The Value of Service Learning

Service learning is defined as “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities”.

Future Habitat home owner with our students

As Geometry in Construction expands into more schools across the United States, there is a small growing subgroup of schools that are implementing service learning into the curriculum.   From the inception of Geometry in Construction, we have had a desire to see partnerships develop between high schools and non-profit organizations to enable service learning to take place. 

At Loveland High School, I knew this would be good for our students due to experiences I have had with students in giving of service to others.  However, I did not realize the body of research that backs this up.  Below is a summary of some of the research compiled by Phi Delta Kappan on K-12 School-Based Service-Learning.  Students who engaged in service learning…

·          Reported a higher sense of responsibility to their school than did comparison groups.

·          Were more likely to treat one another kindly, help one another, and care about doing their best.

·          Were more likely to increase their sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy.

·          Were less likely to be referred to the office for disciplinary measures.

·          Became more dependable, and felt more comfortable communicating with ethnically diverse groups.

·          Feel that they can “make a difference”.

·          Came to class on time more often, completed more classroom tasks, and took the initiative to ask questions more often.

·          Showed greater gains in measures of school engagement and in mathematics achievement than control groups.

·          Showed greater mutual respect to teachers.

·          Had increased attendance.

At Loveland High School, we have built 5 out of the 7 homes for non-profits.  Two homes were built for Angel House (aka Family Promise) for transitional housing for homeless families.  Three homes have been built for Habitat for Humanity.   With this year’s home, the Habitat family receiving the home has worked alongside our students daily.  The students are excited to be able to get to know the family as well as be able to build them a decent, affordable home.

If you have interest in moving towards service learning by helping a non-profit consider what your partnership would look like.  At Sturgis Brown High School, Sturgis, SD, the small class builds a 26 ft wide home that is moved in 1 piece down the street.  They build the home as far as they can get it and then the local Habitat finishes it.  In Vancouver, WA, two high schools, Evergreen and Mountain View, are building a 28’ X 40’ three bedroom home for their Habitat.  Their unique approach is that each school is building half (14’ x 40’) of the home on each of their respective campuses. 

If you have questions how to proceed, contact us with your questions.  

Key Practices of the Geometry in Construction Model

Often we are asked what are the key components of our program.  Many times, the inquirer is trying to figure out what parts of the program can they leave out and still get the desired results.  We have given much thought but have never been able to give the answer they are seeking.  Instead, we decided to just list our most important practices.  These practices are our compass...if a new situation/problem presents itself, we always return to this list to help make instructional and program decisions.  Although these practices are found in many the the education reports and findings that are being published today, we believed in them before they were published in Pathways to Prosperity, High Schools That Work, etc.  We believe these practices are nothing more than what good teachers have been doing for years....we just decided to combine them into one class.  So here is our key practices. ·      All Kids o   Cooperative Groups o   Team Building o   Peer Mentoring & Tutoring o   Scaffold Learning o   Under Represented Populations ·            Instructional Methods                                                            o   CTE Driven o   Math Contextualized o   Math is Not Watered Down o   Team Teaching o   Kid Done- Kid Friendly Apprenticeship Learning o   Active Learning o   Accountability ·            Cultural Practice o   21st Century Workplace skills o   Small Learning Community o   Parent Communication o   Culture of Kid Success o   Networking with the Community o   Collaboration Between Teachers ·            Service Learning o   Authentic Project o   Self Funded o   Engaging

ALL KIDS: All Abilities and All Career Paths in the Math Classroom

What do we mean when we say we are a class for ALL KIDS? This is a very popular question when we are making presentations. It is easy to say but hard to do. In the past, the discussion always centered on kids making a choice (or someone else making it for them) about whether they are non-college or college bound. Research is telling us to think about students being post-secondary ready….a much better term and concept. I believe there are fallacies in our past assumptions and I was one of those teachers that believed that the two groups of students could not coexist in the classroom. Career and college preparation are not mutually exclusive. It is not an “either or” choice. It is a “both and” choice. The solution is not to water down the math but to change how we teach. The reminder of this article is based on my experiences as I changed from a traditional math teacher to a contextualized math teacher.

For me to make a successful change, I had to examine each part of my instruction. I had to risk and do what research was telling me about instruction. I had to stop blaming previous teachers, counselors, parents, students, and the educational system for the failures in my classroom. I had to remember that I only control 2 things: what I teach and how I teach it. Simply, I had to reinvent myself and then to keep myself from returning back to what I was comfortable with (the status quo). Yes, it was a risk to change what I had done in the classroom, especially in this day and age of high stakes testing. So what did I learn from reinventing myself? Below are a few thoughts about what I experienced.

1. Teachers can no longer be the only dispenser of knowledge in the increasingly large classroom of today. We are one resource but not the only resource. Early on I knew I needed to make better use of cooperative groups. Other students can provide another level of support for students that struggle. Some of my students needed more one-on-one time to learn the material. Why not make better use of other students who could provide tutoring. Lots of good learning occurs as students verbalize their mathematics while explaining to their peers. As the teacher, I had to trust that students are very capable of teaching if an appropriate classroom structure is in place.

Often I hear math teachers tell me that their students work in groups. However, upon further probing, they put students together without training, and hope and pray they work. Many times this can lead to teacher frustration because the students are not doing what they are suppose to do. Then it is easy to revert back to rows and silence in the classroom. Before that happens, these questions need to be posed. Am I as the teacher providing too much support during homework time? Am I as the teacher rewarding good group behavior? Have I as a teacher demonstrated what good “help” looks like in the classroom? Do I answer too many of their questions? Do I stop groups for the entire class because of the actions of a few students?

2. Teachers need to look at their delivery system of instruction. Lecture is a very time efficient way to get the facts across….but is it the best? Learning style research is everywhere but it was not in my classroom. I had to change. This is why I now use activities at least 50% of the time to help students “do their mathematics” in Geometry in Construction. Students need to be active in their own learning. Do labs and activities take more time? Yes. Research shows that as few as 10% of high school students learn best by auditory learning yet 80% of the instruction in high school is lecture (University of Illinois). If students learn best by seeing and doing, then I had to change how I was teaching whether it was time efficient or not. Yes, such instruction takes more classroom time.

Many times teachers and administrators tell me that I do not understand their situation. The conversation goes something like “I must cover all of the objectives in order for the students to score well on the state test and I don’t have time for activities.” I too, had that question personally. I had to ask “is what I am doing currently with lectures working for all kids?”. My answer was a solid NO. It was not working for my students. I personally had to gamble with what research said, teach fewer topics but be more in depth. So, that is what I did. I did throw out some minor topics so I could spend more time on the major topics. I then implemented more activities, not more lecture.

3. Closely tied to learning styles is scaffold learning. Whenever possible, teachers need to introduce lessons from a very concrete approach and then move on to the abstract. This provides students various entry points into their new learning. For me, I had to back off of the theoretical introductions to new material. My students do not need the theory. I had to find ways to introduce material from an experiential approach. Not an easy thing to do but contextualization provides avenues for this to happen.

4. The terms “high achieving and low achieving” that I was using were wrong. Many of these labeled “low achieving” students have learning styles that I was not addressing. See #2 above. Many times these students need to know how the math is going to be used (contextualized mathematics). Students need to have direct experiences with their mathematics, giving them a “hook” to attach their new learning on. I found students (and adults) do not make the connections between book mathematics and application mathematics readily. My job as a teacher is to help students make those connections. In giving students a reason to know where the math is used, I can help struggling students. I have found that “struggling students in the classroom” can be the superstars in applying the math topics out on the job site.

5. Providing additional academic support for students who are behind is crucial to success. One of the ten tenets of the “High Schools that Work” model is for teachers/schools to provide structured extra help for struggling students. We are fortunate that we are able to provide additional help in the math classroom using former Geometry in Construction students. These peers can work alongside students that need extra help. In addition, we provide before/after school help as well as a study night (using the Advance Placement idea) before each unit test. Remember, this is in addition to having students work in groups.

6. I provide second chances. All of us make poor choices, have bad days, or just don’t get it at some point in our lives. Students are not exempt. I offer retest for students that did not get it the first time. I offer learning contracts to students that fail semester 1. Does this require extra work as a teacher? Yes. However, I want my students to believe I am on their side and that I want them to succeed as much as they do.

7. Parent communication is critical. Early in the year, I establish weekly emails to each parent, letting them know what is coming up next week. This is in addition to the access they have to grades (what most school districts supply). These emails focus on the positive. By establishing good communication early, it opens the door for me to contact them with concerns regarding their student later. This is a 15 minute per week commitment. I believe the return is greater than the time cost.

8. Creating a classroom culture where we are purposeful in being accepting of ALL students whether they are college bound or not. I want my students to feel valued. As I review my previous math teaching experience, I peppered my class discussions with statements like “you will need this for college”, “when you get to college”, “what college are you going to”, etc. In making those statements, I realized I was not very welcoming of students who were not planning on going to college. I did not intend to be one sided, but I was. Also, if I brought in a guest speaker, it was always a college educated person. Again I was guilty of only showing one side. So, when I started Geometry in Construction, I was very purposeful in talking about the need for post secondary training….not college. I made a point of defining post-secondary as any training after high school (military, apprenticeship, community college, 4 year college, etc). In addition, I scheduled about half our guest speakers to represent college bound careers and the other half representing non-college bound careers.

9. Rigorous mathematics has different meanings for different people. For some, it is simply more math problems or doing 8-10 more sections (topics) in a year. For others, it means doing “Problem Set C. In fact, many of the honor classes pride themselves on one of the above definitions. One of the more accepted meanings for rigor comes from the work of Bill Daggett’s Model Schools. Rigorous math is math that is applied across disciplines. Being able to apply the mathematics in new situations is considered high level “Quadrant D” thinking. ”. I knew I wanted my students to apply their mathematics and our state test reinforces the need. Geometry in Construction asks students to apply their mathematics throughout the process of building of a home. Food for thought: Isn’t this what we ask engineers to do?


Combining all of the thoughts above into one class is not easy and is not for every teacher. Do we have 100% passing? No. However, my classroom went from 20%-30% failure rates to less than 10%. My personal job satisfaction also increased because of the improvement. When my attitude improved, so do that of my students. I believe I am doing what is best for ALL KIDS. But, for me, it took reinventing myself as a teacher.

Constructing a Self Funded Program Takes More Than Dollars & Cents

By: Scott Burke; Originally published in Techniques Magazine, February 2012.

Whether you are an educator in Maine, California, or anywhere in between, it is more than likely safe to say that funding, or lack thereof, is a real dilemma in quality educational programming. The cost of teacher resources, engaging projects that inspire students, and spiraling technological upgrades exemplify competing needs in a constant battle for limited financial assets. Furthermore, in recent years, a lack of FTE monies has led to larger class sizes, fewer class offerings, and in some instances complete cuts to non-essential programs and electives. The battle for money is nothing new; however, how we choose to leverage this limited resource allows for an incredible opportunity for innovation, collaboration, and the awakening of a new era of entrepreneurial spirit.

As a follow-up to the October 2011 issue of Techniques, I contributed an article titled Alignment with the Common Core Standards: A 21st century how-to Model for Successful CTE programs. This article explained how I partnered with my mathematics teaching partner, Tom Moore, to create a program called Geometry in Construction at Loveland High School (LHS) in Loveland, Colorado. The article outlined three organizing principles central to the success of the program:

1) Community building
2) Contextualized math instruction and delivery
3) Appropriate, authentic, CTE driven capstone project

After seven years, we know our multi-faceted model works for not only our school but for many other schools around the country.

In October I mentioned strategic ways we have leveraged our limited funding to create a “self-funded” program. Creating such a program takes time, vision, dedication, and an ability to question and evaluate each portion of a program with the intent to continuously strive for ways to improve. We do this not because it is easy, but rather, because it is needed. In this article we offer proven techniques and show how creating a self-funded program is more than just dollars and cents.

Engaging the Community
Eight years ago, while attending a meeting, one of the long time committee members humorously voiced concerns about the practical implications of our construction programs. He went on to poke fun at each individual construction program at each high school for requiring students to make salad tongs, cutting boards, and mantle clocks. These requirements, he complained, had not changed since his own children attended high school a decade earlier. He asked us the following questions:
1) What employable skills will the kids gain by doing these same projects year after year?
2) Where can the students be employed after high school knowing how to make salad tongs, cutting boards, or mantle clocks?
As the teachers sat and listened, you could feel the tension building. I bet if you were a mind reader, you would have probably heard the teachers thinking:

• What does this guy know?
• I would like to see him do better with the equipment and funding I have.
• If he thinks he can do better, then maybe he should come and do my job.

I left the meeting feeling hurt and devalued. Later, I realized that this committee member had a really valuable point of view. Perhaps, the reason I felt hurt was because the committee member was really asking, “What service are you providing to our community?” He asked the very questions I myself needed to ask to move toward a brighter and more secure future for CTE. These same questions were some of the guiding reflections that eventually led to a new era of CTE at LHS with the start of Geometry in Construction. Fast forward to the present and now we have some tips about creative funding.

Tip #1: Community Engagement
Mutually beneficial partnerships: A central factor for generating funding involves engaging the community in meaningful ways. After the inaugural year of the program we began to collaborate with local non-profit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and Interfaith Hospitality Network. These mutually beneficial partnerships allow for each group to meet their respective goals. Additionally, through these partnerships, Geometry in Construction continues to network with new and different community members who are happy to support us. This support can come in a variety of forms including: positive public relations, where our partners talk about the benefits of Geometry in Construction with other community members; volunteer work with our students; and often times, through donations.

Conduit for Donations: In large part, community members want to give and support the children of their communities. However, they rarely get the opportunity to give back in creative ways. Furthermore, schools are really good about asking for money, but this is the one thing that most community members have in limited quantities. Instead of money, however, there have been many businesses willing and happy to donate to our cause. Geometry in Construction survives on a budget that relies on approximately 25% donations of which the vast majority comes in the form of materials, tools, and services.

Farming for new contributors? Host an Event: On an annual basis, approximately 200 students go through Geometry in Construction. These students and their families provide a new opportunity to gain support and future donations. One of the ways we do this is to host community/parent build days. The annual Barn Raising is one example where we erect all of the walls on the subfloor of the house. This event always takes place on a Saturday in the fall and is attended by 80-100 participants and their families. We coordinate the event to include music, food, and fun. On multiple occasions, local reporters have attended these events and given us free advertisement because Geometry in Construction becomes a feature on the local television broadcast and in newspapers. Often times, following these news blitzes, we receive an outpouring of support from the community asking for how they can help support Geometry in Construction. In sum, the first idea for creative funding stems from building relationships within the community, finding avenues to get the word out about your program, and creating opportunities for community members to donate.

Idea #2: Do More with Less
Doing more with less seems to be the mantra as of late. In order to create change, educators must begin to critically analyze each and every component of what we have traditionally done. To do this, we suggest using traditional funding streams, like Carl Perkins, and making time to do additional grant writing.

Through the development of Geometry in Construction, for example, we were compelled to find creative ways to incorporate and blend both the curriculums of math and construction. We walked in the other person’s shoes to learn the nuances of each discipline. This exploration allowed us to discover that Tom with his math degree and experience was able to apply for an applied vocational math credential through Perkins Funding. Once the state approved his credential, the school district regained a portion of Tom’s salary for every section of Geometry in Construction he taught. This is similar to how my construction credential brings a portion of my salary back to the district, and very similar to how a portion of other CTE teachers’ credentials bring salaries back to the school district. Although this structure may vary from state to state, it has proven to be a valuable source of funding resources for the Geometry in Construction program. In short, it would be financially smart for the math teacher of contextualized curriculum to get an applied vocational math credential.

Additionally, we write and collaborate on a number of grants. We initially applied for a Tech Prep grant to get the program started. Upon receiving the grant we placed a request to the district for a one-time gift of $30,000.00 to be used for the purchase of building materials. The district approved this request with the understanding that we were never allowed to ask for additional funding to keep the program alive. Since then, we have turned this initial investment into 6 houses and over 1,000 student participants. Furthermore, the public relations blitz that transpired allowed for the district to be painted in a very positive light in the community and build allies and more resources from which to pull.

Idea #3: Saving FTE
Full-Time Teacher Equivalency (FTE) is a valuable component in education that many teachers may feel they have no control or influence over. Through our model of contextualization, we have discovered that we actually do have some control over FTE. When you break it down, it is a relatively simple process.

In most high schools, including LHS, high failure rates in math classes are common and major problems. We have collaborated with some schools that have reported math failure rates as high as 50%. These high failure rates translate to high repeater rates. This has resulted in some school districts doing some of the following:

• Water down the math content so students pass enough classes to graduate
• Double kids up on math classes where electives are removed so students enroll in multiple periods of math
• Offer math credit for a number of different classes including physical education, art, and CTE

The issue with all three of these alleged solutions is that none enable students to continue on into higher levels of math. Unfortunately, this may handicap students for life and possible career options.

As we developed our model, one unique component is the team taught approach we utilize. This team approach, coupled with all of the previously mentioned characteristics of the program, creates a new level of student engagement where students are excited about what they are doing. When students are highly engaged and excited about class, we have found that they are more likely to work and study harder. The unexpected byproduct of this is a drastic decrease in the failure and repeater situation some schools are facing. When students do not repeat the same classes over and over again, this ultimately translates to a larger pool of FTE to be spread out through all academic disciplines as opposed to only core academic classes.

Conclusion
Creating a self-funded program takes so much more than just focusing on the financial aspects of dollars and cents. Engaging the community, doing more with less, and saving FTE are all components we utilize to create a free standing program that withstands the ups and downs of school funding. Although three tips have been outlined here, we hope this article encourages you to consider new and innovative ideas to fund your programs! For more information about other opportunities for funding, or if you would like to know more about the Geometry in Construction program, please visit our website at www.geometryinconstruction.org and feel free to contact us by email or phone.

Geometry in Construction in Syracuse, Indiana

In northwest Indiana you will find the town of Syracuse, home to Geometry in Construction Hoosier style. Wawasee High School is a 9 - 12 comprehensive school with approximately 960 students. Teachers, Jamie McAdams (construction) and Kem Zolman (math) launched 2 sections of Geometry in Construction this past fall. What follows is a question/answer session.

What is your authentic project? We are building a 12 X 36 one bedroom camping cabin on a trailer frame. We are going for the cabin look with an all wood interior, metal roof, laminate floor, lighting fixtures that use antlers, etc. We drew up the plans ourselves. What is unique is that we are having spray-in foam insulation, making the cabin more energy efficient. The cabinets are being built by Tyler, an independent study senior at our high school. He will be attending school next year in Vermont for cabinet and furniture making.

What do you plan to do with the cabin? The cabin has been pre-sold to a local campground. They are using the cabins as summer rentals and for living quarters for campground management. We charge 15% over the cost of the materials. The cost is estimated between $19,000 - $20,000. The campground owner wants one a year for the next 5 years.

Tell a little bit about your classes? We have a morning section and an afternoon section. Each class has about 18 students. Most of them are sophmores, however we do have a few freshman. About 20% are girls.

Tell about the benefits to you? It is nice to work with another adult and not be alone. Seeing the connections between Geometry and Construction is enjoyable. There is less grading for me as a construction teacher but I spend my time doing other things like ordering materials, etc.

What schedule are you on? We are on a trimester schedule which was the first adaptation that needed to be made. Most schools have the kids all year, we only have them the first and third 12 weeks. Last year we did not have a full Geometry in Construction class, but we built our first cabin. This year, it is so much easier now that we have a regular Geometry in Construction class.

What has been the toughest? Keeping everyone and everything organized. In addition, learning the other teacher’s subject matter.

What is the goal of the course? We wanted to give students a taste of construction. Hopefully some will continue into our Building Trades Program with Ed Waltz. Ed has been extremely helpful in getting us to the place we are at.

What do the students think? The kids enjoy getting out to build and seeing the geometry and construction ties. The estimate is that the students’ geometry grades are about 5% higher than the traditional classes on the final test at the end of the first trimester which is encouraging.

What else would you like to tell people? “It is a great program and the week long training is the best workshop that I have ever attended”.

Jamie welcomes you to visit Wawasee High School. You can call 574.457.9153 or email at jmcadams@wawasee.k12.in.us

Kidify Part 3: Holding Kids Accountable

In the final installment of Kidifying Your Class, we want to encourage Geometry in Construction teachers to continue to research ways to hold students accountable for tasks that you have assigned. There is no “magic bullet” for this and it is not for the faint of heart. Teachers openly confess that it is easier to let the student fail than to encourage him/her to work. Before you give up, here are 2 reminders.

From the geometry side of class, homework is still an important task. For some students, grades do not motivate and they will not do the homework just because of grades. These students do not feel the need to complete the homework, then they fall behind and score low on assessments. We made a decision during our first year of Geometry in Construction not to allow this attitude to continue without a fight. The decision was to build a “Penalty Box” for students not doing their geometry homework. During the geometry class, the construction teacher is responsible to check each student’s completion rate of the previous night’s homework. If that rate is below 70%, the construction teacher assigns the student to the penalty box during the construction portion of the class. In the penalty box, students must complete the past geometry assignment as well as the next one in order to get out of the box. Why the construction teacher? The math teacher is already the “bad teacher” just because of what they teach. This is the time when the construction teacher becomes the “bad guy”. Plus this also allows the students to see the math and construction teacher as a unified front. Note the penalty box is nothing but an area on the job site that is reserved for doing math homework. It is amazing how much the homework completion rate improves when students don’t get to go build but instead is held accountable for homework. Our typical homework completion rate is 90%+.

Accountability is no less important on the construction side of the class. Students need to know very clearly what is expected of them at the end of the period. For us, we use something called an “Employability Card”. Each group of students receive a small card with the task that they need to accomplish by the end of class. This task must be specific and doable. For example, “installing windows” is not specific enough. However, modifying to say “install the kitchen window” becomes doable and more importantly, measurable. The group of students at the end of the hour must report in to the construction or math teacher, show their progress (or lack thereof), and summarize how and who worked. Students do an initial grading of themselves and the system is set so that typically, students can not earn more than a “C”. However, the teacher can over ride the grade so that the students can receive a higher grade. Students must verbally justify their accomplishments by showing what they worked on during the period. Also, teachers can help insure that there is no “bullying” of students to get an undeserved grade. We have seen schools use this model without the teacher time at the end....it was a failure. Students need that face time with a teacher to learn what accountability is and to understand how to improve. Teachers must be comfortable with “grading” the end product of what the students actually accomplished. Note that many times math teachers do not like this role. They would prefer black and white “answers”. However, when done right, you can increase production as the year progresses.

Obviously, there are many ways to keep kids accountable including structuring Cooperative Groups correctly (see article Quick and Dirty Checklist for Cooperative Groups, March 2010), parental communication, developing strong student relationships, and other ways. What is important is that we as teachers use as many tools as possible to keep students engaged in their learning.

Roseville, California's Version of Geometry in Construction

You might notice something a little different if you visit the math department at Roseville High School this year. On any given day, you’re just as likely to find a student in a hardhat, swinging a hammer, as you are to find them with a textbook and a calculator. If so, you can be pretty certain you have stumbled into the RHS Geometry in Construction program.

This fully contextualized approach to Geometry, blends college preparatory Geometry with traditional Construction Technology in a collaborative learning environment. The course is designed to add relevance to mathematics, increase understanding of geometric standards while increasing the scope and rigor of Career Technical Education.

Students enrolled in the courses will apply the lessons learned in the classroom and on the job-site as they build a 656 square foot, Factory Built House on the campus at Roseville High School. Students will work on all phases of construction, including framing, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, drywall, painting and carpentry. Professional partners in industry will help train students as they work throughout the year.

Geometry in Construction at RHS began to take shape when former Assistant Principal, Nancy Veilleux, found the website of the original “Geometry in Construction” in Loveland, CO and approached Industrial and Technology Department member and teacher, Jeff Bailey. Intrigued by the idea, Bailey formed an exploratory committee that included Geometry teacher, Tyson Maytanes, and made the trip to see the program first hand. The Colorado program, created by Tom Moore (Math) and Scott Burke (ITE) is in it’s fifth year of contextualization and was completing a house for Habitat for Humanity during the team’s visit. The RHS team returned from Colorado and began the work to bring the program to Roseville High School for the 2011 Fall Semester.

Preparing the class for the school year was no easy task; with a checklist that included Board approval, fundraising, registration, plan development and recruitment of industry partners, as well as a fun filled week of instructor training in sunny Clovis, CA.

Nearly two months into the school year and the class, and project, is in full swing. Students have completed the first Unit Test on surface area and are gearing up for the second on Volume, Slope and the properties of triangles. Students are finding the geometry
rigorous and challenging, but with the construction component driving instruction, the instructor’s have yet to hear that ever present student question, “Why do we have to learn this.”

On the construction side of class, students have completed scale models of the house they will be building, out of Balsa wood. Framing on the actual structure began at the beginning of the month and the classes have nearly completed the floor system and walls of the house.

In addition, Career Technical Education at Roseville High School received a huge shot in the arm this month when the Sierra College STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) Initiative awarded a sub-grant to Roseville High School Geometry in Construction in the amount of $12,000.

The funding, which is awarded through a state program designed to develop strong partnerships in STEM from the Jr. High through the Community College level, will be essential in helping Roseville High School program meet their goals in the first year. The grant will also help RHS further strengthen the partnership between students, and the strong STEM programs that exist right in their own back-yard, at Sierra’s Rocklin campus.

In addition to better preparing RHS students for Post-Secondary education through excellence in Math, the GIC program seeks to introduce students to the highly skilled careers that exist in the commercial and residential building industry and other careers that utilize mathematics. The program also works to actively increase non-traditional (female) enrollment in Career and Technical Education programs and increase their ranks in the high skills/ high pay job market.

A special thank you to Jeff Bailey for allowing us to reprint this article from their newsletter "Nuts and Bolts".