Documenting Development: Studying a Statewide School/University Partnership

1. Documenting Development: Studying a Statewide School/University Partnership Van Dempsey, Fairmont State University Jaci Webb-Dempsey, West Virginia University Rosalyn Templeton, Marshall University

2. Context • Challenging geographic and economic landscape • Mountainous, rural, developing infrastructure • Limited resources • Idiosyncratic political landscape • Unique cultures of higher education and public schools • Diverse organizational structures of universities/colleges, partnerships, and teacher preparation programs • Partnerships at varying stages of development

3. 10 Partnerships Bluefield State College Concord University Fairmont State University Glenville State College Marshall University Shepherd University West Liberty State College West Virginia State University WVU - Parkersburg WVU – The Benedum Collaborative West Virginia Partnerships for Teacher Quality (WVPTQ)

4. A common agenda • Development of a resource base • Equitable distribution of resources • Shared vision for the work • Addressing demands for accountability

5. Since 2004 • Support from the Benedum Foundation, the WV Department of Education and the Arts, the WV Legislature • Creation of statewide network of partnerships • Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation funding • Development of legislative funding • Development of Board • Adoption of targeted NCATE/FIPSE PDS Standards • Framework for developing partnerships • Accountability

6. Addressing accountability • Planning session for WVPTQ Board and stakeholders • Jenny Gordon, Cindy Reed, Lee Teitel • Professional development for partnerships • Targeted NCATE PDS Standards • FIPSE Online PDS Standards Project Pilot

7. Challenges • Legislative funding commitment increased, then leveled off • Benedum Foundation funding phased out • Increased partnership work, increased funding requests

8. WVPTQ Documentation Initiative • Commissioned by primary stakeholders to develop strategies for documenting developmental progress • Supported by funding from the Benedum Foundation • Representative input • University faculty/researcher perspective • PDS/Partner School faculty perspective • Stakeholders • Cross-institutional research team

9. Design • Targeted PDS/FIPSE Standards indicators as a framework • Developmental perspective • Perspectives of University and PDS faculty, teacher education candidates

10. Design • Mixed methods • Online survey of higher education and partner school faculty in 10 partnerships • Case studies of 4 partnerships • Site visits to the 4 universities/colleges and a sample of their PDS/partner schools • Interviews with higher education and partner school faculty, teacher candidates • Document analysis

11. Translating standards “AT STANDARD” DESCRIPTIONS (Learning Community, Collaboration, Accountability, Organization, Roles and Resources, Diversity and Equity ) • Standard I: Learning Community - A. Teacher Preparation Developmental Guidelines • The PDS recognizes and supports the distinct learning needs of faculty/staff, teacher candidates, students, parents and community members. • Indicator 1: At StandardPDS partners collaboratively integrate PreK-12 instructional content priorities in the teacher education program and field-based experiences.List of EvidenceSyllabi, Lesson plans, Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail, Other. • Indicator 2: At StandardIHE and school faculty/staff ensure teacher candidates’ active participation in school and community related projects.List of EvidenceSyllabi, Newsletters, Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail, Other.(1) • [1] Indicator 3: At StandardTeacher candidates observe, implement, analyze and refine standards-based teaching practices during the extensive internship.List of EvidenceSyllabi, Lesson plans, Reflections, Feedback/evaluation, Other. • Indicator 4: At StandardPDS partners facilitate reflection by collaborating to provide learning experiences that integrate theoretical models with classroom practice.List of EvidenceSyllabi, Lesson plans, Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail, Other. • Indicator 5: At StandardPDS partners engage in reflection with one another.List of EvidenceReflections, Meeting minutes, Surveys, Memos/email, Other. • Standard I: Learning Community – B. Continuing Professional Development Developmental Guidelines • The PDS recognizes and supports the distinct learning needs of faculty/staff, teacher candidates, students, parents and community members. • [2] Indicator 1: At StandardPDS partners collaboratively create, conduct, and participate in needs-based professional development to improve instruction and positively impact student achievement.List of EvidenceSurveys, In-service/graduate courses, Syllabi, Meeting minutes, Other. • Indicator 2: At StandardPDS partners plan and participate in activities where all school staff is encouraged to support and interact with teacher candidates.List of EvidenceOrientation meetings, Handbook/expectations for mentors, Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail, Other.

12. Framework (Organized Around Categories of Developmental Guidelines: Teacher Preparation, Continuing Professional Development, Research & Inquiry, Student Achievement) • Teacher Preparation • (1) Standard 1: Learning Community, Indicator 3: Teacher candidates observe, implement, analyze and refine standards-based teaching practices during the extensive internship. • (5) Standard II: Collaboration, Indicator 1: IHE and school faculty collaboratively plan and implement curricula for teacher candidates to provide authentic learning experiences. • (6) Standard II: Collaboration, Indicator 7: IHE teacher education, arts and science, and school faculty collaborate in planning and implementing content based learning experiences for PDS partners. • (11) Standard III: Accountability, Indicator 1: IHE and school faculty collaboratively refine and implement formative and summative standards based teacher candidate performance assessments. • (15) Standard IV: Organization, Roles and Resources, Indicator 1: PDS partners communicate regarding roles, responsibilities, and operating procedures and use continuous feedback to improve the operation of the PDS. • (19) Standard V: Diversity and Equity, Indicator 2: Teacher candidates demonstrate skill in working with diverse student, parent and staff populations. • (20) Standard V: Indicator 3: Teacher candidates demonstrate the ability to work with students with special needs and collaborate with special educators. • Continuing Professional Development • (2) Standard I: Learning Community, Indicator 1: PDS partners collaboratively create, conduct, and participate in needs-based professional development to improve instruction and positively impact student achievement. • (7) Standard II: Collaboration, Indicator 3: PDS partners determine professional development needs, plan professional development activities to meet those needs, implement activities and assess the effectiveness of the implemented activities. • (12) Standard III: Accountability, Indicator 4: PDS partners work together to meet one another’s professional development needs. • (16) Standard IV: Organization, Roles and Resources, Indicator 1: IHEs recognize and reward the PDS work of IHE faculty and staff through organizational structures and incentives that fully integrate PDS work with the mission of the teacher education program. • (21) Standard V: Diversity and Equity, Indicator 2: PDS partners engage in actions to support broad involvement of stakeholders in PDS activities and assess the results of stakeholder involvement. • (3) Standard I: Learning Community, Indicator 1: PDS partners collaboratively engage in inquiry and/or action research. • (8) Standard II: Collaboration, Indicator 1: PDS partners collaboratively examine the action research/inquiry process. • (9) Standard II: Collaboration, Indicator 2: PDS partners identify the research/inquiry agenda based on the data-driven needs of the PDS. • (13) Standard III: Accountability, Indicator 1: IHE and school faculty collaboratively develop assessments and feedback tools to be used for PDS program planning and improvement.

13. Teacher preparation • Partnerships have improved teacher preparation • Increased collaboration and communication between PDS and IHE faculty • Improved clinical experiences • Practitioner expertise valued • Teacher Education Coordinator Network • Teaching Fellows • Professional Development Fellows • Clinical instructors • All candidates have placements in PDSs; either for all or select placements • Host PDSs • PDSs hosting particular courses • Coursework aligned with needs of clinical settings • PDS faculty teach courses in their classrooms • IHE faculty integrate focus on needs in courses

14. Teacher preparation • Coursework and placements include a focus on meeting the needs of low-income, at-risk students • Candidate case studies • PDS professional development integrated into coursework • Teaching standards have been developed and/or adopted, and are used as part of benchmark decision-making • 10 Characteristics • INTASC • Dispositions

15. Research and inquiry • Professional development agenda includes action research • AR Fellows Teams • AR professional development, funding for site-based initiatives coupled with AR projects • Programs include action research experiences for teacher candidates • Course • Lesson analysis

16. Research and inquiry • Collaborative research efforts among PDS and IHE faculty • Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators • Studying aspects of teacher preparation • Studying effects of program on graduates’ beginning teaching experiences

17. Professional development • Partnerships have a positive impact on professional development • More relevant • “Field-tested” • Varied strategies for professional development • Sharing expertise across schools, between schools and universities, across partnerships • Partnership-wide PD • Embedded PD (action research, book studies, etc.) with PDS, IHE faculty, teacher candidates around PDS needs • On-site courses, customized courses • Online PD • Teacher candidates developing and offering PD

18. Professional development • Leveraging/pooling professional development funds • Matching funds for grants • Counties/Boards of Education providing resources to support PD in partnerships • Counties/schools/partnerships sharing resources around a common agenda • Schools pooling funding from a variety of sources

19. Student achievement • Partnerships have a positive impact on student achievement • Improved professional development • Improved teaching • Improved teacher candidate performance • Professional development targeting areas of student need • IHE faculty developing customized PD • Focus for partnership PD agenda • Course assignments linked to clinical placements include an analysis of the impact of teaching on student achievement • Contributing to longitudinal study of the effects of tutoring • Individual case studies in reading, special education • Journal entries/focused reflection • Sustained AR projects during fulltime teaching placements

20. Student achievement • Teacher candidates involved in assessment of student achievement data • Candidates as resources for addressing needs of low-performing students • Targeting areas of need for AR projects • Concern with documenting impact on student achievement • Studies of the impact of PD initiatives, of PDS involvement, of teacher candidates, of graduates

21. Partnership structures and governance • Partnerships have created opportunities for redefining roles • Teacher leaders • Collaborative, representative decision making • Smaller partnerships: Partnership Council, Advisory Board • Larger partnerships: representative groups for roles, Executive Committee, systematic PDS input in teacher preparation • Key roles • Partnership director – added to existing IHE faculty responsibilities, new position, or rotating position • Liaisons – IHE faculty working with individual schools, working with particular needs/site-based courses, members of LSICs

22. Aggregate findings • Partnerships are idiosyncratic • Leadership • IHE and program structures • Negotiation of benefits • Development is not steady progression, renewal is not always simultaneous • Loss of key leaders, faculty • Political and practical demands • Varying degrees of development across partnerships, across standards • Newer partnerships able to “fast track,” established partnerships need to assess and focus

23. Next steps • Inform stakeholders • Install longitudinal documentation strategies • Collaborative exchange within network • Share promising practices broadly • Paper and PPT notes available at: http://www.fairmontstate.edu/cea