUnderdown BASF,PetroleumEngineer Eng.Prof.


Region ITMName Institution Role05 Dr.VictorZaloom LamarUniversityDepartmentof

EngineeringEng.Prof.

05 Dr.JimJordan LamarUniversity,DepartmentofEarthandSpaceSc.

Sci.Prof.

05 Dr.JamesWestgate LamarUniversity,DepartmentofEarthandSpaceSc.

Sci.Prof.

05 Mrs.RoxanneMinix-Wilkins

Region5EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.

05 Mr.JohnnyVines Region5EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.06 Mr.EricEike BryanISD,BryanHS MasterTeacher06 Ms.JoySechelski Retired MasterTeacher06 Ms.DebbieWalker CollegeStationISD MasterTeacher06 Mrs.SusanBohan Region6EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.06 Mr.DwightBohlmeyer SalterFarmEducationalResearch

ProgramSci.Prof.

06 Dr.AndreaFoster SamHoustonStateUnversity Sci.Prof.06 Dr.JoanHudson SamHoustonStateUniversity Sci.Prof.06 Dr.ReneeJames SamHoustonStateUniversity Sci.Prof.06 Ms.KarenKillion BlinnCollege,BrenhamCampus Sci.Prof.06 Dr.ScottMiller SamHoustonStateUniversity Sci.Prof.06 Dr.CarolynSchroeder TexasA&MUniversity Sci.Prof.06 Mrs.DannaMitschke Region6EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.07 Mrs.RebaShumacher RebaShumacherandAssociates

ConsultingCoach

07 Dr.TeresaKennedy UniversityofTXTyler Edu.Prof.07 Dr.FrederickaBrown UniversityofTXTyler Eng.Prof.07 Mr.ChrisRasure UniversityofTXTyler MasterTeacher07 Ms.DonnaWise UniversityofTXTyler MasterTeacher07 Dr.BlakeBextine UniversityofTXTyler Sci.Prof.07 Dr.NeilGray UniversityofTXTyler Sci.Prof.07 Dr.MichaelOdell UniversityofTXTyler Sci.Prof.07 Dr.MindyShaw SFASU Sci.Prof.07 Mrs.TeraCollins Region7ESC ScienceSpec.07 Mrs.NancyTevebaugh Region7ESC ScienceSpec.08 Ms.DianeBrownlee HeardMuseum,McKinney,TX MasterTeacher08 Dr.CheriDavis TexasA&MUniversity-Commerce,

Commerce,TXSci.Prof.

08 Dr.KentMontgomery TexasA&MUniversity-Commerce,Commerce,TX

Sci.Prof.

08 Dr.MattWood TexasA&MUniversity-Commerce,Commerce,TX

Sci.Prof.

08 Mrs.CherylAllison Region8EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.


Region ITMName Institution Role08 Mrs.Susan

RobinsonHuizingaRegion8EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.

09 Mr.PaulBallou MesquiteISDPlanetarium InformalSci.Edu.09 Mr.JeffBarton ThreeRiversFoundation InformalSci.Edu.09 Dr.RebeccaDodge MidwesternStateUniversity Sci.Prof.09 Ms.JenniferNader WichitaFallsISD Sci.Teacher09 Ms.CynthiaDyes Region9EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.09 Mr.SteveHenderson WichitaFallsISD ScienceSpec.10 Ms.BarbaraCurry TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Edu.Prof.10 Ms.EmilyHennessy TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Edu.Prof.10 Ms.KatieDonaldson TheUniversityofTexasatDallas MasterTeacher10 Ms.MyrnaCastillo Region10ESC Other10 Ms.RebeccaDodge BrookhavenCollegeGeotechnology

InstituteSci.Prof.

10 Dr.MarcHairston TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.VinitaHajeri TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.SallyHicks UniversityofDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.JacobMoldenhauer UniversityofDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.HomerMontgomery TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.StephanieTaylor TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Sci.Prof.10 Dr.MaryUrquhart TheUniversityofTexasatDallas Sci.Prof.10 Mr.WesleyBaker ClearviewHighSchool Sci.Teacher10 Ms.SamanthaBradbury Region10ESC ScienceSpec.10 Ms.JosieEatman Region10ESC ScienceSpec.11 Dr.BettyCrocker UnivNorthTexas Edu.Prof.11 Ms.SaraFlusche NCTC Edu.Prof.11 Mr.DanielHolcomb NavoMiddleSchool,DentonISD Other11 Dr.LisaBellows NCTC Sci.Prof.11 Dr.GregoryHale UniversityofTexasatArlington Sci.Prof.11 Dr.KarenJoMatsler UniversityofTexasatArlington Sci.Prof.11 Dr.JimRoberts UnivNorthTexas Sci.Prof.11 Dr.CarolynSchroeder TexasA&MUniversity Sci.Prof.11 Ms.CherylBowden EducationServiceCenterRegion11 ScienceSpec.11 Ms.ThaisMitchell EducationServiceCenterRegion11 ScienceSpec.12 Mrs.SharonBrowning BaylorUniversity K12/IHE

Admin/Staff12 Mrs.MelissaMullins BaylorUniversity K12/IHE

Admin/Staff12 Dr.JeffBack BaylorUniversity Sci.Prof.12 Dr.BillHockaday BaylorUniversity Sci.Prof.12 Dr.ScottJames BaylorUniversity Sci.Prof.12 Dr.JosephWhite BaylorUniversity Sci.Prof.12 Mrs.PrisscillaFricke ESCRegion12 ScienceSpec.


Region ITMName Institution Role12 Mrs.JeanineWolf ESCRegion12 ScienceSpec.12 Mrs.JudyYork ESCRegion12 ScienceSpec.13 Dr.DennisDunn UTAustin Sci.Prof.13 Dr.KarenOstlund UTAustin Sci.Prof.13 Dr.JuidtRies UniversityofTexasatAustin Sci.Prof.13 Dr.VictorSampson UniversityofTexasatAustin Sci.Prof.13 Ms.MargaretBaguio UniversityofTexasatAustin ScienceSpec.13 Ms.CynthiaHolcomb Region13EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.13 Ms.ShawnaWiebusch Region13EducationServiceCenter ScienceSpec.14 Mr.ZaneLaws CiscoCollege Sci.Prof.14 Dr.KimPamplin AbileneChristianUniversity Sci.Prof.15 Dr.ChristinePurkiss AngeloStateUniversity Edu.Prof.15 Dr.PamelaBryant HowardPayneUniversity Sci.Prof.15 DrJosephSatterfield AngeloStateUniversity Sci.Prof.15 Dr.MarkSonntag AngeloStateUniversity Sci.Prof.15 Ms.TorreyClay EducationServiceCenterRegion15 ScienceSpec.15 MrsPaulaHiltibidal EducationServiceCenterRegion15 ScienceSpec.15 Mrs.BethLehmann EducationServiceCenterRegion15 ScienceSpec.16 Mr.PaulBallou PlanetariumDirectorMesquiteISD InformalSci.Edu.16 Mr.JeffBurton DirectorofScience,3RFoundation InformalSci.Edu.16 Mrs.CaylaCordellCielencki AmarilloISD K12/IHE

Admin/Staff16 Dr.CatherineClewett WTAMU Sci.Prof.16 Dr.NickFlynn WTAMU Sci.Prof.16 Dr.NabarunGhosh WTAMU Sci.Prof.16 Mrs.MicheleMcCurdy Region16ESC ScienceSpec.17 Mr.ChadHaskins LubbockISD Coach17 Dr.VanessaDeLeon TexasTechUniversity Edu.Prof.17 Dr.PatriciaHawley TexasTechUniversity Edu.Prof.17 Dr.MichellePantoya TexasTechUniversity Eng.Prof.17 Mrs.CherylWood EducationServiceCenter MathSpec.17 Dr.DavidLamp TexasTechUniversity Sci.Prof.17 Dr.MatthewOlson TexasTechUniversity Sci.Prof.17 Mrs.MichelleSedberry Region17ESC ScienceSpec.18 Dr.David8067423767 TexasTechUniversity Sci.Prof.18 Dr.PaulMangum MidlandCollege Sci.Prof.18 Mrs.MarthaAlexander Region18ESC ScienceSpec.18 Mr.AbelAvila Region18ESC ScienceSpec.18 Mrs.SandraCasimir Region18ESC ScienceSpec.18 Mrs.LeanneLocklar Region18ESC ScienceSpec.19 Ms.DianePerez TecH20Center InformalSci.Edu.19 Mr.AnthonyAlvarez UTEP Sci.Prof.


Region ITMName Institution Role19 Ms.MaryHelenCholka SocorroISD ScienceSpec.19 Mr.ErnestoHerrera ESCR19 ScienceSpec.19 Mrs.LoraHolt AnthonyISD ScienceSpec.20 Mr.RobertBurleson ThomasHatchettElementarySchool MasterTeacher20 Mr.AugustineFrkuska CrestviewElementary MasterTeacher20 Mr.KentonPage PeggyCarnahanElementarySchool:

NorthsideISDMasterTeacher

20 Mr.PaulSchmitchel StevensHighSchool MasterTeacher20 Mrs.ClaireVollmar EducationServiceCenter,Region20 MasterTeacher20 Ms.PeggyCarnahan OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity Sci.Prof.20 Dr.RobertFreed OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity Sci.Prof.20 Dr.RobertFreed OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity Sci.Prof.20 Dr.MargaretFreed OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity Sci.Prof.20 Dr.TeresitaMunguia OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity Sci.Prof.20 Ms.RoxanneCoronado ESCRegion20 ScienceSpec.20 Ms.TamisineNeal NorthEastIndependentSchoolDistrict ScienceSpec.20 Ms.TamisineNeal NorthEastISD ScienceSpec.20 Ms.NancyRodriguez ESCRegion20 ScienceSpec.

TRC COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT REPORT 4 - FINAL

SOW Target

Actual Ct. Avg Actual%Complete

SOW Target SOW Target

Actual Ct. Avg Actual

% Active SOW Target %Complete

--------- CT.------- Mentors ------ HRS ------- --------- CT.------- Cadres ------- HRS -------- %CompletePost TestScores

#Mentorswith

Post TestScores

#MentorsSOW

AwardedAmount

AmtRemaining

% Spent*Amt.Invoiced

SOWTeachersActualTeachers

SOWSchools#ActiveSchools

ReportReady %

Count

--- Mentor Assessment --------- Immersion ----- ------- Budget ------- ------- Events ------------------------------------------------------------------ Participants ----------------------------------------------------

ReadyEvents Hours

ScheduledEvents Hours

Report Ready% Hours

IM Avg HrsProject Director

Project Name

%CompleteSurveys% R Ready

STAARDoc

Count forIM

# MentorSecondaryTarget

% MentorSecondaryTarget

% MentorSecondaryActual

--- ACHIEVEMENT --

% of Mentors With STAARData Entered / SOW

# Mentors withSTAAR Data

Entered

Math

38 114

114%100106% 97%35

5

19 $149,999 $0

$149,999 100%64 15

122% 100%5

17

ESC01Math

Ramon Guzman 24

97%44 12114%36 36 146

146100%

530 83%127%

100%

36

31 115

115%10097% 97%31

5

21 $137,600 $0

$137,600 100%78 23

194% 100%5

21

ESC02Math

Patricia Thornton 25

97%71 1281%32 32 399

399100%

58 25%88%

97%

31

38 117

117%100103% 103%38

8

18 $149,800 $0

$149,800 100%63 21

173% 100%8

18

ESC03Math

Pam Yosko 28

103%29 12147%37 37 221

221100%

837 100%95%

103%

38

34 96

96%10097% 83%29

4

15 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%129 14

120% 93%4

15

ESC04Math

Kim Seymour 30

49%68 12139%35 35 217

23194%

430 86%107%

80%

28

36 120

120%10095% 95%36

7

18 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%53 19

161% 97%7

18

ESC05Math

Janna Smith 26

95%32 12139%38 38 228

24095%

738 100%95%

95%

36

35 115

115%100100% 97%34

5

6 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%115 13

106% 100%5

6

ESC06Math

Susan Bohan 24

43%103 12110%35 35 512

512100%

517 49%100%

100%

35

41 112

112%100111% 111%41

7

15 $180,000 $0

$180,000 100%44 18

153% 100%7

15

ESC07Math

Leesa Green 41

111%41 12100%37 37 410

410100%

733 89%112%

108%

40

38 117

117%100100% 100%38

5

15 $149,900 $136

$149,764 100%69 23

189% 92%5

15

ESC08Math

Kay Stickels 23

100%58 12105%38 38 94

94100%

50 0%?

100%

38

20 115

115%100100% 100%20

6

14 $86,000 $0

$86,000 100%68 21

172% 100%6

14

ESC09Math

Diane Hubbard 30

100%57 12113%20 20 247

247100%

614 70%114%

100%

20

37 112

112%100106% 106%37

6

23 $165,000 $0

$165,000 100%101 18

148% 100%6

23

ESC10Math

Bianca Coker 24

103%63 12146%35 35 148

148100%

629 83%93%

89%

31

41 112

112%100114% 100%36

6

8 $165,000 $111

$164,889 100%83 23

192% 93%6

8

ESC11Math

Faith Schwope 24

100%50 12148%36 36 192

20096%

636 100%111%

103%

37

44 116

116%100110% 108%43

8

33 $165,000 $0

$165,000 100%123 26

220% 97%8

35

ESC12Math

Becky Ralston 28

110%31 12212%40 40 272

27499%

80 0%?

108%

43

42 101

101%10093% 73%33

7

29 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%63 18

146% 100%8

29

ESC13Math

Susan Hemphill 16

38%81 1264%45 45 499

499100%

845 100%93%

82%

37

33 112

112%100103% 100%32

5

5 $147,200 $0

$147,200 100%109 14

113% 100%5

6

ESC14Math

John Lally 25

100%96 12114%32 32 316

316100%

527 84%104%

100%

32

38 109

109%100100% 100%38

5

5 $149,900 $0

$149,900 100%70 17

144% 100%5

5

ESC15math

Leslie Martin

100%69 12101%38 38 343

343100%

526 68%88%

100%

38

42 126

126%100114% 108%40

5

11 $165,000 $0

$165,000 100%106 17

144% 100%5

11

ESC16Math

Brenda Foster 26

111%60 12166%37 37 252

252100%

532 86%116%

100%

37

37 109

109%100103% 103%37

5

7 $149,912 $0

$149,912 100%126 18

153% 100%5

7

ESC17Math

Cheryl Wood 28

106%120 12101%36 36 340

340100%

525 69%100%

103%

37

37 133

133%100100% 100%37

10

24 $218,592 $0

$218,592 100%111 23

191% 100%10

24

ESC18Math

Michelle Rinehart 28

100%57 12137%37 37 521

521100%

1021 57%95%

100%

37

36 94

94%100103% 94%33

5

14 $145,818 $0

$145,818 100%82 15

127% 93%5

13

ESC19Math

Veronica Hernandez 11

97%76 1291%35 35 163

17593%

59 26%156%

83%

29

31 109

109%100103% 93%28

5

21 $129,000 $166

$128,834 100%72 19

156% 100%5

21

ESC20Math

Brandi Simpson 25

93%50 12118%30 30 470

470100%

530 37%43%

90%

27

37 114

114%100123% 120%36

8

21 $153,000 $373

$152,627 100%109 22

187% 92%7

24

LakeHoustonMath

Melissa Christensen 21

123%70 12121%30 30 133

14194%

724 80%108%

123%

37

46


SOW Target






#Mentorswith

Post TestScores

#MentorsSOW

AwardedAmount

AmtRemaining




ReportReady %

Count


ReadyEvents Hours


Report Ready% Hours


Project Name


STAARDoc

Count forIM




--- ACHIEVEMENT --



Entered

35 130

130%100100% 100%35

5

10 $145,338 $0

$145,338 100%110 17

138% 100%5

10

NCTCMath

Sara Flusche 28

100%88 12122%35 35 203

203100%

58 23%125%

100%

35

20 97

97%10080% 60%15

4

33 $92,380 $5,408

$86,972 94%41 21

179% 87%9

17

UTBrownsMath

James Telese 26

36%57 1255%25 25 175

19689%

819 76%68%

32%

8

42 114

114%100105% 105%42

8

18 $193,964 $0

$193,964 100%57 17

140% 100%8

18

UTTylerMath

Cindy Sherman 24

105%44 12121%40 40 172

172100%

80 0%?

105%

42

Science

35 134

134%100100% 100%35

7

19 $180,000 $4

$179,996 100%69 18

150% 100%7

19

ESC01Science

Yuridia Gandy 43

100%62 12101%35 35 156

156100%

735 100%100%

100%

35

33 113

113%100110% 110%33

7

10 $153,000 $0

$153,000 100%92 18

154% 100%7

10

ESC03SCIENCE

Sheryl Roehl 30

110%88 12102%30 30 188

188100%

730 100%90%

110%

33

44 128

128%100119% 116%43

5

34 $164,800 $0

$164,800 100%187 18

146% 100%5

34

ESC04Science

Jennifer Wellman 32

116%24 12435%37 37 185

185100%

537 100%97%

111%

41

40 115

115%100100% 98%39

6

11 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%60 18

147% 90%6

11

ESC05Science

Roxanne Minix-Wilkins 41

98%56 12100%40 40 212

24487%

632 80%103%

98%

39

28 105

105%100112% 112%28

5

6 $115,000 $0

$115,000 100%75 9

77% 100%5

6

ESC06SCIENCE

Susan Bohan 24

112%75 12100%25 25 257

257100%

521 84%114%

112%

28

37 119

119%100100% 100%37

6

9 $164,800 $0

$164,800 100%43 19

155% 100%6

9

ESC07Science

Tera Collins 30

100%42 12100%37 37 203

203100%

637 100%100%

100%

37

39 122

122%100105% 103%38

6

16 $149,800 $0

$149,800 100%51 27

222% 100%6

16

ESC08Science

Cheryl Allison 29

103%33 12119%37 37 117

117100%

633 89%100%

105%

39

26 113

113%100104% 104%26

5

10 $115,000 $0

$115,000 100%79 18

152% 100%5

10

ESC09Science

Cynthia Dyes 25

104%72 12105%25 25 291

291100%

522 88%100%

104%

26

38 117

117%100109% 109%38

7

13 $164,900 $0

$164,900 100%88 16

133% 100%7

13

ESC10Science

Samantha Bradbury 41

109%60 12129%35 35 167

167100%

730 86%93%

109%

38

41 113

113%100111% 105%39

7

22 $164,800 $2

$164,798 100%65 18

150% 100%7

22

ESC11Science

Thais Mitchell 25

105%32 12151%37 37 163

163100%

737 100%111%

111%

41

38 105

105%100103% 103%38

5

20 $164,800 $0

$164,800 100%66 22

186% 100%5

20

ESC12Science

Judy York 24

103%27 12153%37 37 190

190100%

037 100%76%

103%

38

38 116

116%100103% 103%38

7

24 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%116 24

198% 97%7

24

ESC13Science

Shawna Wiebusch 41

103%102 12101%37 37 290

29698%

737 100%100%

103%

38

36 123

123%100103% 94%33

5

5 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%126 12

104% 100%5

5

ESC14Science

Shawn Schlueter

3%105 12120%35 35 516

516100%

528 80%89%

103%

36

39 122

122%100108% 106%38

5

12 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%87 25

208% 100%5

16

ESC15Science

Beth Lehmann 30

106%50 12155%36 36 288

288100%

531 86%110%

106%

38

33 108

108%100100% 79%26

5

9 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%105 16

130% 100%5

9

ESC16Science

Michele McCurdy 26

73%91 12113%33 33 242

242100%

529 88%107%

100%

33

36 118

118%100103% 103%36

5

5 $149,372 $0

$149,372 100%108 20

168% 100%5

5

ESC17Science

Michelle Sedberry

103%105 12103%35 35 385

385100%

515 43%127%

103%

36

36 106

106%100100% 89%32

5

8 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%97 14

119% 100%5

10

ESC18Science

Sandra Casimir 24

89%89 12105%36 36 337

337100%

015 42%100%

100%

36

42 108

108%100131% 94%30

5

15 $162,200 $0

$162,200 100%90 22

185% 91%5

14

ESC19Science

Carmen Imai 22

94%86 1294%32 32 145

16588%

426 81%81%

125%

40

47


SOW Target






#Mentorswith

Post TestScores

#MentorsSOW

AwardedAmount

AmtRemaining




ReportReady %

Count


ReadyEvents Hours


Report Ready% Hours


Project Name


STAARDoc

Count forIM




--- ACHIEVEMENT --



Entered

30 100

100%100100% 100%30

5

24 $129,000 $585

$128,415 100%64 15

127% 100%5

24

ESC20Science

Nancy Rodriguez 22

100%45 12107%30 30 230

230100%

530 100%100%

100%

30

28 122

122%100100% 100%28

5

6 $120,400 $0

$120,400 100%97 13

112% 100%5

6

GalvestonScience

Marguerite Sognier 28

100%84 12115%28 28 344

344100%

517 61%106%

100%

28

32 103

103%100107% 103%31

6

17 $123,000 $248

$122,752 100%85 18

153% 100%6

25

LakeHoustonScience

Lisa McCorquodale 25

103%22 12213%30 30 107

107100%

624 80%113%

103%

31

35 124

124%100100% 100%35

5

5 $145,404 $0

$145,404 100%109 14

117% 100%5

5

NCTCScience

Sara Flusche

100%90 12121%35 35 208

208100%

512 34%125%

100%

35

47 119

119%100115% 73%30

6

20 $150,000 $1,131

$148,869 99%59 25

210% 100%6

20

OLLUScience

Peggy Carnahan 35

49%70 1270%41 41 200

200100%

641 100%76%

115%

47

96 133

133%100204% 198%93

10

32 $194,998 $5,341

$189,657 97%187 23

192% 100%10

32

RiceScience

Carolyn Nichol 30

194%46 12322%47 47 237

237100%

100 0%?

189%

89

34 106

106%100100% 100%34

6

26 $192,100 $19,949

$172,151 90%192 14

114% 97%6

26

TAMUCSScience

Carolyn Schroeder 30

100%56 12270%34 34 239

24598%

628 82%104%

91%

31

35 102

102%100100% 100%35

5

19 $150,000 $0

$150,000 100%102 18

148% 95%5

19

TAMUIScience

Idania Dominguez 25

100%85 12100%35 35 198

20895%

520 57%95%

94%

33

43 106

106%100116% 116%43

7

10 $165,000 $0

$165,000 100%61 15

124% 100%7

10

TSAScience

Sheryl Roehl 40

116%44 12139%37 37 124

124100%

737 100%111%

116%

43

43 114

114%100116% 116%43

7

40 $164,901 $0

$164,901 100%132 33

278% 100%7

40

UHoustonScience

Wallace Dominey 28

116%80 12128%37 37 137

137100%

78 22%138%

116%

43

33 107

107%100118% 14%4

5

14 $100,000 $7,845

$92,155 92%15 23

194% 97%5

5

UNTScience

Jim Roberts

14%69 1219%28 28 328

36390%

35 18%480%

7%

2

34 86

86%10097% 57%20

6

24 $150,000 $16,304

$133,696 89%65 19

157% 88%6

15

UTBrownsScience

Reynaldo Ramirez 24

57%87 1262%35 35 144

15891%

625 71%64%

6%

2

38 139

139%100127% 113%34

5

14 $199,181 $0

$199,181 100%106 25

209% 100%5

14

UTDallasScience

Mary Urquhart 26

103%83 12118%30 30 643

643100%

525 83%120%

127%

38

44 102

102%100110% 110%44

8

18 $164,958 $0

$164,958 100%52 24

201% 100%8

18

UTEACHPRIMARY

Lynn Kirby 28

110%40 12111%40 40 161

161100%

80 0%?

110%

44

34 102

102%100100% 82%28

7

18 $149,800 $0

$149,800 100%80 27

227% 100%7

18

UTTylerScience

Fredericka Brown 30

82%69 12100%34 34 110

110100%

734 100%100%

100%

34

48

texas regional collaboratives 2015-16 final evaluation · pdf filetexas regional...

Documents