Institutions of higher education (IHEs) play an important role in mathematics and science education by offering undergraduate instruction, operating teacher training programs, and providing in-service training for K–12 teachers. The National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded System-wide Change for All Learners (SCALE) project sought to effect change in its partner IHEs by (a) improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education; (b) improving collaborations between STEM and education faculty on preservice programs; (c) improving collaborations between IHE faculty and K–12 districts on inservice training; and (d) improving the institutional policies and practices that support these activities. As part of the SCALE IHE case studies line of work, this paper provides findings on the effects of the SCALE project at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (UW-Madison) between May 2004 and August 2007. This case study includes two interrelated accounts of SCALE activities: (a) a presentation of evaluation findings for each of the SCALE activities undertaken at UW-Madison and (b) an analysis of how specific aspects of the institutional context influenced SCALE activities.

As part of the SCALE IHE Case Studies line of work, this document provides findings on the effects of the SCALE project at the California State University, Northridge (CSUN) between March 2005 and August 2007. Case studies of two other SCALE IHEs—the California State University, Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison)— have been produced. A cross-case analysis of the three IHE case studies will present a diagnostic approach to evaluating STEM education interventions in complex organizations.

As readers already familiar with the work of the Building a Partnership (BP) team know, SCALE’s development as a project based on cross-institutional interactions is the focus of our study. We further this study in this report by providing SCALE leaders a sequel to our first organizational mapping report. The 2004 report provided a snapshot of SCALE’s participants, organizational structure, and working groups as of April 2004, 16 months from the start of NSF funding. That snapshot was based on data entered into an Excel spreadsheet, and was presented in terms of text, tables and graphs, and organizational maps. By contrast, this report provides more complex data, some of which is longitudinal, based on a relational database called SCALEbase. (The data element definitions used to design SCALEbase and to analyze the data used for this report appear in Appendix A.) Also in contrast with the 2004 mapping study, organizational maps are not included here. A full set of organizational maps will be provided in a final mapping report after SCALEbase data is completed in spring 2008.

In this document, we define “partnership” to mean “an inter-organization group formed to accomplish goals and tasks that a single organization, working alone, could not accomplish.”

In order to help ensure that each organization that joins a partnership achieves its goals for partnering, we suggest that you consider the following questions, which we pose in the first person voice, prior to agreeing to the partnership.

Federal programs, such as the National Science Foundation’s Math and Science Partnership program, are promoting K–20 partnerships (partnerships between K–12 and higher education institutions) in hopes of fostering greater alignment and cooperation among participating institutions, and pooling resources within institutions to address persistent problems associated with poor student performance. To identify what is known about K–20 partnerships and assess the rigor of the available research, the authors undertook a literature review. They identified 36 research articles that met pre established selection criteria, reviewed all articles, and conducted an analysis of the literature. The analysis addresses the following questions: (1) What inquiry methods have been used to study K–20 partnerships, and what is the rigor of the methods?; (2) How is partnership defined?; (3) What do we know about the formation, process, and results associated with partnership? The authors conclude that the K–20 partnership literature lacks methodological rigor and scope, that partnership is inadequately defined in essentially all cases, and that the research about how K–20 partnerships form and function, and what they achieve contains significant gaps. Despite these weaknesses in the literature, a strength is that multiple, independent qualitative researchers working with a grounded approach and in different contexts arrived at similar conclusions about factors associated with success and failure. They recommend that future research articles begin with a clear definition of the term partnership, build upon and extend available research through replication studies and diversification of samples, pay closer attention to the contexts in which K–20 partnerships operate, and include findings on how K–20 partnerships form, and how they function.

School districts and institutions of higher education (IHEs) have, historically, attempted to improve K-12 instructional quality and student performance in relative isolation from each other, and with limited success. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and calls to improve pre-service teacher education have prompted policymakers and others to rethink models of instructional improvement and teacher preparation. One possible model involves partnerships between K-12 districts and IHEs, which we call “K-20 partnerships.” In our role as evaluators of the SCALE MSP, we believe that a first step in evaluating partnerships, their interventions, and outcomes is defining what partnerships are and are not. Doing so also enables evaluators to determine if, in fact, NSF and US ED grantees accomplished funded work; what roles, if any, partnerships played in achieving desired ends; and, ultimately, if the NSF and US ED theory of action has merit. Previously, numerous evaluation studies have examined the effects of partnership-developed interventions, but only a few have associated intervention results with partnerships between K-12 and higher education institutions. To determine the value of partnerships for improving teaching, learning, and educational institutions, evaluators must make firm links between partnerships, interventions, and outcomes. The resultant models, we believe, can help practitioners construct more effective partnerships and successful interventions. In this paper, we argue that partnership, as a construct, needs further definition to distinguish it from other forms of organization and inter-organizational relationships. Having identified this problem through literature review, we put forth a definition, which is synthesized from available literature. We then test our definition through a single case, which serves as a proof of concept study. Our conclusion discusses the adequacy and sufficiency of our definition and reports on next steps in our work.

This report of the NSF-funded SCALE Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) Case Studies line of work provides preliminary findings about SCALE activities at the California State University, Northridge (CSUN). This interview-based study focuses on the structural and behavioral dynamics influencing the implementation of the four core SCALE strategies for effecting change in IHEs: (1) improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education; (2) improve collaborations between STEM and education faculty regarding pre-service programs; (3) improve collaborations between IHE faculty and K-12 districts regarding in-service training; and (4) improve institutional policies and practices at the IHE level that support faculty engaged in pre- and in-service activities.