NPS Partnership case study
Case Study:
Pi Beta Phi/Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Partnership
Introduction: ...........................................................................................................................2
Who are we? What are we? A brief description of the partnership… ....................................3
In the Beginning…..................................................................................................................5
Early success stories…........................................................................................................10
The transition from development to refinement… ................................................................12
Money Matters…..................................................................................................................13
Managing transitions, sustainability in an ever changing world…........................................14
The role of evaluation and assessment within the Project… ...............................................16
Benefits of the Project to Great Smoky Mountains National Park… ....................................18
Looking to the future….........................................................................................................21
Threats, obstacles, bumps in the road… .............................................................................22
Experience is the best teacher… .........................................................................................23
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 1 of 1
NPS Partnership case study
Case Study: Pi Beta Phi/Great Smoky Mountains National
Park Partnership
Introduction:
“The Smoky Mountains National Park is very mysterious and wondrous in its own
way… If it weren’t for Parks as Classrooms∗, most kids would know nothing about
the mountains and how important they are to us. Parks as Classrooms teaches us
about the mountains as a whole, how parks play a vital role in our lives. We also learn
how to have fun in the park but be safe and protect our mountains at the same time.
Parks as Classrooms is a wonderful program that I believe should be kept for years to
come. I know I would like my kids to learn about the mountains just like I did.” Shea
French, 8th grade class of 2003 at Pi Beta Phi Elementary School.
What are the results of nine years of structured park visitations that weave all the
strands of a typical elementary school curriculum into a series of 37 units? How are young
men and women changed by the experiences contained within those park visits? What
kinds of attitudes do they hold with respect to national parks, the total environment, their
hometown and its relationships with “their” park? How are their behaviors impacted by
what they have experienced and learned? How do they compare to other students in other
places?
These are among the questions that arise when looking closely at the unique
partnership that exists between Pi Beta Phi Elementary School and Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. This partnership, referred to in the school as “Parks as
Classrooms,” represents one end of a possible continuum of park involvement with an
elementary school. It is as comprehensive an involvement as is practical; perhaps it even
describes the limits of the possible. It is difficult to see how a school and a park could be
more inextricably involved in the educational lives of students.
To answer those and other questions about this partnership, the following narrative
will report some of the history of the project. It will examine the motivations of the parties
whose initiatives resulted in collaboration. It will report the steps taken to build the
teamwork that resulted in the present programming. The creation and evolution of that
programming will be discussed. Some of the challenges that exist for the partners in
sustaining the program will be examined, as will be the steps taken to meet those
challenges.
More importantly, the narrative will describe the outcomes of the partnership, all of
which have to do with the most critical stakeholder group, the children. Two government
organizations that have responsibilities to all citizens have concentrated their efforts to
provide something of great value for the children. Their collective efforts have been
∗
As is noted in the narrative, Parks as Classrooms is the terminology commonly used by school staff and
students in reference to the Pi Beta Phi/Great Smoky Mountains National Park Partnership. Other
synonymous terms used are the Pi Beta Phi Project, sometimes shortened to the Pi Phi Project and the Pi
Phi/PaC Project. We apologize for the confusion and frankly admit that one unresolved issue in the
partnership is exactly what to call it.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 2 of 2
NPS Partnership case study
successful by almost any measure applied. This is an attempt to tell the story of those
successes in the context of the challenges faced and surmounted.
The story of the Pi Beta Phi/Great Smoky Mountains National Park Partnership is
one with a very happy ending. It is best revealed in the reflections of Pi Phi students who
have experienced the involvement with and instruction in Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. An 8th grade boy remarked, “In Parks as Classrooms everything you do is
rewarding, basically because it’s all for a greater purpose. Before I came to this school, I
knew nothing about the outdoors, so I really wasn’t able to enjoy it like I wanted to. But
thanks to Parks as Classrooms I don’t feel threatened by the outdoors and I am able to
enjoy [it]… Now I can have fun, be safe, and learn about the Smoky Mountains, all at the
same time!”
A Kindergarten child who enters Pi Beta Phi Elementary School, in Gatlinburg,
TN, and who stays to complete the eighth grade will have experienced at least 37 units of
instruction that include on-site educational activities within the park. Those units will have
included components from all subject areas of the curriculum. Additionally, that student
will have participated in large-group service learning projects. If he or she is a typical Pi
Phi kid, there will have been other park-related learning experiences conducted
individually or with a small group of peers. More than likely, these small-group and
individual experiences will have been linked to science-fair or social studies projects or
stewardship opportunities.
That child will be forever shaped by those experiences. Her attitudes toward the
natural world and our shared culture will have been influenced by her time in the park. Her
behaviors will be equally influenced. The recreational choices she makes throughout her
lifetime will reflect things she remembers from those park experiences. The decisions she
will face with respect to the physical environment will be informed by her understanding
of the interconnectedness of life as seen first-hand in the streams, fields, and forests of the
park. When she considers the important choices in her life, she will be able to reflect upon
her place in the world, recalling her contributions to the good of the park made while she
was growing up.
Her classmate will be equally affected by his experiences. He will weigh his
college and career choices in light of the opportunities he knows exists with respect to this
and other national parks. He will eventually take a leadership role in his community and
the experiences of growing up in a school-culture of shared responsibility and stewardship
will guide him as he shapes the world around him. The knowledge he gained about the
issues faced by the park during his childhood will enable him to collect and analyze data
and make informed decisions. As he raises his own children, he will pass on the values that
he adopted from the important role models in his upbringing.
In these ways, the happy ending of the Pi Phi Project Partnership will not end. If
the project continues to succeed, the outcome will live long past the scope of the project
itself. That is one of the great joys of being involved in the education of children.
Who are we? What are we? A brief description of the partnership…
“This program [the Pi Beta Phi Project] is truly the most successful educational
effort to incorporate the full range of National Park values in an integrated
program that builds from year to year. It is THE model that all should follow!
The true measure of success is the knowledge that your kids can share with others
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 3 of 3
NPS Partnership case study
of all ages.” Mike Tollefson, current superintendent of Yosemite National Park,
previously superintendent of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
We are an elementary school, Pi Beta Phi, with about 450 students in grades K-8.
The school is public, though our name evokes the image of a private school. We serve the
city of Gatlinburg in Sevier County, Tennessee. Our students come from old families
whose histories pre-date the park as well as from families whose immigration is as recent
as last week. The children of motel owners come to us as do the children of the maids and
maintenance workers. About a quarter of our families qualify for free and reduced meals in
our cafeteria. In terms of socio-economic status and ethnic affiliation, our students are
indistinguishable from the other schools in the district.
We are a crown jewel park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The most
heavily utilized park in the system, (perhaps the world?) with over 10 million visitors a
year. The park is large in geographical scale, too. Over 800 square miles across two states,
transected by a federal highway. Great Smoky Mountains has no entry fee and hosts car-
tourists, hikers, campers, scientists, swimmers, and more species of flora and fauna than
perhaps anywhere east of the Mississippi. The park is an international biosphere reserve. It
is also consistently at the top of the list of threatened parks. Air pollution and exotic pests
are changing the landscape dramatically and rapidly.
The metaphoric landscape of Gatlinburg and Sevier County is changing even more
rapidly than the park. Development to promote tourism has mushroomed in this generation
and continues to alter the economics and environment of the area with a speed that is
sometimes breath taking. The results have been mixed, as have been the relative blessings
associated with a tourism-based economy.
The partnership between the school and the park has experienced an identity crisis.
We tagged it as Parks As Classrooms (PaC) as the national program label was being
adopted. Since that point in time, the Parks as Classrooms label has been used as part of
our title in various ways, but the three-word phrase itself no longer specifies the Project as
distinct from other Parks as Classrooms initiatives. Nonetheless, that label is used within
the school and by our students to refer not only the project but also its associated curricular
materials and activities. We have not actually settled consistently on a new name for the
partnership, but the Pi Beta Phi Project, often shortened to the Pi Phi Project, seems to be
current.
The Project is a collection of 37 units of instruction that include on-site experiences
in the national park. It spans kindergarten through 8th grade with a minimum of three park
experiences a year (grades 7 & 8) and a maximum of six per year in most grades. These
units are interdisciplinary and have pre-site and post-site components. Older students
participate in service learning as well as more traditional units of instruction. Rangers lead
some of the 37 units, but most are teacher-directed. All units address issues of importance
to the park as well as elements of the required state curriculum frameworks. All units of
instruction include pre-test and post-test assessment instruments.
The Project takes Pi Phi students to all sections of the park that are accessible in a
one-day bus trip. Since the school is located within sight of the park, that means that most
of the park sites on the Tennessee side are included within the scope of the nine years of
lessons. Older students, more capable of enduring longer bus rides, even venture into the
North Carolina side occasionally.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 4 of 4
NPS Partnership case study
It is important to distinguish some of the things this partnership is not. It is not an
environmental education program. While science and social studies topics are frequently
addressed in the Project, it is genuinely interdisciplinary and does not emphasize one
content area over others. It is not residential. There is one overnight experience in the
Project that serves as a culminating activity for 8th graders. It is not an specifically an
outreach Project; while project replication is one of the original and sustaining goals of the
Project, it exists for its own right to serve intensively the needs of one school. Our park
partners use Project materials and experiences to better serve other schools and young
visitors in an exciting corollary to the partnership, Smoky Mountain Classrooms. Through
this vehicle they serve over 10,000 students a year, but that is only a tangent of the Project.
The Project is a steering committee of education rangers, the school principal, and
the school technology coordinator. The committee oversees the sole employee of the
project, the Project Coordinator. This position was created to ensure that matters of critical
importance to the functioning of the project would be addressed in a timely and effective
manner. Before this position was created, the overwhelming majority of investments in the
Project were in-kind contributions of time and energy from park rangers and
schoolteachers. Some moneys were expended for release time in the creative phase, but the
actual dollar costs were kept low as the education resource division and the school used
existing resources to meet the needs of the Project.
The Coordinator position makes all the difference. It is funded jointly by
contributions to the park from non-profit organizations such the Friends of the Great
Smoky Mountains and the Park Association (formally the Natural History Association) and
by annual appropriations from the special city authority, the Gatlinburg School Board.
Gatlinburg is an incorporated city and does not retain administrative oversight of the
school; Sevier Co. Schools is the local education authority. The city does distribute liquor-
by-the-drink tax receipts to Pi Phi and its sister institution Gatlinburg-Pittman High
School.
The Project is all about taking children out of the classroom and into the world,
specifically, that part of the world that is defined as Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. It is about applying the things that the kids learn in this real-world setting, giving
them authentic tasks to do and problems to address with the skills they are building in the
classroom. It is a system of experiences that relates skills and concepts to their lives in
ways that reach them emotionally, physically, aesthetically, as well as cognitively. It is a
program that reveals the problems that face parks with a special emphasis on how
individuals and groups can work to overcome those problems. It is a program that teaches
students about giving back and the joys of earning respect by doing so.
It may not be revolutionary in that nothing about the Project’s implementation is
radically non-traditional, yet it is a departure from the status quo. In its most essential
definition, it is a gift that the partners give to the next generation; the gift of knowledge, of
self-respect, of responsibilities individual and shared.
In the Beginning…
It was first an idea shared between two leaders. In 1990, Glenn Bogart was the
newly appointed principal of Pi Beta Phi Elementary School. Gene Cox served as the
division chief of Interpretation and Visitor Services (now Resource Education) for Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. The missions of these two institutions overlapped in the
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 5 of 5
NPS Partnership case study
shared responsibility to educate the public. While the park served an almost infinitely
larger population, one important subset of those 8 million visitors was school-aged
children.
These two individuals met to discuss the possibility of working together to ensure
that Pi Phi students would take advantage of the tremendous set of resources literally in
their own backyard. Bogart was concerned that many of his students appeared to be
woefully uninformed about the park. As a life-long resident in Sevier County, he
recognized that many of his students would eventually take up roles in business and civics
in the local area. The decisions they would face in their professional and personal lives
would have direct bearing on the park as well as the communities in which they will live.
He felt that the school’s unique situation required that it undertake the responsibility of
preparing students for those eventual leadership roles.
Chief Cox not only agreed with that point of view but understood that it reinforced
that part of the park’s mission that is directed to school-aged visitors. Cox realized that Pi
Beta Phi represented a resource of skilled professionals specifically trained in the
pedagogy of early childhood and adolescent education. He saw an opportunity to expand
the programming offered through the park to all of its young visitors while at the same
time supporting and encouraging the specific enrichment of the children in the park’s
neighboring community.
The enthusiastic leadership and direction of these two provided a solid foundation
for the beginnings of the partnership. In its initial stage, a committee of seven individuals
(four school staff and three park staff) was gathered to begin the complex process of
turning an ambitious idea into a program. Communications between individuals in the two
institutions had to be facilitated. Persons in each setting had to become familiar with the
professional responsibilities of the others, particularly with respect to the missions of each.
Institutional values had to be recognized and aligned in order to agree upon common goals.
This required many hours of open and frank discussion.
It was soon discovered that rangers and teachers often used the same English
words in disturbingly different ways. The institutional jargon of each organization required
clarification. Eventually, we created a “cheat sheet,” a couple of pages long, that clarified
terminology and helped us communicate more specifically and completely.
There were some serious gaps in our mutual understanding of one another’s worlds.
As the project grew to include rangers and teachers not part of the steering committee, it
became obvious that there was a disturbing lack of understanding of the roles and
functions of both rangers and teachers.
Some of the Pi Phi teachers (perhaps most of them) did not have more than a
cursory knowledge of the park. They did not understand the wide variety of responsibilities
that rangers had to address. Many teachers did not know that law enforcement and
interpretation were not separate functions, for instance.
Conversely, some of the rangers seemed amazed at how complex the planning and
delivery of a state-mandated curriculum could be. The specifics of pedagogy were lost on
them at first. The teachers helped them develop an understanding of the Tennessee
Instructional Model (based on Madeline Hunters’ educational taxonomy) which is the
instructional format that informs the teacher evaluation in the state.
Perhaps the most critical gap was with respect to the core values that each
institution holds. The team-building that occurred as park and school staff spent days
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 6 of 6
NPS Partnership case study
together creating curricula often took the form of sharing these values, some of which are
explicit, i.e., the Organic Act, and others implicit. As teachers became more aware of the
critical issue facing the park, the values that make those issues critical became more
apparent. The park staff had to develop a better understanding of the pressures that affect
teachers, particularly those associated with preparing students to do well on standardized
assessments.
In general, neither group of professionals had any real in-depth knowledge of the
roles and functions required of their counterparts. The real world day-to-day duties of each
were shared as we got to know one another better. As the level of understanding deepened,
so did the collegiality and respect. There is no real shortcut to getting to know each other.
The challenge is how to structure experiences that facilitate sharing.
Without strong and persistent (and sometimes insistent) leadership from the school
principal and the chief of interpretation, the difficulties facing the team would have been
potentially overwhelming. The inertia of business as usual is difficult to overcome. The
direct involvement of these two leaders in every facet of the initial stage of development
was a key to the eventual success of the partnership.
The primary change in structure within the two organizations was the addition of
new responsibilities for the seven key persons on the steering committee. Each of these
individuals took on tasks that were essential to the process and had to be accomplished in
addition to their normal job duties. The availability of such persons, equipped with
imagination, expert knowledge in their fields, and dedication, was as essential as the
leadership that created the environment for change.
The committee set about to create a rationale, mission statement, and goals for the
partnership. The adoption of the mission statement, goals, and rationale was vital to ensure
that the partnership served the educational needs of the students while directly addressing
the missions of both the NPS and the school. The committee took great pains and care to
craft the document that proved to be an effective guide in the planning and implementation
that followed. While the subsequent years have seen some slight review and change in
these guiding principles, the essence has been retained and has served the program well.
The original is reprinted here.
PROGRAM RATIONALE
As we examine the parameters of the educational process, our instruction often
becomes proscribed by the four-walled classroom and the prescriptions of the basal texts.
The processes of learning should not be so tidily encapsulated into a fragmented series of
content lessons taught daily for finite periods of time. Just as the world around us is a
tapestry of interdependent systems, so should the fabric of learning be formed of
interconnected elements whose most eloquent examples are found in the natural world. If
we wish to make learning more effective, an integrated presentation of concepts and
content is more appropriate to the way that students experience the world around them.
Pi Beta Phi Elementary School in Gatlinburg is located in the primary gateway city
to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. However, as is often the case, some student,
staff, and parents have only a superficial knowledge of this awesome natural resource. An
enhanced understanding of the cultural and natural values of the national park will provide
immediate and long-term benefits to the local area through a more visible stewardship
responsibility toward the national park as well as a more comprehensive realization of the
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 7 of 7
NPS Partnership case study
important factors of environmental conservation and protection. In the long term, Parks As
Classrooms will provide students with experiences that will help to formulate a more
sophisticated awareness of the fragile nature of the ecological interactions that provide the
basis for personal lifestyle decisions.
The Parks As Classrooms initiative provides for students, grades K-8, staff, and
parents, the opportunities for a series of exploratory, activity-based learning experiences
that integrate the concepts and content of the traditional K-8 curricula. These learning
experiences are planned to use the Great Smoky Mountains National Park as a primary
resource. Parks As Classrooms meets the curricular requirements of Sevier County and the
state of Tennessee.
MISSION STATEMENT
To develop a holistic instructional model for Pi Beta Phi Elementary School that will
provide interdisciplinary learning experiences for all students, K-8, integrating the natural
and cultural values/resources of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park while meeting
the educational standards of Sevier County and the state of Tennessee.
PROJECT GOALS
These goals represent statements of intended outcomes for participants in the Parks As
Classrooms project and were developed jointly by the school staff and personnel from the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
1) To increase the awareness of students and teachers in the surrounding community of the
significant opportunities provided by the Great Smoky Mountains National Park for
education, recreation, and personal enrichment.
2) To inform students of the park's critical resource management issues so that they
develop an understanding of the complex relationships that exist between people and
natural systems and better understand National Park Service ethics of resource
conservation and stewardship.
3) To help students become aware of the biological diversity within the park and the
organization of natural communities and their ecological interactions.
4) To instill in students an appreciation for the unique cultural heritage of the Southern
Appalachians.
5) To promote and understanding of the relationships between the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park and global environmental and social issues so that students can actively
demonstrate their concern for park resources and the environment beyond.
6) To provide a variety of rewarding interdisciplinary experiences that take students from
the classroom setting to the natural setting for supplementary study challenges.
7) To establish a working relationship between park staff and teachers for the exchange of
ideas and information that will increase the comfort level of both groups in providing
instruction in non-traditional settings.
8) To increase the awareness of students about the mission of the National Park Service
and to provide career investigation opportunities for students as appropriate.
9) To increase or maintain student achievement in all content areas as measured by annual
standardized and criterion referenced assessments.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 8 of 8
NPS Partnership case study
Armed with a clear set of guiding principles, the committee turned its attentions to
creating a strategy for change. The partners began with an understanding that each
organization was committed to certain responsibilities that would not change, i.e., the park
was still charged with responding to the needs of all its visitors and the school still had to
teach the curriculum mandated by the state and the local authority. Those limitations were
accepted, but beyond that, the steering committee was encouraged to dream.
No small amount of the early discussions had to do with learning theory,
specifically the advantages to students in multi-modal approaches to learning. The idea of
taking learning out of the classroom and into the park was the goal and the committee took
pains to identify how such a change in environment could be most fully exploited.
In this process, the team decided that interdisciplinary units were the most
appropriate technique to apply. Park sites were examined for opportunities to showcase
natural and cultural resources and those resources were tied to as many different
curriculum strands as possible. In each unit initially created, there were components from
all the traditional subject areas.
To facilitate the change from more traditional, textbook-defined teaching, six
themes were chosen around which all instruction would be organized. The themes were
Order, Change, Culture, Interactions, Patterns, and Structure. These “big ideas” were
chosen because they provided a flexible framework for integration of the Tennessee State
Curriculum objectives and the critical issues facing the park. Units were conceptualized as
consisting of three primary subdivisions, Pre-site lessons, On-site lessons, and Post-site
lessons. Park personnel were required to learn of the massive numbers of objectives in the
many different subjects that teachers in elementary and middle grades had to teach. The
involvement of NPS staff in re-organizing those objectives and relating park experiences to
the learning to take place in advance of and following visits was an eye-opening
experience for most.
Evaluation of learning was another commitment adopted in the early stages. Units
were to include pre-testing and post-testing to facilitate assessment. These tests were
designed to mimic the techniques used in the annual statewide assessment program. In
addition to these tests, units were designed with a variety of authentic assessment
opportunities for students. Projects, models, essays, artistic expressions, and multi-media
presentations were built into the experiences.
The teams that undertook this challenge consisted of two or three teachers and one
or two NPS staffers. In the process of examining Park sites, the teachers learned a great
deal from their NPS colleagues. Even teachers who had lived in the area all their lives
found that they had much to discover. The NPS staff members had the opportunity to
discover how state and local curriculum decisions shape education. They gained a great
deal of knowledge of pedagogy and assessment of learning. In particular, their increased
understanding of state curricula and how it is impacted by the state assessment program
(Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program or TCAP) was critically important to
structuring future responses to the needs of schools and school-age visitors.
The first creative phase began with the selection of three grade-level teams (first,
fourth, and sixth grades were chosen) to serve as pilots in the development of units of
instruction. Each team was composed of the two teachers from that grade, a steering
committee member from the school and one from the Park. Throughout the summer of
1992 these persons prepared 3 units of instruction to field-test in the following school year.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 9 of 9
NPS Partnership case study
This work was supported with “seed” money committed by Chief Cox from the Parks as
Classrooms grant.
These units were field tested in the school year 1992-93. The evaluation of the units
revealed strengths and weaknesses in the planning and implementation of thematic units
and revisions were made to accommodate these findings before involving the rest of the
school staff. In the summer of 1993, the original teams continued to create new units for
their grade levels while at the same time, splitting up to form the nuclei of new grade-level
teams charged with beginning the process of curriculum development school-wide.
The school year 1993-94 was busy with curriculum development and
implementation of units. Students, parents and teachers were researching, teaching, and
learning in the park throughout the year in an exciting bloom of creativity. By the end of
that year, all grades had been in the park at least once as they investigated the themes. It
was at this point that the fruits of the Project began to be shared with other schools. The
rangers selected units of instruction from the Project and adapted them for use in the
Smoky Mountain Classrooms program that makes pre-site and post-site materials and on-
site experiences available to other schools.
This level of activity on the parts of many dozens of adults and hundreds of
children could not go unnoticed. Cox and Bogart were asked to present the program to the
National Association for Interpretation at the annual meeting held in November, 1993, in
Washington D.C. Even in its formative stages the program impressed those who saw it in
action. A year later a much more fully developed (though still incomplete) program was
subject to examination by the director of the National Park Service, Roger Kennedy, who
pronounced it "the finest program of its kind in the nation." The occasion of his praise was
a ceremony at which he presided to pay a special thank-you to the many parents whose
hours of work in becoming teachers and interpreters as well as drivers and chaperones had
helped to make the project a success.
Early success stories…
There were many things that we got right, even from the beginning. We were smart
to take all the time we needed in planning, even in the face of some impatience to produce
something tangible. In taking our time, we were able to adequately bridge the gaps
between the two partners, learning one another’s jargon and developing a working
understanding of the cultures of the two organizations. Those steps were not part of our
initial plans, but were critical in developing the teamwork that has blessed the project with
success.
In retrospect, we could have been more self-conscious about the team-building
aspect of the partnership. Learning to work together could have been a structured goal
rather than emerging from our initial time together. Had we created a system for building
relationships, we might have produced more visible progress somewhat earlier, but then
again, maybe not. Melding individuals from two very different organizations into a
focused team was not easy, but because we were striving to articulate a very tempting
vision, each person involved appeared to be highly motivated.
The fact that each of us envisioned something slightly (or even dramatically)
different turned out to be a strength, in the end. While it took many hours of very frank and
sometimes frustrating conversations to iron out the differences in our conceptualizations of
the undertaking, these differing points of view broadened the scope of the discussion. If
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 10 of 10
NPS Partnership case study
those early negotiations had been too narrowly focused, the creative spark that engenders
motivation could have been diminished. Highly creative people need to be involved in a
process like this, and anything that discourages such individuals too early needs to be
avoided. Our initial reach exceeded our eventual grasp, but striving for an ambitious goal
kept the creative team members energized.
Specifically, the original plan was to completely reorganize the school’s curriculum
around the thematic structure chosen for the project. The part that deserves emphasis is
completely. The original vision was a total reorganization of instruction in all subjects in
all grades, to be cast as interdisciplinary, holistic teaching and learning. Not a bad goal, but
one that was doomed by the circumstances imposed on teachers and schools by an
educational system that provides few (if any) alternative resources or models of such total
abandonment of subject-matter distinctions and textbook modulated instruction.
The end results have proven to be most satisfactory, but fall short of the
revolutionary ideals of some of the original planners. Setting lofty goals had the effect of
filtering staff members. There were those whose creative juices were stimulated by a
‘blank slate’ approach. There were more who were suspicious and not looking forward to
the work involved in producing change. There were a few who were openly disdainful of
the project and obviously waiting for it to fail, if not working for it to fail. The steering
committee recognized that strategies had to be developed for overcoming this potential
obstacle.
One strategy was to ease into the project through selective pilot groups. We chose
to limit the early stages to those staff members who were perceived to be the most open to
innovation. Another criterion for the pilot teams was to address different developmental
levels of education. Therefore, a team was pulled from first grade, fourth grade, and from
sixth grade. The composition of these teams was critically important, as the wider
acceptance of the project would depend significantly on the credibility of the work done
over the course of the pilot year.
The steering committee exerted influence over these groups through direct
participation in their planning as well as by providing more global oversight. One steering
committee member was included on each grade-level team in the first year as each team
created three units for field-testing. These individuals not only provided leadership and
input into the curriculum development, but when meeting as the steering committee, their
involvement insured coordination and communications between and across the creative
groups. This was an important check on the creative process that helped to keep the project
focused on the goals and mission that had been agreed upon. It was the first point at which
the over-reaching, revolutionary visions of some began to be tempered by the reality of
doing actual school and park business.
The careful selection of the pilot grade-level teams paid off in a number of ways.
The individuals involved were more than adequate to the tasks assigned them. They proved
to be enthusiastic change agents whose understanding of the day-to-day tasks confronted
by teachers and rangers brought realistic scope to the project without loosing the
innovative spirit that informed it. These individuals were seen by their peers as having
credibility in their professional lives and this respect was a key in the next step.
Using the successes of the pilot grade-level teams as models, all the school staff
was required to begin development of park-related units the following year. These new
grade-level teams included at least one individual from a pilot team. This team structure
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 11 of 11
NPS Partnership case study
provided a bridge between the experiences of the pilot groups, the steering committee, and
those staff members being brought on board. That strategy was an effective response to the
potential obstacles of resistance by staff members uncomfortable with change. While the
change process still produced discomfort in those individuals, the experiences of their
peers reduced their anxiety to an extent. Coupled with clearly articulated expectations from
the leadership of both the school and the park, resistance to change did not present an
insurmountable barrier.
The transition from development to refinement…
By the fourth year (1994-95), all grade levels had planned six thematic units and
were using these throughout the academic year to teach the traditional subject matter in
non-traditional ways. Students were taking part in three to six field trips into the park to
study the themes. As the project grew, it became clear that the burdens of management
had overwhelmed the teachers and interpreters whose primary job roles had not changed.
The extra attention required to arrange logistics for field trips and coordinate Park
resources was stealing time and attention from other duties. The need for a project
coordinator was emerging. The first attempt to address this need was to modify the
teaching assignment of one of the steering committee members at Pi Phi. Her teaching load
was altered as she began graduate work and her duties shifted to accommodate serving as a
part-time coordinator.
During the fifth year (1995-96) of the program, it was recognized that revisions
were necessary in many units. The flow of programming across grade levels was less than
satisfactory in that there were inappropriate duplications of certain topics and some Park
sites were being over utilized. The steering committee decided to undertake a
comprehensive program evaluation to help guide the revision process. The groundwork for
this effort was an important priority during that year.
In an instance of good timing, the National Park Service was in the process of
designing an evaluation model for Parks as Classrooms programs. The authors of this
model were available and willing to assist in this comprehensive examination of the Pi Phi
Project. In this way, the Project was able to serve as a testing ground for the evaluation
model.
With the assistance of the NPS evaluators, a visiting committee of educators and
NPS specialists was recruited and this group conducted a weeklong observation and study
of the program in the fall of 1996. The report of the visiting committee set the stage for the
next critical step in the growth of the partnership. The feedback received from the
committee was positive overall and provided the reinforcement needed to take the project
to a higher level of sophistication. This marked the point at which a commitment was made
to provide a full-time coordinator for the project. In the summer of 1997 a person was
hired whose only professional responsibilities were to the project.
From that point onward, the project has undergone significant refinement. Most of
the changes had to do with imposing a more global organization of student experiences,
addressing the weaknesses identified earlier. The teaching load for on-site instruction was
shifted away from NPS personnel to Pi Phi teachers in many of the units, freeing the Park
interpreters to serve students from other schools. The curriculum was re-written to ensure
uniformity across grade levels and to “tweak” units that were shown to be less than
effective.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 12 of 12
NPS Partnership case study
Prior to hiring a project coordinator, the partnership depended upon the
management team to supervise all elements of the project. This team consisted park
representatives Gene Cox, division chief of Visitor Services for Great Smoky Mountains
NP, Karen Ballentine, his deputy, and Steve McCoy, an interpretative ranger. These
individuals served on the management team as well as on specific curriculum development
teams in the initial phases of the project. The school representatives were Glenn Bogart,
principal, Bill Beard, counselor, Marie Peine, special education, and Shirley Eli, librarian.
They also served in a dual capacity in the first phase of curriculum development.
As the project matured, the management team composition shifted. Gene Cox
retired and the new division chief of Education Resource delegated the primary park role
on the team to Karen Ballentine. She was assisted by McCoy and other interpretative
rangers as individuals came on board. The park representatives to the team now consist of
Ballentine, Mike Mazlona, and Jennifer Pierce, all of whom serve in the Education
Resource division. The school representatives were depleted over the years by retirements
and transfers and now consists of Bogart and Beard.
The oversight of the day-to-day operation of the project by members of the
management team worked initially as the project was only beginning to develop. As units
of instruction were added and the project began to grow almost exponentially, the tasks
performed by the management team began to become over burdensome on professionals
already engaged in demanding job roles. It was in response to the increasing demands of
the project that the team decided to find the resources to fund a full-time position dedicated
to the needs of the project.
The management team’s responsibilities were narrowed to that of oversight. Since
the creation of the coordinator position, the team has been able to perform that oversight
through regular quarterly meetings and the occasional special called sessions that focus on
issues or opportunities that need to be addressed in a more timely fashion.
Serving two masters has been a personal challenge to the project coordinator,
though not as a result of any unresolved conflicts. The fly in this particular ointment is that
the coordinator does not seem to be a fully fledged member of either organization. By
locating the coordinator’s office space in the school building, the park staff does not have
day-to-day contact with the coordinator. As a result, she is often left out of staff meetings
in that setting. Nor does she wear a park service uniform, which is appropriate as she is not
formally a National Park Service employee. While located at the school the coordinator
does not serve in any specific instructional or supervisory capacity, thus separating her
from professionally from the rest of the certified staff. She does take part in faculty
meetings, but there are subtle reminders that she is not formally a teacher. This lack of
professional identification with either organization creates some issues that need to be
resolved in the future.
Money Matters…
Through the course of the Project, costs have been kept at a minimum. In the initial
planning stage, Park management was able to provide $20,000 to pay for the necessary
release time for the teachers and rangers who created the units in the first phase of the
project. This money came from a Parks as Classrooms grant from the National Park
Foundation. Principal Bogart utilized local funding opportunities through the school to
sustain the Project through the rest of the creative phase.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 13 of 13
NPS Partnership case study
The need for larger-scale annual investments accompanied the need for a Project
Coordinator. This position was designed to be jointly funded by the park and the school,
with the school’s legal supervision authority, Sevier County Schools, as the fiscal agent.
An annual budget for the Project that included salary and operating expenses was created
in 1997. Over the course of the past six years, over $100,000 has been expended in support
of the Project.
The school’s share of these funds has primarily come from the Gatlinburg School
Board, the city’s agent for distribution of the liquor-by-the-drink taxes. Financial support
for the Project has also come from the school’s parent organization (PTA), and from funds
generated by parking concessions earned while school in not in session. (The school is
situated in downtown Gatlinburg where parking during peak visitation periods is at a
premium.)
The park has primarily relied on two sources for its share of the funding. The Great
Smoky Mountains Association (previously the Great Smoky Mountains Natural History
Association) and the Friends of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park have been
generous in their support of the Project. A portion of an Exxon grant to the park in support
of educational initiatives has been earmarked for publishing some of the Project materials.
While many grant opportunities have been pursued through the course of the
Project, most of these have not been funded. A number of small grants have been awarded
to the Project. These include a Department of Agriculture Grant though the Tennessee
Non-point Pollution Source Program, an America the Beautiful Seed and Bulb Grant, a
cash award from the Tennessee Students Against Pollution, three mini-grants from the
Tennessee Environmental Education Association, and a teacher grant from a local
television outlet, WBIR-TV. Donations from parents, individuals, businesses, and
organizations have help defray costs of specific programs or for specific equipment
acquisition. Other non-profit organizations have supported the Project, such as the Sunrise
Garden Club, the Tennessee Historical Institute for Teachers, and the Tennessee Educators
Newsletter.
The largest investments in the Project have come through in-kind services provided
by staff members of the two partners. While some stipends for teachers have been provided
for summer work, most of the work done by rangers and teachers has been accomplished
without extra compensation. The efforts of many dozens of individuals over the years have
not been specifically calculated, but these have been significant. In fact, the Project would
not exist without these contributions.
Managing transitions, sustainability in an ever changing world…
”A park or system of parks can only be sustained when community members, visitors,
educators, school children and their parents, and governmental/business/nonprofit entities
decide there is something fundamental to the communities’ well-being derived from a close
associate with what parks represent. In the communities surrounding Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, the Pi Beta Phi Parks as Classrooms Project has provided an
opportunity for that symbiotic relationship to flourish. Now, I doubt that either the park or
the communities surrounding the park would want to exist separate from each other.” Karen
Wade, director Intermountain Region NPS, former superintendent of Great Smoky
Mountains National Park
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 14 of 14
NPS Partnership case study
Change and growth has been a hallmark of the program since its inception.
Personnel have changed in both organizations and the partnership still thrives. Of the
original “gang of seven” steering committee, three individuals remain. Retirements or
movement to other career opportunities have claimed the rest. Fortunately, the quality of
the project and the momentum it has generated ensure that those individuals who have
joined the leadership of the partnership share a level of deep commitment to its sustenance
and continued growth.
One important facet of the Project’s robustness in the face of change is its positive
image in the community. Within Gatlinburg, the Project is deeply appreciated, especially
by parents whose children have enjoyed the benefits of the collaboration. Those parents
who have volunteered their time to assist with the on-site lessons are especially supportive
of the program. In as much as Gatlinburg is a small city and its citizens are directly
involved in elements of city governance, this parental involvement translates into
continued support from the Gatlinburg School Board. Many of these parents are involved
in the other associations that support the Project financially, so the esteem in which the
Project is held ensures that it will receive due consideration as the needs of other
worthwhile initiatives compete for limited resources.
Other factors that contribute to the Project’s perceived value are the programs that
have spun off from it that have impacted other schools, such as Smoky Mountain
Classrooms.
The park partners took several of the on-site units of instruction developed through the Pi
Phi Project in the early 1990’s and modified them into a Smoky Mountain Classrooms
program.
These units are available for classes in grades K-8 whose teachers coordinate with Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Materials developed in the Project are given to these
classes in advance of their visits. When on-site, these students participate in instructional
activities directed by their teachers and park rangers. This program currently serves over
10,000 students from 73 school systems in a two state, 16 county area surrounding the
park.
These students participate in hands-on curriculum-based programs addressing the
natural and cultural resources of the park and critical issues that threaten it. As noted from
the number of students that participate annually, the schools have been extremely
enthusiastic about this program. We currently have to turn schools away because our
capacity limitations are met.
Both the Pi Phi Project and Smoky Mountain Classrooms has allowed the park to
branch into a Parks in the Classrooms (PiC) program which reaches out and serves
exclusively Title I (federal assistance) schools in the area who have difficulty coming to
the park because of funding. In this program a park ranger goes into the school and teaches
developed curriculum-based units. Over 500 students annually participate in this unique
offering.
The Pi Beta Phi Project has given these new programs credibility and has served as
the ‘seed’ for these educational offerings. As the Pi Phi Project rooted and developed in the
early 1990’s this seed has grown and branched out to other schools. The benefits to these
students and teachers are similar to those for Pi Phi and also promote stronger stewardship
between the park and the neighboring community. Hopefully these efforts will improve
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 15 of 15
NPS Partnership case study
environmental ethic practiced in these neighboring communities and will reduce illegal
activities that occur in the park.
The Project benefits from the work of the Coordinator in outreach. She participates
in as many state and regional associations and meetings as is practical. Her presentations,
often in conjunction with rangers, at such events as the annual meetings of the Tennessee
Environmental Education Association has spread the word about this rich set of
educational experiences available in the park. She has participated directly in school-
system staff development training in our local system as well as in various neighboring
systems. This outreach extends beyond the local region as well. The Project model has
been shared with the Georgia Environmental Education Association, with a curriculum
developer from DeCalb County Schools (Georgia), and with the director of a similar
project in Louisiana. Such efforts increase the credibility of the Project in the wider
educational community.
Another vital function that she performs contributes directly to the Project’s
credibility and viability. Much of her time is taken in curriculum review and revision. The
myth of curricula is that they are stable products. The idea of a curriculum as a written,
unchanging document is a common conception, yet this idea is wrong. Curricula constantly
change, responding to forces external to the learning community they serve. Sometimes
these changes are driven by the ever-expanding knowledge base; sometimes the changes
are politically motivated. Regardless of the engine of change, a curriculum that is static
quickly becomes less than relevant or useful. The project coordinator’s efforts to keep the
curriculum up-to-date have been totally successful. Without this time-consuming work, the
Project would not be able to continue its positive impacts on the students it serves.
To more fully illustrate this point, it should be noted that the State of Tennessee has
totally revised its curricular frameworks for grades K-8 twice in the lifetime of the Project.
The most recent revision is still being digested (with attendant discomforts to all involved)
yet through the timely and diligent efforts of the Project Coordinator, plans are already in
formation to adapt the Project to these new sequences of State objectives. Without such
attention, a mismatch between the Project’s learning experiences and the objectives tested
by the state would cause teachers to drift away from the Project, carried on the tides of the
annual state assessments. The investment of the coordinator’s time, energy, and expertise
avoids this situation.
The impact of statewide assessments upon teachers is significant. While the debate
on the appropriate role of standardized testing rages, the reality of high-stakes testing
continues to provide some of the most salient motivation currently affecting teachers
across the nation. This situation will exist for the foreseeable future and therefore deserves
some specific attention in this narrative.
The role of evaluation and assessment within the Project…
Pi Beta Phi Elementary School has a long history of going the extra mile in
assessing its students and the programs that affect them. The Project came into existence
during the early stages of the national preoccupation with the use of standardized testing
instruments to evaluate students, their teachers, and their schools. Tennessee took the lead
in this movement with the adoption of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program
(TCAP), which provided annual statewide testing of students in grades 3-8. With its Value-
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 16 of 16
NPS Partnership case study
Added components, the TCAP was one of the first systematic attempts to provide objective
performance feedback for both teachers and schools.
Pi Phi was more than ready for such a system. The school had already been testing
its students annually for decades, using local funds to purchase and administer the Stanford
Achievement Test for all grades, K-8. The replacement of that program by TCAP actually
represented a diminution of assessments within the school, as grades K-2 were not initially
included in the state’s program. The use of standardized test instruments was part of the
school’s culture.
In this context, the importance of collecting and analyzing student performance
data was not only recognized, but also afforded a very high priority. Evaluation was built
into the Project from its inception. The emphasis on evaluation took various forms;
assessment was designed to take place at the level of individual student, instructional units,
and the overall Project. An important facet in this effort was a commitment to include pre-
testing of students in every unit. Combined with various post-testing schemes, each unit is
subject to performance evaluation based upon the data generated in the pre-post
assessments. Individual student growth is also measurable from the data collected in these
assessments.
Even before the first units were planned, a scheme to assist in program evaluation
was adopted. One of the steering committee members from the school drew upon a
background in social science research to design survey instruments that collected data on
student attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors related to outdoor topics and Great Smoky
Mountains National Park in particular. These were used with a random sample of all
students to collect baseline data before any Parks as Classrooms activities were
constructed.
This effort provides for an opportunity to compare student populations who
received none of the benefits of the Project with those who have completed nine years of
programming. While the resources to do anything with this data have been unavailable
until recently, having archived this data is now paying dividends. As this is being written,
two doctoral candidates involved with local universities are conducting their dissertation
research on the Project. The years of collecting and archiving raw data is paying off.
Aside from data collection and archiving, plans were made to perform a
comprehensive program review during the fifth year of the Project. This evaluation effort
is referenced earlier in the narrative and is recalled here as part of the overall role of
assessment in the Project.
The best way to illustrate this role is to share the Project’s formal assessment plani
and its associated tables. In total, it is a comprehensive system for using student (and other)
data to ensure that the Project stays true to its goals and objectives. The plan serves the
needs of both partners in as much as it supports the school’s need to measure the growth of
its students while at the same time providing data to the park to assist in their continuing
need to evaluate the elements of their educational programming. The steps and strategies
outlined in the plan have been implemented or have been scheduled for implementation in
the next 18 to 24 months. Within that time frame, it is hoped that the goals of this
assessment plan will be reached. The realities of doing school and park business while
addressing these evaluation needs may limit our eventual realization of these ambitious
goals, but the Project has a history of setting very high expectations. Whether or not these
specific goals proved to be too ambitious remains to be seen.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 17 of 17
NPS Partnership case study
What can be reported at this point in time is the very good news about the
achievement levels of students who benefit from the Project. As is noted earlier, Pi Phi
students are indistinguishable in terms of ethnicity and socio-economic factors from the
larger population of students in Sevier County Schools. The same similarities exist with
the majority of school districts in Tennessee. These facts are a necessary context in which
to view the achievement test scores generated by Pi Phi students. These students score well
above national and state means and out-perform their peers in the system consistently. In
fact, Pi Phi scores indicate that the school is one of the top performing elementary schools
in the state.
At this time, statistical studies designed to apportion the relative impacts of the
Project experiences are being planned. Under the best of circumstances, it will be difficult
to determine objectively just how much of an impact the Project has on our students’
superior achievement. Even without any statistical treatment, though, one implication is
clear. Intensive outdoors educational experiences do not bring down achievement test
scores. Out students are out of their classrooms more than any similar group of students in
the region, but their test scores outstrip those of their more traditionally educated peers.
Even if we can never say with certainty how much these experiences help test scores, we
can stand assured that it does no harm to leave the four walls of the schools behind and
take learning into the woods.
The following table reports the average median percentiles of our students as
measured by the Terra Nova achievement test. Note that the lowest median percentile
earned by Pi Phi students is at the 60th percentile nationally. Based upon these scores, the
school has recently set improvement goals calling for a minimum median percentile
performance of the 70th percentile in all subjects.
Table 1: Academic Achievement at Pi Beta Phi Elementary School 1999-2002
3 Year Average of Median %iles - Pi Beta Phi
85.00
3rd grade
national percentiles
80.00
75.00 4th grade
70.00 5th grade
65.00 6th grade
60.00 7th grade
55.00
8th grade
50.00
Reading Lang. Math Science Soc. Std.
subject areas
Benefits of the Project to Great Smoky Mountains National Park…
"The partnership between Pi Beta Phi and Great Smoky Mountains has been
a win-win for both organizations. Students are receiving a quality educational
experience as evidenced by their exceptional test scores and we have hundreds of new
Park stewards who are the future leaders of our gateway communities. When I
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 18 of 18
NPS Partnership case study
observe the students of Pi Beta Phi displaying their knowledge of Park issues and
their stewardship responsibilities, it warms my heart and brings tears to my eyes
because I know that the Park will be in good hands for generations to come." Phil
Francis, acting superintendent of Great Smoky Mountains NP
It is clear that students at Pi Phi receive a quality education that is greatly enhanced
by their opportunities to study and learn in the Great Smokies. But what does the park get
in return for its investment? How can park educators justify their intensive involvement
with a single school when there are at least six school districts bordering the park on the
Tennessee side alone? These are valid questions and have been posed more than once in
the history of the Project.
The most obvious benefit to the park is their access to a high quality curriculum
that is specifically designed to take advantage of the natural and cultural resources within
the park. The units adapted for Smoky Mountain Classrooms have been proven to be
effective through the efforts of teachers and students involved in the Project. The work of
the Coordinator helps to keep these units current, especially in light of state curriculum
changes and their relationships to the annual achievement tests. As noted above, this
adjunct to the Project reaches thousands of students in local schools other than Pi Phi.
It is especially important in this age of educational accountability that the programs
are closely tied to the tested state curriculum. The pressures to prepare for the annual
exams motivate teachers to limit field trips to those that are specifically linked to the state
curriculum. Through the efforts of the Project Coordinator and the teachers at Pi Phi,
Smoky Mountains Classroom units retain this important linkage, resulting in programs that
are not only effective, but also justifiable to teachers and their supervisors.
Comments from teachers whose groups have participated in the Smoky Mountain
Classrooms illustrate how the quality of these units is typically perceived. “I was pleased
that the program wasn’t watered down. When expectations are kept high the students strive
to meet them – and that is what happened! I am recommending your school programs to
the supervisor of the Knox County gifted/magnet programs,” 5th grade Talented and Gifted
Teacher from Knox County. “The hands-on activities were at an appropriate level for my
students. The teamwork concept worked well to get all students involved. The activities
were diverse and the content was well covered,” 3rd grade teacher. Another 5th grade
teacher noted “The programs were age appropriate with timely topics meeting our
curriculum needs.”
The park benefits from the exposure of the Project through the efforts of the
coordinator as well. The presence of this highly trained curriculum specialist reinforces the
credibility of educational programming in the park. She has participated in a wide variety
of meetings and instructional opportunities in which she serves as an excellent educational
ambassador for the park. Her expertise and Project materials have been shared with
graduate students from half a dozen regional colleges. She has done presentations or shared
materials with the Tennessee Environmental Education Association (TEEA), Discover Life
In America (DLIA), The East Tennessee Historical Institute Teacher Training, the Army
Corp of Engineers, The Tennessee Geographical Alliance Geofest, the State Social Studies
Curriculum Director, and Stone’s River Battlefield. She has conducted teacher-training
programs for the Sevier County Schools, as well as half a dozen other local school
districts.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 19 of 19
NPS Partnership case study
It is important to note that her professional identity is directly connected to Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. She presents herself as a representative of the park
through the ties of the partnership. This relationship is explicitly referenced in her
presentations. Her professionalism and the quality of the Project are reflected in the awards
that she and the Project have received. These include the 1998 Tennessee K-12
Environmental Awareness Award presented by the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, the 2002 Tennessee Students Against Pollution Aware presented by the
TEEA, the 2002 Conservation Educator of the Year Award presented by the Tennessee
Conservation League, and the Golden Shovel Award presented by the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park Volunteer Division.
Another benefit to the park is in the preparation and training of its educational staff.
Pi Phi provides direct training to seasonal and permanent employees through school
visitations and direct staff development programming. Teachers and specialists have
provided training on issues such as effective discipline and the characteristics of learners at
various developmental stages to park staff from the school. Those rangers who were tasked
with helping develop the units of instruction learned a great deal about the demands upon
teachers and students, helping them to more appropriately target programming to these
audiences. These professional development experiences are a two-way street. The Park has
provided Pi Phi teachers with extensive opportunities to enhance their knowledge of the
Park and of teaching in an outdoor environment. This relationship not only reinforces the
professional and personal bonds between the staff members of the two organizations, but
gives NPS staff an opportunity to develop and test professional development experiences
for teachers in the region.
Being publicly associated with a demonstrably successful elementary school
elevates the status of Great Smokies within the educational community of the region. The
partners have jointly participated in meetings with a focus group of teachers from area
schools, with directors of schools from most of the neighboring school districts, and with
the State Commissioner of Education. These meetings have shared the results of the
Project in an effort to raise awareness of educational opportunities connected with the park
and to identify potential obstacles to greater utilization of the park by other schools.
Recognition of the educational initiatives in the park beyond the regional level has
been another positive result of the partnership. The National Park Advisory Board and the
NPS National Leadership Council both visited Great Smoky Mountains and spent part of
their visits focused upon the Project. The comments from members of those organizations
were overwhelmingly positive.
A less direct benefit accrues to the park as the citizens of Gatlinburg and Sevier
County become better informed about the park and the issues that confront it. Students at
Pi Phi demonstrate through their actions and their words that they have internalized some
the core values promoted by the National Park Service. They carry these values and the
messages associated with them home, as well. Parents report that they, too, have learned a
great deal about the park from their children. The many parents who have served as
volunteers with the Project are especially vocal in their praise of program and support both
the Project and the park in public meetings and private conversations.
The park is currently developing a model to test for the effects of repeated
messages over a span of years to assess the impacts upon stewardship behaviors and
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 20 of 20
NPS Partnership case study
attitudes. This unique assessment effort will provide further evidence of the effectiveness
of years of consistent educational experiences.
There are some very direct impacts upon the park by their student partners. The
participation of students in service learning projects has provided assistance in extirpating
exotic flora, maintaining segments of the trail system, and restoration of wetlands. In as
much as the service-learning component is an annual affair, there will be a continuing list
of direct volunteer efforts performed by Pi Phi students. The wonderful thing is that some
of the children take on stewardship projects outside of school.
As the National Park Service adapts its role in the 21st century, education will take
on greater importance. Great Smoky Mountains is well positioned through its partnership
to:
“establish the park as a distinct resource for the educational community,
help people understand the many landscapes, life forms, and stories of America,
increase connections between the National Park Service and educators,
increase the skills of NPS employees and the effectiveness of NPS programs,
help build a national ethic of resource stewardship, and
develop an informed citizenry committed to the stewardship of natural and
cultural resources.”
(Elements of the purpose of education in the National Park Service as
explicated in the Educational Initiative Symposium conducted by the NPS in
1997).
The staff of the Education Resource Division has seen their role with respect to
formal education change markedly over the course of the partnership. From having to write
the occasional lesson plans on their own time, to having a staff of six full-time education
employees, the role and function of this division has been shaped, in part, by the positive
interactions with their partner school. The rangers now teach thousands of other students in
the park as well as providing in-school programming to hundreds of underserved students
in schools too distant from the park to avail themselves of on-site experiences. Addition
educational services provided through the division include student research and learning
opportunities associated with the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory and through the recently
created Learning Center.
Looking to the future…
In the immediate future of the partnership, maintaining the quality and relevance of
the instructional units will continue to be a high priority. The process of curriculum will
continue to occupy a great deal of time and attention of the Coordinator. Expansion of the
technology components of each unit will be one specific feature of this curriculum process.
The culmination of the assessment plan and the comprehensive program evaluation
that will accompany it will be a very high priority. The contributions of the research
conducted by the two doctoral candidates are eagerly anticipated.
Complete replication of the Project continues to be an unmet goal. Outreach to
other schools and systems will continue. We do have new teacher-directed units that are
being published that we will share with others and we continue to look for schools and
teachers who would like to embrace parts of the project with the ideal being other schools
who would want as comprehensive of an undertaking. As the Project gains greater
visibility beyond the region, it is hoped that opportunities to share our experiences will
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 21 of 21
NPS Partnership case study
present themselves. We feel that we have developed a system that works well and we
would love to help others along a similar journey.
Perhaps the greatest short-term challenge facing the Project is one of connecting to
the new leadership in Great Smoky Mountains. The park is currently seeking both a new
superintendent and division chief for the Resource Education. The directions set by these
two top-tier leaders in the park will directly affect the Project. The Project has benefited in
the past as persons holding those positions have understood and supported the Project
whole-heartedly. Building equally supportive relationships with the new leadership will be
critically important to the future of the partnership.
Threats, obstacles, bumps in the road…
The Project has been blessed by great success thus far. Many individuals have
contributed to that success, but past success is no guarantee for the future. There are some
predictable obstacles that threaten the partnership.
The first is alluded to above. While there are no reasons to suspect that new
leadership in the park will be anything less than supportive, there are no compelling
reasons for that, other than the obvious value of the Project as outlined in the narrative. It is
entirely possible that new leadership could seek new directions for the Resource Education
division. The quality of the Project is clear, but that does not mean that other initiatives
that might compete for scarce park resources might not be equally deserving. In as much as
those resources are finite, the inevitable competition for them requires that for every
winner, there is a corresponding loser. That reality is a potential cloud on the horizon of
the Project.
The leadership structure of the school partner has been entirely stable over the
history of the Project. Glenn Bogart remains principal and the school system has enjoyed
the benefits of stability of its top leadership over the same time period. While there are no
indications of any changes in the near future, change will inevitably occur. Strong and
consistent leadership within the partnership has been an obvious hallmark. How a
transition in school leadership would affect it would be similar to the potential impacts of
changes in park management. The Project may be able to sustain itself with a major shift in
priorities on the part of one of the partners, but the reverse could be equally true.
The critical contributions of the Project Coordinator make that position pivotal to
the continued success of the program. The position has changed hands once. That
experience proved that the program is adaptable and robust, but changing Coordinators is
much less a threat than doing without. The funding for the position is not guaranteed and is
subject to annual review and consideration. That means that the position does not provide
any tenure or civil service protection to its occupant. The potential loss of funding through
whatever eventually might interrupt it could prove to be a significant threat to the
program’s sustainability.
Program replication presents unique problems. It is hard to know exactly what
others will utilize or may wish to focus upon. The park may not have the personnel needed
to expand to many other partners (beyond what is being accomplished with Smoky Mt.
Classrooms.) Questions about how to share are not easy to address. Do we share through
publishing or teacher training, a dedicated on-line presence, or combinations of these
initiatives? And will there be funding for such projects?
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 22 of 22
NPS Partnership case study
The identity issue is one that is potentially more than annoying. The lack of an
appropriately unique title for the Project limits it in subtle ways. The difficulty involved in
referring to the partnership extends beyond the awkwardness reflected in this manuscript.
Confusion is created when the Parks as Classroom label is used. That label has specific
meaning within the school, but a very different one beyond the limits of the partnership. As
the Project seeks to attain greater visibility, the lack of identity becomes a greater
limitation. It is entirely possible that opportunities could be missed simply because the
Project is confused with something else. In many ways, the Pi Phi Project is a unique
program. While it certainly exemplifies the best qualities of Parks as Classrooms, it is
more than that. Persons familiar with other Parks as Classrooms initiatives may gain an
incomplete perception of the Project if our labeling does not somehow better communicate
the complexity of the partnership.
Experience is the best teacher…
The Project is grounded in that idea. So, what have our experiences as educational
partners taught us that might be helpful to others?
Plan… There is no substitute for effective planning. Take all the time you need to
create a clearly articulated set of goals that work to meet the needs of all the partners.
Avoid the rush to produce tangible results if in doing so the planning process is
shortcut.
Lead… Leadership is the key. In particular, make certain that those whose approval is
required for the commitment of resources are not just supportive of the partnership, but
directly involved in the creative process, if possible.
Evaluate... Plan for evaluation and construct feedback loops. Programming cannot
respond to changes without formal and informal input. Adaptations will occur as
circumstances change, but those adaptations can become reactive instead of proactive
without a comprehensive assessment system designed into the program.
Understand change… Change processes are fraught with peril. Organizations have
different reactions and tolerance to change. Identify all the potential obstacles that
confront the partnership and develop strategies to overcome them. This requires a
thorough understanding of the organizational cultures that will be involved in the
partnership; especially how those organizations handle change. Institutional knowledge
resides in individuals, so try to identify which key figures in each organization should
be involved and get those persons on board.
Manage your time… The most finite of all resources, time pressures can erode a
partnership. As individuals see their responsibilities to a new partnership grow, they
seldom see a diminution of their previous duties. While productivity can be increased
through “working smarter, not harder,” there are obvious limits to such an undertaking.
When apportioning the new responsibilities that grow from an evolving partnership, be
sensitive to the demands on the time of those key individuals whose contributions will
make or break the program.
Manage your money… Money issues have the power to ruin relationships more
quickly and completely than just about any other factor. Before money is committed to
a partnership, hammer out a thorough understanding of all the financial issues likely to
confront the partners. Proactively discuss these issues and reach consensus before the
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 23 of 23
NPS Partnership case study
issues come up, if possible. Keep all financial matters transparent to avoid
misunderstandings.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 24 of 24
NPS Partnership case study
i
Assessment Plan for the Pi Beta Phi Project
Elements of an Assessment Plan:
targeted populations:
In order to accomplish the goals of the program, the following groups should be included in a
comprehensive assessment plan
• K-8 student participants in PaC
• National Park Service and Pi Beta Phi Elementary School Staff who participate in PaC
• Parents of Pi Phi students
• Community Stakeholders who support (or could potentially help support) PaC, i.e., Friends
of the Park, Gatlinburg City Board of Education, Sevier County Board of Education
• schools and other organizations who might choose to use PaC as a model for park/school
partnerships
• other environmental education professionals
data to be gathered:
1) impacts upon children
a) cognitive changes produced by participation in PaC
i) knowledge of PaC specific content
ii) generalized knowledge association with Tennessee Curriculum Frameworks
iii) impacts upon achievement test performance
b) affective and attitude changes produced by PaC experiences
c) behavioral changes associated with PaC experiences
2) impacts upon the community
a) student stewardship in the GRSM and local communities
b) parent activities in support of PaC
c) NPS staff support to PaC
d) Pi Beta Phi Elementary School staff support of PaC
3) impacts of the community upon PaC
a) financial and other support provided by the Friends Association
b) Gatlinburg Board of Education
c) Sevier County Board of Education
d) The Natural History Association
e) Grants sources
f) donations from community sources
data collection strategies:
For all of the data referenced above, unique collection strategies must be devised. (Tables with
more specific references and greater detail are found in the following sections.)
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 25 of 25
NPS Partnership case study
Table 1: Data to be collected and associated assessment strategies
data points assessment strategies
impacts upon children
cognitive changes produced by participation in pre- and post-tests for each unit;
PaC annual cumulative exams;
essays, multi-media projects, other authentic assessment
practices
knowledge of PaC specific content pre- and post-tests for each unit;
annual cumulative exams;
essays, multi-media projects, other authentic assessment
practices
generalized knowledge association with pre- and post-tests for each unit;
Tennessee Curriculum Frameworks annual cumulative exams;
essays, multi-media projects, other authentic assessment
practices
affective and attitude changes produced by PaC essays, multi-media projects, other authentic assessment
experiences practices
behavioral changes associated with PaC essays, multi-media projects, other authentic assessment
experiences practices; behavioral surveys
impacts upon the community
student stewardship in the GRSM and local summative statistics on student participation in stewardship
communities activities
parent activities in support of PaC statistics on parent participation
NPS staff support to PaC statistics on NPS participation w/ PaC
Pi Beta Phi Elementary School staff support of statistics on staff participation in PaC related projects and
PaC activities
impacts of the community upon PaC
financial and other support provided by the annual audit
Friends Association
Gatlinburg Board of Education annual audit
Sevier County Board of Education annual audit
The Natural History Association annual audit
Grants sources annual audit
donations from community sources annual audit
data management:
Effective assessment yields a great deal of information. To be useful, this data must be organized,
analyzed, stored in an easily retrievable fashion, and communicated to the persons who may benefit
from it. Techniques and strategies for each of these elements must be part of an overall assessment
plan.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 26 of 26
NPS Partnership case study
Data organization will necessitate the creation of files, both physical and electronic, to organize
and eventually retrieve data.
Data analysis can be accomplished through the use of statistical means as well as narratives based
upon the information collected.
Communicating these results requires written reports. Other communication techniques could
include web postings and multi-media presentations.
Archiving of the data collected as well as the analytical narratives and reports could be
accomplished through physical and electronic storage.
resources needed:
Effective evaluation requires a commitment of resources, especially time and expertise. Some of
these requirements may be meet by re-assignment of job functions being performed by persons
already associated with PaC. Other elements of a comprehensive evaluation will need the attention
of someone skilled in assessment techniques, data analysis, and data management.
Table 2: Assessment Map
major category specific topic person(s) responsible resources timeline
needed
assessment plan goals for assessment PaC steering committee March 21, 2001
assignment of PaC steering committee March 21, 2001
responsibilities
setting of timelines PaC steering committee March 21, 2001
data collection project impacts on
children
project impacts on the
community
community impacts upon
the project
data analysis statistical analysis
narrative analysis
report writing
data management organization of data
archiving of data
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 27 of 27
NPS Partnership case study
Table 3: Evaluation Plan - Impacts Upon Students
Program Goals Indicators Evaluation Questions Data Collection
Techniques
intellectual growth Students know and Do the students know more pre- and post-tests for each
understand the concepts about the topics identified with unit;
addressed in a given unit. the unit than they did before the annual cumulative exams;
PaC experiences? essays, multi-media
projects, other authentic
assessment practices
understanding the Students know and can Do the students know more pre- and post-tests for each
National Park Service explain the critical issues about GRSM critical issues than unit;
(NPS) and the Great facing the GRSM. They they did before? Do they annual cumulative exams;
Smoky Mountains can explain the mission of understand those issues? Do they essays, multi-media
National Park (GRSM) the NPS. understand the mission of the projects, other authentic
NPS? assessment practices
mastery of the content Students develop Are the students mastering the pre- and post-tests for each
objectives of the State of academically as they curriculum goals as set forth in unit;
Tennessee and those master the knowledge base the Tennessee Curriculum annual cumulative exams;
reflected in national and skills outlined in the Framework? essays, multi-media
standards (where Tennessee Curriculum projects, other authentic
available) Framework. assessment practices
appreciation and Students enjoy learning Do the students agree with the essays, multi-media
enjoyment of the GRSM and playing in the GRSM. values of the NPS as implied by projects, other authentic
They understand and its mission? Do they feel assessment practices
support the conservation protective of the GRSM? Do
and stewardship ethics they enjoy experiencing the park
implied in the NPS for learning and recreation?
mission.
development of a Students act in ways that Do the students take actions to essays, multi-media
stewardship ethic and conserve and protect the protect the environment? Do projects, other authentic
putting it into action natural environment. They they take advantage of assessment practices;
participate in outdoor recreational activities within the behavioral surveys
recreational activities GRSM? Do they utilize the
within the GRSM. resources of the GRSM to
support life-long learning?
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 28 of 28
NPS Partnership case study
Table 4: Evaluation Plan - Impacts Upon the Community
Program Goals Indicators Evaluation Questions Data Collection
Techniques
parental Parents are involved in PaC Do parents of Pi Beta Phi annual statistics gathered on
involvement activities and give support to the Elementary School students parent participation and
continuation and improvement of participate in PaC activities? financial support
the program. Do they contribute to the
program?
NPS partnership Park staff and other NPS personnel Do Park staff participate in the annual statistics on ranger-
with Pi Beta Phi participate in the planning and planning and oversight lead PaC units; person-
Elementary oversight of the program. These activities of the program? Are hours of NPS staff that
School persons provide programming and they involved in student focus upon PaC objectives;
lead activities for students. experiences in school and in the minutes of PaC oversight
park? meetings
Pi Beta Phi School personnel contribute to the Do teachers and staff at Pi Beta annual statistics on teacher
Elementary continuing development and Phi Elementary School and staff participation in
School partnership implementation of the PaC participate in directing the PaC planning and
with the NPS program. School staff assist NPS evolution of the PaC program? implementation; summaries
personnel in training for their Do they provide assistance to of teacher participation in
educational mission. the NPS staff in training that NPS training opportunities;
supports the educational minutes of PaC oversight
mission of the NPS? meetings; anecdotal records
of Pi Phi personnel's
participation in NPS
activities
student Students act in ways that conserve Do the students make summative statistics on
contributions to and protect the natural contributions to the protection student participation in
the GRSM and environment. of the environment of the stewardship activities
local community GRSM and the community?
Table 5: Evaluation Plan - Impacts of the Community upon Parks As
Classrooms
Program Indicators Evaluation Questions Data
Goals Collection
Techniques
PaC will become financial and other support provided by the Do organizations whose missions annual audit
a valued set of Friends of the Park Association support the GRSM value and
educational financial and other support provided by The contribute to PaC?
experiences and Natural History Association
be supported by financial and other support provided by Do the governing boards of Pi Beta
the community Gatlinburg Board of Education Phi Elementary School value and
financial and other support provided by support the PaC program?
Sevier County Board of Education
financial and other support provided by Do organizations outside the local
various grants area recognize the value or and
support the PaC program?
donations from community sources Do members of the local community
value and support the PaC program?
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 29 of 29
NPS Partnership case study
Appendix 1: Assessment as a Parks As Classroom Component
Pre-test/Post-test components:
One feature that was an original component of PaC units was assessments designed to
provide pre-instruction data and post-instruction data on student mastery of objectives.
Unfortunately, this aspect of the program has been gradually lost as most units now take place
without a formal pre-instruction assessment. In order to restore this important assessment tool, we
need to understand why it has been phased out, either formally or informally, from the curriculum.
Some of the obstacles to implementation of pre/post assessments have been:
• lack of understanding of how to construct valid pre/post tests
• pre-tests are not especially valued by the faculty
• there has been a perception that there is little flexibility in the units to respond to pre-test data
(in other words, the unit is going to be presented as is, regardless of student performance on a
pre-test)
• time constraints
• low priority of assessment in general in PaC
While there may be other factors, these provide a starting place for developing strategies to remedy
this present situation.
Strategy - Link the PaC assessments to Differentiated Learning staff development
This year (1999-2000), all instructional staff at Pi Beta Phi have been participating in staff
development activities designed to increase the awareness of how to individualize instruction.
Teachers have learned (or relearned) how to assess children's levels of ability in core subjects, how
to recognize different learning styles, how to determine students' interests, and what to do to
provide varied learning experiences that take these issues into account. A properly designed pre-
test can gather much of the information needed to appropriately differentiate lessons. PaC units can
be enriched and extended by including a wide range of challenge activities that could be utilized in
pre-site and post-site instruction in response to information gained from pre-instructional
assessments.
Actions -
1. design pre-instructional assessments that will collect not only data about students'
understanding of the topics and concepts to be covered, but will provide feedback to teachers
about the students' interests and preferred learning style
2. extend and enrich PaC units with challenge activities addressing a number of different learning
styles and interests to facilitate differentiated instruction
Strategy - Link PaC assessment to TCAP and TerraNova testing programs
Since all students in grades 3-8 are required to participate in the annual achievement-
testing program, it makes sense to use PaC assessments to help them practice test-taking skills. In
order to do this, PaC assessments should be closely linked to the TerraNova testing program. This
linkage can be accomplished in at least two ways. Where possible, objectives that are included in
the TerraNova can be part of the PaC assessment package. As often as appropriate, PaC testing can
mimic the TerraNova in style and format.
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 30 of 30
NPS Partnership case study
Actions -
1. correlate the objectives to be assessed through TCAP with those in PaC units and clearly
indicate the relationship
2. design PaC assessments to resemble the TerraNova in format and style
Strategy - Raise the priority of assessment within PaC
The management team of PaC can provide leadership in targeting assessment for more
attention. Units may be chosen to serve as model units for the full inclusion of a variety of
assessment techniques. These model units can be used as templates for changes in other units. A
PaC skills and objectives tracking system could be created to provide teachers with information
analogous to that provided through the Accelerated Reader program. A formalized reporting to
parents of progress in PaC objectives could be instituted.
Actions -
1. choose units to serve as models for assessment
2. plan and create assessment modules for those units
3. modify the units as necessary to maximize differentiated learning
4. field-test those model units with emphasis on the assessment modules
5. design a database to track students with respect to their participation in PaC and their mastery
of PaC related objectives
6. design a parent report to communicate the information collected above
Strategy - empower teachers to utilize pre-instructional assessment strategies
Building on the experiences of the teaching staff with Dr. Marsha Denton, the role of pre-
assessment and post-assessment should be reviewed with special emphasis on how it may be
applied to PaC. In particular, the use of comparison data (pre & post) in program evaluation should
be stressed. The unique changes in attitude, behaviors, knowledge, and feelings produced by PaC
participation should be illustrated and (where possible) measured in this kind of assessment. The
use of a few model units to demonstrate the utility of this kind of assessment program can be used
to springboard the staff toward applying these concepts in other instructional settings.
Actions -
1. ensure that assessment modules for model units include affective, behavioral, and attitudinal
measures as well as content and knowledge
2. design these modules to provide data to answer such questions as
2.a. How did your feelings about the critical issues represented in this unit change?
2.b. How will you act differently as a result of what you have learned?
2.c. What experiences did you have that reinforced your previous attitudes or knowledge?
2.d. What experiences did you have that changed you in some way?
3. choose teachers to field-test these model units and give them a special staff development
opportunity to ensure that they fully understand how to use pre-post assessment techniques,
especially as a tool for differentiated learning
4. let those teachers provide training and support to their peers to disseminate what they have
learned
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 31 of 31
NPS Partnership case study
Program evaluation component:
The PaC program enjoyed the benefits of a thorough program evaluation conducted by a
nationally recognized team of academics and park service professionals. The information gained
from this study was very helpful in guiding the program in its continuing development. Assessment
of students can provide the program with powerful data to extend the original program evaluation.
Additionally, such data can be most valuable in the next scheduled program review.
The park service needs data to assist it in compliance with the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA). Student assessments can contribute to these needs not only in the PaC
experience, but with Smoky Mountain Classrooms as well. In order for student assessments to be
used in these worthwhile endeavors, it is necessary that the assessments collect data that is
compatible with the requirements of GPRA.
Strategy - ensure that the assessment components of PaC units provide data that can be used
for program evaluation
In order to provide program evaluation information, student assessments need to be designed to
provide answers to questions about the program's efficacy. Program goals need to be addressed in
the assessments themselves. At least some of the data collected should be in forms that will assist
the park service in meeting the requirements of GPRA.
Actions -
1. the elements of student assessment that can be useful for program evaluation should be
identified
2. GPRA requirements should be identified and accommodated in the design of student
assessments
3. a tracking system that will collect and summarize data from student assessments in PaC should
be implemented
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 32 of 32
NPS Partnership case study
Appendix 2: Project Matrix: Parks As Classrooms Evaluation
Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Pi Beta Phi Elementary School
Questions to Drive Overall Issues Addressed Methodology Needed
Evaluation
1. Is the Parks As Classroom • Program components • Interviews & focus group
Project fulfilling its Mission • Program Implementation discussions
Statement and Goals? • Student outcomes • Participant surveys
• Audience reaction • Materials review
• Observations
2. Is PaC a valid model for • Program components • Interviews & focus group
instruction? • Program Implementation discussions
• Student outcomes • Participant surveys
• Teaching/learning strategies • Materials review
• State curriculum guide • Observations
• NPS critical issues • Student assessments &
products
3. Is Thematic organization of • Program components • Teacher surveys & interviews
instruction being carried out • Program Implementation • Student surveys, interviews,
effectively; are the six • Student outcomes assessments & products
themes appropriate? • Teaching/learning strategies • Materials review
• Inter-grade level organization • Observations
4. Are the needs of the • Program implementation • NPS interviews
National Park Service being • Compelling stories • Observations
met, i.e., addressing critical • NPS Mission • Materials review
issues and providing • Program evaluations
outreach? • Statistics
5. Is PaC cost effective? How • Program budget • Budget review
can it be sustained and • Funding sources • Interviews
replicated? • Review of granting agencies
6. What are the perceptions of • Audience reactions • Interviews & focus group
the program? discussions
• Participant surveys
• Observations
7. What are the strengths of the • Program components • Interviews & focus group
program? What areas • Program Implementation discussions
should be targeted for • Student outcomes • Participant surveys
improvement? • Teaching/learning strategies • Materials review
• Inter-grade level organization • Observations
• Thematic organization • Student assessments &
• Outreach products
• Teaching/learning strategies • Program evaluations
• NPS critical issues • Statistics
Draft – revised 1/13/2004 33 of 33