![](media/image1.pct){width="8.626388888888888in" height="3.0in"}

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="8.700694444444444in"
height="8.408333333333333in"}

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation Through the Title
II Hea Partnership Program

Final Report

By\
American Institutes for Research\
SRI International

Prepared for:\
U.S. Department of Education\
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development\
Policy and Program Studies Service

2006

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. ED-00-CO-0082 with the American Institutes for Research.
Daphne Kaplan served as the contracting officer's technical
representative. The views expressed herein are those of the contractors.
No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended
or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Tom Luce

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan L. Ginsburg

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division

David Goodwin

Director

May 2006

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the
front cover, which is used with permission, copyright 2005, Getty
Images. Authorization to reproduce the report in whole or in part is
granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary,
the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, *Partnerships for Reform:
Changing Teacher Preparation Through the Title II HEA Partnership
Program, Final Report*, Washington, D.C., 2006.

To order copies of this report:

ED Pubs\
Education Publications Center\
U.S. Department of Education\
P.O. Box 1398\
Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Via **fax**, dial (301) 470-1244.

Or via **electronic mail**, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

You may also **call** toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If
877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1‑800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a tele­typewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833.

To **order online**, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org.

This report is available on the Department\'s Web site at:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.

On request, this publication is also available in alternative formats,
such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department\'s Alternate Format Center at
(202) 260‑9895 or (202) 205-8113.

Contents

[**List of Exhibits v**](#exhibits)

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[I. Introduction 1](#i.-introduction)

[II. Key Findings 1](#ii.-key-findings)

[III. Challenges and Lessons Learned
5](#iii.-challenges-and-lessons-learned)

[Chapter I Introduction and Evaluation Approach
I--1](#introduction-and-evaluation-approach)

[The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program
I--1](#the-evaluation-of-the-partnership-grants-program)

[Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation
I--1](#framework-for-the-partnership-grants-program-evaluation)

[Benchmarks for Progress I--3](#benchmarks-for-progress)

[Evaluation Data Sources I--3](#evaluation-data-sources)

[Quantitative Data I--5](#quantitative-data)

[Qualitative Data I--6](#qualitative-data)

[Analytic Methods I--6](#analytic-methods)

[Analytic Issues I--7](#analytic-issues)

[Contents of This Evaluation Report
I--8](#contents-of-this-evaluation-report)

[Chapter II Partnership Characteristics
II--1](#partnership-characteristics)

[Highlights II--1](#highlights)

[Key Partnership Features II--1](#key-partnership-features)

[Scope II--1](#scope)

[Number and Type of Partners II--1](#number-and-type-of-partners)

[The Title II Investment and the Need for Supplementary Resources
II--2](#the-title-ii-investment-and-the-need-for-supplementary-resources)

[Leadership Experience and Focus of Partnership Initiatives
II--7](#leadership-experience-and-focus-of-partnership-initiatives)

[Chapter III Partner Relations and Organizational Changes
III--1](#partner-relations-and-organizational-changes)

[Highlights III--1](#highlights-1)

[Evaluation Questions III--2](#evaluation-questions)

[Collaboration: Developing a Common Vision
III--2](#collaboration-developing-a-common-vision)

[A Spectrum of Collaboration III--3](#a-spectrum-of-collaboration)

[The Importance of Leadership Support and Involvement in Partnerships
III--7](#the-importance-of-leadership-support-and-involvement-in-partnerships)

[Organizational Changes: Case Study Highlights
III--10](#organizational-changes-case-study-highlights)

[Chapter IV Teacher-Preparation Reform Efforts
IV--1](#teacher-preparation-reform-efforts)

[Highlights IV--1](#highlights-2)

[Evaluation Questions IV--1](#evaluation-questions-1)

[Teacher-Preparation Program Options in Partnership IHEs
IV--2](#teacher-preparation-program-options-in-partnership-ihes)

[Changes in Course Offerings IV--2](#changes-in-course-offerings)

[Changes in Field Experience Requirements
IV--5](#changes-in-field-experience-requirements)

[Changes in Required Clinical Experience
IV--5](#changes-in-required-clinical-experience)

[Developing Technology Skills: Faculty and Teachers
IV--7](#developing-technology-skills-faculty-and-teachers)

[Faculty Collaboration and Program Reforms
IV--10](#faculty-collaboration-and-program-reforms)

[Teacher-Preparation Quality: Accountability Measures
IV--10](#teacher-preparation-quality-accountability-measures)

[Initiatives in Teacher-Preparation Reform: Case Study Highlights
IV--14](#initiatives-in-teacher-preparation-reform-case-study-highlights)

[Chapter V Partner Schools and Districts
V--1](#partner-schools-and-districts)

[Highlights V--1](#highlights-3)

[Evaluation Questions V--1](#evaluation-questions-2)

[Number of Districts and Characteristics of School Partners in
Partnerships
V--2](#number-of-districts-and-characteristics-of-school-partners-in-partnerships)

Contents\
(Continued)

[School-Level and District-Level Staff Involvement in Partnership
Activities
V--2](#school-level-and-district-level-staff-involvement-in-partnership-activities)

[Schools and Districts as Equal Partners
V--7](#schools-and-districts-as-equal-partners)

[Partnership Contribution to Recruitment and Retention of New Teachers
V--7](#partnership-contribution-to-recruitment-and-retention-of-new-teachers)

[Partnership-Provided In-Service Professional Development for Teachers
V--11](#partnership-provided-in-service-professional-development-for-teachers)

[Core Features of Professional Development
V--12](#core-features-of-professional-development)

[Structural Features of Professional Development
V--12](#structural-features-of-professional-development)

[Partnership Approaches to Delivering Professional Development
V--17](#partnership-approaches-to-delivering-professional-development)

[Partnerships and NCLB Initiatives
V--19](#partnerships-and-nclb-initiatives)

[School and District Involvement: Case Study Highlights
V--19](#school-and-district-involvement-case-study-highlights)

[Chapter VI Institutionalization VI--1](#institutionalization)

[Highlights VI--1](#highlights-4)

[Evaluation Questions VI--1](#evaluation-questions-3)

[Activities Most Likely to Continue
VI--1](#activities-most-likely-to-continue)

[Features Related to Institutionalization
VI--4](#features-related-to-institutionalization)

[Likelihood and Importance of Institutionalization: Case Study
Highlights
VI--6](#likelihood-and-importance-of-institutionalization-case-study-highlights)

[Chapter VII Challenges and Lessons Learned
VII--1](#challenges-and-lessons-learned)

[Highlights VII--1](#highlights-5)

[Challenges Anticipated and Faced
VII--1](#challenges-anticipated-and-faced)

[Evaluation and Attributing Outcomes to Partnerships
VII--5](#evaluation-and-attributing-outcomes-to-partnerships)

[Lessons Learned VII--5](#lessons-learned)

[References R--1](#references)

[Appendix A: Aggregate Pass Rate Averages on Math Content\
Knowledge Test by Partnership, 1999--2000 and 2000--01 for States\
Requiring This Assessment in These Years
A--1](#aggregate-pass-rate-averages-on-math-content-knowledge-test-by-partnership-19992000-and-200001-for-states-requiring-this-assessment-in-these-years)

[Appendix B: IHE and Community College Partners in the 1999 Title II
Cohort
B--1](#ihe-and-community-college-partners-in-the-1999-title-ii-cohort)

[Appendix C: Partnership Main Goals, Strategies for Increasing
Accountability, Planned Use of Incentives, and Content Area\
Emphases
C--1](#partnership-main-goals-strategies-for-increasing-accountability-planned-use-of-incentives-and-content-area-emphases)

[Appendix D: Survey Response by Partnership
D--1](#survey-response-by-partnership)

# Exhibits {#exhibits .unnumbered}

[Exhibit 1 Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and
District Level: Median, Average\
and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up 2](#__RefHeading___Toc130011997)

[Exhibit 2 Percentage of District Survey Respondents Reporting
Partnership Support to Teacher Recruitment and Retention: Overall,
High-Poverty Schools, and for High-Need Subjects\
at Baseline and Follow-Up 3](#__RefHeading___Toc130011998)

[Exhibit 3 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership
Support of New Teachers at Follow-Up 3](#__RefHeading___Toc130011999)

[Exhibit 4 Ratings of Teacher-Education Students' Preparedness for
Meeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and District
Respondents, Baseline and Follow-Up 5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012000)

[Exhibit 5 Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Title II Partnership
Grants Program I--2](#__RefHeading___Toc130012001)

[Exhibit 6 Partnership Evaluation Topics, Legislative Goals, and Related
Features I--4](#__RefHeading___Toc130012002)

[Exhibit 7 Evaluation Data by Source I--5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012003)

[Exhibit 8 Response Rates, Withdrawal Rates, and the Number of
Respondents by Survey Type I--7](#__RefHeading___Toc130012004)

[Exhibit 9 Number of Partners per Partnership
II--3](#__RefHeading___Toc130012005)

[Exhibit 10 Annual Budget by Partnership, by Lead IHE
II--5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012006)

[Exhibit 11 Approximate Number of Professional Development Beneficiaries
as Reported by\
Project Directors II--6](#__RefHeading___Toc130012007)

[Exhibit 12 Percentage of Grants Received From Other Sources and Number
of Grantees Reporting About Other Grants for Teacher-Preparation Reform
Received by Partnerships Between 1999--2000 and 2002--03, as Reported by
Faculty Leaders II--7](#__RefHeading___Toc130012008)

[Exhibit 13 Funding Sources Providing Additional Funds and Percentage of
Each Allocated to Teacher-Preparation Reform, Preservice Clinical
Experiences, and Professional Development Since 1999--2000, as Reported
by Faculty Leaders II--7](#__RefHeading___Toc130012009)

[Exhibit 14 Average Authenticity Rating by Partnership
III--4](#__RefHeading___Toc130012010)

[Exhibit 15 Average Partnership Authenticity Rating by Partner
III--4](#__RefHeading___Toc130012011)

[Exhibit 16 Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities,
as Reported by Education\
and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up
III--5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012012)

[Exhibit 17 Average Degree of Faculty Collaboration with Teachers:
Education Compared with\
Arts and Sciences, at Follow-Up III--6](#__RefHeading___Toc130012013)

[Exhibit 18 Faculty Involvement in "Planning" Versus "Doing" Types of
Collaboration: Education\
and Arts and Sciences Faculty Combined, at Follow-Up
III--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012014)

Exhibits\
(Continued)

[Exhibit 19 Average Number of Collaborative Activities of Faculty
(Education and Arts and Sciences Combined) with Teachers by Scope of
Partnership, at Baseline and Follow-Up
III--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012015)

[Exhibit 20 Percentage of All Faculty Reporting Evidence of Support from
the President and Dean III--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012016)

[Exhibit 21 Ratings of the Collegiality Between Faculty Across
Disciplines, as Reported by\
Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up
III--9](#__RefHeading___Toc130012017)

[Exhibit 22 Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to
Organizational Changes and\
Relationships III--11](#__RefHeading___Toc130012018)

[Exhibit 23 Faculty Ratings of Extent of Partnership Support of
Alternate Route Programs,\
2002--03 IV--3](#__RefHeading___Toc130012019)

[Exhibit 24 Content Changed in New and Revised Teacher-Preparation
Courses, as Reported by\
Faculty, 2002--03 IV--4](#__RefHeading___Toc130012020)

[Exhibit 25 Course Changes by Partnership Focus, as Reported by Faculty,
2002--03 IV--4](#__RefHeading___Toc130012021)

[Exhibit 26 Percentage of Faculty Leaders Reporting Availability of
Early Field Experiences by\
Course Types, Opportunities and Year First Offered: 1999--2000 and
2002--03 IV--6](#__RefHeading___Toc130012022)

[Exhibit 27 Early Field Experience Opportunities, as Reported by Faculty
Leaders in Partnerships\
With and Without a PDS Model: 1999--2000 and 2002--03
IV--6](#__RefHeading___Toc130012023)

[Exhibit 28 Percentage of Faculty Leaders in PDS and Non-PDS
Partnerships Reporting Single or\
Multiple School Placements by Grade Level for Clinical Experiences in
2002--03 IV--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012024)

[Exhibit 29 Required Weeks of Clinical Experience for
Teacher-Preparation Students in Partnerships\
With and Without PDS Models as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 2002--03
IV--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012025)

[Exhibit 30 Percentage of Involved Faculty Respondents at Baseline and
Follow-Up Who Used\
Strategies to Prepare Teacher-Preparation Students to Use Technology in
Their\
Classrooms IV--9](#__RefHeading___Toc130012026)

[Exhibit 31 Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities
Between Faculty in Arts\
and Sciences and Education, 2002--03
IV--11](#__RefHeading___Toc130012027)

[Exhibit 32 Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty
Leaders, 2002--03 IV--13](#__RefHeading___Toc130012028)

[Exhibit 33 Changes in Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported
by Faculty Leaders,\
2002--03 IV--13](#__RefHeading___Toc130012029)

[Exhibit 34 Ratings of Teacher-Education Students' Preparedness for
Meeting School Challenges,\
as Reported by Faculty and District Respondents, Baseline and Follow-up
IV--14](#__RefHeading___Toc130012030)

[Exhibit 35 Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Changes
to the Content and\
Structure of the Preservice Teacher-Preparation Program Over the Grant
Period IV--15](#__RefHeading___Toc130012031)

Exhibits\
(Continued)

[Exhibit 36 School Characteristics for Partnership and Non-partnership
Schools, 1999--2000 V--3](#__RefHeading___Toc130012032)

[Exhibit 37 Average Mathematics and Reading Scores for Partner Schools
by Partnership V--3](#__RefHeading___Toc130012033)

[Exhibit 38 Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and
District Level: Median,\
Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up
V--4](#__RefHeading___Toc130012034)

[Exhibit 39 Rated Level of Involvement at the School, District and
Community Levels, Baseline and Follow-Up
V--5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012035)

[Exhibit 40 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting District and
School-Level Staff\
Involvement in the Partnership, Baseline and Follow-Up
V--5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012036)

[Exhibit 41 Percentage of District Representatives Reporting Teacher
Participation in Collaborative Activities with Partner Faculty at
Baseline and Follow-Up V--6](#__RefHeading___Toc130012037)

[Exhibit 42 Extent of Collaboration in Partnerships by Teachers and
District Staff by Scope of Partnerships, Baseline and Follow-Up
V--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012038)

[Exhibit 43 Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative Partnership
Activities Between Schools and\
Partner IHEs, as Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships
V--8](#__RefHeading___Toc130012039)

[Exhibit 44 Percentage of District Survey Respondents Reporting
Partnership Support to Teacher Recruitment and Retention: Overall,
High-Poverty Schools, and for High-Need Subjects\
at Baseline and Follow-Up V--9](#__RefHeading___Toc130012040)

[Exhibit 45 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership
Support for District Needs Regarding Teacher Vacancies and Attrition by
Scope of Partnership, Baseline and\
Follow-Up V--11](#__RefHeading___Toc130012041)

[Exhibit 46 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership
Support of New Teachers at Follow-Up
V--11](#__RefHeading___Toc130012042)

[Exhibit 47 Percentage of Faculty and District Representatives
Indicating Types of Partnership Professional Development Opportunities
Provided to Teachers and District Staff,\
2002--03 V--14](#__RefHeading___Toc130012043)

[Exhibit 48 Topics Covered in Professional Development Activities,
2002--03 V--14](#__RefHeading___Toc130012044)

[Exhibit 49 Frequency of Partnership Professional Development Activities
Between Schools and\
Partner IHEs, as Reported by Principals
V--15](#__RefHeading___Toc130012045)

[Exhibit 50 Follow-Up to Professional Development Activities as Reported
by District and Faculty Respondents, 2002--03
V--16](#__RefHeading___Toc130012046)

[Exhibit 51 Average Number of Participants in Content-Focused Versus
Non--Content-Focused Professional Development Activities, as Reported by
District and Faculty, 2002--03 V--16](#__RefHeading___Toc130012047)

[Exhibit 52 Professional Development Facilitators, as Reported by
District and Faculty, 2002--03 V--17](#__RefHeading___Toc130012048)

Exhibits\
(Continued)

[Exhibit 53 Models of Professional Development
V--18](#__RefHeading___Toc130012049)

[Exhibit 54 Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities,
as Reported by District\
and Faculty V--20](#__RefHeading___Toc130012050)

[Exhibit 55 Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities
by Partnership, as\
Reported by District and Faculty V--21](#__RefHeading___Toc130012051)

[Exhibit 56 Status of Site-Specific District-Focused Partnership
Activities V--22](#__RefHeading___Toc130012052)

[Exhibit 57 Average Likelihood of Sustaining Partnership Reform Efforts,
as Reported by District\
and Faculty Respondents VI--2](#__RefHeading___Toc130012053)

[Exhibit 58 Average Importance of Efforts to Institutionalize
Partnership Reforms, as Reported by\
District and Faculty Respondents VI--3](#__RefHeading___Toc130012054)

[Exhibit 59 Average Likelihood of Institutionalization by Main Goals,
Accountability Strategies, and Content Area Focus, as Reported by
District and Faculty Respondents VI--5](#__RefHeading___Toc130012055)

[Exhibit 60 Percentage of District and Faculty Reporting Their
Perceptions of the Role of the\
Partnership Grant Project in Reform of Teacher Education, 2002--03
VI--6](#__RefHeading___Toc130012056)

[Exhibit 61 Status of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms
VI--7](#__RefHeading___Toc130012057)

[Exhibit 62 Percentage of Faculty Reporting Challenges to Improving
Preservice Teacher Education\
at the Start of the Partnership Grant
VII--2](#__RefHeading___Toc130012058)

[Exhibit 63 Average Challenge Ratings as Reported by Faculty Toward the
End of the Partnership\
Grant VII--3](#__RefHeading___Toc130012059)

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

## I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}

In 1998, Congress reauthorized and amended the *Higher Education Act of
1965 (HEA)*, creating, under Title II, the Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grants Program for States and Partnerships. One initiative under this
amendment, the partnership grants program, funded partnerships among
colleges of education, schools of arts and sciences, and local school
districts.

Congress designed the partnership initiative as one of several pre--*No
Child Left Behind Act* *(NCLB)* efforts to support accountability for
teacher preparation and to improve the work of teacher-preparation
programs. It was anticipated that the collaboration among the partners
would result in the successful implementation of reforms holding
teacher-training programs accountable for producing high-quality
teachers and providing sustained and quality preservice field
experiences and professional development opportunities.

This evaluation report focuses on the 25 grantees of the 1999 cohort of
the Title II partnership grants program. A diverse cohort, these
grantees, consisting of at least 66 colleges and universities, 28
community colleges, 179 school districts, and 821 elementary schools in
more than 25 dif­ferent states, received a total of more than \$171
million over the 1999--2004 period.

A descriptive study conducted over four and a half years (2000--05), the
partnership evaluation surveyed nearly 300 representa­tives from
institutions of higher education (IHEs) and district project
participants at two points during the grant period (2000--01; 2003--04).
More than 500 principals were surveyed once, during the 2002--03 year.
The study also included secondary data analyses using publicly available
data on school characteristics, school-level achievement data, and pass
rates on teacher assessments reported as part of the Title II HEA
reporting requirements. Five diverse projects were the subject of case
studies that included repeated week-long visits.

The evaluation's goal was to learn about the collaborative activities
taking place in partnerships. The study was also designed to examine
approaches to preparing new and veteran teachers and to assess the
sustainability of project activities after the grant ends.

A full report of the partnership evaluation follows the broad evaluation
topics that framed the evaluation data collection and analysis. In this
executive summary, we summarize our results concerning core questions
related to the HEA Title II partnership program goals:

1.  Did partnerships fulfill the program mandate, en­couraging colleges
    and universities to partner with and address the teacher-preparation
    needs of high-need districts?

2.  Did partnerships undertake activities designed to im­prove the
    academic content knowledge of new or veteran teachers?

3.  Were changes in the student teacher internship com­ponent associated
    with partnership efforts to improve teacher preparation?

4.  Did partnership initiatives address the accountability concerns
    about teacher preparation?

## II. Key Findings {#ii.-key-findings .unnumbered}

Key findings related to each of the evaluation questions are described
below.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Evaluation Question #1:** Did partnerships fulfill the program
  mandate, encouraging colleges and universities to partner with and
  address the teacher-preparation needs of high-need districts?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

-   Partnerships did encourage and support col­laboration between IHEs
    and schools around teacher-preparation needs. This collaboration was
    guided through advisory committees with partner representation. As
    activities were implemented, the partnership involved district-level
    and school- level staff.

District-level involvement was important in the beginning years of the
partnership as activities were planned and arrangements made to
facilitate collaboration. Teacher involvement grew as implementation
progressed and professional development opportunities were extended to
teachers (Exhibit 1). Activities that brought IHEs and school and
district staff together included mentoring new teachers, collaborating
on professional development, and redesigning methods of instructing and
assessing teacher- education students.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130011997 .anchor}**Exhibit 1\
Frequency of** Individual Involvement at the School and District Level:\
Median, Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up

  ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------
                          School- and                      
                          district-level                   
                          staff involved                   
                          in partnership                   
                          activities                       

                          Median           Average         Range

  District-level staff                                     

  Baseline                3.0              18.9            0-1,200

  Follow-up               3.0              13.1            0-240

  School-level staff                                       

  Baseline                14.5             57.8            0-1,200

  Follow-up               15.0             70.5            1-906
  ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------

> NOTES: Numbers based on the number involved as reported by 106
> district respondents at baseline and 82 at follow-up.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: The median number of district-level staff involved in
> the partnership at baseline was reported to be three, the average
> number of district-level staff involved was 18.9, and the number in
> all activities reportedly ranged from 0 to 1,200.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

-   Helping districts fill vacancies and recruit and retain teachers was
    a goal of many partnerships, yet over time, a lower proportion of
    partnership districts reported positively regarding the fulfill­ment
    of some of these goals.

One of the central concerns for district partners in the Title II
partnerships was recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. The
evaluation specifically investigated the partnership contributions in
this regard. The evalua­tion surveys asked representatives of the
partner­ships about addressing recruitment and retention needs,
especially for high-poverty schools and high-needs subject areas (see
Exhibit 2). Survey responses and site visit interviews indicated that
some partnerships set goals related to recruitment that were frustrated
by a lack of openings and competition for hiring teachers from
neighboring states.

-   Induction support for new teachers was one approach used in many of
    the 1999 partnerships to address the problem of teacher retention.

When these partnerships began, neither statewide nor districtwide
induction programs were well established. Some partnerships reported
they filled a distinct need for induction support in districts where
teacher retention was identified as a problem. A few partnership
induction programs even addressed the needs of new teachers who had not
graduated from partnership institutions but were teaching in partner
schools. Training for mentors was one additional activity assumed by the
partnerships. Participants reported that induction activities were
taking place in the partnerships throughout the grant, although at
follow-up, lower percentages of district respondents indicated some
activities were provided (Exhibit 3).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Evaluation Question #2:** Did partnerships undertake activities
  designed to improve the academic content knowledge of new or veteran
  teachers?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

-   Partnerships focused course reform and profes­sional development on
    academic content needs of teachers, which were specified through
    discus­sions with partner districts and principals of partner schools
    and also based on partners' concerns about aligning the course
    content in teacher preparation with state teacher and content
    standards.

Partnerships reported extensive activity in revising and aligning
education and arts and sciences courses, and involving arts and sciences
faculty in planning and supporting teacher-preparation students. Arts
and sciences faculty met with education faculty, monitored the progress
of teacher-preparation students, and delivered professional development
institutes to veteran teachers based on content in their respective
disciplines. In some partnership IHEs, arts and sciences faculty
reframed courses to meet the needs of education students.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130011998 .anchor}**Exhibit 2\
Percentage of District Survey Respondents Reporting Partnership Support
to Teacher\
Recruitment and Retention: Overall, High-Poverty Schools, and for
High-Need Subjects\
at Baseline and Follow-Up**

+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
|                    | B     | Higher | F     | Enh   | Red  | Red  |
|                    | etter |        | aster | anced | uced | uced |
|                    | (impr | qu     | ab    | scre  | v    | a    |
|                    | oved) | alific | ility | ening | acan | ttri |
|                    | r     | ations | to    | pr    | cies | tion |
|                    | ecrui |        | fill  | ocess |      |      |
|                    | tment | (pe    | vaca  |       | (    | (    |
|                    |       | rcent) | ncies | (per  | perc | perc |
|                    | (per  |        |       | cent) | ent) | ent) |
|                    | cent) |        | (per  |       |      |      |
|                    |       |        | cent) |       |      |      |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
| Baseline overall   | 85    | 68     | 62    | 49    | 37   | 37   |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
| Follow-up overall  | 64    | 63     | 53    | 37    | 43   | 47   |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
| High-poverty       | 58    | 49     | 45    | 36    | 36   | 25   |
| schools baseline   |       |        |       |       |      |      |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
| High-poverty       | 31    | 35     | 24    | 15    | 25   | 27   |
| schools follow-up  |       |        |       |       |      |      |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
| High-needs         | 53    | 37     | 41    | 35    | 31   | 22   |
| subjects baseline  |       |        |       |       |      |      |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+
| High-needs         | 24    | 28     | 20    | 12    | 19   | 20   |
| subjects follow-up |       |        |       |       |      |      |
+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+

> Exhibit Reads: Eighty-five percent of district respondents to the
> baseline survey reported that the partnership contributed to better
> recruitment in schools overall, while 64 percent of the district
> respondents to the follow-up survey reported that the partnership
> contributed to better recruitment in schools overall.

Source: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130011999 .anchor}**Exhibit 3\
Percentage of District Respondents Reporting** Partnership Support of
New Teachers\
at Follow-Up

  --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------
  Induction activity provided by the partnership      Percentage of 
                                                      respondents   
                                                      indicating    
                                                      that activity 
                                                      was           

                                                      Provided in   Provided
                                                      2000--01      in
                                                                    2002--03

  Encouragement of informal mentoring                 84            83

  Training for mentors                                80            80

  Mentoring by teacher and/or professor               84            75

  Routine observations of new teachers                84            70

  Supervision or mentoring by principal               80            70

  Provision of substitute teachers to allow new       76            66
  teachers to participate in any support or induction               
  activity                                                          

  Seminars with new teachers and college or           76            61
  university faculty                                                

  Provision of monetary support for attendance at     68            43
  professional conferences                                          

  Team teaching or co-teaching                        68            33

  Reduced teaching load for beginning teachers        16              7

  Reduced teaching load for mentors                   20              7

  Child care or other family service                    8             1
  --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------

> Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of district respondents indicated
> that the partnership provided "encouragement of informal mentoring" in
> 2000--01. Eighty-three percent indicated this induction activity was
> provided in 2002--03.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
> Survey.

-   Professional development institutes of varying length and features
    were the chief vehicle partner­ships used to meet the subject matter
    needs of veteran teachers.

Both education and arts and sciences faculty reported de­signing and
delivering professional development sum­mer institutes. These institutes
met some standards of high-quality professional development because of
their content focus and average length (one to three weeks). However,
much variation was noted in the participant selection process and in
follow-up. While partnerships reported conducting evalua­tions of the
institutes, they also reported that resources for more intensive
follow-up to these activities were not always available. In a few
partnerships, follow-up consisted of such activities as arranging
Saturday meetings of professional development participants and in a very
few partnerships, faculty visited the schools or classrooms of
professional development participants to assist in knowledge transfer
and reinforcement.

-   District and faculty reported that their judgments about new teacher
    preparedness were similar over the duration of the partnerships.

When asked how individuals preparing to be teachers measured up with
respect to academic knowledge, instruc­tional and management skills, and
dispositions essential for successful teaching, faculty and district
representatives indicated that teacher-education students seemed fairly
well-prepared for many teaching challenges. In follow-up surveys
admini­stered as the grantees were well into implementation activities,
faculty tended to rate their students a little higher than did their
district peers in the partnerships (see Exhibit 4). The respondents
making these judgments were individ­uals who had opportunities to view
student interns in schools and participate in hiring processes. They
would have seen more than one cohort of program graduates emerge from
IHE preparation programs to be teachers of record over the course of the
grant.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Evaluation Question #3:** Were changes in the student teacher
  internship component associated with partnership efforts to improve
  teacher preparation?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

-   Partnerships reported that the practice of forming collaborative
    preparation sites with partner schools---termed professional
    development schools (PDS)---offered additional opportunities for
    gathering input from current teachers about student internships and
    course contents. In some cases these collaborations were reported to
    lead to improvements in the traditional student intern­ship that
    existed prior to the partnership grant.

The PDS approach at 67 percent of the partnerships was thought by
faculty to offer the optimum approach to bringing teacher preparation
closer to the classroom: placing faculty in partner schools on a regular
and frequent (weekly) basis; offering university classes for preservice
teachers in schools; and encouraging ongoing involvement by master
teachers in preparing new teachers.

-   Field experiences were offered to prospective teachers earlier
    (during freshman and sophomore years), and more faculty reported
    there were opportunities to participate in "teacher-like activities"
    over the dura­tion of the grant period in the Title II partner­ships.

Education faculty and principals interviewed at the PDS partners, as
well as students participating in internships and those who were new
teachers of record, commented often during the site visits that early
exposure to the realities of working in schools was essential in helping
make a smooth transition to being in charge of the classroom, providing
invaluable practical experience.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Evaluation Question #4:** Did partnership initiatives address the
  accountability concerns about teacher prepara­tion?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

-   Partnerships specifically addressed the account­ability concerns of
    the HEA Title II, and external sets of standards were important
    guideposts in meeting these concerns.

While neither a requirement of the partnership grant nor a focus of
partnership resources, accreditation was impor­tant to many of the
grantees, who worked toward improved pass rates on teacher assessments
for their students to meet an accreditation standard. Faculty in the
partnerships also reported using not only external standards from the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the
Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) and the Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) but also state
content standards to guide program reform.

-   Over the five-year grant period, the extent of requirements at entry
    and exit for teacher- preparation students grew.

The most frequently reported changes to program entry and exit
requirements were the added stipulations that teacher-preparation
students assemble portfolios of their work and that they pass Praxis II
in specific subject areas. Overall pass rates of program completers in
the Title II partnership teacher-education programs changed little over
the grant period, consistent with national data reported in the Title II
state reports. In at least one partnership, the funds made available
from the Title II grant were used specifically to prepare program
participants for the Praxis test. This preparation led to increased pass
rates and contributed to improved program accreditation status.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012000 .anchor}Exhibit 4\
Ratings of Teacher-Education Students' Preparedness for\
Meeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and District\
Respondents, Baseline and Follow-Up

  -------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                             Faculty                           District               

  Preparedness of teacher    Baseline   Follow-up   Average\   Baseline   Follow-up   Average\
  education students to:                            Change                            Change

  Work with diverse          4.4        4.4         0.0        4.2        4.1         -0.1
  populations of learners                                                             

  Use a variety of           4.3        4.4         0.1        4.3        4.3         0.0
  instructional strategies                                                            

  Apply standards to         4.2        4.5         0.3        4.3        4.2         -0.1
  classroom lessons                                                                   

  Learn how to be a learner  4.1        4.2         0.1           4.0        4.0      0.0

  Develop depth in           3.9        4.1         0.2        3.9           4.0      0.1
  subject-matter knowledge                                                            

  Construct curricula        3.9        3.9         0.0        3.7        3.6         -0.1

  Conduct effective          3.8        3.8         0.0        4.1        3.9         -0.2
  classroom management                                                                

  Work in a school with      3.6        3.8         0.2        3.7        3.7         0.0
  structural reform                                                                   
  initiatives                                                                         

  Communicate with parents   3.6        3.8         0.2        3.7        3.5         -0.2

  Work with special          3.5        3.7         0.2        3.6        3.5         -0.1
  education students                                                                  

  Provide effective reading  ---        4.2         ---        ---           4.0      ---
  instruction                                                                         

  Prepare students for state ---        4.2         ---        ---        3.9         ---
  assessments                                                                         

  Promote technology         ---           4.0      ---        ---           4.0      ---
  literacy in the classroom                                                           
  -------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

> NOTE: Ratings are on a scale of 1--5, where 1 = "Not at all prepared"
> and 5 = "Very well prepared." Dash "---" indicates this question did
> not appear on the baseline survey.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: On a scale of 1--5, faculty at baseline reported
> teacher-education students to be fairly well prepared for working with
> diverse populations of learners (4.4); this rating remained steady at
> follow-up. District respondents, who reported teacher-education
> students' level of preparedness for working with diverse populations
> at 4.2 on the same scale at baseline, reported a slightly lower rating
> at follow-up of 4.1.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--2001) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys and
District Surveys.

-   As the grants ended, the prospects for long-term joint
    accountability assumed by arts and sciences and education faculty
    for teacher preparation were not promising across all partnerships.

Arts and sciences and education faculty in most of the partnerships
initiated collaborative work that transcended traditional roles and
responsibilities regarding teacher preparation. However, faculty
follow-up surveys and site visit interviews indicated that many of the
initiatives were "one-shot" activities, and others were abandoned when
faced with negative response from students or academic departments.
Still, faculty were somewhat optimistic when asked about the likelihood
of sustaining some of the mechanisms for joint accountability and
especially about improved communication between IHEs and school district
partners.

## III. Challenges and Lessons Learned {#iii.-challenges-and-lessons-learned .unnumbered}

Partnerships among educational entities have long been touted as a means
of accomplishing goals that seem out of reach for individual
organizations to achieve. While there is little evidence-based research
about the effectiveness of partnerships, descriptive studies reviewed
for this evalua­tion provided information about features that are thought
to facilitate the organization of partnerships and the implementation of
partnership activities, such as: sharing a mission and goals; developing
and expanding partner roles and strengthening relationships over the
duration; devel­oping and expanding leadership roles; assuming shared
accountability; and recognizing and working to eliminate barriers.

Generally, leaders in the Title II partnerships were quite experienced.
A number of the project directors were faculty members and deans who had
prior experience with reform networks and teacher-education policy
initiatives. Many of the leading IHEs had a history of winning grants,
and some partnerships were benefiting from multiple funding sources for
the same group of reform and professional development efforts. This
experience served the partner­ships well in getting activities started,
creating an atmosphere of collaboration among partners, working on
complex arrangements with schools and with arts and sciences
departments, and arranging additional funds for continuation of some
activities. However it was not sufficient, as reported by the
partnerships, to see all activities through to fruition or to sustain
partnership-sponsored activities after the grant ended.

Title II partnerships reported they could not remove some of the
powerful institutional barriers that remain in the way of sustaining
partnership program goals. Challenges high­lighted by partnership
participants include: a lack of time and recognition of faculty who take
part in partner­ship activities; insufficient funding in K--12 schools;
high turnover of school and district leaders; and a generalized feeling
of fatigue regarding reform in many districts.

Through interviews and surveys, Title II partnership representatives
articulated some important lessons learned regarding sustaining their
Title II partnership grant activities. These are:

**Minimize geographical spread.** Over the course of the study, large
and geographically scattered partners reported difficulty in arranging
meetings, placing preservice teachers in schools for internships, or
providing professional devel­opment over substantial distances. In future
undertakings, policymakers may wish to emphasize the strength that comes
from forming cohesive partnerships that are purposefully limited in
their geographic scope.

**Provide adequate support to partnerships in high-need areas.** Outside
of project and partner leadership, the economic condition of partner
school districts was one of the most important elements cited in the
ability to sustain partnership activities, according to project
directors and school district participants. Partnership districts
repeatedly and consistently cited a lack of funds within their partner
districts as a challenge to implementing their reforms.

**Encourage partners to plan realistically for easily foreseeable
contingencies.** It is not surprising to anyone familiar with school
districts or university culture to note frequent turnover of K--12
teachers, university faculty and school administrators. The loss of
principals, faculty members and department administrators, as well as
turnover of project directors, led to loss of partnership memory and
ground gained in promoting and supporting collaborative activities.
Policy leaders should underscore the obstacles presented by this
turnover phenomenon in structuring new initiatives and encourage
partnerships and other reform agents to build back-up contingencies into
their blueprints.

**Enhance evaluation resources to monitor objectives.** Very few
partnerships implemented the kind of contin­uous evaluation that would
yield data on the effectiveness of faculty collaboration, professional
development activities or teacher mentoring. When the evaluators were an
integral part of the project management, decision making was data driven
and all partners tended to be included in the process.

# **  ****Introduction and Evaluation Approach**

In 1998, Congress reauthorized and amended the *Higher Education Act of
1965* *(HEA)* creating, under Title II, the Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grants Program for States and Partnerships. One initiative under this
amendment, the partnership grants program, was designed to provide
grants to fund partnerships among colleges of education, schools of arts
and sciences, and local high-need school districts. Specifically, the
partnership grants program, along with the State Grants program and the
Teacher Recruitment Grants program, was designed to do the following:

-   Improve student achievement.

-   Improve the quality of the current and future teaching force by
    improving the preparation of teachers and enhancing professional
    development activities.

-   Hold institutions of higher education accountable for preparing
    teachers to be highly competent in the academic content areas in
    which teachers plan to teach, such as mathematics, science, English,
    foreign languages, history, economics, art, civics, government, and
    geography, including training in effectively using technology in the
    classroom.

-   Recruit highly qualified individuals, including individ­uals from
    other occupations, into the teaching force.

Although each partnership was unique in its goals, implementation
strategies, and partners, each was vested in the same program goals and
was shaped by legislation that stipulated the required uses of funds:
(1) implementing reforms to hold teacher-training programs accountable,
(2) providing sustained and quality preservice field experi­ences, and
(3) providing increased opportunities for en­hanced professional
development. Additionally, the legisla­tion specified the following as
allowable uses of funds: (1) preparing teachers to work with diverse
learners, (2) disseminating information concerning effective practices,
(3) providing leadership training to principals and superin­tendents, (4)
recruiting teachers, and (5) infusing technology.

Since 1999, when the first partnership grants were awarded to 25
projects, Congress passed the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)*,
signed by the president on Jan. 8, 2002. Both Title II of the HEA and
NCLB provisions address the qualifications of teachers; however, Title
II was specifically targeted to the improvement of the work of
teacher-preparation programs, while NCLB focuses on a national goal for
all teachers to attain highly qualified status by the 2005--06 school
year and applies to both new and veteran teachers. Both laws highlight
the critical importance of academic content preparation in core subjects
and both call for high-quality professional development.

The findings from this evaluation of the partnership grants program will
be helpful to lawmakers, educators, and the public as the nation
continues to pursue partnership strategies to prepare and support highly
qualified teachers for all students.

### The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program {#the-evaluation-of-the-partnership-grants-program .unnumbered}

As required under the Title II legislation, Sec. 206(d), an evaluation
of the partnership program was mandated. The U.S. Department of
Education (ED) Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) contracted with
the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and SRI International (SRI)
to evaluate the partnership program based on the cohort of 1999
partnership grantees. The evaluation collected data on the partnerships
through surveys and interviews with project leaders, faculty members,
school and district officials, and preservice and in-service teachers
who were participating in the grant program's first cohort. This
document, the final report on the partnership grants program evaluation,
brings together data from several different sources to describe progress
toward the grants program's goals.

### Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation  {#framework-for-the-partnership-grants-program-evaluation .unnumbered}

The evaluation is based on a conceptual framework (Exhibit 5) that
begins with the partnership unit, defined by the members of the
partnership and the roles they play in reforming teacher preparation.
The partnership is influenced by its members' shared vision and beliefs
for training new teachers, for how teachers learn to teach, and for what
teachers must know and be able to do to be successful in the classroom.
Each partnership translates and implements its vision of teacher
preparation into specific structures, goals, and activities. As
implementa­tion takes place, the success of each partnership's efforts
depends on the vision and roles of the partners, the preservice students
in the program, and outside supports for the reforms, such as funding
and opportunities for institutionalization.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012001 .anchor}Exhibit 5\
Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Title II Partnership Grants
Program

NOTE: Evaluation topics (related to numbers in diagram): (1)
Characteristics of high-quality, preservice teacher preparation and
changes to the content and structure of the preservice
teacher-preparation program over the grant period; (2) Contributions of
partnership grants to schools and school districts, and schools' and
districts' roles in preservice teacher education; (3) Organizational
changes and relationships among partners within a grant; and (4) Efforts
to institutionalize partnerships. \*Producing high-quality teachers and
improving student achievement are broad goals of the program. The
evaluation did gather data on perceptions of new teacher quality, but
gathering evidence of improved student achievement was out of the scope
of this evaluation.

The significance of the reform plans in each partnership should be
reflected in revisions to the content and structure of teacher
preparation, particularly in clinical experience and academic content
preparation. The relationships created by the partnership and the reform
model activities will also affect the role and responsibilities of K--12
school teachers (i.e., cooperating or clinical teachers) who allow a
student teacher to observe, support, and eventually take responsibility
for a class. The overall result is that each partner should experience
change in ways that improve the preparation, recruitment, and retention
of qualified teachers in partner schools.

This evaluation assesses partnerships' implementation of reform models
and related reform strategies and practices by focusing on four
overarching evaluation topics and related evaluation questions:

1.  Characteristics of high-quality preservice teacher preparation, and
    changes to the content and structure of the preservice
    teacher-preparation program over the grant period.

-   Did partnerships reform teacher-preparation pro­grams: revisions to
    entrance and exit require­ments, content area courses, field
    experience and clinical experience requirements, and the integra­tion
    of technology in teaching practices?

-   How did partnership reform of teacher prepara­tion differ when the
    training model is the professional development school?

-   Did district personnel and faculty in partnerships perceive novice
    teachers to be prepared for the demands of the classroom?

5.  Contributions of partnership grants to schools and school districts,
    and schools' and districts' roles in preservice teacher preparation.

-   Have partnerships created opportunities for school personnel to
    participate in important components of teacher preparation?

-   Have partnerships addressed recruitment and retention of teachers in
    partner districts?

-   What are the characteristics of in-service profes­sional development
    provided to teachers in the partnership schools and districts?

-   What is the role of partnerships in implementing NCLB highly
    qualified teacher provisions?

6.  Organizational changes and relationships among part­ners within a
    grant.

-   Did Title II partnerships begin with developing a common mission or
    vision about teacher prepara­tion?

-   Did partnerships support changes in the way arts and sciences and
    education faculty collaborated on behalf of teacher-preparation
    students?

-   Did the support that university leaders provided to partnerships and
    to teacher preparation grow over the course of the partnership
    grant?

7.  Efforts to institutionalize partnerships.

-   What activities supported by the partnerships are most likely to
    continue according to participants?

-   Do partnership participants believe the partner­ship grant has been
    influential in their attempts to reform teacher preparation?

### Benchmarks for Progress {#benchmarks-for-progress .unnumbered}

Each evaluation topic represents an aspect of the evaluation framework.
The U.S. Department of Education's *Targeted Literature Review* (2001)
was the principal source through which empirical, theoretical, and
interpretive research findings were reviewed to identify criteria and
benchmarks for assessing (1) the characteristics of high quality
teacher-preparation programs; (2) the contributions of partnerships to
schools and school districts; (3) partnership organizational changes and
relationships; and (4) efforts to institutionalize partner­ships. More
recently, additional sources of literature were reviewed to seek
findings from rigorous studies that could serve as benchmarks (SRI 2000;
Educational Testing Service 2000; Center for the Study of Teaching
Policy 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future 2003;
Abell Foundation 2001). Prior to the date when the first interim
evaluation report was published on the U.S. Department of Education's
Web site,[^1] two new compilations of research findings were published
by the Education Commission of the States (Allen 2003) and the Economic
Policy Institute (Rice 2003). Both of these publications were reviewed
to prepare for the final report's analyses of data regarding evaluation
topic 1---changes to teacher-preparation programs.

AIR and SRI determined through these reviews that, although a number of
groups have agreed about the definition of quality and the features by
which one should be able to measure quality in teacher preparation,
neither the research literature involved nor the individuals who have
carefully studied it can offer authoritative assurance about the
relative importance of these features. This report integrates data from
multiple sources to investigate whether activities similar to the Title
II initiatives (such as revising courses, extending clinical
experiences, infusing technology, and improving teaching through
professional development) are addressing the features identified in the
literature.

Exhibit 6 provides an overview of the goals and features associated with
each of the four evaluation topics based on the literature.

### Evaluation Data Sources {#evaluation-data-sources .unnumbered}

The evaluation collected data from surveys of project directors, faculty
members who were leaders in their departments, faculty members involved
in the partner­ships, district employees, and principals. Case study data
augmented the survey data. Extant data sources were also used. (Exhibit
7).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012002 .anchor}Exhibit 6\
Partnership Evaluation Topics, Legislative Goals, and Related Features

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Evaluation topic  |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Legislative goal  | Features assumed to be related to teacher        |
|                   | quality                                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 1\.               |                                                  |
| Characteristics   |                                                  |
| of high-quality   |                                                  |
| preservice        |                                                  |
| teacher           |                                                  |
| preparation, and  |                                                  |
| changes to the    |                                                  |
| content and       |                                                  |
| structure of the  |                                                  |
| preservice        |                                                  |
| te                |                                                  |
| acher-preparation |                                                  |
| programs over the |                                                  |
| grant period      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Strong content    | -   Number and types of courses required         |
| preparation,      |                                                  |
| extensive         | -   Program models                               |
| clinical          |                                                  |
| experience, and   | -   Continuous program quality review            |
| integration of    |                                                  |
| technology        | -   Training in using best practices in teaching |
|                   |     and instructional materials development      |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Induction program                            |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Entry requirements                           |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Amount and quality of clinical training and  |
|                   |     field experience                             |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Training in using technology                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Performance on teacher assessments           |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Program accreditation                        |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Academic degrees in content areas            |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Quality of undergraduate education           |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 2\. Contribution  |                                                  |
| of partnership    |                                                  |
| grants to schools |                                                  |
| and school        |                                                  |
| districts, and    |                                                  |
| schools' and      |                                                  |
| districts' roles  |                                                  |
| in preservice     |                                                  |
| teacher           |                                                  |
| preparation       |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Support for new   | -   Expanded interaction between school district |
| teachers          |     personnel and faculty to support             |
|                   |     professional development                     |
| Support for       |                                                  |
| in-service        | -   Support for new teachers through mentoring   |
| teachers          |     and other supports                           |
|                   |                                                  |
| Support for       | -   Initiatives related to parental involvement  |
| school leaders    |                                                  |
|                   | -   Improved strategies for recruitment and      |
|                   |     retention                                    |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Improved decision-making and instructional   |
|                   |     knowledge of administrators                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 3\.               |                                                  |
| Organizational    |                                                  |
| changes and       |                                                  |
| relationships     |                                                  |
| among partners    |                                                  |
| within a grant    |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Shared            | -   Development and expansion of leadership      |
| accountability    |     roles                                        |
| for preparing new |                                                  |
| teachers          | -   Shared responsibility for accountability     |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Collaboration with school personnel and      |
|                   |     between education and arts and sciences      |
|                   |     faculty                                      |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Elimination of barriers to effective working |
|                   |     relationships                                |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Status of teacher preparation on campus      |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Role of business and other community         |
|                   |     partners                                     |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Use of funds                                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 4\. Efforts to    |                                                  |
| institutionalize  |                                                  |
| partnerships      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Continued and     | -   Legitimizing the partnership and its         |
| sustained         |     activities to people and organizations that  |
| improvement in    |     are in positions to commit resources to      |
| the quality of    |     support it                                   |
| current and       |                                                  |
| future teaching   | -   Building constituencies of advocates who are |
| forces            |     willing to work for reforms                  |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Mobilizing resources among public and        |
|                   |     private donors on behalf of partnership      |
|                   |     goals                                        |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Designing and modifying organizational       |
|                   |     structures to support partnership activities |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Monitoring the impact of partnership         |
|                   |     activities on broader educational reforms    |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education's *Targeted Literature Review* and
recent reviews of literature cited in this report provided the list of
features in this exhibit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012003 .anchor}Exhibit 7\
Evaluation Data by Source

  ----------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  Survey data       1999--2000   2000--01   2001--02   2002--03   2003--04   2004--05

  Project director                                                          ^a^

  Faculty leaders                                                          

  Faculty involved                                                         

  District staff                                                           

  Principal                                                                 

  Case study site                                                            
  visit data                                                                 

  Case study visits                                                      

  Extant data                                                                

  Institutional                                                            
  Accountability                                                             
  Reports (pass                                                              
  rates)                                                                     

  Annual                                                                    
  Performance                                                                
  Reports^b^                                                                 
  (program                                                                   
  objectives)                                                                

  PPSS database                                                            
  (student                                                                   
  achievement                                                                
  mathematics and                                                            
  reading scores)                                                            

  Common Core of                                                            
  Data, 2001                                                                 
  (student and                                                               
  school                                                                     
  demographics)                                                              
  ----------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

> ^a^ Selected Project Directors participated in follow-up interviews
> addressing implementation and institutionalization.

^b^ The Annual Performance Reports were from calendar year 2000. In
2001, ED eliminated the requirement for Annual Performance Reports for
Title II partnership grants.

### Quantitative Data  {#quantitative-data .unnumbered}

The evaluation surveyed individuals involved in the partnership,
including project directors; faculty who took a leadership role in the
partnership, such as deans; faculty members (professors) who were active
participants in partnership efforts; school district officials; and
school principals. Data were collected through one-time and repeated
surveys, repeated site visits, interviews and focus groups. A repeated
series of surveys was conducted in 2000--01 and 2003--04. These repeated
faculty and district surveys were administered to education and arts and
sciences faculty and school district partnership partici­pants. The first
survey administration established baseline data on implementation in the
first and second years of the grants. The second set of surveys
(follow-up) requested updated implementation data describing pro­gress in
implementation.

The faculty respondents were identified by project directors. Because
partnerships varied in the number of IHEs participating, a
representative group of faculty active in partnership activities was
sought. For the baseline surveys, we asked for at least four faculty
representatives---one faculty leader and one faculty member involved in
partner­ship activities, from both education and arts and sciences. For
the follow-up surveys, we sent the list of baseline representatives to
project directors and asked them to update them; those identified on the
updated contact lists received follow-up surveys.

The district survey population was also based upon recommendations by
project directors. Active representa­tives were sought.

The principal survey population consisted of principals in every
partnership elementary school and was conducted once to gather data on
involvement of teachers at the school level.

The Project Director Survey population consisted of the project
directors for each of the 25 partnerships. Additional interviews with
project directors were conducted during site visits and in the last year
of the evaluation.

Elementary school principals and Title II project directors were
surveyed only once―principals midway between the first and second rounds
of district and faculty surveys, and project directors at the beginning
of the evaluation. We surveyed project directors to gain
programmatic-level baseline information regarding partners, history and
re­form experience as well as planned activities. We surveyed principals
to obtain a measure of teacher involvement and types of collaborative
activities.

Because we surveyed every project director, each identified faculty and
school district representative, and each elementary school principal in
the partnership grantees, our data do not represent a sample of partners
but describe, for the most part, the entire population. Therefore,
inferential statistics are not needed to make inferences from a sample
to the population, and tests of statistical significance for the
differences observed in the populations described in this report are not
provided.

*Response rates*. Exhibit 8 provides response rates, withdrawal rates,
and the number of respondents by survey type. Survey response rates are
described for each partnership in Appendix D.

*Withdrawal rates*. Withdrawal rates ranged from 0 to 40 percent per
partnership. Withdrawals constituted individ­uals who contacted the
evaluation team and declined to respond to surveys because of a lack of
familiarity with, awareness of, or involvement with the partnership
project (less frequently, the withdrawal was due to retirement, job
change or simply lack of time). Faculty leaders and school districts had
the highest withdrawal rates (see Exhibit 8 and Appendix D).

### Qualitative Data {#qualitative-data .unnumbered}

Qualitative data from this evaluation derive from five sources: (1)
analyses of proposals and grant documenta­tion, (2) preliminary and
in-depth case studies, (3) follow-up interviews with case study site
partners about project activities and institutionalization, (4) write-in
responses and explanatory comments volunteered by respondents to survey
items, and (5) in-depth interviews with selected project directors.

For the case studies, the evaluation team selected five partnership
grantees to represent partnerships as a whole and partnership
characteristics of special interest to the U.S. Department of Education.
Multiple visits to each of the five sites occurred, followed by
telephone conferences at the end of the evaluation. The five sites
included the University of Miami, Fla. (Project SUCCEED); the University
of Tennessee at Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tenn. (Urban IMPACT); Arizona
State University, Tempe, Ariz. (Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition,
AzTEC); Our Lady of the Lake University (OLLU), Houston, Texas (CoMeT);
and Jackson State University, Jackson, Miss. (Teacher Quality
Enhancement Program).

In addition to providing direction and refinement for developing
quantitative methods and questions, qualitative data supports and
supplements the quantitative analyses throughout this report.
Information gained from the five case studies allowed us to identify
factors that influenced partnership progress. For example, our
exploration of geographic distance between partners as a variable
potentially influencing partnership implementation resulted from
multiple site visits during which partners expressed frustration about
and difficulty with collaborating with other partners located far away
(where "far away" is defined as the distance that makes personal contact
inconvenient or unlikely). Other issues that surfaced and were pursued
in the analyses were (1) types of reforms to teacher-preparation
programs, (2) sustainability of cross-discipline reform, and (3) quality
features of partnership-sponsored professional development.

### Analytic Methods {#analytic-methods .unnumbered}

To address our evaluation topics, survey responses are reported in both
disaggregated and aggregated forms, as appropriate. Because a primary
focus of the evaluation is on partnership-level activities and outcomes,
at times the unit of analysis is the individual respondents, at other
times it is the 25 partnerships. Presenting the data by partnership,
however, is less common than we would have preferred, due to the
relatively small number of survey respondents in each partnership and
our assurance of anonymity to those respondents. We maintain partnership
anonymity for reporting survey data but not for describing information
from proposals or publicly available sources (including institutional
accountability reports, state Internet sites, publicly accessible
databases such as the Common Core of Data, etc.). To do so, we used a
random number to identify each partnership when reporting survey data;
this number remains the same for each partnership throughout this
report. All percentages described in this report are for valid data only
and do not include missing or invalid responses. Finally, some survey
items asked partici­pants to report on changes over time periods.
Therefore, we report both responses provided in the baseline and
follow-up surveys and sometimes responses about change over specified
time periods (e.g., 1999--2000 and 2002--03).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012004 .anchor}Exhibit 8\
Response Rates, Withdrawal Rates, and the Number of Respondents by
Survey Type

  ----------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ---------------
  Survey            Average     Number of      Number of      Withdrawal   Number of
                    response    partnerships   partnerships   rate         respondents ^b^
                    rate        with 0 percent with 100       (percent)    
                    (percent)   response rate  percent                     
                                ^a^            response rate               

  Project director  96          1/1            24             0            24/25

  All baseline      55          2/2            0              ---          298/540
  surveys                                                                  

  Faculty overall   63          0/2 ^d^        4              ---          180/287
  ^c^                                                                      

  Education leaders 65          0/3            10             ---          46/71

  Education         63          1/5            8              ---          45/72
  involved                                                                 

  Arts and sciences 64          2/6            7              ---          41/64
  leaders                                                                  

  Arts and sciences 60          1/4            6              ---          48/80
  involved                                                                 

  District          47          1/1            0              8            118/253

  Principal survey  71          0/1 ^e^        0              10             509/720^ f^
  (one-time                                                                
  administration)                                                          

  All follow-up     71          1/1            1              13           234/328
  surveys                                                                  

  Faculty overall   72          2/4 ^d^        6              10           131/182
  ^c^                                                                      

  Leaders           65          2/5            10             17           55/85

  Involved          78          3/6            9              3            76/97

  District          71          1/2            9              15           103/146
  ----------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ---------------

> ^a^ The first number is the number of partnerships where no partners
> responded to the survey even where project directors identified
> partners. The second number is the total number of partnerships with
> no respondents to a survey, including partnerships that did not
> identify any partners in this category.
>
> ^b^ The first number is the number of respondents; the second number
> is the number receiving surveys (excluding the number of withdrawals).
>
> ^c^ These numbers are for all faculty surveys for each administration.
> At baseline and at follow-up, faculty leaders and faculty involved
> were surveyed from education and arts and sciences.
>
> ^d^ Two partnerships, ACHIEVE and Southern Colorado, had no faculty
> partners participating at both baseline and follow-up.
>
> ^e^ The North Carolina Central Partnership identified no school
> partners (only district partners).
>
> ^f^ This number excludes from the total population of partnership
> schools the 83 principals who denied any partnership involvement and
> thus did not participate in our survey.
>
> NOTE: There were 218 unique faculty respondents (combining those who
> replied to just baseline, just follow-up, and both) and 176 unique
> district respondents. Seventy-three district respondents replied to
> the baseline only; 58, to the follow-up only; and 45, to both.
> Eighty-seven faculty respondents replied to the baseline survey only;
> 38, to the follow-up survey only; and 93, to both. Some of the changes
> in respondents across administrations were because of staff turnover.
> Dash "---" indicates withdrawal data was not collected for the
> baseline faculty surveys.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: The survey administered to project directors had an
> average response rate of 96 percent. One partnership's project
> director did not respond to the survey and thus, one partnership had a
> 0 percent response rate. Twenty-four of 25 project directors responded
> to the survey.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline and Follow-Up Project
Director, Principal, District, and Faculty Leadership and Involved
Surveys.

### Analytic Issues  {#analytic-issues .unnumbered}

The structure of this evaluation is complex for many reasons. We were
particularly challenged in two areas:

-   Partnership diversity---partnerships represent a diverse assortment
    of institutions, objectives and activities in a variety of state
    contexts. Data for this evaluation are extensive and reflect partner
    activity at different times and from different respondents at
    varying levels within each partnership.

-   Nonresponse bias---the issues of missing data, non­respondent bias
    and the potential for selection bias must be considered when
    interpreting the survey results.

Each challenge is discussed briefly below.

*Partnership diversity*. Comparisons of partnership implemen­tation are
complicated because the partnerships vary in the number and types of
institutions involved; the level of commitment and involvement by each
institution; the scope of the partnership reform efforts; and overall
partnership emphases, objectives, and implementation approaches. This is
one reason the analysis explores so many variables describing
partnerships. For example, comparing a large multi-IHE, multidistrict
partnership with a small single-IHE, single-district partnership on
IHE-district collabora­tion without considering size would be
uninformative and possibly misleading.

A potential difficulty with categorizing partnerships by so many
characteristics, however, is that ultimately compari­sons may consist of
very small groups, thus losing the representative advantage of having
such diversity among partnerships in the study. Throughout our analyses,
we balanced the need for a fair comparison and the need for an adequate
representation of the partnerships. Partnership characteristics are
described in Chapter II.

*Nonresponse bias*. The analytic sample has several sources for
potential bias, including survey- and item-level non­response (across and
within partnerships). Survey-level nonresponse is indicated by response
rates of less than 100 percent. The nonresponse was a concern throughout
survey administration. We noted that there were response rate problems,
for example, from partnerships that were large and diverse and
partnerships in which the project director was less responsive to the
evaluation requests in general. Our analyses therefore may
underrepresent these types of partnerships. Survey nonresponse may also
be a problem if it varies by level within a partnership. For example, if
faculty members respond at a higher rate than district representatives,
an imbalanced picture of the partnership may emerge. These issues
created a challenge in reporting issues that cross levels within a
partnership, such as describing IHE and district collaboration in
professional development activities.

### Contents of This Evaluation Report {#contents-of-this-evaluation-report .unnumbered}

This final report on the evaluation of the partnership grants program
contains chapters that address the partner­ship characteristics, as well
as each evaluation topic. Below we briefly describe the contents of each
of the succeeding chapters.

Chapter II: Partnership Characteristics---a comprehensive look at the
partnerships, including budgets, scope, number and type of partners,
goals and content area emphases, strategies to improve accountability
and ensure partner participation, and type and amount of additional
funding gathered during the grant period.

Chapter III: Partner Relations and Organizational Changes---a
characterization of the changes in relation­ships between school
districts and universities, and rela­tionships within each partner
institution as a result of the partnership.

Chapter IV: Teacher-Preparation Reform Efforts---an account of changes
made to the teacher-preparation pro­gram content and structure as a
result of the partner­ship grant, the progress made on collaborative
activities be­tween partners, particularly accomplishments resulting from
collaborative work between arts and sciences and education faculty.

Chapter V: Partner Schools and Districts---an assessment of the
perceived value of the partnership to schools and districts, addressing
teacher qualifications, the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB,
and profes­sional development initiatives.

Chapter VI: Institutionalization---a description of the likelihood that
partnership activities will be sustained and partner plans for
institutionalizing particular initiatives.

Chapter VII: Challenges and Lessons Learned---a discussion of
difficulties and challenges reported by part­ners and an examination of
why some expectations remain unfulfilled.

Each chapter begins with a brief summary of the signifi­cance of the
topic, reflects on the key indicators, and describes key findings
related to the evaluation topic.

#   Partnership Characteristics

### Highlights {#highlights .unnumbered}

-   The scope or reach of activities in the 1999 Title II partnership
    grantees ranged from local (one university and one school district)
    to regional to statewide, including one cross-state partnership.

-   A large number of schools and school districts are represented in
    the 25 partnerships in this cohort: at least 66 different colleges
    and universities, 28 com­munity colleges, 179 school districts, and
    821 elemen­tary schools.

-   The federal investment in the 1999 cohort was ap­proximately \$171
    million dollars. Individual IHEs within the partner­ships augmented
    the investment during the grant period, adding approximately
    \$93 million dollars from federal, state, and foundation sources.

Although all partnerships were required to include certain types of
partners and to work toward a common set of goals, the way in which the
25 grantees put their partnerships together varied considerably. This
chapter points to key partnership features that the literature
identifies as noteworthy for successful partnering. Exam­ples of three
partnerships illustrate how the differences in these features have
influenced goal setting and partnership management.

### Key Partnership Features {#key-partnership-features .unnumbered}

Distinguishing characteristics of the partnerships that were important
in these analyses include:

-   The scope of the partnership and the number and type of core
    partners.

-   Partnership resources and goals.

-   The involvement of other entities.

-   The leadership's experience with teacher-preparation reform.

-   The coherence of partner goals: agreement among partners on mission
    and coordination with other reforms, such as standards-based reform
    and teacher-preparation reform. More detail on this characteristic
    is provided in Chapter III.

### Scope {#scope .unnumbered}

Partnerships varied in scope, the number of required partners, and the
geographic distance between them. Many were regional in scope (11
partnerships), consisting of one to three IHEs with widely dispersed
districts. Seven partnerships were local in scope, consisting of a
single college or university or a system of universities that were in
the same metropolitan area. Six were statewide in scope, consisting of
multiple university systems and districts dispersed throughout the
state. Finally, one partnership was multistate in scope, comprising 11
colleges and universities in ten states.

Among the 25 partnerships included in the first cohort of the Title II
partnerships program were universities, colleges and school districts in
more than 25 different states. Some states (Miss., Texas and S.C.) had
more than one partnership, and one partnership operated in 10 states
(Ky., Calif., Mich., Kan., Va., Tenn., Pa., Mo., Idaho, and Iowa).

### Number and Type of Partners {#number-and-type-of-partners .unnumbered}

Partnerships were required to be organized with at least three types of
core partners: (1) colleges of education (teacher-preparation programs),
(2) colleges of arts and sciences (both from the same IHE), and (3) at
least one eligible local school district or local education agency
(LEA). School districts were eligible if they (1) had a high percentage
of students whose families fell below the poverty line and (2) had a
high percentage of secondary school out-of-field teachers or a high
teacher turnover rate. Partnerships could also include community
colleges, other public or private school partners, and other partners,
such as businesses, foundations, and state agencies.[^2] Under the terms
of the partnership initiative, however, partnerships were not required
to include these latter "other" partners in the partnership.

The three core partners received the bulk of the funds, housed the
project leadership, developed initial project goals and strategies,
dispersed funds, and included those most involved in developing and
implementing partnership efforts. Most partnerships (16 partnerships or
64 percent) had fewer than 10 core partners, five more had between 10
and 20, and the remaining four had 20 or more partners. The partnerships
with the highest total number of partners were also those working with
the most schools. In total, the partnerships included at least 66
different colleges and universities, 28 community colleges, 179 school
districts, and 821 schools (see Exhibit 9).

*IHE (college and university) partners*. The majority of partnerships
involved a single IHE, and many others involved a single system of IHEs.
On average, each partnership had 2.8 IHEs, ranging between one and
11 IHE partners. Over half (14 partnerships or 56 percent) had a single
IHE partner, another seven partnerships (28 per­cent) had between two and
four IHE partners. Fewer than half (10 partnerships, 40 percent)
involved any community colleges. Those that did had seven or fewer
community college partners. Appendix B provides a complete list of
partnership universities and colleges from their original proposals.

*LEA (school district) partners*. The partnerships reported that over
the duration of the grant they expected to be working with between one
and 47 school districts, averaging 8.5. Nearly half had fewer than five
district partners (11 grantees or 44 percent) and 80 percent (20) had
fewer than 10 district partners.

*Individual school partners.* Partnerships served elementary, middle,
and high schools. All but one partnership reported elementary school
partners. Because most of the partner schools were at the elementary
level, the evaluation sought more detail about these schools from the
CCD file of 1999--2000. The average number of elementary schools
involved in a Title II partnership was 34.2. Three partnerships reported
more than 100 elementary schools, and two partnerships had five or
fewer. Not all schools within a partnership district participated. The
ratio of partner to non-partner schools in each partner district thus
varied---in some cases every elementary school in the district
participated, while in other cases, a single school from the district
partner participated. In four partnerships, all of the elementary
schools in all of the partner districts were involved in the project. In
13 other partnerships, all of the schools in some of the participating
districts were involved. Other partner districts selected some, but not
all, schools in the district. For example, in the Tucson, Ariz.,
district, there are 73 partner schools and seven non-partner schools
(schools in participating districts not involved in grant activities),
while in Amphitheater, Ariz., there are two partner schools and 11
non-partner schools.

### The Title II Investment and the Need for Supplementary Resources {#the-title-ii-investment-and-the-need-for-supplementary-resources .unnumbered}

The Title II partnership funds represented important leverage dollars
for the various institutions involved. For the schools, districts and
even some IHE partners in the 1999 cohort, the period between 1999 and
2004 was marked by low levels of district and state government support.
In states, resources were consistently focused on areas of review by
NCLB, particularly assessment and professional development,
supplementary services, and programs and support for special-needs
students. During the same time period, within the higher education

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012005 .anchor}Exhibit 9\
Number of Partners per Partnership

  -------------------------- --- --- ---------- ------ ---------- -------- -------------- ------ ----------- -------- ----------
                                     Required                              Other                                      
                                     partners                              partnership                                
                                                                           participants                               
                                                                           (optional                                  
                                                                           partners)                                  

  ** **                              Number of         Total               Number of                                  
                                                       number of                                                      
                                                       required                                                       
                                                       partners                                                       
                                                       reported                                                       

  Partnership                        IHEs^a^    LEAs                       K--6 Schools          Community            Other
                                                                                                 colleges             partners

  Arizona State                  3              8      11                  112                   3                    1
  University/Arizona Teacher                                                                                          
  Excellence Coalition                                                                                                
  (AzTEC)                                                                                                             

  Ball State                     1              6      7                   11                    0                    5
  University/Improving                                                                                                
  Teacher Quality and                                                                                                 
  Schools Through                                                                                                     
  Collaborative Partnerships                                                                                          

  Boston College/The             7              3      10                  9                     0                    18
  Massachusetts Coalition                                                                                             
  for Teacher Quality and                                                                                             
  Student Achievement                                                                                                 

  Graceland                      1              1      2                   14                    1                    1
  University/Collaboration                                                                                            
  Leading to Improved Master                                                                                          
  and Bachelors Studies                                                                                               
  (Project CLIMBS)                                                                                                    

  Illinois State                 5              5      10                  76                    7                    13^b^
  University/Illinois                                                                                                 
  Professional Learners                                                                                               
  Partnership                                                                                                         

  Jackson State                  1              2      3                   46                    1                    2
  University/Teacher Quality                                                                                          
  Enhancement Program                                                                                                 

  Johns Hopkins                  3              2      5                   105                   0                    1
  University/Project SITE                                                                                             
  SUPPORT                                                                                                             

  Kansas State                   1              3      4                   12                    0                    N/A^c^
  University/Improving                                                                                                
  Teacher Quality Through                                                                                             
  KSU PDS Partnership                                                                                                 

  Kean University/The New        3              10     13                  13                    0                    5
  Jersey Statewide Teacher                                                                                            
  Quality Enhancement                                                                                                 
  Consortium                                                                                                          

  Mississippi State              2              20     22                  40                    3                    3^c^
  University/ACHIEVE                                                                                                  
  Mississippi Partnership                                                                                             

  North Carolina Central         1              6      7                   N/A^d^                2                    2
  University/North Carolina                                                                                           
  Central University Teacher                                                                                          
  Education Partnership                                                                                               

  Our Lady of the Lake           1              5      6                   6                     2                    4
  University/Collaboration                                                                                            
  Mentoring and Technology                                                                                            
  Program (CoMeT)                                                                                                     

  Saginaw Valley State       1                  26                27                      54                 0        17
  University/Sponsored and                                                                                            
  Academic Programs Support                                                                                           

  South Carolina State       3                  6                 9                       8                  1        0
  University/Community                                                                                                
  Higher Education Council                                                                                            
  and LEA Partnership                                                                                                 

  Southwest Missouri State   1                  6                 7                       9                  0        0
  University/Ozarks                                                                                                   
  Partnership Teacher                                                                                                 
  Enhancement Initiatives                                                                                             
  (OPTEI)                                                                                                             

  Texas A&M University and   9                  29                38                      43                 0        4
  University                                                                                                          
  Foundation/Partnerships                                                                                             
  for Texas Public Schools                                                                                            

  University of              1                  3                 4                       3                  0        3
  Alaska-Anchorage/Alaska                                                                                             
  Partnership for Teacher                                                                                             
  Enhancement                                                                                                         

  University of Miami        1                  1                 2                       6                  0        1
  (Fla.)/School University                                                                                            
  Community Coalition for                                                                                             
  Excellence in Education                                                                                             
  (Project SUCCEED)                                                                                                   
  -------------------------- --- --- ---------- ------ ---------- -------- -------------- ------ ----------- -------- ----------

(exhibit continued on next page)

**Exhibit 9**\
Number of Partners per Partnership (Continued)

  ----------------------------- ---------- ------ ---------- -------------- ----------- ----------
                                Required                     Other                      
                                partners                     partnership                
                                                             participants               
                                                             (optional                  
                                                             partners)                  

  ** **                         Number of         Total      Number of                  
                                                  number of                             
                                                  required                              
                                                  partners                              
                                                  reported                              

  Partnership                   IHEs^a^    LEAs              K--6 Schools   Community   Other
                                                                            colleges    partners

  University of South           4          2      6          5              0           0
  Carolina/Partners for the                                                             
  Enhancement of Clinical                                                               
  Experiences                                                                           

  University of Southern        1          17     18         60             4           3
  Colorado/Southern Colorado                                                            
  Teacher Education Alliance                                                            

  University of Tennessee at    2          1      3          9              0           4
  Chattanooga/Knoxville/Urban                                                           
  IMPACT                                                                                

  University of                 1          1      2          131            0           9
  Wisconsin-Milwaukee/The                                                               
  Milwaukee Partnership Academy                                                         
  to Improve the Quality of                                                             
  Teaching                                                                              

  Washington State University/  1          6      7          9              4           3
  Collaboration for Teacher                                                             
  Education Accountable to                                                              
  Children with High-needs                                                              
  (Co-TEACH)                                                                            

  Western Kentucky              11         7      18         30             0           9
  University/Improving Teacher                                                          
  Quality Through Partnerships                                                          
  that Connect Teacher                                                                  
  Performance to Student                                                                
  Learning                                                                              

  Youngstown State              1          3      4          10             0           22
  University/Tri-County                                                                 
  Partnership                                                                           

  Total                         66         179    245        821            28          130
  ----------------------------- ---------- ------ ---------- -------------- ----------- ----------

> ^a^ Includes two of the three required partners---Departments of
> Education and School of Arts and Sciences.
>
> ^b^ These partnerships reported a value such as "numerous" in addition
> to a quantitative value (i.e., two libraries and numerous businesses).
> In these cases, only the number provided is counted here.
>
> ^c^ The number of partners was not specified in the partnership's
> proposal.
>
> ^d^ Not available because at the time of data collection, North
> Carolina had not finalized participating schools.
>
> NOTE: Jackson County School District has three schools in the ACHIEVE
> Partnership and 41 schools in the Teacher Quality Enhancement Program
> (Jackson State). The district is included in each partnership, but
> counted only once toward the total. There are no non-Title II schools
> in the district.

SOURCE: Partnership Project Proposals and Project Director Surveys
served as the sources for these numbers. Because participation in
partnerships varied over the grant period, the numbers in this table
vary somewhat from the original list of IHEs and school districts
provided by the grants program on the Web and found at
www.ed.gov/programs/heatqp/TQE-partners.pdf accessed on Feb. 3, 2006.

community, public universities also experienced loss of support from
state governments. Selective private institutions, on the other hand,
reported enormous contributions by individual donors that supported
special tuition programs or endowed chairs and schools. Meanwhile, many
small- and medium-sized private and public institutions had to fight for
fewer available resources. Among the partner­ships in this evaluation are
small private institutions serving specific minority populations, larger
research universities with significant endowments, and public regional
universities. The schools and districts represented by the 25
partnerships are among some of the most challenged in terms of
leadership turnover, lack of resources, and related urban problems, such
as the closure of housing projects near partner schools, overcrowding in
others, and teacher turnover. For example, in site visit interviews, the
leader of one partnership echoed others when he explained how his IHE
was partnered with an urban elementary school that, in addition to a
resource shortage, had a student population that was 80 percent
immigrant. In serving this school, the IHE partner had to be especially
attuned to issues related to cultural adaptation and the needs of
English language learners.

*Grant funds*. Total partnership budgets ranged from \$1,215,736 to
\$13,842,837, totaling just over \$171,000,000 for all grantees over the
life of the grant (see Exhibit 10). Approximate annual partnership
budgets ranged from less

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012006 .anchor}Exhibit 10\
Annual Budget by Partnership, by Lead IHE

  ------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
                           Annual budget                                                                        Total budget
                           (fiscal year)                                                                        (app.)

                           1999             2000             2001             2002             2003 (est.)      

  Partnership                                                                                                   

  Graceland University     \$     177,124   \$     298,392   \$     277,993   \$     252,254   \$     209,973   \$    1,215,736

  Youngstown State         \$     262,249   \$     708,326   \$     680,521   \$     643,047   \$     413,611   \$    2,707,754
  University                                                                                                    

  Ball State University    \$     509,936   \$     985,562   \$     988,949   \$     883,255   \$     957,260   \$    4,324,962

  Jackson St. University   \$     582,678   \$     645,741   \$     617,424   \$     509,362   \$     401,027   \$    2,756,232

  S.W. Mo St. University   \$     600,598   \$     569,625   \$     556,366   \$     567,133   \$     562,555   \$    2,856,277

  University of            \$     648,759   \$     724,336   \$     719,455   \$     603,258   \$     593,315   \$    3,289,123
  Tenn./Chatt./Knoxville                                                                                        

  N.C. Central University  \$     705,419   \$     837,388   \$     844,901   \$     748,813   \$     663,625   \$    3,800,146

  University of Southern   \$     749,159   \$     811,386   \$     814,218   \$     736,128   \$     636,559   \$    3,747,450
  Colo.                                                                                                         

  University of S.C.       \$     967,994   \$     975,983   \$     878,550   \$     724,616   \$     534,314   \$    4,081,457

  University of            \$  1,084,457    \$  1,231,183    \$  1,306,209    \$  1,271,514    \$  1,149,405    \$    6,042,768
  Alaska--Anchorage                                                                                             

  Kan. State University    \$  1,114,008    \$  1,292,353    \$  1,316,994    \$  1,367,621    \$     662,552   \$    5,753,528

  Western Ky. University   \$  1,146,097    \$  1,321,439    \$  1,290,054    \$  1,146,844    \$     825,577   \$    5,730,011

  Our Lady of the Lake     \$  1,335,632    \$  1,393,827    \$  1,141,298    \$     955,927   \$     795,957   \$    5,622,641
  University                                                                                                    

  Boston College           \$  1,404,153    \$  1,459,112    \$  1,444,434    \$  1,451,325    \$  1,428,066    \$    7,187,090

  University of            \$  1,445,018    \$  1,769,436    \$  1,777,334    \$  1,792,727    \$  1,740,013    \$    8,524,528
  Wisc.--Milwaukee                                                                                              

  Kean University          \$  1,574,713    \$  1,842,983    \$  1,947,566    \$  1,621,086    \$  1,176,768    \$    8,163,116

  Miss. State University   \$  1,736,695    \$  1,900,890    \$  1,916,881    \$  1,763,813    \$  1,466,246    \$    8,784,525

  South Carolina State     \$  1,745,658    \$  1,545,422    \$  1,303,439    \$  1,131,850    \$     976,500   \$    6,702,869
  University                                                                                                    

  Saginaw Valley St.       \$  1,796,881    \$  1,972,568    \$  1,988,999    \$  1,739,650    \$  1,642,420    \$    9,140,518
  University                                                                                                    

  Washington St.           \$  1,969,070    \$  2,800,102    \$  2,135,620    \$  1,508,338    \$  1,238,757    \$    9,651,887
  University                                                                                                    

  University of Miami      \$  1,976,707    \$  2,081,728    \$  2,107,771    \$  2,095,887    \$  1,930,840    \$  10,192,933

  Johns Hopkins University \$  2,357,370    \$  2,588,936    \$  2,621,606    \$  2,593,274    \$  2,517,879    \$  12,679,065

  Ill. State University    \$  2,413,734    \$  2,613,418    \$  2,586,493    \$  2,606,817    \$  2,434,309    \$  12,654,771

  Texas A&M University and \$  2,550,605    \$  2,779,842    \$  2,489,197    \$  2,064,215    \$  1,803,204    \$  11,687,063
  University Foundation                                                                                         

  Ariz. State University   \$  2,557,786    \$  2,836,479    \$  2,817,045    \$  2,821,391    \$  2,810,136    \$  13,842,837

  Total                    \$33,412,500     \$37,986,457     \$36,569,317     \$33,600,145     \$29,570,868     \$171,139,287
  ------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------

> Note: The 2004 continuation budgets were not available when this
> report was written.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: The partnership grantee Graceland University was
> awarded \$177,124 in 1999, \$298,392 in 2000; \$277,993 in 2001;
> \$252,254 in 2002; and \$209,973 in 2003 for a total approximate
> budget of \$1,215,736.

SOURCE: The Title II HEA Partnership Program Office, U.S. Department of
Education.

than \$200,000 to over \$2,800,000, with an average budget of
\$1,400,000. Depending on the year, between nine and 13 partnerships had
annual budgets of less than \$1,000,000; between nine and
12 partnerships had annual budgets between \$1,000,000 and \$2,000,000;
and between three and six partnerships had annual budgets of more than
\$2,000,000. Although the grantees with the smallest budgets tended to
have fewer partners, grantees with the largest budgets did not
necessarily have the most partners.

Partnerships engaged different numbers of teachers, students and faculty
each year. They also modified goals and activities during each year,
incorporated matching funds, and sought additional grants. For these
reasons there is no one metric of efficiency that would be appropriate,
based on annual allocation of funds. Exhibit 11, drawing upon a set of
targeted interviews with six project directors in the last year of the
grant, illustrates the variety of participants in partnership activities
at professional development events alone.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012007 .anchor}Exhibit 11\
Approximate Number of Professional Development Beneficiaries as Reported
by\
Project Directors

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Partnership                      | Total Number of Professional      |
|                                  | Development Beneficiaries         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| The Alaska Partnership for       | 203 summer institute participants |
| Teacher Enhancement, University  |                                   |
| of Alaska-Anchorage              | 255 mentoring class participants  |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Community Higher Education       | 1,500-2,000 workshop              |
| Council and Local Education      | participants^a^                   |
| Agency Partnership, South        |                                   |
| Carolina State University        | 125 participants in M.Ed. program |
|                                  |                                   |
|                                  | 40 participants in M.A.T. program |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| North Carolina Central           | 300 participants in mentor        |
| University Teacher Education     | training program                  |
| Partnership                      |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Project SUCCEED, University of   | 2,500 (500 per summer) institute  |
| Miami                            | participants                      |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Project Site Support, Johns      | 210 in mentor training; unsure    |
| Hopkins University               | how many in technology training.  |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Improving Teacher Quality        | 165 arts and sciences faculty     |
| Through Partnerships that        |                                   |
| Connect Teacher Performance to   | 325 education faculty             |
| Student Learning, Western        |                                   |
| Kentucky University              | 3,073 in-service teachers         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

> ^a^ The PI of this project indicates that there were repeaters in the
> workshops, so this number probably reflects some duplication.

SOURCE: Supplementary interviews with project directors. Few
partnerships had comprehensive records of all participants in every
event hosted by the partnership.

*Other sources of funding.* In their responses to the baseline surveys,
faculty leaders noted other grants received since 1999--2000 (the year
the grants were awarded) were simultaneously funding teacher-preparation
reform in the partnerships. In the follow-up surveys, additional data
were requested to clarify these comments: While we could not be certain
that all other funds received were used for the same activities funded
by Title II resources, we could learn about additional resources that
helped initially sustain or continue Title II types of activities. The
follow-up surveys asked faculty leaders in the partnerships to describe
and categorize the kinds of grants they were receiving from other
sources and to indicate the percentage of funds allocated to activities
similar to those supported by Title II funds. No details on matching
funds were requested; general insights were sought about the patterns of
grant making in IHEs within the partnerships.

As Exhibit 12 illustrates, the IHEs in the Title II partnerships
received funds from multiple sources. The most frequently identi­fied
non-partnership funding source for teacher-prepara­tion reform efforts
during this time period was state grants (25 faculty leaders
representing a number of IHEs within 14 partnerships reported receiving
some form of state grant), followed by Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to
Use Technology (PT3) grants (reported by 22 of the 25  faculty leaders).
The term "state grants" refers to any federal or state funds that a
state agency provided to members of the partnership to pro­mote
preparation of teachers: the term was not limited to any single type of
grant.

The allocations of these funds, once received, differed by type of grant
source. Exhibit 13 shows the percentage allocation for each type of
funding source that is related to goals similar to those of the
partnership grants program. A greater proportion of PT3 grant money, for
example, was reportedly spent on the reform of teacher preparation than
on preservice clinical experiences or professional development. More
state grant funds were reported to be spent on professional development
than on teacher-preparation reform or preservice clinical experi­ences.
Grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other foundation
funds were allocated more evenly across Title II reform-type categories.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012008 .anchor}Exhibit 12\
Percentage of Grants Received From Other Sources and Number of Grantees\
Reporting About Other Grants for Teacher-Preparation Reform Received by\
Partnerships Between 1999--2000 and 2002--03, as Reported by Faculty
Leaders

![](media/image4.wmf)

> EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-two faculty leaders reported receiving Preparing
> Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grants. These grants
> accounted for 27 percent of the number of other grants received by
> faculty leaders and their institutions.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012009 .anchor}Exhibit 13\
Funding Sources Providing Additional Funds and Percentage of Each
Allocated\
to Teacher-Preparation Reform, Preservice Clinical Experiences, and
Professional\
Development Since 1999--2000, as Reported by Faculty Leaders

+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
| Grant Source    | Pe       |          |           | Per  | Total    |
|                 | rcentage |          |           | cent | funding  |
|                 | a        |          |           |      | by grant |
|                 | llocated |          |           | T    | source   |
|                 | to       |          |           | otal |          |
|                 |          |          |           |      | (in      |
|                 |          |          |           |      | dollars) |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
|                 | Teacher  | Pr       | Pro       |      |          |
|                 | prep     | eservice | fessional |      |          |
|                 | reform   | clinical | de        |      |          |
|                 |          | ex       | velopment |      |          |
|                 |          | perience |           |      |          |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
| PT3             | 48       | 24       | 28        | 100  | \$30     |
|                 |          |          |           |      | ,366,595 |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
| State grants    | 18       | 19       | 63        | 100  | \$27     |
|                 |          |          |           |      | ,187,224 |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
| NSF             | 34       | 29       | 37        | 100  | \$23     |
|                 |          |          |           |      | ,196,981 |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
| Other           | 33       | 28       | 39        | 100  | \$12     |
| foundation      |          |          |           |      | ,208,944 |
| support         |          |          |           |      |          |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
|                 |          |          |           | [    | [        |
|                 |          |          |           | ]{.m | ]{.mark} |
|                 |          |          |           | ark} |          |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+
| Total spending  | \$31,38  | \$22,59  | \$38,9    | [    | \$92     |
| in each         | 5,590.98 | 9,184.17 | 74,968.85 | ]{.m | ,959,744 |
| category across |          |          |           | ark} |          |
| all grant       |          |          |           |      |          |
| sources (in     |          |          |           |      |          |
| dollars):       |          |          |           |      |          |
+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+------+----------+

> NOTE: The allocation categories used reflect the primary uses of funds
> for the partnership grant program.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: The PT3 Grant funds totaled \$30,366,595 across all
> partnerships. On average, recipients allocated 48 percent of these
> grant funds to "teacher prep reform," 24 percent to "preservice
> clinical experience," and 28 percent to "professional development."
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

Overall, the most funds were spent on professional development, followed
by teacher-preparation reform. The least funds were spent on preservice
clinical experiences. PT3 grants provided the greatest total support to
partnerships, and foundations provided the least. These data demonstrate
that, despite the size of the partnership grant, additional resources
were being sought and welcomed by the IHEs in the partnerships.

### Leadership Experience and Focus of Partnership Initiatives {#leadership-experience-and-focus-of-partnership-initiatives .unnumbered}

Implementation, as research indicates, is affected by the attitudes and
perceptions of those who are asked to take on new roles or new
strategies and also by the context, that is, policies that could
directly support, dilute or dis­assemble the efforts of those planning
and participating in the implementation (Bacevich et al., 2004). Thus,
to the extent that partnership initiatives were coherent (fit) with
reforms taking place in schools and districts or reflected the roles
that universities and schools desired for each other and for new,
outside partners, the process and the progress toward implementation
were likely to be smoother.

Leaders of partnerships were a varied group. Some received teacher
reform grants prior to the Title II award, and their partnership goals
were in the continuing tradition of reform emerging from participation
in national organizations, such as the Holmes Partnership, Urban Network
to Improve Teacher Education (UNITE), Teacher Education Accreditation
Council (TEAC), the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE), and the Renaissance Group (teacher education deans at
regional public universities). The partnership leader group experienced
a moderate amount of turnover, with most of the project directors
remaining at the universities where the partnership originated. However,
turnover of faculty and school district representatives within the
partnerships occurred at a much higher rate, which made maintaining
momentum on initiatives and reforms a daunting task for even the most
experienced project director.

The partnerships developed goals that were related to the specific needs
of their school partners and related to the research and professional
development in which faculty in partner schools were already engaged.
For example, the education faculty with the reading instruction
portfolio at the University of Miami developed a week-long reading
institute that provided teachers at elementary and middle schools with
PDS partners the latest scientifically based reading practices. Faculty
at a community college partner (San Antonio College) in the CoMeT
Partnership created a course targeted to indivi­duals considering the
career of teaching and covering the practical aspects of the career as
well as theories and philosophies of teaching and learning. The course,
"Introduction to Education," was a direct response to a state mandate to
encourage more people to consider entering teaching. One CoMeT partner
district received funding through the partnership to send elementary
school teachers who were teaching in multiage classrooms to a national
conference on multiage and looping teaching methods.

Partnerships differed in the emphasis each placed on the program goals
and in the strategies planned for meeting them. Grantee proposals
identified the main goals for each partnership, identified any content
area emphases, described plans to use incentives to recruit and reward
faculty and teacher involvement, and outlined plans to increase
accountability and teacher recruitment. The sections below describe how
partnerships varied on these dimensions.

*Main focus or goals*. Through an analysis of grantee goals, we were
able to identify "main goals" as those identified by at least 5 of the
25 partnerships. These goals included pro­fessional development,
standards (alignment of curriculum to standards, developing new
standards, etc.), teacher recruitment, and clinical experiences.
Recruitment of students into teacher-preparation programs was the most
frequently mentioned main objective---cited by 11 partner­ships. Nine
identified a primary focus on standards align­ment, and eight planned to
focus primarily on professional development. Five partnerships
identified broadening clinical experiences as their main goal.

*Content area emphases*. In identifying their main partnership goals,
many partnerships described a content area emphasis---in their plans to
increase accountability, intensify field experiences or propose
strategies for pro­fessional development. Twenty-two partnerships focused
in some way on at least one specific content area.

Six partnerships identified a special emphasis in mathematics or
reading. Two partnerships had an empha­sis on math, one on reading, and
three on both math­ematics and reading. Seven partnerships identified a
specific content area emphasis other than reading or math, such as
science, teaching English Language Learners, or history. Sixteen
partner­ships reported their overall empha­sis was on improving content
study.

*Incentives*. Many partnership funds were an important source of
incentives to ensure or reward participation of either classroom
teachers or faculty in partnership activities and reform efforts.
Fifteen partnerships provided faculty incentives for participation in
partnership efforts, and eight partnerships offered incentives to
teachers. Seven of the 15 partnerships offered incentives to both
faculty and teachers. Incentives included reduced tuition or tuition
waivers for teachers taking college courses, in­creased recognition for
partnership activities, revised merit systems so that collaboration and
mentoring were given increased weight in tenure and promotion
considerations, and expanded budgets for travel to conferences to
present informa­tion on partnership-funded research and activities. In
creating a teachers-in-residence program at its IHE partner, the
Milwaukee Partnership Academy to Improve the Quality of Teaching went so
far as to buy out two years of the teaching time for each of 34
in-service master teachers from the Milwaukee public schools.

*Increasing accountability*. A goal of the Title II Partnership Grant
Program is to increase the accountability of teacher-preparation
programs for producing highly qualified teachers. Within the teacher
education community, account­ability has been improved by (1) the
measurement of program outcomes, (2) the continuous review of program
elements, (3) the meeting of standards set by external agencies, and
finally, (4) the extension of the

responsibility for teacher preparation to all units within the IHE. Most
partnerships reported addressing one or two of these four main
activities, although two focused on all four. Thirteen partnerships
identified a focus on aligning their standards with NCATE. Some of these
partnerships planned to use Title II partnership funds to attain or
retain NCATE accreditation by (1) improving student perfor­mance on
teacher program assessments or (2) bringing program structure and
content in line with NCATE standards. Seven partnerships planned to
align their curriculum with state content standards for students; 11
focused on developing state standards and seven on developing
assessments. Eleven partnerships identified a focus on combinations of
these four activities, and three did not identify activities in pursuit
of any of these accountability goals.

Appendix C describes the main goals and objectives noted above for each
of the partnerships.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

#   Partner Relations and Organizational Changes

### Highlights {#highlights-1 .unnumbered}

-   Developing a common mission is the first step for a partnership.
    Authenticity, a measure of the extent to which partnerships are
    systems of formalized coopera­tion with effective working
    relationships and mutually agreed-upon strategies, varied somewhat
    across the 25 partnerships. This measure was positively cor­related
    with the extent of cross-discipline collaboration among and within
    partners.

-   There was a range of collaboration between arts and sciences and
    education faculty. At the "low end" of the spectrum, faculty from
    both disciplines met regularly to discuss their ideas for
    professional devel­opment, course revisions and student outcomes. At
    the "high end," a school of arts and sciences and education in one
    partnership merged.

-   A higher percentage of faculty reported that support from the IHE
    president and departmental deans existed toward the end of the grant
    compared with the early years of the grant: this support was viewed
    as essential for sustaining cross-discipline collabora­tion and
    initiatives when grant funds ended.

The Title II Partnership Grants Program sought the estab­lishment of
partnerships that would change the ways in which school districts,
universities and university depart­ments worked together in the pursuit
of a common goal: preparing high-quality teachers. As organizations,
K--12 schools, education departments and arts and sciences schools have
very different character­istics. In addition to these disparate
institutions, some partnerships incorpo­rated businesses, community
colleges, and nonprofit community organizations. Advancing the
partnership required setting an agenda of mutual goals that recognized
the unique conditions in which each organization operates and finding
ways to involve all partners that would lead to sustained initiatives
once funding ended.

Requiring organizational changes of this magnitude can be daunting. The
stakes become even higher when the focus is on an area where change has
been historically difficult to envision and implement. In this case, the
desired change was (1) in the form of collaboration by faculty members
from two university divisions who are traditionally separated in their
academic traditions and (2) in concerted integration of school personnel
within the teacher-prepara­tion program. A closer collaboration between
university preparation faculty and school district and school personnel
around teacher quality challenges was expected to promote responsiveness
and realism in pre­paring new teachers and supporting in-service
teachers. Finally, an unstated assumption built into the grant goals
held that the business of preparing teachers would not be the same once
the grant funds were spent because the reform models created by these
partnerships would be sought as best practice to be replicated by the
broader IHE community.

The literature about partnership approaches to school or curriculum
reform contains mostly guidance, emerging from case descriptions and
surveys, about conditions or features associated with successful
partnerships in which organizational change and goal accomplishment are
mutu­ally reinforcing. The features most frequently identi­fied as related
to goal accomplishment are:

-   Partnership authenticity: A broad concept that addresses shared
    mission and goals and a collaborative process of working together to
    implement change and meet objectives.

-   Partner relations: Development and expansion of the role of partners
    and strengthening the relationships between them.

-   Leadership: Development and expansion of leadership roles.

-   Accountability: Shared responsibility for accountability (including
    increasing the status of teacher-preparation programs and supporting
    new teachers).

-   Recognition and elimination of barriers.

Authenticity, forms of collaboration, leadership support, and the role
of partners are described in this chapter. Chapter IV,
Teacher-Preparation Reform Efforts, ad­dresses partnership-facilitated
accountability, and Chapter VII, Challenges and Lessons Learned,
discusses the recog­nition and elimination of barriers to organizational
changes in partnerships.

Initial surveys and site visits in the first two to three years of
partnership existence indicated that at IHEs within partnerships,
faculty members were developing structures and incentives to enhance
communication and col­laboration across disciplines. Grantees were
reaching out to different kinds of partners and using the advisory
boards and task forces to plan and advance goals, build a common
mission, make plans for sustaining initiatives, and solve problems when
facing challenges. District staff and teachers were involved in both
planning and teaching courses, as well as in serving as student-teacher
supervi­sors. The professional development school (PDS) model of teacher
preparation (see box below) was the approach used by many of the
teacher-education units within the partner­ships to support partner
initiatives related to teacher quality. Although professional
relationships between edu­cation and arts and sciences faculty were
reported to be cordial, lack of time to develop relationships among
faculty, problems with partnership arrangements, and the focus of reward
systems (research rather than teaching or service in schools) were
listed as challenges for advancing partnership goals in site visit
interviews and survey responses. Later surveys and interviews with
project directors indicated barriers to sustained collaboration were not
completely eliminated.

### Evaluation Questions {#evaluation-questions .unnumbered}

-   Did Title II partnerships begin with developing a common mission or
    vision about teacher preparation?

-   Did partnerships support changes in the way arts and sciences and
    education faculty collaborated on behalf of teacher-preparation
    students?

-   Did the support that university leaders provided to partnerships and
    to teacher preparation grow over the course of the partnership
    grant?

### Collaboration: Developing a Common Vision {#collaboration-developing-a-common-vision .unnumbered}

Richard Clark (1986) reviewed collaborations between schools and
universities and questioned whether the myriad of seemingly
interchangeable terms used to describe collaborative activities are
essentially the same. While school-college collaboration had long been
affirmed by IHEs, during the 1980s there was a resurgence of attention
to more formal collaboration focused on school improvement. The result
of his analysis is often cited as a way of distinguishing among types of
partnerships or col­laborations. According to Clark, collaborative
activities vary from "arrangements on paper to relationships based upon
patronage and grants, to ones which involve an equality of action and
benefits."

Additional mitigating conditions surrounding university or school
collaboration were identified in a set of edited presentations by
Schwartz (1990). These reports, presented by many university faculty and
school administrators and teachers, indicated that changing the roles
and cultures of both types of organizations involves risk taking, a
record of success, and a strong and effective coordinator who is the
steward of the resources as well as the key leadership support.

In this evaluation a measure---authenticity[^3]---was incorpo­rated into
the surveys to assess the extent to which the col­laborative
relationships among partners were established around common goals and
were guided by a set of shared principles. The concept of authenticity
has emerged from experience in partnerships showing that joint planning,
shared decision making and formalized cooperation are important
characteristics of partnerships that can be mea­sured and sustained when
education partnerships share the following common goals:

-   Improving the quality of education by bringing to­gether a range of
    resources.

-   Sharing responsibility for education.

-   Using resources efficiently and effectively.

Authenticity is also measured by the extent to which partnerships embody
the following principles:

-   Student focus.

-   Comprehensiveness.

-   Collaboration and cooperation.

-   Accountability.

-   Integrity of the teaching-learning process and cur­riculum.

-   Equity.

-   Accessibility.

-   Excellence.

-   Affordability.[^4]

Authenticity of collaboration emerged from the work of one type of
partnership, but the principles in general reflect those found in the
U.S. Department of Education's *Targeted Literature Review* regarding
partnership success. Also, although these principles are broadly stated
and do not perfectly match each of the Title II partnerships' goals, we
can hypothesize that higher authenticity scores might be expected to
relate to the attainment of partnership goals.

The 25 partnerships scored relatively high on the authen­ticity scale:
the overall average was 4.2 out of a possible 5 points. Averages for the
25 partnerships ranged from 3.7 to 4.6. For the most part, ratings
within partnerships were quite similar (see Exhibit 14).

Further evidence of the achievement of a common mission was found in the
highly consistent ratings of district and faculty respondents. Faculty
leaders averaged higher authenticity ratings than did other faculty (see
Exhibit 15), perhaps because faculty leaders were in a position to set
goals and emphasize them in their partnership communication, maximizing
the for­mal commitment to cooperation.

The average authenticity score did not differ significantly by either
the scope of the partnership (local, regional, statewide, or multistate)
or the size of the budget. Authenticity was correlated with the extent
of cross-discipline collaboration among faculty partners (r = .23,
*p* \< .05) and the extent of collaboration among faculty and district
partners (r = .22, *p* \< .05), and was correlated with both district
staff and teacher participation in partnership activities (r = .26**,**
*p* \< .05 and r = .20, *p *\< 10). Faculty ratings of authenticity were
also related to more collegial relationships between arts and sciences
and education faculty (r = .25, p \< .05) and between those faculty that
participated in partnership grant activities (r = .30, *p *\< .001).
Thus partnerships of all shapes and sizes reported they were organized
around a common mission and goals. Realizing these goals, however, owed
a great deal to consistent leadership articu­lation of them and
com­munication across all partners. In partner­ships of multiple entities
this was particularly important: the survey and case study data
illustrated the value of comparison. One partnership with multiple
university partners within the same state was marked by disparate
initiatives, most of which did not come to fruition. The multistate
partnership, on the other hand, was successful in uniting all IHEs
around the common goal.

### A Spectrum of Collaboration {#a-spectrum-of-collaboration .unnumbered}

*Cross-discipline faculty collaboration.* Collaboration between
education and arts and sciences faculty is one emphasis of the
teacher-preparation reform sought by the partnership program. Through
involvement of the content area faculty, partnership initiatives were
expected to yield a core program for teacher-preparation students that
would be infused with more in-depth study and research-based teaching
strategies appropriate to the content area in which they would teach.

Collabora­tion was reported in all partnerships, with arts and sciences
and education faculty reporting approximately equal levels of project
activity participation (see Exhibit 16).

Arts and sciences faculty reported a higher average degree of
participation in coordinating course offerings than did education
faculty. This finding is consistent with the challenges taken up by arts
and sciences faculty: their attention turned to education majors in
their courses and what they needed to know about the discipline. Also,
arts and sciences faculty in a number of partnerships reported aligning
their course content with state content and teacher standards.
Participation by co-teaching or teaching in each others' departments was
rated rather low by both sets of col­laborating faculty.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012010 .anchor}Exhibit 14\
Average Authenticity Rating by Partnership

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Partnership             Average authenticity    N
                          score                   

  13                      4.6                     8

  22                      4.6                     4

  8                       4.6                     5

  19                      4.6                     17

  17                      4.4                     3

  10                      4.3                     16

  4                       4.3                     1

  24                      4.2                     19

  2                       4.2                     4

  11                      4.2                     10

  15                      4.2                     6

  21                      4.1                     9

  3                       4.1                     23

  16                      4.1                     16

  12                      4.1                     6

  1                       4.1                     3

  23                      4.1                     11

  25                      4.1                     8

  14                      4.0                     8

  7                       4.0                     8

  5                       4.0                     16

  9                       4.0                     15

  20                      3.8                     6

  18                      3.7                     7

  Total                   4.2                     229
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

> NOTE: Respondents rated the extent to which they felt their
> partnership embodied various goals and principles indicative of
> authentic partner relations on a scale of 1--5, in which 1 = "not at
> all," 3 = "somewhat," and 5 = "a great deal."
>
> To protect the anonymity of survey respondents, each partnership is
> identified in this exhibit by a random number (the same number is used
> to identify the same partnership throughout the remainder of this
> report).
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Partnership 13's average authenticity score on a scale
> of 1--5, in which 1 = "not at all," 3 = "somewhat," and 5 = "a great
> deal," was a 4.6. There were eight respondents (N) from this
> partnership.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District,
> Faculty Leadership, and Faculty Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012011 .anchor}Exhibit 15\
Average Partnership Authenticity Rating by Partner

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Partner                             Average Authenticity Rating

  District                            4.19

  All faculty                         4.12

  Faculty (leaders)                   4.29

  Faculty (involved)                  4.00
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

> NOTE: Respondents rated the extent to which they felt their
> partnership embodied various goals and principles indicative of
> authentic partner relations on a scale of 1--5, in which 1 = "not at
> all," 3 = "somewhat," and 5 = "a great deal."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: District partners' average authenticity score on a
> scale of 1--5, in which 1 = "not at all," 3 = "somewhat," and 5 = "a
> great deal," was a 4.19.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
> and Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012012 .anchor}Exhibit 16\
Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities, as Reported
by Education and\
Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up

  -------------------------------------------- --------------- -------------
  Activity                                     Degree of       
                                               participation   

                                               Education       Arts and
                                               faculty         sciences
                                                               faculty

                                               Average         Average

  Working on project goals in committee(s)     2.1             2.0

  Meeting to discuss teacher-education         2.0             2.0
  students                                                     

  Planning of future courses                   1.6             1.7

  Jointly advising teacher-education students  1.6             1.7

  Working in management teams                  1.6             1.5

  Coordinating course offerings                1.4             1.9

  Jointly observing teacher-education students 1.2             1.0
  on-site                                                      

  Teaching by School of Arts and Sciences      1.1             1.1
  faculty at the School of Education                           

  Teaching by School of Education faculty at   0.7             0.5
  the School of Arts and Sciences                              

  Co-teaching or team teaching courses         0.9             0.9
  -------------------------------------------- --------------- -------------

> NOTE: Respondents rated their degree of participation on a 0--3 point
> scale, in which 0 = "although the activity took place, I did not
> participate," 1 = "any participation," and 3 = "a great deal of
> participation."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Education faculty reported their average degree of
> participation in "working on project goals in committee(s)" was 2.1 on
> a scale of 0--3, in which 0 = "although the activity took place, I did
> not participate," 1= "any participation," and 3 = "a great deal of
> participation." The average degree of participation reported by arts
> and sciences faculty was 2.0.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
Leadership and Involved Surveys.

Both education faculty and arts and sciences faculty reported they
participated to the greatest degree in "working on project goals in
committees" and "meeting to discuss teacher-education students."
Committees in part­nerships were established to review professional
develop­ment proposals, plan new courses, and support initiatives, such
as expanding the number of professional development schools. Discussions
across disciplines about teacher-preparation students were one of the
changes that the partnership program was intended to stimulate within
the IHEs.

*IHE and School Collaboration.*[^5] The second emphasis of the
teacher-preparation reform sought by the partnership grants program was
the productive involvement of school personnel in shaping courses and
the clinical experience of teacher-preparation candidates. The
partnership evaluation explored, as a measure of investment in
collaboration, the degree of participation by faculty and teachers in
collabo­rative activities (Exhibit 17).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012013 .anchor}Exhibit 17\
Average Degree of Faculty Collaboration with Teachers:\
Education Compared with Arts and Sciences, at Follow-Up

  --------------------------------------------- --------------- -------------
  Activity                                      Degree of       
                                                collaboration   

                                                Education       Arts and
                                                faculty         sciences
                                                                faculty

  Leading a professional development session or 2.2             1.4
  effort                                                        

  Working as professors-in-residence at partner 2.1             0.4
  schools                                                       

  Meeting to discuss program goals, principles  2.1             1.8
  and general redesign issues                                   

  Assessing the instructional practices of      2.0             0.9
  teacher-education students in student                         
  teaching experiences                                          

  Meeting to discuss and determine the needs of 1.9             1.1
  new teachers                                                  

  Supporting new teachers who graduated from    1.7             0.8
  the teacher-education program                                 

  Redesigning the content of specific           1.7             1.1
  preservice teacher-education courses                          

  Co-teaching or team teaching a course         1.6             1.2
  --------------------------------------------- --------------- -------------

> NOTE: Respondents rated their degree of collaboration on a scale of
> 0--3, in which 0 = "although the activity took place, I did not
> participate," 1 = "any participation," and 3 = "a great deal of
> participation."
>
> Exhibit reads: Education faculty and arts and sciences faculty
> reported different levels of collaboration with teachers in the
> activity of "leading a professional development session or effort." On
> a scale of 0--3, education faculty reported their level of
> collaboration with teachers as 2.2, and arts and sciences faculty
> reported their level of collaboration with teachers as 1.4.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

Education faculty clearly surpassed the faculty from arts and sciences
in collaborative activities undertaken with teachers. The greatest
difference between the two groups was observed in areas that are
traditionally known to be the purview of education faculty: "working as
professors-in-residence at partner schools" and "assessing the
instructional practices of teacher-education students in student
teaching experi­ences."

Two collaborative activities elicited similar levels of participation
with teachers by the different faculty participants in the partner­ship
("co-teaching or team teaching a course" and "meeting to discuss program
goals, principles and general redesign issues"). Arts and sciences
faculty reported their highest degree of participation in collaborative
activities was "meeting to discuss program goals." Another
activity---serving as professor-in-residence in a partner
school---showed a high level of participation from education faculty and
the lowest level of participation from arts and sciences faculty. This
was a disappointing finding because many of the partnerships that
adopted a PDS model for preparation and clinical experi­ence sought to
involve arts and sciences faculty as professors-in-residence. Survey
participants indicated this was a most difficult goal to accomplish
because the reward structure and release time constraints in the arts
and sciences seemed insurmount­able.

Site-visit interviews indicated dif­ferences in the professional cul­tures
of faculty from arts and sciences and education created challenges to
some forms of collaboration, even when faculty from the two schools were
able and willing to collaborate in other ways. In the case of one
partnership, for instance, some arts and sciences faculty members who
were interested in providing content-based professional development to
in-service teachers did so through summer content institutes in tandem
with education faculty. However, despite these professors' willingness
to provide professional develop­ment through this medium, they could not
be induced to visit PDS schools that were part of the same partnership.
"It just was not part of their rhythm," this partnership's leader
explained.

*"Planning" versus "doing*." Baseline surveys and initial site visits
indicated that early collaborative activities were chiefly planning in
nature. There was some expectation that later data collections would
document collaboration more in terms of implementing the initiatives,
such as supervising student teachers, leading professional develop­ment,
or coordinating and teaching classes with faculty peers or with
teachers, rather than planning initiatives or activities. However, when
the collaborative activities reported in the follow-up surveys were
grouped into the two subcategories of "planning activities" and "doing
activities," both faculty who were leaders in the partner­ships and other
faculty respondents continued to report higher levels of involvement in
planning rather than implemen­tation (Exhibit 18). Overall, faculty
leaders (such as deans) at partner IHEs reported they were less involved
in doing types of collaborative activities than instructional faculty.
The reported levels of involvement for collabo­rative activities with
district partners followed a similar trend ("planning" compared with
"doing").

*Scope of Partnership.* The scope of the partnership did not seem to be
associated with the number of collaborative activities in which faculty
and teachers participated (Exhibit 19). All types of partnerships saw
increased participation of faculty and teachers in collaborative
activities over the duration of the grant.

### The Importance of Leadership Support and Involvement in Partnerships {#the-importance-of-leadership-support-and-involvement-in-partnerships .unnumbered}

The variety of leadership configu­rations in the partner­ships required
stable support from key IHE leaders. In partnership IHEs, some full-time
faculty led activities, such as developing in-service professional
development. The project director of the grant was sometimes the dean,
sometimes a full-time faculty member. In addition, the deans of
collaborating units were actively involved in some partnership
activities and decision-making groups. They also dispersed resources.
Partnerships indicated consistent faculty support was provided from
university and department leadership over the life of the grant.
How­ever, in a few partnerships, leader participation decreased as
turnover of key staff occurred and as focus regarding partnership
initiatives shifted within IHEs.

Overall, a higher percentage of faculty indicated that support from the
president and dean existed toward the end of the grant than at the
beginning, suggesting partner­ships made an impression on top
administrators. Greater percentages of faculty reported support from
their deans who were more involved than from the presidents. The highest
percentage of faculty reported dean-level support to partnership faculty
regarding their service to schools and their collaboration with other
faculty. Faculty also reported that deans recognized teacher-preparation
issues as a priority (see Exhibit 20).

Leadership support for partnership goals helped improve the perceived
status of the teacher-preparation program within the IHEs involved.
Overall, 86 percent of faculty respondents reported that the status of
the teacher-preparation program within the university had been enhanced
since the beginning of the partnership. Not a single faculty leader
reported that the status of the program had declined since the beginning
of the grant, and only four faculty respondents reported a decline in
the program's status (these individuals represented four different
partnerships). In addition, faculty leaders were more likely to
attribute positive changes in the status of the teacher-preparation
program to their own actions than to the actions of others involved in
the grant. This response indicated the level of interest and
responsibility leaders claimed for themselves.

Relationships between faculty in the partnership IHEs were rated as
collegial across arts and sciences and edu­cation departments. Ratings
were high (near 4 on a 5-point scale), suggesting that cross-discipline
relation­ships were quite amicable.

However, the relationships between faculty members involved in the
partnership project were rated as even more collegial by all faculty.
Faculty leaders rated the relationship between faculty partners in
different disciplines as more collegial than did involved faculty
(Exhibit 21).[^6]

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012014 .anchor}Exhibit 18\
Faculty Involvement in "Planning" Versus "Doing" Types of
Collaboration:\
Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty Combined, at Follow-Up

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Faculty type            "Planning" activities   "Doing" activities

  Involved faculty        1.8 (N = 71)            1.3 (N = 66)

  Faculty leaders         1.8 (N = 54)            1.0 (N = 53)
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

> NOTE: "Planning" activities include planning and coordinating future
> course offerings, meeting to discuss students, and working in
> committees and on management teams. "Doing" activities include
> co-teaching, teaching (education faculty in arts and sciences and arts
> and sciences faculty in education), jointly advising students, and
> jointly observing students on-site. All are selected from the
> activities listed in exhibit 17. Cells describe the respondents
> average rating of their participation in "planning" and "doing"
> activities on a scale of 0--3, in which 0 = "although the activity
> took place, I did not participate," 1 = "any participation," and 3 =
> "a great deal of participation."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: The average reported level of involvement for
> "planning" activities by involved faculty was 1.8, on a scale of 0--3.
> The average reported involvement level for "doing" activities was 1.3.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012015 .anchor}Exhibit 19\
Average Number of Collaborative Activities of Faculty (Education and
Arts and\
Sciences Combined) with Teachers by Scope of Partnership, at Baseline
and Follow-Up

  -------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------
  Scope          Average number of             
                 collaborative activities in   
                 which faculty and teachers    
                 participated                  

                 Baseline                      Follow-up

  Local          4.7                           7.0

  Regional       3.9                           6.8

  Statewide      4.4                           7.1

  Multistate     3.8                           6.5

  Total          4.2                           6.9
  -------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------

> NOTE: This exhibit represents the average number of collaborative
> activities with teachers, out of a list of eight activities, that
> faculty respondents indicated they participated in at baseline and
> follow-up. There were some slight differences in the eight specific
> activities listed in the baseline and follow-up surveys.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: At baseline, in partnerships with a local scope,
> faculty reported participating with teachers in an average of 4.7
> collaborative activities, and 7.0 collaborative activities at
> follow-up.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
> Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012016 .anchor}Exhibit 20\
Percentage of All Faculty Reporting Evidence of Support from the
President and Dean

  ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------
                                                          Percentage   
                                                          of all       
                                                          faculty      
                                                          reporting    
                                                          support      

                                                          1999--2000   2002--03

  Evidence of support from president                                   

  Has participated in national dialogues about teacher    69           79
  education in forums sponsored by associations and                    
  foundations (e.g., AASCU, NAICU)                                     

  Is representing the institution on statewide education  65           73
  groups addressing reform of teacher education                        

  Has asked the entire college or university to take      55           69
  responsibility for preparing new teachers                            

  Evidence of support from dean                                        

  Supports involvement of full-time, tenure-track faculty 86           89
  in service to schools and collaboration with colleagues              

  Addresses issues of teacher preparation as a priority   81           86
  in speeches, strategic activities of the unit, etc.                  

  Provides financial support for professional development 73           79
  activities related to partnership grant project                      
  activities                                                           
  ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------

(exhibit continued on next page)

  ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------
  Exhibit 20\                                                          
  **Percentage of All Faculty Reporting Evidence of                    
  Support from the President and Dean (Continued)**                    

                                                          Percentage   
                                                          of all       
                                                          faculty      
                                                          reporting    
                                                          support      

                                                          1999--2000   2002--03

  Highlights the importance of the partnership grant      69           73
  project in speeches, newsletters or other                            
  communications                                                       

  Attends partnership grant project governing board       63           70
  meetings                                                             

  Provides release time for conducting research focused   61           65
  on K--12 school improvement or for participating in                  
  project activities                                                   

  Asks participating faculty to make routine reports on   58           65
  project accomplishments at meetings                                  
  ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------

> NOTE: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because respondents could
> select multiple indicators of support.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-nine percent of faculty reported that in
> 1999--2000, their college or university president had participated in
> national dialogues about teacher education in forums sponsored by
> associations and foundations as evidence of support. Seventy-nine
> percent of faculty indicated their president had participated in said
> activity in 2002--03.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012017 .anchor}Exhibit 21\
Ratings of the Collegiality Between Faculty Across Disciplines, as
Reported by Education\
and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up

  ------------------------------------ ---------- ------ --------- --------
                                       Faculty           Faculty   
                                       involved          leaders   

  Rated quality of:                    Average    N      Average   N

  General cross-discipline             3.8        76     4.0       53
  relationships                                                    

  Cross-discipline relationships among 4.5        76     4.8       52
  partners                                                         
  ------------------------------------ ---------- ------ --------- --------

> NOTE: Ratings were on a scale of 1--5, in which 1 = "very strained," 3
> = "neutral," and 5 = "very collegial."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Involved faculty respondents rated the general
> relationship between arts and sciences and education faculty as 3.8 on
> a scale of 1--5; faculty leaders reported this relationship as 4.0 on
> the same scale.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

*Relations with community colleges and other partners*. In the baseline
surveys, project directors reported involving community colleges on
advisory boards and in a number of initiatives such as recruitment of
participants in preparation programs, technology training and course
revisions. Qualitative data from the follow-up stage of the evaluation,
however, suggests that relation­ships between community colleges and IHEs
were not completely realized. In one partnership that included two
community college partners, the total percentage of funds allotted to
the two comprised only 3 percent of the project total. Although two
programs were implemented, one for an alternate route program, the other
to allow teacher-education students to begin their education programs at
the community college (sub­stantially shortening the commute to classes
for some students, as well as their tuition bills), the relationship
between the community college and four-year IHE partner had not been
strengthened by the grant, nor is it likely to continue after the grant.

Many other partners identified as potential participants in proposals
and in a one-time survey of the project directors did not consistently
participate in reform efforts. For example, one partnership identified
two other partners, both of which had prior relationships with the
school district and had provided consistent past support. One was a
local military base, the other a private foundation. At the beginning of
the grant, the military base was closed by the Department of Defense and
the foundation expressed no interest in expanding its activities to
partner schools. However, two other partnerships were successful in
providing technology training through a program estab­lished by a partner
and another involved community institutions in preparing teachers for
urban school com­munities.

*Prior relationships*. A history of collaboration may facilitate new
reform efforts and may be crucial to establishing common goals and
succeeding at collaborative tasks. Reform efforts require knowledge of
policy contexts and a realistic vision of what can be accomplished. Both
faculty and district representatives were asked if the partnership
project was based on a prior relationship. Preexisting relationships
were reported by 16 of the partnerships. The average length of time
(prior to the establishment of the partnership) that these relationships
had existed was between three and four years. Every member of a
partnership did not know of the preexisting relationship.

This seems like an improbable inconsistency until one realizes that
reform efforts are based on a network of smaller, discrete
relationships, and that not all partners are aware of these other
relationships. Partnerships might also be built on a variety of
relationships, ranging from formal and governed arrangements to informal
friendships and social networks. One example of this network of partners
is the Illinois Professional Learners Partnership, in which the
relationships among the partner institutions was character­ized as "a
partnership of partnerships." The larger partner­ship entity was, in
fact, a combination of several different, previously autonomous
relationships, many of which were highly nuanced.

### Organizational Changes: Case Study Highlights {#organizational-changes-case-study-highlights .unnumbered}

Throughout the discussion of the evaluation topics, summaries from the
five case study sites are inserted to provide insight into the relative
accomplishment of related goals. Exhibit 22 provides an example of how
the five sites progressed toward their goals regarding organizational
change between and within partners.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012018 .anchor}Exhibit 22\
Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Organizational
Changes\
and Relationships

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  Objective               Status

  Teacher Quality         
  Enhancement Program,    
  Jackson State           
  University              

  Develop relationship    A relationship was created, an accomplishment
  between JSU^a^ and      made more relevant by the history of racial
  Hinds Community College politics in Mississippi (JSU is an HBCU;^b^
                          Hinds is not.).

  CoMeT, Our Lady of the  
  Lake University         

  Establish relationships Although positive relationships were
  between districts and   established, turnover in project personnel may
  IHEs                    jeopardize these relationships; also, without
                          funds, partners are not likely to continue to
                          meet regularly.

  Urban IMPACT,           
  University of Tennessee 
  Chattanooga/Knoxville   

  Establish relationship  TASL promoted Urban IMPACT's workshops; Urban
  with the Tennessee      IMPACT now provides all TASL training.
  Academy for School      
  Leaders (TASL)          

  Assess preservice       The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  teachers' level of      (UTC) project director developed and
  "urban awareness"       implemented an Urban Awareness Survey. Results
                          suggested that the program may increase
                          preservice teachers' awareness.

  Partner with local      Preservice teachers visited prisons and
  agencies to improve     participated in time-limited volunteer
  teachers' preservice    activities at other social service agencies.
  experience              

  AzTEC, Arizona State    
  University              

  Establish partnerships  Each university created or enhanced a
  between universities    partnership with local district(s).^c^
  and districts           

  Continue partnership    The partnership with Flagstaff district
  between Northern        continued; district teachers taught courses at
  Arizona University      NAU. However, the proposed outreach from NAU to
  (NAU) and local         Ganado School District did not occur owing to
  districts               politics external to the project.

  Create relationships    University of Arizona (UA) and Pima Community
  between universities    College collaborated on a program for
  and community colleges  uncertified in-service teachers and a
                          recruitment course for future science and
                          mathematics teachers. Neither proposed
                          partnership between NAU and Diné College or
                          Coconino Community College came to fruition.

  Project SUCCEED,        
  University of Miami     

  Form joint education    Two committees formed, one for teaching and
  and arts and sciences   learning for undergraduates and the other for
  committee to improve    the summer professional development institutes.
  teaching                Proposed collaboration between arts and
                          sciences and education faculty was implemented
                          through planning activities but limited
                          collaboration took place in the design of
                          course content.

  Deepen relationship     Museum hosted summer institutes and developed a
  between UM^d^ and       positive relationship with both education and
  Museum of Science       arts and sciences faculties.

  Develop PDSs at five    Relationships were established. Some ideas for
  new schools             professional development institutes, such as
                          the Holocaust Institute, came from partner
                          schools.
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

> ^a^ Jackson State University
>
> ^b^ Historically Black Colleges and Universities
>
> ^c^ Within NAU, the "partnership" was a set of programs coexisting.
>
> ^d^ University of Miami
>
> SOURCE: Title II-Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies.

#   Teacher-Preparation Reform Efforts

### Highlights {#highlights-2 .unnumbered}

-   Partnership grantees revised and restructured course content for
    teacher-preparation students by aligning education and arts and
    sciences courses with teacher and student content standards for the
    state.

-   Over time, more faculty in teacher-preparation programs in the
    partnerships reported they offered school-based field experiences
    earlier (freshman year). More faculty reported they made
    opportunities available to students during field experiences.

-   Title II partnerships reported that the professional development
    school (PDS) model of school-based intern development (a model
    within 67 percent of grantees) offers some virtues to teacher
    preparation: faculty in residence, closer and more frequent
    supervision of interns and mentoring of new teachers, and
    professional support to principals and teachers.

-   In the early years of the grant, the strategies used by the largest
    percentage of faculty to link technology use and teacher preparation
    included training students to use technology to obtain teaching
    materials and enhancing their own knowledge and skills through
    professional develop­ment opportunities. In later years, the highest
    percentage of faculty reported using e-mail and listservs.

-   Teacher-preparation programs in the partnerships reported they paid
    increased attention to internal accountability measures, adding
    program entry and exit requirements.

-   New teachers prepared in partnership IHEs were viewed by faculty and
    school districts as being fairly well-prepared to tackle cur­riculum
    and instruction challenges. Their prepara­tion to address needs of
    special education students was not as highly rated. Perceptions of
    new teacher preparedness remained consistent from baseline to
    follow-up.

While many agree on the value of specific competencies for individuals
becoming teachers, it remains difficult to find evidence of specific
program features or delivery modes that relate to the development of
these competencies and, in turn, to increasing student achievement. The
U.S. Department of Education's *Targeted Literature Review* (2001) and
Murray (2002) indicate that a consensus does not exist regarding the
importance, for example, of program accreditation status, degree level,
knowledge base (curriculum), or the evidence base by which high-quality
programs should be measured.

Indeed, two recent reports (Allen 2003; Rice 2003) carefully examined
research studies using more stringent criteria than the U.S. Department
of Education's *Targeted Literature Review,* and both reported there
were inconclusive connections between indicators (such as type of degree
for entry into teaching, participation in early field experience, type
and intensity of clinical experience, and traditional versus alternate
route program) and high-quality teachers.

Still, researchers continue to explore the value added by
teacher-preparation models. Among the standards for programs emerging
from reform networks, accreditation bodies and national groups
addressing preparation quality are the following:

-   More education faculty on location in schools where teachers are
    being trained.

-   More extensive early field observation activities for students who
    are considering entering teacher-prepa­ration programs and those who
    are not ready for internships.

-   More intensive and carefully supervised clinical experi­ences.

-   Integration of technology in teaching and learning by faculty and by
    those preparing to teach.

-   Strong liberal arts training for all candidates.

The partnerships sought reforms in a number of these areas with their
initiatives.

### Evaluation Questions {#evaluation-questions-1 .unnumbered}

-   Did partnerships reform teacher-preparation pro­grams: revisions to
    entrance and exit requirements, content area courses, field
    experience and clinical experi­ence requirements, and the integration
    of technology in teaching practices?

-   How did partnership reform of teacher preparation differ when the
    training model is the professional development school?

-   Did district personnel and faculty in partnerships perceive novice
    teachers to be prepared for the demands of the classroom?

### Teacher-Preparation Program Options in Partnership IHEs {#teacher-preparation-program-options-in-partnership-ihes .unnumbered}

To set the stage for a discussion of reform in teacher-preparation
programs, it is perhaps helpful to describe the landscape of teacher
preparation in partnership IHEs. Teacher-preparation programs in the
partnership grant projects tended to be at the undergraduate level.
However, about 14 percent of the IHEs in the 25 partnerships offered
master of arts in teaching (MAT) degrees. State policies regarding the
entry-level degree into teaching (degree in the content area or degree
in education) were compared and few differences were found in states
where partnerships existed; in many states, teacher candidates may
become fully certified with a degree in education or in a content field,
depending on the K--12 level of their specialization. As states set
their definitions of "highly qualified teacher," convergence around
similar standards had occurred.

State-approved university-based, fast-track programs and alternate route
programs to certification continue to emerge across the country, and
were located in partnership IHEs as well. Project CoMeT, for instance,
created a new master's program to help career-changers become teachers.
Project Site Support in Baltimore was specifically designed to address a
teaching shortage in Baltimore, and career-changers in the program were
immediately placed in classrooms as teachers while they took preservice
courses in the evenings and on weekends.

Faculty leadership in Title II partnership institutions were asked to
rate the extent to which the partnership project played a role in
supporting alternate route programs in their IHE, district or state
(Exhibit 23). The partnerships had a moderate amount of activity in this
area: "creating fast-track, graduate-level programs to prepare qualified
career-changers" averaged 2.9 on a five-point scale, and "supporting
district or state alternate route programs with content-area courses or
supervision of alternate route participants" averaged 2.8 on a
five-point scale.

In both traditional or alternate routes, education offerings must comply
with state program standards and reflect state requirements for
certification. Added to these external standards are those generated by
specialized accrediting agencies, such as NCATE, and national standard
setting organizations, such as the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, to support voluntary review of quality in program
offerings and outcomes. In the NCLB environment, degree requirements for
teacher-preparation students have also been the focus of policy
organizations that have recommended all teachers have a major in their
field. Thus, IHEs have less flexibility than one might expect to modify
the contents of a professional program for teachers. By contrast, there
is more flexibility in alternate routes to adjust sequencing and
delivery options.

Faculty in teacher-preparation programs generally build cohesion across
offerings by basing program structure and content on literature
regarding critical competencies for new teachers. For example, if
integration of technology is part of the mission and goals of the
program, the preparation program offerings, school-based experiences and
assessments may all be structured in ways that will ensure that
graduates can demonstrate that competency as they enter the classroom.

One area where traditional programs may differ from each other is in the
involvement of faculty from IHEs and teachers from K--12 schools in the
preparation program. The PDS model of clinical collaboration between
teacher-preparation and K--12 schools is touted for its potential in
this regard.

The PDS model of field-based experience and supervision was indicated by
the partnership IHEs as the most prevalent model (close to 67 percent,
or 16 of 24 partnerships) imple­mented. Because of the prevalence of this
model, the data on changes to course and program­matic structure were
analyzed to investigate whether the PDS was associated with
teacher-preparation reforms in the partnerships.

### Changes in Course Offerings {#changes-in-course-offerings .unnumbered}

As faculty members in partner IHEs considered the challenge of preparing
teachers, a number of them chose to look inside their programs and make
revisions to existing courses or create new ones. It should be noted
that faculty reported this kind of self-review to be cyclical and
continuous in academic departments, and many of the course changes
implemented during the partnership grant period had been anticipated as
part of accreditation or other strategic processes within IHEs. At the
same time, some course revisions and program development were reported
to have taken place because IHEs and schools were working together to
improve preparation of teachers headed for jobs in high-need districts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012019 .anchor}Exhibit 23\
Faculty Ratings of Extent of Partnership Support of Alternate Route
Programs, 2002--03

  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ---------
                                                      Faculty     
                                                      reporting   
                                                      support     

  Activity                                            Average     N
                                                      rating      

  Creating fast-track, graduate-level programs to     2.9         137
  prepare qualified career-changers                               

  Supporting district or state alternate route        2.8         136
  programs with content-area courses or supervision               
  of alternate route participants                                 
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ---------

> NOTE: Faculty partners responded to the following question, "Since the
> enactment of No Child Left Behind, to what extent has the partnership
> project played a role in any of the following activities?" on a scale
> of 1--5, in which 1 = "not at all," 3 = "somewhat," and 5 = "a great
> deal."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Overall, faculty leaders reported that since the
> enactment of NCLB, the partnership project played somewhat of a role
> "creating fast-track, graduate-level programs to prepare qualified
> career-changers" rating this at 2.9 on a scale of 1--5, in which 1 =
> "not at all," 3 = "somewhat," and 5 = "a great deal."
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

Several partnerships reported restructuring academic courses to fit the
needs of education majors. One partnership created an integrated science
course for education majors. Others introduced topics into methods
courses that would prepare new teachers to support student achievement
in state assessments or developed graduate-level program courses infused
with content and strategies appropriate to urban education. In general,
faculty members were seeking to deepen the study of the content area and
incorporate strategies that would prepare new teachers for their
students' diverse learning styles. On average, respondents reported
revising seven courses and adding nearly four courses between the second
and fourth years of the grant period.

The predominant reason for changing course content was to align content
to state standards (see Exhibit 24). This was consistent with the
baseline data collected early in the grant period, showing that 41
percent of partnerships planned to align the content of their required
curriculum with K--12 content standards.

An increased focus on content knowledge was another important goal for
course reform. Faculty also reported incorporating technology and
fo­cusing on curricular implications of working with students with
diverse learning needs as reasons for course changes. A higher
percentage of faculty reported ad­dressing each of these changes while
revising courses than did faculty addressing them through newly added
courses, many of which already contained material, assignments or
class­room content that was relevant.

Some partnerships specifically articulated a goal of pro­gram reform
focusing on standards' alignment: 32 percent of faculty in these
partnerships addressed the content of new courses and 31 percent
reported revising the content of existing courses. Still higher
percentages of faculty from partnerships without a main focus on K--12
standards made course changes. They reported changing courses to align
better with state standards, to integrate technology, to focus on
deepening the content within the course, and to address the needs of
diverse learners (see Exhibit 25).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012020 .anchor}Exhibit 24\
Content Changed in New and Revised Teacher-Preparation Courses,\
as Reported by Faculty, 2002--03

  ---------------------------------- ---------- ------- --------- --------
  Nature of the content changed      Newly              Revised   
                                     added              courses   
                                     courses                      

                                     Percent    N       Percent   N

  Alignment with state content       53         51      73        80
  standards                                                       

  Focus on content knowledge of      51         49      68        73
  teacher-preparation students                                    

  Recognition of diverse learning    50         47      69        75
  needs of K--12 students                                         

  Integration of technology          48         45      68        73
  ---------------------------------- ---------- ------- --------- --------

> NOTE: Table describes courses under development or revised as a result
> of the partnership grant. Percentages do not sum to 100 percent
> because respondents made multiple changes to both new and revised
> courses.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-three percent of faculty reported newly added
> courses were aligned with state content standards. Seventy-three
> percent of faculty reported revised courses were changed to be aligned
> with state content standards.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012021 .anchor}Exhibit 25\
Course Changes by Partnership Focus, as Reported by Faculty, 2002--03

+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
|                                | Percentage of    |                 |
|                                | faculty          |                 |
|                                | reporting        |                 |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
|                                | From             | From            |
|                                | partnerships     | partnerships    |
|                                | with a main      | without a main  |
|                                | focus on         | focus on        |
|                                | standards        | standards       |
|                                |                  |                 |
|                                | (percent)        | (percent)       |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Type of course:                |                  |                 |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| New courses                    | 32               | 69              |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Revised courses                | 31               | 69              |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Nature of course change:       |                  |                 |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Alignment with state content   | 14               | 56              |
| standards                      |                  |                 |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Integration of technology      | 10               | 55              |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Focus on content knowledge of  | 13               | 54              |
| teacher-preparation students   |                  |                 |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Recognition of diverse         | 10               | 57              |
| learning needs of K--12        |                  |                 |
| students                       |                  |                 |
+--------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+

> NOTE: Table does not sum to 100 percent because respondents could
> select multiple course changes.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two percent of faculty in partnerships with a
> main focus on standards changed content of new courses, compared with
> 69 percent in partnerships that did not identify this as a focus.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

###   {#section-1 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

### Changes in Field Experience Requirements {#changes-in-field-experience-requirements .unnumbered}

Observing a classroom through an early field experience requirement is
sometimes the first opportunity students in a teacher-preparation
program have to see how classrooms function. IHEs commonly offer early
field experiences as part of introductory courses to students
considering entry into the teacher-preparation program. There was a
concerted effort to expand early in-school opportunities throughout the
partnership IHEs; in focus groups during site visits, students stressed
the value of being in schools as much as possible prior to teaching.

In partnership IHEs, faculty reported education methods courses were
most likely to require early field experience, both in the 1999--2000
and 2002--03 academic years. Content-area courses and psychology courses
also incorpo­rated a field experience requirement. In fact, the
percent­age of faculty reporting those courses required fieldwork
increased during the grant period.

More faculty reported teacher-preparation programs in the partner­ships
offered opportunities in required field experiences during the 2002--03
academic year, compared with the 1999--2000 academic year (see Exhibit
26).

Over the duration of the grant, IHEs in the partnerships made it
possible for students participating in teacher preparation or thinking
about teacher preparation to start their exploration of the classroom
earlier. In 2002--03, a higher percentage of faculty reported first
offering field experiences to freshman students (Exhibit 26).

Program reports of field experience opportunities in­creased both in
partnerships with a PDS model and those that did not follow such a
model. In general, more faculty reported availability of different types
of field experiences in 2002--03 than in 1999--2000 (see Exhibit 27).

### Changes in Required Clinical Experience {#changes-in-required-clinical-experience .unnumbered}

The clinical internship for teacher-preparation students is the time
when they transition to the position of teacher in charge of the class,
under the watchful eyes of both a supervising classroom teacher and
education faculty. Although the literature does not conclusively point
to a specific duration or level of intensity of clinical training that
is related to high-quality teacher preparation, these aspects of
clinical training are a common concern of the teacher-preparation
community and one of the reporting requirements in the Title II
accountability reports.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012022 .anchor}Exhibit 26\
Percentage of Faculty Leaders Reporting Availability of Early Field
Experiences\
by Course Types, Opportunities and Year First Offered: 1999--2000 and
2002--03

  ---------------------------------- ------------------ -----------------
                                     Percentage of      
                                     faculty reporting  

  Field experience characteristics   1999--2000         2002--03

  Types of courses requiring early                      
  field experiences                                     

  Education methods courses          78                 93

  Sociology courses                  5                  8

  Content-area courses               25                 43

  Psychology courses                 25                 43

  Research methods courses           13                 20

  Opportunities provided by early    []{.mark}          []{.mark}
  field experiences                                     

  Observation                        90                 97

  Tutoring students                  85                 90

  Focused classroom observation      80                 97

  Teacher assistance                 80                 95

  Teaching small groups              72                 90

  Teaching the class                 57                 75

  Teacher shadowing                  46                 72

  Student shadowing                  41                 67

  Year first offered                                    

  Freshman                           38                 53

  Sophomore                          53                 60

  Junior                             55                 70

  Senior                             65                 70

  Graduate                           38                 45
  ---------------------------------- ------------------ -----------------

> EXHIBIT READS: In 1999--2000, 78 percent of faculty reported education
> methods courses required early field experiences; 93 percent of
> faculty reported this to be the case for education methods courses in
> 2002--03.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012023 .anchor}Exhibit 27\
Early Field Experience Opportunities, as Reported by Faculty Leaders in
Partnerships\
With and Without a PDS Model: 1999--2000 and 2002--03

  ---------------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- -----------
  Field experience       Percentage of               Percentage of  
                         faculty from                faculty from   
                         partnerships                partnerships   
                         with PDS model              without PDS    
                         reporting                   model          
                         field                       reporting      
                         experience is               field          
                         offered                     experience is  
                                                     offered        

                         1999--2000     2002--03     1999--2000     2002--03

  Observation            74             80           64             71

  Tutoring students      66             69           71             79

  Focused classroom      66             80           57             71
  observation                                                       

  Teacher assistance     60             74           71             79

  Teaching small groups  54             71           64             71

  Teacher shadowing      37             57           56             57

  Teaching the class     46             63           43             50

  Student shadowing      29             49           43             64

  Other                  3              14           14             14
  ---------------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- -----------

> EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-four percent of faculty leaders in partnerships
> with a PDS model reported "observation" to be an early field
> experience opportunity offered in 1999--2000, compared with 80 percent
> in 2002--03. Sixty-four percent of faculty leaders in partnerships
> without a PDS model reported "observation" to be an early field
> experience opportunity offered in 1999--2000, compared with 71 percent
> in 2002--03.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
Leadership Survey.

Partnerships reported only modest changes on this dimension of duration.
Because most traditional programs had already extended the length of
clinical experience to equal at least one academic semester, it is not
surprising that no dramatic changes would be reported during this grant
period.

The average duration of a clinical internship was 15.7 weeks for
elementary school student teachers, 14.7 for middle school student
teachers, and 14.3 for secondary school student teachers.

A change that was reported, however, was a trend toward multiple rather
than single school placements during the internship. About one-quarter
of education faculty in the partnerships reported that multiple school
placements during the clinical experience were common for elemen­tary
majors in the first two years of the grant. By 2002--03, this figure
jumped to 35 percent of respondents. For students preparing to teach at
the middle school level in 1999--2000, 15 percent of respondents
indicated multiple placements were required, compared with 23 percent in
2002--03. And for students preparing to teach at the high school level,
20 percent of respondents reported students were required to have
multiple placements in 1999--2000, while 25 percent indicated multiple
school placements in 2002--03. Multiple placements were reported by
higher percentages of faculty in partnerships without a PDS model, for
elementary majors and middle school student teachers (Exhibit 28).

Partnerships with a PDS model required, on average, fewer weeks in each
type of clinical experience. However, this difference may have been made
up in the time novice teachers attended required classes in PDS schools
and participated in other field-based experiences within the PDS schools
(Exhibit 29).

To support student teachers during their clinical intern­ship, education
faculty sponsor school-based seminars each week. Sometimes the seminars
are content-based, but generally they are organized around problems and
con­cerns facing the teachers in training. Partnership IHEs witnessed no
important changes in the occurrence of seminars offered for
teacher-preparation students. For the 1999--2000 school year, 90 percent
of education faculty indicated that elementary education students for
example, were required to participate in a seminar regarding the student
teaching experience. The number reporting a seminar requirement dropped
slightly to 85 percent for the 2002--03 school year.

There is no way to determine from these data whether the PDS has itself
influenced the quality of the teacher-preparation program graduate.
Anecdotal and case-study evidence supports the model much more strongly,
however, with students and teachers in PDS schools remarking about the
contribution to their preparedness. In addition, faculty members who
served as professors-in-residence supported the arrange­ments afforded
but agreed that these arrangements were very difficult to accomplish
without the incentive of a course release offered through the grant.
Finally, the opportunities for faculty were more likely to be taken by
education faculty than by arts and sciences faculty, as reported in
Chapter III.

### Developing Technology Skills: Faculty and Teachers {#developing-technology-skills-faculty-and-teachers .unnumbered}

Federal grants, such as PT3, and state-developed technology standards
for teachers have demonstrated a continuing interest of policymakers and
educators in helping new and veteran teachers keep up-to-date on the
latest advances in the field. NCLB further supports progress in this
area through the Enhancing Education Through Technology program. One of
the goals of the partnership grant was to ensure that both new and
experienced teachers were able to use technology effectively in their
curriculum and instruction practices to improve student learning.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012024 .anchor}Exhibit 28\
Percentage of Faculty Leaders in PDS and Non-PDS Partnerships Reporting
Single\
or Multiple School Placements by Grade Level for Clinical Experiences in
2002--03

+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Required clinical      | Percentage of faculty | Percentage of      |
| experience             | from partnerships     | faculty from       |
|                        | with PDS model        | partnerships       |
|                        | reporting types of    | without PDS model  |
|                        | required clinical     | reporting types of |
|                        | experience            | required clinical  |
|                        |                       | experience         |
|                        | (n = 35)              |                    |
|                        |                       | (n =11)            |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Single                 | 54                    | 36                 |
| school---elementary    |                       |                    |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Single school---middle | 46                    | 54                 |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Single                 | 43                    | 73                 |
| school---secondary     |                       |                    |
| (high)                 |                       |                    |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Multiple               | 23                    | 55                 |
| schools---elementary   |                       |                    |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Multiple               | 14                    | 36                 |
| schools---middle       |                       |                    |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Multiple               | 23                    | 18                 |
| schools---secondary    |                       |                    |
| (high)                 |                       |                    |
+------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

> EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-four percent of faculty leader respondents from
> partnerships with a PDS model reported teaching in a single school to
> be a required clinical experience for elementary majors, compared with
> 36 percent of respondents from partnerships without a PDS model.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
Leadership Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012025 .anchor}Exhibit 29\
Required Weeks of Clinical Experience for Teacher-Preparation Students
in Partnerships\
With and Without PDS Models as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 2002--03

  --------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------
  Required placement    Number of                                   
                        weeks                                       

                        Partnerships                 Partnerships   
                        with PDS                     without PDS    

                        Average        Range         Average        Range

  Single                15.1           1--42         17.6           9--36
  school---elementary                                               

  Single                14.1           0--42         16.1           9--36
  school---middle                                                   

  Single school---high  13.4           0--42         16.5           9--36
  --------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------

> EXHIBIT READS: Respondents from partnerships with a PDS model reported
> an average 15.1 weeks of required clinical experience in a single
> school for elementary majors, with a range of 1 to 42 weeks.
> Respondents from partnerships without a PDS model reported an average
> 17.6 weeks of required clinical experience in a single school for
> elementary majors, with a range of 9 to 36 weeks.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

Primarily, new teachers gain skill in this area through the modeling of
technology integration by faculty in their courses. Evaluation findings
indicate that university faculty members employed various strategies to
prepare teacher-education students to use technology in their
instruction over the grant period (Exhibit 30).

In the early years of the grant, the strategies used by the largest
percentage of faculty included training students to use technology
(e.g., the Internet) to obtain teaching materials or create curricula;
enhancing their own knowledge and skills through professional
development opportunities; and training students to use technology as a
tool for communication, research or problem solving. In later years, the
strategies cited by the largest percentage of faculty included using
e-mail and listservs for teacher-education classes, using technology in
content courses, and use of Web-based assignments and projects.

The percentage of faculty reporting on the use of technology strategies
dropped toward the end of the grant. In some partnerships, this may have
reflected a shift from teaching about the use of technology to actually
using it.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012026 .anchor}Exhibit 30\
Percentage of Involved Faculty Respondents at Baseline and Follow-Up Who
Used\
Strategies to Prepare Teacher-Preparation Students to Use Technology in
Their Classrooms

  ------------------------------------------------ ------------ -----------
                                                   Percentage   
                                                   of faculty   
                                                   using each   
                                                   strategy     

  Strategy                                         Baseline     Follow-Up

  Provision of training to teacher-education       88           ---
  students on using technology (e.g., Internet) to              
  obtain teaching materials or create curricula                 

  Enhancement of your own knowledge and skills     85           37
  through professional development opportunities                
  or hands-on classroom experiences that focus on               
  using technology                                              

  Provision of training to teacher-education       85           41
  students on using technology as a tool for                    
  communication, research or problem solving                    

  Dissemination of technology resources (articles, 82           19
  online help, discussion groups) via the Web                   

  Use of e-mail and listservs for                  79           78
  teacher-education courses                                     

  Use of videos, CDs or the Web to demonstrate     74           11
  exemplary classrooms                                          

  Demonstration of technology use as part of the   73           32
  content within a teaching portfolio                           

  Use of technology in content courses             71           66

  Direct provision of one-on-one technical         65           43
  assistance                                                    

  Use of interactive CDs or the Web for learning   64           20
  technology applications or practicing                         
  technological skills                                          

  Field experiences in hands-on technology         62           32
  experience/connecting teacher-education students              
  with technology-proficient K--12 mentor teachers              

  Development of multimedia tools to support       62           35
  student-teaching experiences                                  

  Teaching workshops or summer institutes focused  55           30
  on technology training                                        

  Use of Web-based assignments and projects        50           49

  Use of electronic portfolios for teachers        42           33
  (video, Web-based, CD-ROM)                                    

  Distance learning via the Web                    32           13

  Student teaching experiences through interactive 30           27
  videos/assistance of teacher education students               
  as they teach K--12 students online                           

  Web-based strategies for assessing knowledge and 29           10
  skills of teacher education students in                       
  technology integration                                        

  Virtual mentoring with contact between student   27           11
  and mentor via Internet or video conferencing                 

  Mentoring students to use technology in their    ---          40
  own classrooms                                                
  ------------------------------------------------ ------------ -----------

> NOTE: Dash "---" indicates that strategy was not a listed response
> option in the survey.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Second row: At baseline, 85 percent of respondents
> reported they enhanced their own knowledge and skills through
> professional development; at follow-up, 37 percent of respondents
> reported they were using that strategy.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty Involved Surveys.

The reported use of e-mail and listservs and the Web for
teacher-education courses changed little, indi­cating that, once
established, the pattern of electronic communication between faculty and
students was continuing.

Partnerships looked to their own faculty and outside partners to enhance
the technology skills of faculty and students. For example, at the Our
Lady of the Lake, (CoMeT) Partnership, a professor used the time
equivalent to teaching one class in a quarter to create and deliver a
Technology for Teaching course. The university under­stood that at least
one school district was reluctant to hire new teachers who lacked
technology skills. The course prepared novice teachers to integrate
technology into their instructional practices in a way that would lead
students to successful accomplishment of content standards. More than
100 faculty members (education and arts and sciences) from Jackson State
University's Teacher Quality Enhancement grant attended workshops at
Hinds Community College on the use of the Internet and other computer
applications. As a direct result of the grant-provided professional
development, expectations were set for faculty: all class syllabi must
include some indication that technology is being used for instruction,
research, or student assignments. At the University of Miami's Project
SUCCEED, the Miami Museum of Science came on campus to hold workshops
for students in presentation software and also hosted an institute for
teachers at its own location. An administrator at the local high school
trained student teachers to develop electronic portfolios. At one PDS
school, grant funds supported half of a technology staff position. These
are but a few examples of ways the Title II partnership funds found
their way to faculty, students, and teachers and enhanced their
technology skills.

It is worth noting that exposing preservice and in-service teachers to
new pedagogical uses of technology has not always led to the adoption of
that technology in classrooms. In several interviews, project directors
commented that the high-poverty school districts in which partnership
preservice and in-service teachers worked sometimes lacked access to the
newest forms of technology and some schools had none at all. In other
cases, the schools sometimes lacked the trained staff to support the
teachers' pedagogical technology use.

### Faculty Collaboration and Program Reforms {#faculty-collaboration-and-program-reforms .unnumbered}

Changes to course content and program structure within teacher
preparation are facilitated through a commitment from the dean and the
faculty within a school of education. Accomplishing more sweeping or
interdisciplinary policy changes, such as a focus on the alignment of
academic courses with K--12 content standards or teacher assess­ments,
requires collaboration between arts and sciences and education
faculties. The partnership grants program sought a new and highly
collaborative environment for these faculties.

In the first two years of the grant period, about half of the faculty
from both the arts and sciences and education departments working on
behalf of partnership goals reported participating in committees to work
on project goals and to learn more about teacher education. A much
smaller percentage of each group of faculty were involved in decisions
about establishing course content, observing teacher-preparation
students, or teaching in each other's departments in ways that might
promote cross-department collaboration. In the last couple of years of
the grant in the 25 partner­ship grantees, faculty reported their
greatest participation in collaborative activities with colleagues from
the two departments continued to be "working on project goals in
committee(s)" and "meeting to discuss teacher-educa­tion students"
(Exhibit 31).

These self-reported survey data indicated little in the way of pro­gress,
but examples from the site visits illustrated the possibilities of more
sweeping accomplishments. Jackson State University's education dean
gathered support from administrators in the university's academic
affairs unit: An all-university commitment to the partnership goal of
aligning courses in education and in arts and sciences with the
standards of the INTASC and with NCATE standards was sought and gained.
Using the "carrot" of increased pass rates on state teacher assessments
in basic skills and content areas, cross-discipline coordination was
accom­plished. In the first two years of the partnership grant, OLLU and
San Antonio College in project CoMeT brought their liberal arts and
sciences content courses into alignment with the requirements of the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standards. An example of one
extensive process was found in the OLLU history department, where the
faculty reviewed the entire course catalog and itemized the specific
level of alignment between courses and the standards. In some cases,
professors redesigned the course syllabi.

### Teacher-Preparation Quality: Accountability Measures {#teacher-preparation-quality-accountability-measures .unnumbered}

As Title II partnerships addressed the issue of teacher quality, they
took steps to develop internal processes to monitor education students'
outcomes. These steps in­cluded increased reliance on feedback from
partner schools and school districts and more formalized assess­ment of
teacher-preparation students. Partner colleges and univer­sities reported
actively seeking data from each other, assessing the transfer of
knowledge from teacher-education programs to classroom practice.

In addition, federal and state-mandated standards for highly qualified
teachers have been framing the discussion about accountability for
teacher-preparation for several years. Thus partnerships were attentive
to such measures as pass rates on teacher assessments, program entry and
exit requirements, and the perception of the preparedness of their
program graduates. In the five visited partnerships, all IHEs were using
some set of external standards to prepare for and complete course,
program, or assessment revisions, indicating the importance of these
drivers of reform.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012027 .anchor}Exhibit 31\
Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities Between
Faculty in Arts\
and Sciences and Education, 2002--03

  ------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ----------
                                                   Degree of          
                                                   cross-discipline   
                                                   collaboration      

  Activities                                       Average            N

  Working on project goals in committee(s)         2.1                115

  Meeting to discuss teacher-education students    2.0                119

  Planning of future courses                       1.7                111

  Coordinating course offerings                    1.6                112

  Working in management teams                      1.6                97

  Jointly advising teacher-education students      1.6                110

  Jointly observing teacher-education students     1.2                90
  on-site                                                             

  Teaching by School of Arts and Sciences faculty  1.1                85
  at the School of Education                                          

  Co-teaching or team teaching courses             1.0                88

  Teaching by School of Education faculty at the   0.7                69
  School of Arts and Sciences                                         
  ------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ----------

> NOTE: Responses were indicated on a scale of 0--3, in which 0 =
> "Although the activity took place, I did not participate," 1 = "any
> participation," and 3 = "a great deal of participation." (If an
> activity did not take place, respondents circled N/A and were not
> counted in the calculations.)
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Average extent of participation in working on project
> goals in committee(s) between schools of arts and sciences and schools
> of education faculty was 2.1 on a scale of 0--3.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
Leadership and Involved Surveys.

*Pass rates on teacher assessments.* According to Sec. 207 of Title II
of HEA, all colleges and universities with teacher-preparation programs
that enroll students who receive federal financial assistance must
report to their state annually (through an institutional accountability
report, or IAR) the pass rates of program completers for state
certification or licensure examinations. Pass rates are required for
completers of regular teacher-preparation programs and of alternate
route programs. During the partnership grant evaluation period, partner
colleges and university teacher-education programs reported on the pass
rates of program completers in two successive years.[^7]

In the interim report, the evaluation reported results from IARs for 51
institutions in 20 partnerships, providing institutional-level aggregate
pass-rate data for regular teacher-preparation program students on five
types of assessments: basic skills, professional knowledge, academic
content, teaching special populations, and other content. In the
following year (2000--01), IARs were collected from 57 institu­tions in
24 partnerships.[^8]

States vary in the number of teacher assess­ments required for licensure
and the score required to pass.[^9] In addition, the number and
specialization of program completers vary each year. Therefore, the
partnerships varied with respect to the number and type of assessments
(out of a total of five assessment topics) reported by their partner
IHEs in the two years that data were collected.

State average pass rates and partnership average pass rates were very
high to begin with---the majority had average pass rates exceeding 90
percent for each assessment category in both years, and all but one
partnership had average pass rates of at least 80 percent. These
findings are consistent with the reported pass rate data in each year of
the secretary's report on teacher preparation issued by the ED. The most
common trend at IHEs with teacher-preparation programs is to require a
basic skills test, such as the Praxis I, for entry into the
teacher-preparation program, but over the duration of the partnership
grant more attention was given to content area assess­ments, largely
because of the NCLB highly qualified teacher state definitions.

Each state determines its own cutoff score (i.e., the percentage of
items correct to earn a passing score), and these scores vary across
states (e.g., at the time of this analysis, Florida had the lowest, 61
percent; Colorado, the highest, 78 percent). Because of this difference,
pass rates are not directly comparable. For example, a 100 percent pass
rate in Florida means that all test takers responded correctly to at
least 61 percent of the items on the certification test, whereas a 100
percent pass rate in Colorado means that all test takers responded
correctly to at least 78 percent. The cutoff scores, despite policy
recommendations that they be raised, remain for the most part below the
average score of test takers in all states.

The evaluation found very little change in the average pass rates of
partnership institutions. From 1999--2000 to 2000--01, the number of
partnerships with average pass rates below the state average on at least
one assessment decreased from 14 to 12. In both years, partnership pass
rates, on average, were not very different from the state averages. Only
one partnership experienced a sizable year-on-year gain (more than 10
points) in reported pass rates on at least one assessment. However,
because not all the institutions in this particular partnership (four
institutions) reported in both years, and because the number of
institutions reporting per assessment category also varied across the
two years, this increase may be biased and should be interpreted
cautiously.

Pass rates, especially in academic content areas, are of great interest
to this evaluation because partnerships are focus­ing on arts and
sciences collaboration with education and in-depth study of academic
content. Because mathematics content knowledge assessment was the one
assessment required of all states represented in the 25 partnerships,
the cutoff scores for each state were provided. (See Aggre­gate Pass Rate
Averages on Math Content Knowledge Test by Partnership in Appendix A.)

*Entrance and exit requirements*. Establishing more stringent entrance
and exit requirements for teacher-preparation programs is intended to
address the concerns some have raised that the "best and brightest"
students do not enter teaching and program outcome requirements are not
stringent enough to weed out underperforming candidates. However, a 2003
report by the Education Commission of the States found the research on
this hypothesis to be inconclusive at present (Allen 2003). Of the three
studies reviewed (Ehrenberg and Brewer 1994; Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek
1999; Guyton and Farokhi 1987) that do address this issue, two studies
found a correlation between the strength of teachers' academic success
and direct or indirect measures of teaching success. A third study found
that raising academic requirements tended to shrink the pool of teacher
candidates, particu­larly minorities.

In partnership teacher-preparation programs, the greatest percentage of
faculty reported that overall GPA was used to assess a candidate at
entry. At exit, clinical observation data gathered during the student
internship was reported to be used in assessing students by the highest
percentage of faculty (see Exhibit 32).

Faculty reported that the use of some types of assessments increased or
were added over the grant period. For example, 40 percent of faculty
respondents reported that "portfolio assessment" had been added as a
program entry or exit criterion since the start of the partnership
grant, and 33 percent of respondents reported adding "Praxis II" as a
program entry or exit criterion. Exhibit 33 shows the changes reported
by faculty in the use of various types of assessments for program entry
or exit over the course of the grant.

One sign of how well the partnership accomplished mutual goals regarding
high-quality teacher preparation is the extent to which faculty and
district partners agree on the preparedness of students for teaching.
Faculty and district respondents rated how well they felt the
teacher-education programs within the partnership grant project prepared
teacher-education students for the challenges of the classroom. An
average perceived level of preparedness was calculated at baseline and
follow-up to determine whether perceptions of preparedness had changed,
and if so, in what areas of teacher knowledge or skills they had
changed.

Over time faculty and district respondents' perceptions about
teacher-education students preparedness changed very little for
challenges such as "working with diverse popu­lations of learners,"
"using a variety of instructional strategies," and "applying standards
to classroom les­sons." The preparedness of students to face these
challenges was rated fairly high. In addition, students' preparedness to
teach reading and to prepare their students for state assessments was
rated fairly high by faculty and district respondents at follow-up, as
was their knowledge regarding technology literacy (Exhibit 34).

"Communicating with parents" and "working with special education
students" were two of the areas rated lower at both time periods by
faculty and district respondents. Little change had occurred in the
perception of faculty or school representatives regarding these areas of
preparation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012028 .anchor}Exhibit 32\
Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty Leaders,
2002--03

  --------------------------------- ------------ ----- --------- ----- --------- ----
                                    Percentage                                   
                                    of faculty                                   
                                    reporting                                    
                                    assessment                                   
                                    used for:                                    

  Type of assessment                Entry              Exit            N/A       

                                    Percent      N     Percent   N     Percent   N

  Minimum overall GPA               95           41    74        32    0         0

  Subject area GPA                  81           35    67        29    9         4

  Minimum number of credit hours    72           31    74        32    7         3

  GPA in pedagogy                   58           25    72        31    14        6

  Praxis I---general ability        56           24    9         4     30        13
  assessments                                                                    

  Submission of writing samples     56           24    ---       ---   26        11

  Recommendations                   54           23    26        11    16        7

  Interview with program faculty    49           21    ---       ---   26        11

  Praxis II---teacher assessments   16           7     44        19    26        11
  in specialty areas                                                             

  Portfolio assessment              9            4     61        26    21        9

  Oral defense of portfolio         ---          ---   37        16    37        16

  Clinical observation during       ---          ---   86        37    2         1
  student teaching                                                               
  --------------------------------- ------------ ----- --------- ----- --------- ----

> NOTE: Dash "---" indicates activity is not an option for either entry
> or exit.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that
> minimum overall GPA was one type of assessment used for IHE
> teacher-preparation program entry, 74 percent of respondents reported
> that minimum overall GPA was an assessment used for program exit, and
> no respondents reported that minimum overall GPA was not applicable to
> assessment of program entry or exit.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012029 .anchor}Exhibit 33\
Changes in Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty
Leaders,\
2002--03

  ----------------------------- ----------------- ----- ------------------- ---- --------- ----
                                Percentage of                                    No change 
                                faculty reporting                                          
                                change in                                                  
                                assessments used                                           
                                for program entry                                          
                                or exit                                                    

  Type of assessment            Increased/added         Decreased/dropped                  

                                Percent           N     Percent             N    Percent   N

  Portfolio assessment          40                17    0                   0    40        17

  Praxis II---teacher           33                14    0                   0    37        16
  assessments in specialty                                                                 
  areas                                                                                    

  Minimum overall GPA           28                12    0                   0    63        27

  Clinical observation during   28                12    0                   0    54        23
  student teaching                                                                         

  Interview with program        21                9     2                   1    54        23
  faculty                                                                                  

  Oral defense of portfolio     21                9     2                   1    58        25

  Praxis I---general ability    19                8     0                   0    51        22
  assessments                                                                              

  Submission of writing samples 19                8     2                   1    58        25

  Recommendations               19                8     0                   0    56        24

  Subject area GPA              16                7     0                   0    68        29

  Minimum number of credit      14                6     5                   2    63        27
  hours                                                                                    

  GPA in pedagogy               12                5     0                   0    72        31
  ----------------------------- ----------------- ----- ------------------- ---- --------- ----

> NOTE: Percentages do not sum to 100 because not all respondents
> answered all parts of the question.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Forty percent of respondents reported portfolio
> assessment had been added as a type of assessment used for IHE
> teacher-preparation program entry or exit, no respondents reported
> that portfolio assessment had been dropped, and 40 percent of
> respondents reported that portfolio assessment had not changed as a
> type of assessment used for program entry or exit.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012030 .anchor}Exhibit 34\
Ratings of Teacher-Education Students' Preparedness for\
Meeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and District\
Respondents, Baseline and Follow-up

  -------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                             Faculty                           District               

  Preparedness of teacher    Baseline   Follow-up   Average\   Baseline   Follow-up   Average\
  education students to:                            Change                            Change

  Work with diverse          4.4        4.4         0.0        4.2        4.1         -0.1
  populations of learners                                                             

  Use a variety of           4.3        4.4         0.1        4.3        4.3         0.0
  instructional strategies                                                            

  Apply standards to         4.2        4.5         0.3        4.3        4.2         -0.1
  classroom lessons                                                                   

  Learn how to be a learner  4.1        4.2         0.1           4.0        4.0      0.0

  Develop depth in           3.9        4.1         0.2        3.9           4.0      0.1
  subject-matter knowledge                                                            

  Construct curricula        3.9        3.9         0.0        3.7        3.6         -0.1

  Conduct effective          3.8        3.8         0.0        4.1        3.9         -0.2
  classroom management                                                                

  Work in a school with      3.6        3.8         0.2        3.7        3.7         0.0
  structural reform                                                                   
  initiatives                                                                         

  Communicate with parents   3.6        3.8         0.2        3.7        3.5         -0.2

  Work with special          3.5        3.7         0.2        3.6        3.5         -0.1
  education students                                                                  

  Provide effective reading  ---        4.2         ---        ---           4.0      ---
  instruction                                                                         

  Prepare students for state ---        4.2         ---        ---        3.9         ---
  assessments                                                                         

  Promote technology         ---           4.0      ---        ---           4.0      ---
  literacy in the classroom                                                           
  -------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

> NOTE: Dash "---" indicates this question did not appear on the
> baseline survey.
>
> NOTE: Ratings are on a scale of 1--5, in which 1 = "not at all
> prepared" and 5 = "very well prepared."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Faculty at baseline reported teacher-education students
> to be fairly well prepared for working with diverse populations of
> learners (4.4)---a higher rating than district respondents, who
> reported teacher-education students' level of preparedness for working
> with diverse populations at 4.2 on the same scale. At follow-up,
> faculty and district ratings were also different: 4.4 compared with
> 4.1.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys and
District Surveys.

Faculty and district perception of student preparedness was consistent
throughout the grant period. Faculty and district respondents in
partnerships with a PDS model and without one also differed very little
in their perceptions of their students' preparedness for classroom and
school chal­lenges.

### Initiatives in Teacher-Preparation Reform: Case Study Highlights {#initiatives-in-teacher-preparation-reform-case-study-highlights .unnumbered}

Examples of reform initiatives within the teacher-preparation programs
in the five partnerships participating as case study sites and progress
made over the duration of the grant period highlight findings from
faculty and district responses (see Exhibit 35).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012031 .anchor}Exhibit 35\
Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Changes to the
Content and\
Structure of the Preservice Teacher-Preparation Program Over the Grant
Period

  ----------------------- -------------------------------------------------
  Objective               Status

  Teacher Quality         
  Enhancement Program,    
  Jackson State           
  University              

  Restore NCATE^a^        Preservice course work was aligned with NCATE and
  Accreditation           INTASC^b^ standards; accreditation was restored.

  Increase pass rates on  Pass rates doubled after school offered five
  Praxis II               annual workshops, set up computer lab for
                          practice tests, and aligned courses with content
                          requirements.

  Train faculty in        100 faculty attended training at partner
  technology              community college; all classes were required to
                          have educational technology component.

  Assist Head Start       Grant paid stipends for Head Start teachers to
  teachers in obtaining   take courses at local universities and through
  A.A. degrees            satellite offices; some teachers left Head Start
                          on degree completion to teach elementary school.

  Purchase technological  16 computers and other technological supplies
  equipment               were purchased.

  Improve in-service      The TQE program established programs with two
  professional            school districts that helped in-service teachers
  development             prepare for certification from the National Board
                          for Professional Teaching Standards.

  Project CoMeT, Our Lady 
  of the Lake University  

  Align OLLU^c^           Alignment was completed for arts and sciences
  curriculum to TEKS^d^   courses, although site visit interviews indicate
  standards (state        some course changes did not substantively affect
  content standards for   content structure or pedagogy; a handful of arts
  students)               and sciences faculty were reluctant to be
                          involved.

  Develop Technology for  Course was developed; professor allotted
  Teaching course         one-fourth release time to work on it; faculty
                          recognized course must be revised each term
                          because of rapid, ongoing changes in technology.

  Urban IMPACT,           
  University of Tennessee 
  Chattanooga/Knoxville   

  Create Urban Specialist Certificate program was created, first by UTK^e^
  certificate for         with UTC^f^ a year later.
  in-service teachers     

  Expand urban focus of   The number of urban schools for student teaching
  preservice program      internships was expanded.

  AzTEC, Arizona State    
  University              

  Reform preservice       Inquiry-based practice was included in science
  teacher preparation to  methods courses at UA^g^ and NAU,^h^ and the
  include inquiry-based   geology course at NAU was reformed; inquiry-based
  instruction             teaching is specific to the instructor, so if an
                          instructor leaves, the practice may change.

  Improve preservice      NAU created a program in which 27 faculty^i^
  student achievement in  members problem-solved to reduce course attrition
  secondary science       rates; although attrition was reduced for one
  courses through         course by 35 percent and overall test scores
  reducing attrition      subsequently rose by as much as 20 percent, the
                          program was discontinued because of faculty
                          fatigue with the intervention.

  Purchase educational    NAU purchased aquariums for elementary education
  materials for           teachers, and science kits, textbooks, and lesson
  preservice and          plans for elementary and secondary teachers;
  in-service teachers     however, access to the science kits was
                          inconsistent.

  Improve preservice      A systematic observation and field experience
  clinical experiences    component was added to all education courses.

  Project SUCCEED,        
  University of Miami     

  Create integrated       Course was created after much work by college of
  science course for      arts and sciences and education faculty and
  preservice teachers     offered to education students, but it was
                          cancelled when student feedback indicated it was
                          too difficult; a similar approach with integrated
                          content was offered at an institute to in-service
                          teachers, who responded positively.

  Modify curriculum based ESOL component was embedded in preservice
  on PDS suggestion for   curriculum in response to identified needs at one
  ESOL training^j^        partner school and state requirements.
  ----------------------- -------------------------------------------------

(exhibit continued on next page)

  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------
  Exhibit 35\           
  **Status of           
  Partnerships in       
  Meeting Goals         
  Relevant to Changes   
  to the Content and\   
  Structure of the      
  Preservice            
  Teacher-Preparation   
  Program Over the      
  Grant Period          
  (Continued)**         

  Objective             Status

  Revise model used to  UM^k^ was asked by the state to train teachers as
  supervise student     clinical supervisors for associate teachers; the
  (associate) teachers  partnership instituted this supervision approach
                        in place of the old method of using retired
                        principals; professors-in-residence also
                        supported associate teachers with seminars
                        (although not all PDS had associate teachers
                        on-site).

  Prepare preservice    Students were trained in using PowerPoint and
  teachers to use       preparing portfolios on CD to meet the 12
  technology            competencies required of all teachers; PowerPoint
                        training was made possible through the project
                        business partner, and training in portfolio
                        development was made possible through one PDS
                        partner.
  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------

> ^a^ National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
>
> ^b^ Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
>
> ^c^ Our Lady of the Lake (Texas)
>
> ^d^ Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
>
> ^e^ University of Tennessee, Knoxville. UTK's is a five-year program,
> allowing more flexibility and different placements, which were valued
> by students. UTC's preservice program does not require a full-time,
> semester-long internship.
>
> ^f^ University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
>
> ^g^ University of Arizona
>
> ^h^ Northern Arizona University
>
> ^i^ From business, science, and mathematics departments
>
> ^j^ English for Speakers of Other Languages
>
> ^k^ University of Miami (Fla.)

SOURCE: Title II Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies.

#   Partner Schools and Districts

### Highlights {#highlights-3 .unnumbered}

-   Over the course of the partnership grant, the average number of
    school-level staff involved in partnership activities grew.

-   The leading partnership activities involving teachers were
    "mentoring new teachers" and "collaborating on the creation of
    professional development activities."

-   The scope of individual partnerships (i.e., whether the partnership
    was local, regional, statewide, or multi­state) does not appear to
    have been a factor in teacher involvement: the number of
    collaborative activities in which teachers participated increased in
    some and decreased in others over time.

-   Principals reported partnership activities with the highest average
    frequency of occurrence between teachers and IHE faculty who were
    "working on-site with student teachers and teaching staff to assess
    instructional practices in clinical internships," "collaborating in
    the professional development school," and "mentor­ing beginning
    teachers," confirming many school district reports.

-   Partnership activities regarding recruitment, reduction of teacher
    attrition and filling teaching position vacan­cies varied and were
    reported to be easing challenges in some partner districts but not
    in others.

-   Substantial partnership resources were devoted to designing
    high-quality professional development for in-service teachers. More
    than half of faculty and 84 percent of district survey respondents
    reported that partnerships had supported workshops for profes­sional
    development.

-   Partnership efforts in schools have been influenced by the NCLB
    legislation, which was signed into law after these grants had been
    awarded. Partnerships reported they played a moderately active role
    in "developing professional development/course opportunities that
    meet the needs of districts with teachers who were not highly
    qualified."

Although the higher education institution may be the lynchpin of the
Title II Partnership Grants Program, many

of the most salient outcomes of any Title II--driven reforms in teacher
preparation can be gauged only at the level of school districts,
individual schools and teachers. And districts can best report on the
level of involvement demonstrated by their administrators, teachers, and
support staff in overall partnership activities. Additionally, it is at
the district level that certain integral improvements in the preparation
of new teachers happen. Teachers and admini­strators within districts
take part in supervising preservice teachers' practicums and provide
mentorship assistance to induction-year teachers. The district and
school levels are also the levels at which new teachers are hired and at
which their performance, as well as attrition and retention rates, is
noticed. Districts, individual schools and teachers are perhaps in the
best position to comment on changes observed in the preparation,
recruitment, and retention of new teachers during the course of the
partnership grant activities. Similarly, impoverished districts and
schools that are confronting generalized shortages of teachers or
shortages in high-need subject areas are the best source of information
as to whether partnership activities have alleviated these shortages.
Teachers in the districts are key participants in any
partnership-sponsored professional development activities; their
experiences with these activities are crucial for understanding the
contribution of the partnership grants.

For all of these reasons, this chapter explores the role that the
partnerships played at the district and school levels, beginning with
partnership selection of district and school partners. This chapter
addresses the extent to which districts and schools were involved in
partnership activities and the extent to which schools were active
partners in reforming teacher preparation, and finally, the degree to
which partnership activities contributed to recruitment, induction and
support for new teachers.

### Evaluation Questions {#evaluation-questions-2 .unnumbered}

-   Have partnerships created opportunities for school personnel to
    participate in important components of teacher preparation?

-   Have partnerships addressed recruitment and reten­tion of teachers in
    partner districts?

-   What are the characteristics of in-service professional development
    provided to teachers in the partnership schools and districts?

-   What is the role of partnerships in implementing NCLB highly
    qualified teacher provisions?

### Number of Districts and Characteristics of School Partners in Partnerships {#number-of-districts-and-characteristics-of-school-partners-in-partnerships .unnumbered}

There was considerable variation across partnerships in terms of the
number of districts with which each partnership was involved and the
number of partner and non-partner schools in each of the participating
districts (a partner school is a school in a partner district that
receives any services or resources from the partnership project; a
non-partnership school is one that is in a partner district but does not
receive any services or resources. In four partnerships (Jackson State
University, University of Southern Colorado, Southwest Missouri State
University, and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), all elementary
schools in (all) the partnership districts received partner resources.
Thirteen other partnerships (University of Alaska-Anchorage, Arizona
State University, Ball State University, Illinois State University, and
Kansas State University, to name a few) included some partici­pating
districts where all schools were partner schools. Finally, in districts
containing both partner and non-partner schools, the balance between the
two varied widely. In some districts, nearly all schools were partner
schools (for example, Tucson had 73 Title II partner and seven
non-partner schools) and in other districts, the situation was reversed
(for example, Amphitheater, Arizona, had two partner schools and 11
non-partner schools).

A comparison of partnership and non-partnership schools showed that, on
average, the schools were similar within partner districts. In addition
to student achievement, differences on four key school features were
analyzed from CCD data: Title I status, minority enrollment, total
enrollment, and number of students eligible for free or reduced-price
lunches. Exhibit 36 compares the unweighted averages of partner schools
with non-partner schools on these characteristics.

Across all partnership districts, participating schools, on average, had
10 percent less minority enrollment and smaller average total
enrollments than did non-partnership schools (by nearly 70 students on
average). Partner and non-partner schools reported about the same
average percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price
lunches.

Average mathematics and reading scores on state-admini­stered student
achievement assess­ments of students from schools that participated in
partnership activities are provided in Exhibit 37. The averages
presented are unweighted and represent the relative standing of the
schools in each partnership, compared with each state's average. Schools
with average scores above 100 are performing above the state mean,
schools performing below 100 are performing below the state mean, and
schools with scores equal to 100 are performing at the state average.

For the majority of partnerships, the average initial student
performance in partner schools was below the state average. However, for
a few partnerships, the average initial student performance was at or
above the state average for mathematics and reading.

### School-Level and District-Level Staff Involvement in Partnership Activities {#school-level-and-district-level-staff-involvement-in-partnership-activities .unnumbered}

The reform of teacher preparation necessitates the input and
collaboration of schools and districts, and Title II partnerships were
expected to foster this involvement through collaborative opportunities.
Without such input, teacher-preparation reform might be a unilateral
effort at the college and university level and could fail to meet the
needs of schools, districts, and ultimately students.

As Exhibit 38 illustrates, the average number of district staff involved
in partnership activities reportedly decreased during the life of the
grant, while the average number of school-level staff increased.
District staff involvement was greater in the planning stages of
partnership activities, and teacher involvement grew as opportunities
grew in the implementation stage.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012032 .anchor}Exhibit 36\
School Characteristics for Partnership and Non-partnership Schools,
1999--2000

  ----------------- ------------- ---------- -------------------- -------------
                    Average                                       Average
                    percentage                                    enrollment

  In partnership    Minority      Title I    Free/reduced-price   
  districts         enrollment    schools    lunches              

  Partnership       62            55         55                   488
  schools                                                         

  Non-partnership   72            35         56                   557
  schools                                                         

  Difference        -10           20         -1                   -69
  ----------------- ------------- ---------- -------------------- -------------

> NOTE: Averages are unweighted across all partnerships and include only
> schools in partnership districts. Negative numbers in the difference
> row indicate that partnership schools, on average, have a smaller
> percentage of that demographic variable than do non-partnership
> schools.
>
> Exhibit reads: Partnership schools, on average, had the following
> characteristics: 62 percent of students were minority, 55 percent of
> schools were designated as Title I, and 55 percent of students were
> eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Average enrollment in
> partnership schools was 488 students.

SOURCE: Common Core of Data (Academic Year 1999--2000), National Center
for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 2001. Accessed
October 2001.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012033 .anchor}Exhibit 37\
Average Mathematics and Reading Scores for Partner Schools by
Partnership

+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| Partn  | Average | Average | Av    | N | Ave  | Ave  | Av    | N |
| ership |         |         | erage |   | rage | rage | erage |   |
|        | math    | math    |       |   | rea  | rea  | diffe |   |
|        | ematics | ematics | diffe |   | ding | ding | rence |   |
|        |         |         | rence |   | s    | s    |       |   |
|        | score   | score   |       |   | core | core |       |   |
|        |         |         |       |   |      |      |       |   |
|        | 199     | 2       |       |   | 19   | 2001 |       |   |
|        | 9--2000 | 001--02 |       |   | 99-- | --02 |       |   |
|        |         |         |       |   | 2000 |      |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 24     | 106.19  | 108.09  | 1.90  | 1 | 10   | 10   | 2.06  | 9 |
|        |         |         |       | 3 | 5.18 | 7.23 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 8      | 102.23  | 103.03  | 0.80  | 1 | 9    | 10   | 2.16  | 1 |
|        |         |         |       | 2 | 9.23 | 1.39 |       | 1 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 16     | 102.08  | 99.84   | -2.24 | 4 | 10   | 10   | -0.63 | 4 |
|        |         |         |       | 1 | 1.25 | 0.62 |       | 1 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 13     | 100.48  | 98.47   | -2.01 | 4 | 9    | 9    | 2.56  | 4 |
|        |         |         |       | 1 | 6.65 | 9.21 |       | 1 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 2      | 99.90   | 99.91   | 0.01  | 1 | 9    | 9    | -3.32 | 1 |
|        |         |         |       | 0 | 8.81 | 5.49 |       | 0 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 12     | 99.59   | 92.73   | -6.86 | 6 | 9    | 9    | -4.11 | 6 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 8.60 | 4.49 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 15     | 97.96   | 103.17  | 5.22  | 8 | 9    | 8    | -     | 8 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 9.66 | 8.81 | 10.85 |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 5      | 97.61   | 98.57   | 0.97  | 6 | 9    | 9    | 2.32  | 6 |
|        |         |         |       | 8 | 5.09 | 7.42 |       | 8 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 19     | 97.58   | 99.65   | 2.07  | 5 | 10   | 9    | -1.43 | 5 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 0.70 | 9.27 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 4      | 96.26   | 100.42  | 4.17  | 1 | 9    | 10   | 11.36 | 1 |
|        |         |         |       | 3 | 5.75 | 7.11 |       | 3 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 10     | 95.67   | 97.77   | 2.10  | 3 | 9    | 9    | 3.36  | 3 |
|        |         |         |       | 1 | 4.69 | 8.05 |       | 1 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 6      | 94.94   | 96.64   | 1.70  | 4 | 9    | 9    | 0.81  | 4 |
|        |         |         |       | 1 | 7.16 | 7.97 |       | 1 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 14     | 91.68   | 90.13   | -1.55 | 5 | 9    | 9    | -0.76 | 5 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 2.66 | 1.90 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 23     | 91.33   | 90.79   | -0.54 | 8 | 9    | 8    | -1.72 | 8 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 1.29 | 9.57 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 3      | 90.90   | 89.15   | -1.74 | 8 | 9    | 8    | -1.41 | 8 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 1.17 | 9.76 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 18     | 89.56   | 91.54   | 1.98  | 6 | 8    | 8    | 0.34  | 6 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 8.92 | 9.26 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 17     | 89.14   | 84.86   | -4.28 | 3 | 8    | 8    | 0.52  | 3 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 6.28 | 6.80 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 7      | 89.12   | 91.15   | 2.03  | 9 | 8    | 8    | 0.04  | 9 |
|        |         |         |       | 9 | 7.65 | 7.69 |       | 9 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 25     | 84.12   | 92.51   | 8.39  | 7 | 8    | 9    | 4.63  | 7 |
|        |         |         |       |   | 6.22 | 0.85 |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 22     | 80.05   | 80.06   | 0.02  | 1 | 8    | 7    | -2.33 | 1 |
|        |         |         |       | 1 | 0.69 | 8.37 |       | 1 |
|        |         |         |       | 0 |      |      |       | 0 |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 9      | 77.60   | 83.76   | 6.16  | 1 | N/A  | N/A  | N/A   | N |
|        |         |         |       | 0 |      |      |       | / |
|        |         |         |       |   |      |      |       | A |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+
| 20     | N/A     | N/A     | N/A   | N | 10   | 9    | -1.82 | 4 |
|        |         |         |       | / | 1.67 | 9.85 |       | 8 |
|        |         |         |       | A |      |      |       |   |
+--------+---------+---------+-------+---+------+------+-------+---+

> NOTES: Partnerships are identified by a random number to ensure
> anonymity. The "N" is the number of partnership schools in each
> partnership. N/A indicates state-level student achievement data are
> not available for either mathematics or reading. Only the partnership
> schools identified by the grantees as being involved in the
> partnership were included in this analysis.
>
> Exhibit reads: School scores in partnership 24 were above the state
> average for mathematics and reading in both 1999--2000 and 2001--02,
> averaging 106 and 108 for mathematics and 105 and 107 for reading,
> respectively.
>
> SOURCE: School-Level Assessment Database. American Institutes for
> Research, John C. Flanagan Research Center (2001). Funded by the
> Policy and Program Studies Service, U.S. Department of Education.
> Accessed August 2002.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012034 .anchor}Exhibit 38\
Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level:
Median,\
Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up

  ---------------------- ------------------ --------------- --------------
                         Number of school-                  
                         and district-level                 
                         staff involved in                  
                         partnership                        
                         activities                         

                         Median             Average         Range

  District-level staff                                      

  Baseline               3.0                18.9            0-1,200

  Follow-up              3.0                13.1            0-240

  School-level staff                                        

  Baseline               14.5               57.8            0-1,200

  Follow-up              15.0               70.5            1-906
  ---------------------- ------------------ --------------- --------------

> NOTES: Numbers based on the number involved as reported by 106
> district respondents at baseline and 82 at follow-up.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: The median number of district-level staff involved in
> the partnership at baseline was reported to be three, the average
> number of district-level staff involved was 18.9, and the number in
> all activities reportedly ranged from 0 to 1,200.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

In addition to providing the number of district- and school-level
participants, district representatives rated the level of involvement of
district and school-level staff and of parents and community members.
These ratings, presented in Exhibit 39, reveal that school-level staff
members were viewed as more active in the partnerships over time and
both school and district staff were more involved than parents and
community leaders.

District representatives reported that teachers and principals were
involved at the school level; at the district level, it was middle-level
staff, including curriculum directors, bilingual education directors,
directors of coun­seling, media coordinators, and subject matter
specialists, and high-level district staff, including superin­tendents
and assistant superintendents (see Exhibit 40). The involve­ment of
upper-level district officials and principals could be one sign that
districts and schools had made genuine commit­ments to partnership
activities. Involve­ment of district administrators may also suggest that
the partnership was both high profile and high priority for the
district.

School-level participation engaged teachers with IHE faculty. Throughout
the grant period, teachers were reported to be engaged across most
partnerships in "mentoring new teachers" and they also "collaborated on
the creation of professional development activities" (see Exhibit 41).
For some activities, "presenting to IHE classes," "co-teaching
university courses in the preservice program," and "redesigning the
course sequence," reports of teacher participation increased by twice or
three times what was documented in the baseline survey.

Some of the collaborative activities reported fall outside the
traditional roles of teachers and in many ways were very ambitious
undertakings. It is encouraging that involvement in these nontraditional
activities was rather high and increased during the course of the
partnership grant, suggesting that the partnerships helped move faculty
and teachers into new areas of collaboration.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012035 .anchor}Exhibit 39\
Rated Level of Involvement at the School, District and Community
Levels,\
Baseline and Follow-Up

![](media/image5.wmf)

> NOTES: Respondents rated each group's level of involvement in the
> partnership on a scale of 0--3, in which 0 = "none," 1 = "little," 2 =
> "moderate," and 3 = "active."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: District respondents rated the average involvement of
> parents and community leaders at baseline as 1.1 and at follow-up as
> 0.9.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
> Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012036 .anchor}Exhibit 40\
Percentage of District Respondents Reporting District and School-Level
Staff\
Involvement in the Partnership, Baseline and Follow-Up

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.000694444444444in"
height="3.6798611111111112in"}

> EXHIBIT READS: Nearly all district survey respondents indicated that
> teachers were involved in the partnership: 96 percent reported they
> were involved at baseline and 98 percent at follow-up.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
> Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012037 .anchor}Exhibit 41\
Percentage of District Representatives Reporting Teacher Participation
in Collaborative\
Activities with Partner Faculty at Baseline and Follow-Up

![](media/image7.wmf)

> EXHIBIT READS: Respondents reported on teacher involvement throughout
> the grant: 94.1 percent of respondents to the Baseline District Survey
> reported that teachers participated in "serving as mentors for new
> teachers;" 100 percent of respondents to the follow-up survey reported
> that teachers participated in "serving as mentors for new teachers."

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

Teacher participation was reported to have increased over the grant
period. However, when participation was viewed by the scope of the
partnership the average number of activities in which teachers were
reported to have participated fell overall between the baseline survey
and the follow-up. The average number of activities in local
partnerships dropped from 8.2 to 5.8, and in regional partnerships
dropped from 7.9 to 5.9. Statewide partnerships and the multistate
partner­ship reported increases in the average number of col­laborative
activities in which teachers participated (see Exhibit 42).

Midway through the evaluation, the principals of elementary schools
participating in the partnership grant were surveyed to obtain
information about collaborative activities initiated through the
partnership in which their teachers were involved. Principal respondents
reported that teachers and faculty from partner IHE's most fre­quently
"worked on-site with student teachers and teaching staff to assess
instructional practices in clinical internship." Next, they
"collaborated in a 'professional development school' arrangement with
the school," and "mentored beginning teachers." The collaborative
activi­ties principals identified as most frequently occurring matched
other data reported: the traditional relation­ship between schools and
teacher-education programs revolves around placement and support of
student teachers and these activities were the focal point for many
partnership reform initiatives (see Exhibit 43).

### Schools and Districts as Equal Partners  {#schools-and-districts-as-equal-partners .unnumbered}

While the IHEs were the lead institutions under the partnership grants
program, the initiative's goal was to develop interactions between the
IHEs and the beneficiary school districts that reflected a relationship
between peers. In general, the partnership respondents indicated that
the IHEs and districts were involved in authentic partnerships and that
the districts and schools saw themselves as somewhat equal
partners.[^10] Districts reported that their perception of equality as a
partner improved slightly with their involvement during the life of the
grant. At baseline, districts rated their sense of equality in the
project at 3.0 and at follow-up, 3.5 on a five-point scale.

The findings from some of the case studies support the idea that this
notion of equality was shared especially in regard to decision making
between partners. In one partnership, representatives from the partner
school districts met monthly with the IHE lead to discuss the
partnership's direction. While the lead partner did control the budget,
the lead did not dictate courses of action to the partner districts.
Rather, the districts presented annual plans of their own design,
pending approval. These designs reflected local district needs, as long
as the designs were consistent with broad partnership goals, they were
not subject to the lead partner's veto.

In another partnership, the lead IHE was joined by school districts, a
Head Start agency, one of the state teachers' unions, a community
college, and the state education agency. The partners met quarterly and
reported to each other on their respective progress toward overall
partnership goals. Each of these partners had its own purview, and as
long as the partners continued to work toward broad partnership goals,
they were free to act independent­ly of any intervention or directive
from the IHE lead partner.

### Partnership Contribution to Recruitment and Retention of New Teachers {#partnership-contribution-to-recruitment-and-retention-of-new-teachers .unnumbered}

With the creation and support of collaborative processes between IHEs
and schools around teacher-preparation reform as a foundation, some
partnerships made efforts to address one or more of the recruit­ment and
retention needs of districts.

*Partnership contribution to recruitment and retention overall.* Reports
from school districts indicate that the partnerships contributed to
easing some challenges in these areas (Exhibit 44).

During the grant period, the percentage of respondents indicating that
the partnership had contributed to im­provements in recruitment
decreased. This may indicate that meeting recruitment needs was an
initial focus of the partnerships that tapered off as the grant
progressed and staffing needs were met or that partnerships were unable
to fully meet districts' staffing needs. An alternate explanation is
that due to budget cuts, districts were unable to hire many new
teachers.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012038 .anchor}Exhibit 42\
Extent of Collaboration in Partnerships by Teachers and District Staff\
by Scope of Partnerships, Baseline and Follow-Up

  ----------------- ------------------- ---------------- ------------------
  Scope             Average number of                    
                    collaborative                        
                    activities in which                  
                    staff participated                   

                    Teachers at         Teachers at      District staff at
                    baseline            follow-up        follow‑up

  Local             8.2                 5.8              6.6

  Multistate        7.4                 8.8              12.0

  Regional          7.9                 5.9              4.7

  Statewide         8.2                 9.0              .3

  Overall           8.0                 7.0              6.3
  ----------------- ------------------- ---------------- ------------------

> NOTE: The baseline surveys asked for reports only of teacher
> participation. The follow-up surveys asked for reports of teacher and
> district staff participation. Each survey asked about 15 activities,
> and the results were organized for comparison.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: For partnerships with a local scope, teachers were
> reported to be involved in an average of 8.2 collaborative activities
> at baseline. At follow-up, teachers were reported to be involved in an
> average of 5.8 activities, and district staff members in an average of
> 6.6 activities.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012039 .anchor}Exhibit 43\
Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative Partnership Activities Between
Schools and\
Partner IHEs, as Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships

  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------
  Partnership activities                    In                              
                                            collaborative                   
                                            activity with                   
                                            partner IHE                     

                                            Number          Number          Average
                                            reporting no    reporting any   rated
                                            participation   participation   frequency of
                                                                            occurrence

  Worked on-site with student teachers and  136             300             2.8
  teaching staff to assess instructional                                    
  practices in clinical internship                                          

  Collaborated in a "professional           251             168             2.6
  development school" arrangement with your                                 
  school                                                                    

  Mentored beginning teachers (i.e.,        240             180             2.5
  teachers in their first three years of                                    
  teaching)                                                                 

  Worked with community partners to provide 234             182             2.4
  goods and services (such as technology                                    
  resources, or tutoring) to your school                                    

  Worked on curricular issues (such as      211             215             2.3
  interdisciplinary instruction or aligning                                 
  curriculum with standards) with teaching                                  
  staff at your school                                                      

  Co-taught classes with teachers           307             111             2.3

  Worked to enhance the use of technology   284             132             2.1
  at your school (such as Web sites,                                        
  paperless classrooms, interactive media)                                  

  Facilitated professional development      258             162             2.1
  activities to help teachers raise student                                 
  performance on state-mandated student                                     
  assessments                                                               

  Worked to enhance teacher/parent          301             104             2.1
  communication                                                             

  Worked on evaluating the success of       280             138             2.1
  school reform efforts (such as                                            
  implementation of outcomes of school                                      
  reform models)                                                            

  Conducted research in collaboration with  281             132             2.1
  teachers in their classrooms                                              
  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------

(exhibited continued on next page)

  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------
  Exhibit 43**\                                                             
  Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative                                  
  Partnership Activities Between Schools                                    
  and\                                                                      
  Partner IHEs As Reported By Elementary                                    
  Principals in the Partnerships                                            
  (Continued)**                                                             

  Partnership activities                    In                              
                                            collaborative                   
                                            activity with                   
                                            partner IHE                     

                                            Number          Number          Average
                                            reporting no    reporting any   rated
                                            participation   participation   frequency of
                                                                            occurrence

  Worked with parents and community leaders 295             94              2.0
  to increase their involvement in the                                      
  school                                                                    

  Provided in-service professional          235             191             2.0
  development workshops for teachers in                                     
  your school in effective instruction                                      

  Worked with school administrators to      227             195             1.9
  build leadership skills                                                   
  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------

> NOTES: The frequency of each activity was rated on a scale of 0--4, in
> which 0 = "never," 1 = "at least 1--­2 times per year," 2 = "at least
> 1--2 times per term," 3 = "at least once per month," and 4 = "at least
> once per week."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Principal respondents reported that the collaborative
> activity in which participation occurred most frequently was "worked
> on site with student teachers and teaching staff to assess
> instructional practices in clinical internship." There were 136
> respondents who reported no participation around this activity; 300
> reported some participation did occur; the average rated frequency of
> occurrence was 2.8---nearly once per month.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Principals' Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012040 .anchor}Exhibit 44\
Percentage of District Survey Respondents Reporting Partnership Support
to Teacher\
Recruitment and Retention: Overall, High-Poverty Schools, and for
High-Need Subjects\
at Baseline and Follow-Up

+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
|                   | B     | Higher | Fa   | Enha | Re    | Re    |
|                   | etter |        | ster | nced | duced | duced |
|                   | (impr | qu     | abi  | s    | vaca  | attr  |
|                   | oved) | alific | lity | cree | ncies | ition |
|                   | r     | ations | to   | ning |       |       |
|                   | ecrui |        | fill | pro  | (per  | (per  |
|                   | tment | (pe    | v    | cess | cent) | cent) |
|                   |       | rcent) | acan |      |       |       |
|                   | (per  |        | cies | (    |       |       |
|                   | cent) |        |      | perc |       |       |
|                   |       |        | (    | ent) |       |       |
|                   |       |        | perc |      |       |       |
|                   |       |        | ent) |      |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
| Baseline overall  | 85    | 68     | 62   | 49   | 37    | 37    |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
| Follow-up overall | 64    | 63     | 53   | 37   | 43    | 47    |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
| High-poverty      | 58    | 49     | 45   | 36   | 36    | 25    |
| schools baseline  |       |        |      |      |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
| High-poverty      | 31    | 35     | 24   | 15   | 25    | 27    |
| schools follow-up |       |        |      |      |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
| High-needs        | 53    | 37     | 41   | 35   | 31    | 22    |
| subjects baseline |       |        |      |      |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+
| High-needs        | 24    | 28     | 20   | 12   | 19    | 20    |
| subjects          |       |        |      |      |       |       |
| follow-up         |       |        |      |      |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+

> Exhibit Reads: Eighty-five percent of district respondents to the
> baseline survey reported that the partnership contributed to better
> recruitment in schools overall, while 64 percent of district
> respondents to the follow-up survey reported that the partnership
> contributed to better recruitment in schools overall.

Source: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

Still, partnerships reportedly did assist some schools in recruiting new
teachers. Initially, 85 percent reported that partnership activities had
led to improved recruitment. At follow-up, more than half still
indicated that partnerships had contributed to better recruitment, to a
faster response filling vacancies, and to higher qualifications among
new teachers.

Despite the fact that a number of partnerships developed induction
programs, survey data from districts suggest that the partnerships
contributed only moderately to the reten­tion needs of new teachers.
Almost half of respondents at follow-up reported that partnerships had
contributed to reduced attrition and reduced vacancies. These figures
represented a small increase in the percent­age reporting such
partnership contributions in the baseline survey.

*Partnership contribution in high-poverty schools.* The percentage of
respondents indicating that the partnership had contri­buted to resolving
recruitment needs in high-poverty schools decreased over time, and in
the area of attrition, reports were stable over time.

*Partnership contribution to staffing for high-needs subjects.*
Respondents from each partnership reported also on how partnerships
eased their staffing difficulties in "high-needs subjects" (the
definition of "high-needs subjects" was left to the individual
districts). Again, the responses suggest that the partnership activities
were associated with contributions to overall staffing needs rather than
staffing for "high-needs sub­jects," especially near the end of the grant
period.

Referring to high-needs subjects, at baseline, 22 percent of respondents
indicated that the partnership contributed to reduced attrition, and 31
percent indicated that the partnership contributed to reduced vacancies.
Toward the end of the grant, 20 percent reported contributions to
reduced teacher attrition, and 19 percent reported contri­butions to
reduced vacancies in high-needs subjects.

Exhibit 45 displays these findings across partnership scope.

These data may reflect the tremendous difficulties inherent in
recruiting and retaining teachers in some of the nation's most
challenged school districts.

*Partnership efforts to support new teachers.* Two recent publica­tions
addressing attrition rates for beginning teachers have suggested the
kind of induction support program that could be valuable to their
retention (Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) and Smith and Ingersoll (2004)).
One finding cited in Smith and Ingersoll (2004) is that retention is
likely to increase when novice teachers receive more than one type of
support during their beginning years of practice; it is not only
professional development but also mentoring plus other resources, such
as building networks, that support the needs of new practitioners.

Three examples of partnership mentoring programs that provide more than
a one-time workshop on transitioning to teaching are Arizona State
University's (AzTEC) Alternative Support for Induction Science Teachers
program (ASIST), Jackson State University's formal induction program for
first-year teachers, and the University of Miami's Support Institute.
The ASIST program is designed to meet the expressed professional
development needs of beginning secondary science teachers in southern
Arizona. Program components included monthly Saturday meetings that
allow teachers to work in group settings, electronic communication,
classroom visits by project staff or peers, and a trip to the state or
national science teachers' conference. The mentorship program created by
Jackson State assigned all new teachers mentors and the pairs met for a
week at the beginning of the academic term for presentations and
discussions about classroom manage­ment, as well as school policy and
procedures. Mentors and mentees addressed best classroom practices. Over
the year, the mentor pairs established a communication approach that fit
their working and support preferences. Classroom teachers and retired
teachers served as mentors in 38 elementary schools, with most mentors
working with one induction-year teacher. The University of Miami Support
Institute addressed the first three years of a teacher's career and
provided separate professional development components for individuals at
different stages; special attention was given to both those at the
beginning of their careers and those who were looking forward to
National Board certification. The support program was facilitated by a
former teacher and school administrator who was an adjunct faculty
member.

Many of the Title II partnerships stepped into a void in their regions
to provide induction-support programs for new teachers; some even
included new teachers who had not graduated from their institutions but
were teaching in partner schools. Additional data from district partners
indicate how partnerships supported the newest teachers in partner
schools (Exhibit 46).

Approximately 80 percent of district respondents indicated that
"encouragement of informal mentoring" and "training for mentors" were
two types of induction activities pro­vided since the partnership began.
Partnerships sought to improve the mentoring process by formal training
of mentors; they also maintained collaboration between classroom
teachers and faculty to advance mentoring initiatives. Over time,
however, fewer district respondents indicated many of these activities
were occurring.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012041 .anchor}Exhibit 45\
Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support for
District Needs\
Regarding Teacher Vacancies and Attrition by Scope of Partnership,\
Baseline and Follow-Up

  ----------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
  Scope             Partnership                  Partnership   
                    contributed to               contributed   
                    reduced                      to reduced    
                    vacancies                    attrition     
                    (percent)                    (percent)     

                    Baseline       Follow-Up     Baseline      Follow-Up

  Local             50             30            36            35

  Multistate        0              25            0             25

  Regional          36             35            39            42

  Statewide         40             64            43            64

  Overall           37             43            37            47
  ----------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------

> EXHIBIT READS: At baseline, 50 percent of respondents from
> partnerships with a local scope indicated that partnerships
> contributed to reduced vacancies, compared with 30 percent at
> follow-up.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2000--01) and
Follow-Up (2003--04) District Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012042 .anchor}Exhibit 46\
Percentage of District Respondents Reporting **Partnership Support of
New Teachers\
at Follow-Up**

  --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------
  Induction activity provided by the partnership      Percentage of 
                                                      respondents   
                                                      indicating    
                                                      that activity 
                                                      was           

                                                      Provided in   Provided
                                                      2000--01      in
                                                                    2002--03

  Encouragement of informal mentoring                 84            83

  Training for mentors                                80            80

  Mentoring by teacher and/or professor               84            75

  Routine observations of new teachers                84            70

  Supervision or mentoring by principal               80            70

  Provision of substitute teachers to allow new       76            66
  teachers to participate in any support or induction               
  activity                                                          

  Seminars with new teachers and college or           76            61
  university faculty                                                

  Provision of monetary support for attendance at     68            43
  professional conferences                                          

  Team teaching or co-teaching                        68            33

  Reduced teaching load for beginning teachers        16              7

  Reduced teaching load for mentors                   20              7

  Child care or other family service                    8             1
  --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------

> Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of district respondents indicated
> that the partnership provided "encouragement of informal mentoring" in
> 2000--01. Eighty-three percent indicated this induction activity was
> provided in 2002--03.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
> Survey.

### Partnership-Provided In-Service Professional Development for Teachers {#partnership-provided-in-service-professional-development-for-teachers .unnumbered}

Although most IHEs in the partnerships addressed the need to produce
highly qualified novice teachers in their preparation programs, a
substantial amount of partnership grant program resources were also
devoted to designing high-quality in-service professional develop­ment
for teachers. In contrast to the inconclu­sive findings from the research
regarding the features and content of teacher preparation, the research
on high-quality professional development continues to provide educators
with valuable guidance for planning, implementing and follow­ing through
with in-service professional development.

The teacher-education programs in the Title II Partnership Grants
Program were already experienced as providers of professional
development for credential upgrading and for master's degree goals held
by in-service teachers. With grant funds, however, the partnerships were
able to go outside of the traditional box of professional development
workshops or continuing education courses, and serve a wider audience of
teachers with focused professional development that drew on the
knowledge base of the arts and sciences faculty.

The research points to three core features and three structural features
of professional development that have been associated with changes in
teacher practice.[^11] Each feature is defined below, along with the
research context from which it has emerged.

### Core Features of Professional Development {#core-features-of-professional-development .unnumbered}

The three key core features of a model of high-quality professional
development include (1) a focus on the content of what teachers teach,
(2) opportunities for teachers to learn and connect their learning to
practice, and (3) coherence among professional development goals,
teachers' own goals, and the standards and assessments that should guide
teachers' practice (Garet et al. 2001).

1.  **Focus on Content** to be taught. Professional development content
    that focuses on what students are expected to learn and how students
    learn the subject matter appears to support teacher knowledge and
    practice in ways that improve student achievement (Cohen and Hill
    2001; Garet et al. 2001; Kennedy 1998; Carpenter et al. 1989).
    McCutchen and col­leagues (2002) found that a professional
    development intervention that focused on deep content knowledge
    about the structure of English language and how children learn to
    read produced effects on teacher knowledge and practice, and student
    achievement in kindergarten and first grade.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  **Opportunities for active learning.** Active learning refers to the
    engagement of teachers in the learning process through observation,
    meaningful discussion, practice, and reflection. Teachers appear to
    benefit through opportunities to observe and be observed by expert
    teachers; opportunities to integrate learning into classroom
    practice; opportunities to review student work with others; and
    opportunities to reflect, discuss and write about their learning
    (Garet et al. 2001; Lieberman 1996; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998).

9.  **Coherence** of professional development activities with other
    important aspects of teachers' professional work. Professional
    development appears to be more effective when the activities and
    goals involved are aligned with other initiatives designed to change
    instruction, including standards and assessments and curriculum
    adoptions; when they are consistent with teachers' personal goals
    for their development; and when they afford opportunities for
    teachers to com­municate with others involved in similar professional
    development activities (Cohen and Hill 1998; Garet et al. 2001;
    Grant, Peterson, and Shojgreen-Downer 1996; Lieberman and McLaughlin
    1992).

### Structural Features of Professional Development {#structural-features-of-professional-development .unnumbered}

The structural features of high-quality professional devel­opment are:

1.  **Form of the activity,** how professional development activities
    are organized. Research suggests that pro­fessional development
    activities that are incorporated in teachers' daily schoolwork, such
    as coaching, mentoring and in-school discussion groups, provide more
    opportunities for active learning and encourage greater coherence of
    activities with teachers' and schools' larger goals and teachers'
    communications with others than professional development not
    incorporated in their schoolwork. Furthermore, it helps sustain
    professional development over time (Garet et al. 2001; Hargreaves
    and Fullan 1992; Little 1993; Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, and Hewson
    1996).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
10. **Duration** of the activity. Duration refers both to the time span
    of the effort and the number of hours committed to the effort.
    Duration appears to be supported by the form of the activity. In
    turn, both span and number of hours of professional development are
    associated with opportunities for active learning (Garet et al.
    2001; Cohen and Hill 2001; O'Connor 1999).

11. **Collective participation** of groups of teachers. In­cluding
    teachers from the same school, same depart­ment within the school,
    or, ideally, the same grade level in the school is thought to foster
    opportunities for collegial development that improves professional
    development in the short term and helps sustain it over the long
    term (Ball 1996; Knapp 1997; Talbert and McLaughlin 1993; Elmore
    2002).

The professional development planned and implemented through the Title
II partnerships varied considerably. While many of the professional
development opportunities afforded through the partnerships would meet
the features of a focus on important content and opportunities for
active learning during the actual events, and somewhat qualify regarding
coherence, there was a great deal of variation regarding features of
form and collective participation. Professional development events were
cultivated based on needs identified by faculty, school and district
partners and there were many examples of workshops and institutes that
lasted from two to five days and up to three weeks. Follow-up was
reported to be a component of many of the professional development
opportunities; however, this was not as common as would be desired and
seemed to face some barriers, such as lack of resources to bring faculty
back into schools during the year, as well as lack of commitment from
some of the teacher participants. Except for mentoring or induction to
support novice teachers, there was little embedded professional
development. The most challenging feature to implement seemed to be that
of collective participation; while partnerships intended to focus on
teachers from PDS partners, for example, com­munication about the planned
professional development, decision making by districts, or simple lack
of interest by teachers resulted in much more self-selection among the
participants than originally desired.

The forms of professional development used by partner­ships reported are
shown in Exhibit 47.

*Form.* "Workshops" were the most frequently occurring type of
professional development activity according to both faculty and district
representatives. The least reported type of professional development
activity was "committee and task force work." The reported occurrence of
professional development types was consistent over the duration of the
grant.

*Duration.* Duration of the forms of profes­sional development reported
was not consistently intensive. In one of the case study sites, every
institute created lasted from one to three weeks. Generally, however,
workshops lasted from one-half to two days; courses for college credit,
"between one week and one year;"[^12] and confer­ences, about two days.
Committees or task forces and peer coaching were conducted occasionally
during the course of a school year.

*Topics.* The most commonly reported topics in partnership-provided
professional development included mentoring student teachers, using
assessment data and focusing on teachers' science knowledge
(Exhibit 48). Focus on content areas such as teachers' content knowledge
in mathematics and reading was not as prevalent as might be expected
based on site visit reports. Principal respondents indi­cated teachers in
their schools participated at least one to two times per term (roughly
corresponding to a semester) in professional development with two
instructional foci: "professional development to help teachers raise
student perfor­mance on state-mandated student assessments" and
"workshops for teachers in effective instruction" (Exhibit 49).

*Follow-up.* Common among the complaints from teachers about the typical
professional development in which they participate is a lack of
follow-up. Without follow-up, organizers and providers of professional
development have little information as to transfer of research, content
knowledge, or strategies into practice. With follow-through the
facilitators of the professional development could provide in-school
support for teachers and revise the next planned institute or workshop.
In a five-year grant, such follow-through is possible by holding one-day
seminars throughout the year or by visiting classrooms and meeting with
teachers during their planning time. This follow-up approach would work
equally well for a year-long induc­tion support program or a technology
institute.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012043 .anchor}Exhibit 47\
Percentage of Faculty and District Representatives Indicating Types of
Partnership\
Professional Development Opportunities Provided to Teachers and District
Staff, 2002--03

  ------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------
  Professional development  Percent                         
  activity                  reporting                       
                            partnership had                 
                            provided                        
                            activity                        

                            Faculty (n =    District (n =   Total (n =
                            56)             94)             150)

  Workshops                 52              84              72

  Courses for college       34              32              33
  credit                                                    

  Conferences               32              34              33

  Committees and task       25              25              25
  forces                                                    

  Peer coaching or          29              38              35
  mentoring                                                 
  ------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------

> EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-two percent of faculty reported the partnership
> provided workshops as a professional development activity; 84 percent
> of district respondents reported workshops were provided. Overall, 72
> percent of all respondents said their partnerships had provided
> workshops.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012044 .anchor}Exhibit 48\
Topics Covered in Professional Development Activities, 2002--03

  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  Topics covered                          Percentage of respondents who
                                          indicated that the topic was
                                          covered during one or more
                                          professional development
                                          activities

  Mentoring/supervising student teachers  49

  Using assessment data/tools to improve  46
  student achievement                     

  Science: focus on teachers' content     46
  knowledge                               

  Theories of learning                    43

  Technology to support teaching and      42
  learning                                

  Math: focus on teachers' content        30
  knowledge                               

  Reading instruction                     29

  Principal/assistant principal           16
  professional development                

  Instruction for second language         10
  learners                                
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

> NOTE: A total of 150 district and involved faculty respondents
> answered some part of this question. Each respondent could select each
> topic more than once, indicating that it had been covered in one or
> more of the professional development activities indicated in exhibit
> 47. Percentages were calculated by dividing the total number of
> respondents who selected a topic (not the total number of times the
> topic was selected) by the total number of respondents.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated mentoring
> or supervising student teachers was a topic covered during one or more
> professional development activities.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012045 .anchor}Exhibit 49\
Frequency of Partnership Professional Development\
Activities Between Schools and Partner IHEs, as Reported by Principals

  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  Partnership activities                    Frequency of                    
                                            activity with                   
                                            partner IHE                     

                                            No              Any             Average rated
                                            participation   participation   frequency of
                                            (n)             (n)             participation

  Facilitated professional development      61              39              2.1
  activities to help teachers raise student                                 
  performance on state-mandated student                                     
  assessments                                                               

  Provided in-service professional          55              45              2.0
  development workshops for teachers in                                     
  your school in effective instruction                                      
  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

> NOTES: The frequency of each activity was rated on a scale of 0--4, in
> which 0 = "never," 1 = "at least 1--­2 times per year," 2 = "at least\
> 1--2 times per term," 3 = "at least once per month," and 4 = "at least
> once per week."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-one percent of principals responding to a survey
> about collaborative activities reported no participation in
> "facilitated professional development activities to help teachers
> raise student performance on state-mandated student assessments." Of
> the 39 percent of principals who did report that this activity took
> place between the partner IHE and the school, the average frequency of
> this activity was 2.1.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Principals' Surveys.

Exhibit 50 provides percentages of respondents who indicated that
specific follow-up activities were part of their partnership-sponsored
professional development activities.

Less than 50 percent of district or faculty partnership respondents
reported follow-up occurred. The most commonly reported follow-up
activities were: "follow-up workshops were scheduled throughout the
year," "faculty from partnerships visited teachers to support
application of new knowledge," and "evaluation of workshop effectiveness
was conducted." In additional analyses by subject-area focus, nearly all
professional development activities with a content-knowledge focus were
reported to contain some form of follow-up activity but not necessarily
intensive on-site work with teachers over the school year.

*Participants.* Highly qualified teachers were the most frequent
participants in all professional development activities (reported to be
recipients of professional development by 86 percent of respondents),
along with new teachers (reported by 56 percent of respondents), and
administra­tors in committees and task forces (reported by 43 percent of
respondents). (New teachers were required to be highly qualified, so
there is some overlap between those two categories.) Teachers who were
not highly qualified were less frequently the focus of partnership
professional development activities (reported by 28 percent of
respondents). Partnership faculty who were involved with the develop­ment
of the professional development oppor­tunities identified the continuing
pedagogi­cal needs of teachers in schools with representatives of the
partner school districts.

Generally, there were more participants in professional development
activities with a content-area focus than in activities without a
content focus (Exhibit 51). Workshops with a content-knowledge focus had
an average of 101 participants whereas workshops without a content focus
had an average of 28 participants. Examples of smaller workshops
included technology institutes for teachers and focused one-time
seminars on topics of interest to the district or faculty.

Teacher selection for participation in professional development
activities occurred in a variety of ways. This was one of the challenges
identified by the partnership leaders during site visits. With adequate
lead time, teacher groups could be targeted and recruited based on
perceived need. However, some opportunities were advertised broadly, and
a wide range of teachers responded. Two-thirds of the faculty
respondents indicated that teachers volunteered to participate in
professional development activities. Teachers were also referred by
their principals, referred by their school districts, and 10 percent of
respondents indicated that teachers were selected to participate in
professional development activities through invitations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012046 .anchor}Exhibit 50\
Follow-Up to Professional Development Activities as Reported by District
and Faculty\
Respondents, 2002--03

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  Follow-up activity                    Percentage of respondents who
                                        indicated that the follow-up was
                                        part of one or more professional
                                        development activities

  Follow-up workshops were scheduled    47
  throughout the year                   

  Faculty from partnerships visited     45
  teachers to support application of    
  new knowledge                         

  Evaluation of workshop effectiveness  44
  was conducted                         

  Interim assignments were required of  37
  participants                          

  Specialists in schools were assigned  35
  to work with teachers                 

  No follow-up was implemented          19
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

> NOTE: A total of 150 district and involved faculty respondents
> answered some part of this question. Each respondent could select each
> follow-up activity more than once, indicating that it had been offered
> in more than one of the professional development activities indicated
> in exhibit 47. Percentages were calculated by dividing the total
> number of respondents who selected a follow-up activity (not the total
> number of times the activity was selected) by the total number of
> respondents.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that
> follow-up workshops were scheduled throughout the year as follow-up to
> one or more professional development activities.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012047 .anchor}Exhibit 51\
Average Number of Participants in Content-Focused Versus
Non--Content-Focused\
Professional Development Activities, as Reported by District and
Faculty, 2002--03

![](media/image8.wmf)

> EXHIBIT READS: Workshops that did not have a content focus had an
> average of about 28 participants, whereas workshops that did have a
> content focus had an average of about 101 participants.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
> and Faculty Involved Surveys.

*Facilitators.* College or university faculty members were identified as
the primary facilitators of professional development (Exhibit 52).
District administrators and teachers also facilitated professional
development activities but did so less frequently. In many cases, there
was joint facilitation of activities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012048 .anchor}Exhibit 52\
Professional Development Facilitators, as Reported by District and
Faculty, 2002--03

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  Facilitator                        Percentage reporting (n = 100)

  College/university faculty         74

  School district administrators     49

  School teachers                    47

  Outside consultants                25
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

> EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated that
> college or university faculty facilitated professional develop­ment
> activities.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Involved Surveys.

### Partnership Approaches to Delivering Professional Development {#partnership-approaches-to-delivering-professional-development .unnumbered}

Exhibit 53 describes the different approaches to profes­sional
development undertaken at a sample of the partner­ships. By far the most
commonly reported model was to provide content or pedagogy workshops for
in-service teachers during the course of the academic year.

Professional development occurred on-site in schools for special
purposes as well*.* Education school faculty from Illinois State
University entered local schools and created a learning community
approach to support new teachers. The goal here, as in many projects,
was to train in-service teachers to be mentors for induction-year
teachers. The project also established an electronic mentoring system
whereby university faculty members were on-call to help induction-year
teachers.

At least three partnerships within the cohort gave in-service teachers
financial support to pursue graduate course work at partner IHEs.
Teachers in and around Orangeburg, S.C., could, through the Community
Higher Education Council and Local Education Agency Partnership, pursue
M.Ed. or M.A.T. degrees with stipends supported with Title II money.
Within the partnership, Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical
Experiences, in-service teachers were encouraged to take graduate-level
courses at the University of South Carolina along with preservice
teachers. In some instances, they were even encouraged to team teach
courses with arts and sciences faculty.

Mentorship training was a common purpose for profes­sional development
sponsored by many of the partner­ships. The North Carolina Central
Teacher Education Partnership mentoring program was a year-long,
two-semester course involving a seminar and a practicum. The course was
taught on-site in two partner school districts, and the participating
teachers were given reimbursements of expenses for a distance education
course plus a stipend, in addition to payment of *Federal Insurance
Contribution Act* *(FICA)* obligations and retirement benefits. After
the seminar, the teachers were required to engage in a practicum on the
cycles of assistance, during which their work was audio-taped and
reviewed by a peer. After the practicum, they were assigned as mentors
to induction-year teachers.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012049 .anchor}Exhibit 53\
Models of Professional Development

  ------------------- --------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ----------
  Partnership         Content or      In-depth   PDS^a^   New        Graduate
                      pedagogy        summer              linkages   school
                      workshops       programs            between    course
                      during the                          IHE        work
                      academic term                       faculty    
                                                          and        
                                                          teachers   

  Alaska Partnership                                              
  for Teacher                                                        
  Enhancement                                                        

  Community Higher                                                  
  Education Council                                                  
  and Local Education                                                
  Agency Partnership                                                 

  Illinois                                                         
  Professional                                                       
  Learners                                                           
  Partnership                                                        

  Improving Teacher                                                
  Quality Through                                                    
  Partnerships that                                                  
  Connect Teacher                                                    
  Performance to                                                     
  Student Learning                                                   

  Massachusetts                                                   
  Coalition for                                                      
  Teacher Quality and                                                
  Student Achievement                                                

  Milwaukee                                                         
  Partnership Academy                                                
  to Improve the                                                     
  Quality of Teaching                                                

  North Carolina                                                     
  Central Teacher                                                    
  Education                                                          
  Partnership                                                        

  Partners for the                                               
  Enhancement of                                                     
  Clinical                                                           
  Experiences                                                        

  Project Site                                                      
  Support                                                            

  Project SUCCEED                                                  
  ------------------- --------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ----------

> ^a^ Professional Development School.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Supplementary Interviews with
> Project Directors.

### Partnerships and NCLB Initiatives  {#partnerships-and-nclb-initiatives .unnumbered}

NCLB was enacted in 2002 and has greatly influenced school and district
needs and priorities. At some level, partnership efforts at the school
level have also been influenced by the legislation. Deans and district
partners were asked to describe the role of the partnership project in
meeting NCLB requirements. Exhibit 54 provides an overall average across
all partnerships; Exhibit 55 provides responses for individual
partnerships.

Partnerships reported they were most engaged in creating professional
development opportunities to assist districts with teachers not meeting
the definition of "highly qualified," followed by creating fast-track,
graduate-level programs for career-changers, and supporting alternative
route programs.

Individual partnerships varied substantially in their reported levels of
involvement in the specified activities. In general, partnerships
reported more active roles in professional development and program
options than in contributions to policy-setting state level activities.

### School and District Involvement: Case Study Highlights {#school-and-district-involvement-case-study-highlights .unnumbered}

A final caveat concerning school and district involvement comes from the
case study site visits and final contacts with project directors.
Although it seems that district- and school-level partners were involved
in partnership activities, many partners described how competing
priorities had made it difficult, if not impossible, to implement
partnership efforts. Exhibit 56 summarizes the status of partnership
efforts.

Competing priorities include in some instances other grants operating in
districts and schools simultaneously to the Title II grant. One partner
described how these contemporaneous grant efforts were consuming all of
teachers' time, leaving them completely unavailable for the professional
development opportunities offered under the auspices of the partnership
grant. Others reported that because of the accountability provisions put
forth by NCLB, districts and schools would not give teachers time to
participate in professional development activities. Rather, the
districts preferred that the teachers remain in their classrooms to
concentrate on improving students' test scores. Other districts also
indicated that in-service professional development differed in
philosophy from and was in apparent conflict with increased district
emphasis on "teaching to the test."

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012050 .anchor}Exhibit 54\
Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities,\
as Reported by District and Faculty

  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------
                                                             Rated extent   
                                                             that           
                                                             partnerships   
                                                             played a role  
                                                             in NCLB        
                                                             activities     

  Activity                                                   Average        SD

  a\. Developing professional development/course             3.2            1.45
  opportunities that meet the needs of districts with "not                  
  highly qualified teachers"                                                

  b\. Creating fast-track, graduate-level programs for       2.9            1.55
  preparation of qualified career-changers                                  

  c\. Supporting district or state alternative route         2.8            1.49
  programs with content-area courses or supervision of                      
  alternative route participants                                            

  d\. Establishing a state definition of highly qualified    2.6            1.50
  teachers                                                                  

  e\. Implementing a Transition to Teaching Grant            2.5            1.52

  f\. Providing assistance in developing state assessments   2.2            1.41
  for paraprofessionals                                                     

  g\. Establishing the state definition of the High          2.1            1.33
  Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE)                   
  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------

> NOTES: Role of partnership in an activity was measured on a scale of
> 1--5, in which 1 = "not at all" and 5 = "a great deal."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: On a scale of 1--5, faculty and district respondents
> collectively rated the partnerships as a 3.2 with regard to how much
> of a role they played in "developing professional development/course
> opportunities that meet the needs of districts with 'not highly
> qualified teachers.'"

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012051 .anchor}Exhibit 55\
Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities by
Partnership,\
as Reported by District and Faculty

  ------------------------------------- -------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
                                        Rated Extent                                       
                                        That                                               
                                        Partnerships                                       
                                        Played a Role                                      
                                        in NCLB                                            
                                        Activities                                         

  Partnership                           Average                                            N

                                        a              b     c     d     e     f     g     

  Collaboration, Mentoring and          4.0            3.5   4.5   4.0   4.0   3.3   3.0   4
  Technology Program (CoMeT)                                                               

  Illinois Professional Learners        3.2            2.2   3.2   1.9   3.1   2.1   2.2   11
  Partnership                                                                              

  Southern Colorado Teacher Education   3.2            2.8   3.4   1.8   3.2   3.4   3.3   5
  Alliance                                                                                 

  Collaboration for Teacher Education   3.2            2.2   2.6   2.0   1.8   1.6   2.2   5
  Accountable to Children with                                                             
  High-needs (CO-TEACH)                                                                    

  Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition  3.0            3.0   4.0   2.0   3.0   2.7   2.0   3
  (AzTEC)                                                                                  

  Ozarks Partnership Teacher            3.0            2.2   3.8   3.4   4.8   4.6   4.2   5
  Enhancement Initiatives (OPTEI)                                                          

  Project SUCCEED                       3.0            3.0   4.3   3.0   3.8   3.0   3.0   4

  Improving Teacher Quality Through     2.9            2.3   3.0   2.6   2.6   3.0   2.4   9
  Partnerships that Connect Teacher                                                        
  Performance to Student Learning                                                          

  North Carolina Central University     2.7            2.6   4.1   3.0   3.0   3.7   3.6   7
  Teacher Education Partnership                                                            

  Partnerships for Texas Public Schools 2.7            2.0   2.8   2.5   3.0   2.7   2.4   13

  Partners for the Enhancement of       2.7            2.3   3.2   2.3   2.3   2.3   2.0   10
  Clinical Experiences                                                                     

  ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership       2.6            2.0   3.2   2.1   2.1   2.4   2.4   13

  The Massachusetts Coalition for       2.4            1.6   2.6   1.9   3.0   3.0   3.1   9
  Teacher Quality and Student                                                              
  Achievement                                                                              

  The New Jersey Statewide Teacher      2.4            2.3   3.0   2.2   3.0   2.7   2.5   9
  Quality Enhancement Consortium                                                           

  Saginaw Valley State University       2.3            2.0   3.0   2.0   3.4   3.2   3.0   7

  Community Higher Education Council    2.3            2.3   2.8   2.0   3.3   2.0   2.3   4
  and Local Education Agency                                                               
  Partnership                                                                              

  Urban IMPACT                          2.3            2.0   3.3   2.0   3.0   3.0   1.8   4

  Improving Teacher Quality Through KSU 2.0            1.5   1.8   1.0   1.3   1.0   1.5   4
  PDS Partnership                                                                          

  Tri-County Partnership                2.0            1.7   3.0   1.5   2.0   2.2   1.7   6

  Project SITE SUPPORT                  1.7            1.3   4.3   1.0   4.7   4.7   2.0   3

  Improving Teacher Quality and Schools 1.0            1.0   2.7   1.0   3.7   3.7   2.3   3
  Through Collaborative Partnerships                                                       
  ------------------------------------- -------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----

> NOTE: The letters "a" through "g" refer to the lettered activities in
> exhibit 54 and the "n" refers to the number of respondents from each
> partnership who answered some part of the question.
>
> Role of partnership in an activity was measured on a scale of 1--5, in
> which 1 = "not all" and 5 = "a great deal."
>
> To protect survey respondent anonymity, three partnerships were
> eliminated from this table because they had two or fewer respondents
> answer this question.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Respondents affiliated with the CoMeT Partnership rated
> the partnership's role in developing professional development and
> course opportunities that meet the needs of districts with "not highly
> qualified teachers" an average of 4.0 on a scale of 1--5.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012052 .anchor}Exhibit 56\
Status of Site-Specific District-Focused Partnership Activities

  ----------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  Objective               Status

  Teacher Quality         
  Enhancement Program,    
  Jackson State           
  University              

  Provide professional    Although teachers participated in workshops at
  development             partner institutions, some teachers lacked
                          resources, such as computer equipment, to
                          implement material.

  Develop mentorship      Formal induction program was created for district
  program                 partners; one district had 40 teachers mentoring
                          one or more new teachers across 38 elementary
                          schools.

  CoMeT, Our Lady of the  
  Lake University         

  Develop mentoring       Mentor programs were developed; mentor teachers
  programs for first-year were trained to train future mentors; schools in
  teachers                two districts hired a mentor facilitator.

  Enhance technology in   Science and multimedia equipment was purchased;
  schools                 one school hired a technology coordinator.

  Provide professional    Several districts provided workshops and funding
  development             for professional development through CoMeT.

  Provide stipends for    Although several teachers and other educational
  teachers, other school  staff have used stipends to pursue master's
  staff to pursue         degrees, the project reported some will leave for
  master's degrees        jobs in other districts with better salaries and
                          less stressful workloads after completing the
                          program.

  Urban IMPACT,           
  University of Tennessee 
  Chattanooga/Knoxville   

  Certify teachers as     Three cohorts of 13 to 18 students completed the
  urban specialists       program at UTK; at UTC, 15 students were enrolled
                          as of July 2002.

  Improve skills of       In-service teachers were offered workshops on
  in-service teachers in  technology, cooperative learning, and
  urban schools           research-based teaching.

  Establish mentoring     Formal programs were created, along with a two-day
  program for teachers in mentoring workshop. Commitment to embedding
  urban schools           programs varied; mentoring program did not address
                          the urban environment.

  AzTEC, Arizona State    
  University              

  Develop induction       Several districtwide induction programs were
  program                 funded in the Tucson area; UA estimated the
                          attrition rates for science teachers decreased
                          from 50 percent to 10 percent.

  Provide professional    Eighteen teachers in the Flagstaff Unified School
  development             District participated in workshops on teaching
                          mathematics standards in an integrated
                          mathematics-science environment.

  Establish virtual       Nine teachers in the Flagstaff Unified School
  mathematics academy     District completed an online class. Attrition rate
                          was over 50 percent; 21 teachers had signed up.

  Project SUCCEED,        
  University of Miami     

  Create induction        Induction program was created, which was attended
  program                 in 2003 by 60-plus participants and had a 98.6
                          percent retention for first-year teachers.

  Place professors at new Professors were placed at all five PDSs and spent
  PDS schools             on average one to two days a week on-site.

  Offer summer institutes Several institutes, including technology, visual
                          thinking strategies, reading, induc­tion support,
                          developmental diversity, mathematics, science, and
                          African-American studies were offered to teachers
                          both in the PDSs and in the wider district.
                          Follow-up components of different intensity and
                          duration were included for science, reading,
                          visual thinking strategies, and induction support.

  Improve reading skills  A reading assessment center was created at one
  in\                     elementary PDS, and a reading coordinator was
  K--12 schools           funded at a middle school PDS.
  ----------------------- --------------------------------------------------

> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies.

#   Institutionalization

### Highlights {#highlights-4 .unnumbered}

-   Both IHE faculty and district-level survey respondents viewed some
    aspects of the shared responsibility for teacher prepara­tion
    established through the grant as likely to continue after the grant
    period was over.

-   District respondents also indicated they could antici­pate continuing
    to use instructional strategies devel­oped as part of the grant,
    while faculty pointed to the collaboration established between
    departments in their IHEs.

-   Perhaps because the PDS model was prevalent among the partnerships,
    districts rated expanding PDS as the least important partner­ship
    activity on which to focus efforts regarding sustainability. Finding
    future sources of funding was rated by faculty and districts the
    most impor­tant effort to sustain implementation.

-   Over 80 percent of the faculty respondents reported the status of
    their IHE's teacher-preparation program had been considerably
    enhanced since participa­tion in the partnerships.

-   Partnerships based on preexisting relationships re­ported a greater
    likelihood that partnership reforms would continue beyond the grant
    period than did partnerships based on new relationships.

Meeting the objectives of the Title II Partnership Program can be
measured not only by the activities that occurred during the five years
of federal funding but also by the continuation of activities beyond the
funding period. This chapter explores "institutionalization" or the
integration of partnership reforms into institutional and district
policies that ensure continuation after the grant period has ended.
Reform of teacher preparation, improved relation­ships among key
stakeholders, and changes in university or district policies related to
the goals of high-quality teacher preparation have long-lasting
implications for IHEs as well as school districts.

Sustaining success after the funding ends is a challenge for any grant
recipient. The U.S. Department of Education *Targeted Literature Review*
found four features reported by

partnerships to be associated with successful institution­alization:

-   Partnerships that involve prominent faculty and admini­stra­tors, such
    as deans and superintendents, gain visibility on campus and in the
    community, and are more likely to attract and retain the
    participation of faculty and teachers.

-   Commitment to university-wide "ownership" of teacher preparation
    augurs well for institutionalization. For instance, institutions
    that reward collaboration with raises, release time or credit toward
    tenure encourage participation in partnership activities.

-   Preexisting relationships among partners can make imple­menting and
    institutionalizing new reforms easier. The enhanced level of trust
    created by a proven relation­ship may facilitate the implementing and
    institution­alizing of reforms.

-   Changes are likely to be institutionalized when they are reciprocal
    between a K--12 school and a school of education, and reflect
    coherence between what the school needs and what the program
    attempts to provide.

This chapter explores these indicators of institutionaliza­tion based on
reports from the partnership respondents and case study visits.

### Evaluation Questions {#evaluation-questions-3 .unnumbered}

-   What activities supported by the partnerships are most likely to
    continue according to participants?

-   Do partnership participants believe the partnership grant has been
    influential in their attempts to reform teacher preparation?

### Activities Most Likely to Continue {#activities-most-likely-to-continue .unnumbered}

In the first two years of the grant period, partnerships were optimistic
about the continuation of some activities but had not yet formalized
mechanisms to advance sustain­ability nor had they faced some of the
challenges they would face in the project's later years. By the final
year of the partnership grant, participants in districts and in IHEs
were able to identify activities they believed were likely to continue,
given their university and school district context, and those that were
important in terms of continued effort. As described previously, prior
relationships, the support of deans and shared goals were positively
associated with the likelihood of institutionalization.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012053 .anchor}Exhibit 57\
Average Likelihood of Sustaining Partnership Reform Efforts, as Reported
by District\
and Faculty Respondents

![](media/image9.wmf)

> NOTES: Likelihood of continuation was measured on a scale of 1--3, in
> which 1 = "not at all likely to continue" and 3 = "very likely to
> continue."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: On a scale of 1--3, district respondents rated "using
> instructional strategies developed as part of the grant" at an average
> of 2.9, or very likely to continue. Faculty leaders rated the
> likelihood of sustaining this initiative at an average of 2.7.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
Leadership and District Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012054 .anchor}Exhibit 58\
Average Importance of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms,
as Reported by\
District and Faculty Respondents

![](media/image10.wmf)

> NOTES: Importance was measured on a scale of 1--3, in which 1 = "not
> at all important" and 3 = "very important."
>
> Exhibit reads: On a scale of 1--3, faculty leaders and district
> respondents rated the importance of institutionalizing partnership
> reform efforts. "Finding future sources of funding to ensure the
> continuation of reform efforts" was rated by faculty as 2.9 on a
> 3-point scale, where 3.0 indicates "very important." District
> respondents rated this at a level of 2.5.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
Leadership and District Surveys.

On average, faculty who were leaders in the partnership IHEs indicated
that the partnership efforts most likely to continue were "sharing
responsibility for teacher preparation between districts and IHEs" and
"maintaining collaboration between arts and sciences and education
faculty" (see Exhibit 57). Faculty leaders rated as least likely to be
sustained "expanding the number of professional development schools;"
however, this rating was still relatively high.

On average, district respondents indicated that the partner­ship efforts
most likely to continue after the project ended were "using
instructional strategies developed as part of the grant," "supporting
faculty involvement in schools and school districts" and "maintaining
district-college relation­ships." Faculty and district respondents were
quite con­sistent in their ratings of these three efforts.

Finding future funding was the most important activity identified by all
partners to sustain work begun through the partnerships (Exhibit 58). In
their ratings about impor­tance, district and faculty respondents were
very consistent; areas where larger differences existed dealt with
project management, IHE internal collaboration, and the expansion of the
PDS.

### Features Related to Institutionalization {#features-related-to-institutionalization .unnumbered}

*Administrative support and institutionalization*. As the literature on
implementation and institutionalization indicates, in­creased support by
university administrators may be associated with the likelihood of
institution­aliza­tion of partnership reform efforts. Projects enjoying
such support may be more visible, may be seen as valuable to the IHE or
department mission, or may be seen as representative of the university
president's or dean's agenda. Evidence from the partnerships suggests
this might be the case because dean support (as rated by faculty) was
positively correlated with the average likelihood of continuation
ratings listed in Exhibit 57. The support of the president, however, was
unrelated to the ratings on institutionalization. This is not
surprising, given that deans took responsibility for the grant outcomes
and use of funds and are clearly more involved in the activities at the
IHE school level. Presidents are likely to have larger, more diverse,
university-wide priorities and be less involved in any single effort.

Initiatives with administrative support might bring further benefit to a
partnership focused on reforming teacher preparation by lifting the
perceived status of the prepara­tion program within the IHE. When faculty
and deans rated changes in the status of the teacher-preparation pro­gram
since the inception of the partnership grant project, 86 percent of
respondents reported that the status of the teacher-preparation program
within the university had been enhanced. No faculty leaders reported
that the program's status had declined since the beginning of the grant,
and only four (involved) faculty respondents reported a decline (from
four different partnerships). IHE faculty leaders were more likely to
attribute positive changes in the status of the teacher-preparation
program to their own actions than were other faculty.

*Preexisting History and Institutionalization*. Many of the Title II
partners had preexisting, productive relationships dedicated to school
reform and teacher quality; however, these relationships do not
guarantee sustainability of reforms. A collaborative and friendly
history among institutions or individuals involved in the partnership
may increase the potential for institutionalization, or it may hinder
institutionalization. Partners with established rela­tionships may have
had a proven history of success from working together on other grants or
reform efforts and find it easier to "get down to business" as soon as
the grant is funded, thus facilitating reform implementation efforts.
Conversely, prior history among partners could result in partners being
set in certain ways, leading to less innovation and incomplete
realization of goals. As Lewin (1951) indicated in a process metaphor
about change, partners that are frozen in the same relationship they
have always had may be unable to move beyond that, eventually weakening
anticipated outcomes.

This latter scenario appears not to be the case, however, as
partnerships built on preexisting relationships had higher ratings of
likelihood of institu­tionalization. The longer the preexisting
relationship, the greater the rated likelihood of institutionalization
of activities (*R^2\ ^*= .257, *p \< *.05). The number of years an
individual faculty or district respon­dent was involved in reform efforts
prior to the grant was not associated with the likelihood of reform
institutionali­zation but was a marginally significant predictor of the
impor­tance of the institutionalization of reform activities after the
grant ended (*R^2^* = .212, *p \< *.10).

*Partnership Goals and Institutionalization*. Partnerships varied in
their project goals, uses of funds and content emphases. However, when
compared on these main goals, the average likelihood of
institutionalization reported by partnerships for partnership activities
and reforms differed by very small amounts in specific areas and only
slightly more when comparing responses by general focus on "standards"
or "any content area" (see Exhibit 59).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012055 .anchor}Exhibit 59\
Average Likelihood of Institutionalization by Main Goals, Accountability
Strategies, and\
Content Area Focus, as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents

  -------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
                             Average rated          
                             likelihood of          
                             institutionalization   
                             for partnerships       

                             with goal              without goal

  Primary project goals                             

  Clinical experience        2.4                    2.2

  Reading content focus      2.3                    2.2

  Professional development   2.3                    2.2

  Standards                  1.8                    2.5

  Accountability plans                              

  Develop assessments for    2.4                    2.1
  teachers                                          

  Align standards with NCATE 2.4                    2.0

  Develop state standards    2.2                    2.2

  Align curriculum           2.0                    2.3

  Content area focus                                

  Reading                    2.3                    2.2

  Mathematics                2.3                    2.2

  Any content area           2.2                    2.6
  -------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------

> NOTES: Likelihood of continuation was measured on a scale of 1--3, in
> which 1 = "not at all likely to continue" and 3 = "very likely to
> continue."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Partnerships with a focus or goal on clinical
> experience had an average institutionalization rating (that is, the
> average of all responses on institutionalization efforts) of 2.4 on a
> scale of 1--3. Partnerships without a focus or goal on clinical
> experience had an average institutionalization rating of 2.2.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys and Partnership Project
Proposals.

Partners within more authentic partnerships (those with common mission
and goals) as measured by their authenticity score reported higher
levels of anticipated sustainability for their activities than did
partners in less authentic partnerships. Authenticity positively and
signifi­cantly correlated with the average reported likelihood of
continuation (*r* = .400, *p \<* .001), suggesting that sharing goals
and principles among partners is associated with a greater likelihood of
institu­tionalization.

Actively involved faculty and district participants tended to describe
partnerships as dynamic, rather than static, and remarked on the
continuous monitoring of progress and partner needs to which IHE leaders
were committed. One IHE dean wrote, "The program will constantly address
the needs and expectations of students and emphases will evolve to
modify programs." Another remarked that his or her partnership is "an
ongoing process with feedback from partner schools," and several others
indicated long-term programmatic changes had been made to continue
collaborative relations among partners to communicate changing needs and
to continue evolving in response to those needs. Similarly, case study
reports indicated that one long-lasting benefit of the partnerships
would be the increased communication established among key leaders in
IHEs and school districts. This might seem elemental, but for some IHEs
and school districts it reflected a big step forward.

*Partnership Influence on Teacher-Preparation Reform*. Although some
respondents found difficulty in attributing specific changes in teacher
preparation (either in the university program or at the school level) to
the partnership grant itself, at least half of district respondents
contended it was the enabling factor for goal achievement. Sixty percent
or more of district and faculty respondents reported that present and
preexisting reform efforts were supported and likely to be continued due
to the additional support from this grant resource. Two percent or less
of the respondents reported that the partnership had no effect on
reforming teacher prepara­tion (see Exhibit 60).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012056 .anchor}Exhibit 60\
Percentage of District and Faculty Reporting Their Perceptions of the
Role of the\
Partnership Grant Project in Reform of Teacher Education, 2002--03

+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
| Role of the Partnership                          | Per     |        |
|                                                  | centage |        |
|                                                  | in      |        |
|                                                  | ag      |        |
|                                                  | reement |        |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
|                                                  | Di      | All    |
|                                                  | stricts | f      |
|                                                  |         | aculty |
|                                                  | (N =    | (N =   |
|                                                  | 95)     | 129)   |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
| The reforms in which we have engaged would not   | 52      | 41     |
| have been possible without the partnership grant |         |        |
| project award; the award was the enabling        |         |        |
| factor.                                          |         |        |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
| The partnership grant project award was one of   | 47      | 47     |
| several enabling factors that came together at   |         |        |
| the same time to bring about our present reforms |         |        |
| in teacher preparation.                          |         |        |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
| The partnership grant project award helped to    | 15      | 14     |
| continue or institutionalize preexisting reform  |         |        |
| efforts.                                         |         |        |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
| The partnership grant project award provided     | 20      | 9      |
| additional momentum to accelerate preexisting    |         |        |
| reform efforts.                                  |         |        |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+
| The partnership grant project award had no       | 2       | 1      |
| effect on reform of teacher preparation.         |         |        |
+--------------------------------------------------+---------+--------+

> NOTE: Percents do not sum to 100 percent because some respondents
> selected more than one option.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-two percent of district respondents reported that
> the reforms engaged in would not have been possible without the
> partnership grant project award and that the award was the enabling
> factor; 41 percent of faculty indicated that the award was the
> enabling factor.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) District
and Faculty Leadership and Involved Surveys.

One of the biggest challenges to sustainability, however, may have been
an internal one, that is the turnover in district and school leadership.
Superinten­dents and principals changed in some partner­ships during the
grant period to such a great extent that, by midway, it was difficult to
find someone in a leadership position who could report on the
contribution of the partnership because they simply had not been
involved.

### Likelihood and Importance of Institutionalization: Case Study Highlights {#likelihood-and-importance-of-institutionalization-case-study-highlights .unnumbered}

During follow-up calls to project directors and key project staff in the
five sites visited during this evaluation, these efforts to find
sustaining funds and sponsor­ship for various key project initiatives
were identified as being pursued (see Exhibit 61).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012057 .anchor}Exhibit 61\
Status of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms

  ------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  Objective                 Status

  Teacher Quality           
  Enhancement Program,      
  Jackson State University  

  Form task force to study  A teacher quality task force was created, which
  in-service and preservice studied needs, published findings, and
  needs                     presented to the legislature.

  Project CoMeT, Our Lady   
  of the Lake University    

  Offer discounted OLLU     Arrangement was accepted by one partner
  tuition to districts      district; the district must guarantee a minimum
                            number of master's level students.

  Seek new funding to       Grants were received (Transition to Teaching,
  continue mentoring        Teachers as Mentors).
  programs                  

  Use Title V funding to    Title V funds paid for faculty release time,
  continue activities       professional development stipends and laptop
                            computers.

  Urban IMPACT, University  
  of Tennessee              
  Chattanooga/Knoxville     

  Institutionalize          Tennessee Academy for School Leaders (TASL)
  mentoring program         adopted Urban Impact's mentoring program.

  Institutionalize Urban    UTK faculty recognized the certificate as part
  Specialist Certificate    of an Ed. S. (Specialist in Education) degree.
  Program                   UTK was also recruiting education faculty with
                            urban experience. (New faculty may be cut owing
                            to budget constraints.)

  Fund tuition for          UTK approached local business leaders about
  participants in Urban     sponsoring students. (Grant paid for tuition
  Specialist Certificate    and books; it is unclear whether new students
  program                   will enroll without a subsidy.)

  Acquire recognition for   UTK approached the superintendent and the Knox
  Urban Specialist          County Education Association about recognizing
  Certificate in district,  the certificate for salary increases.
  teachers union            

  AzTEC, Arizona State      
  University                

  Seek outside funding to   Flagstaff district agreed to pay stipends for
  continue activities       virtual mathematics workshop; NAU hopes to use
                            science room to host community meetings.

  Project SUCCEED,          
  University of Miami       

  Institutionalize          University promised to pay for course release
  Professors-in-Residence   for professors serving in schools.
  positions                 

  Institutionalize          Dean promised funding to continue the program.
  induction program         

  Institutionalize PDS      Miami-Dade school district approved policy on
  arrangements              PDS.

  Institutionalize summer   Some institutes applied for NSF grants; the
  institutes                district also promised funds.
  ------------------------- -----------------------------------------------

> SOURCE: Title II Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies.

#   Challenges and Lessons Learned

### Highlights {#highlights-5 .unnumbered}

-   Faculty reported that lack of time, problems with ar­rangements for
    collaborating, and lack of recognition for their efforts were the
    greatest challenges to implementing partnership reform efforts.

-   Districts cited lack of funding as the greatest challenge: budget
    cuts, insufficient funds for teacher recruitment or professional
    development, a lack of resources to provide incentives for new
    teacher mentors, and competing reform efforts that make demands upon
    a limited pool of resources.

-   While support from other partners often failed to materialize, these
    partners expressed continued interest---if not involvement---in
    partnership efforts and represent a highly underutilized source of
    support.

-   Partnerships based on preexisting relationships seemed to "get off
    the ground" faster than partner­ships that must start by building
    relationships.

-   Partnerships should allow for and reward significant time
    commitments from their individual partners.

-   Geographic distance between IHEs may impede col­laboration and
    participation.

-   Partnerships should anticipate and plan for high turnover of key
    staff in partner districts and schools.

-   Partnership evaluation of measurable goals is critical. To
    accomplish this, partnerships require consistent, long-term
    evaluation support, explicit focus, and adequate resources to
    collect and analyze data over time.

The Title II Partnership Grants Program is remarkable both for the
number and diversity of education entities it has involved and the
breadth of different activities in which the individual partnerships
have engaged in order to improve teacher preparation. As previous
chapters have shown, partnerships have met with varying degrees of
success in their efforts both to improve the preparation of new teachers
and to ensure that in-service teachers get the professional development
necessary to improve student learning. In their efforts, the individual
partnerships have also met with varying levels of frustration, achieving
some breakthroughs, yet also hitting some impasses in creating
relationships among IHEs, school districts and business partners.

This chapter sums up challenges that the partnerships have faced over
the life of the Title II grants. The chapter also highlights some
lessons learned about how successful partnerships develop and about how
a funding agency might help potential partnerships maximize their
resources and create infrastructures that will help them achieve and
sustain their goals. These lessons can be shared by all who have any
stake in the notion of educational partnerships.

### Challenges Anticipated and Faced {#challenges-anticipated-and-faced .unnumbered}

IHEs were the seat of partnerships. Faculty and deans were pivotal as
participants, responsible for changing the culture of their own
institutions and forging productive relationships with school districts
with much reform experience. Both faculty and deans identified similar
specific challenges to be overcome, and their views on these challenges
remained consistent between the baseline and follow-up data collections,
indicating barriers still existed. Interviews and site visits offered a
bit more optimistic views: the grants had been used to understand how
barriers could be lessened and even removed.

*Lack of time and recognition.* Not surprisingly, both faculty and deans
indicated that a lack of time and recognition were major obstacles to
pursuing teacher-preparation reform collaboratively. Logistical
difficulties (problems attending meetings, etc.) and differences in
climate and culture between departments of education and arts and
sciences and between universities and schools were also noted (see
Exhibits 62 and 63).

However, at baseline, 30 percent or less of faculty from the partnership
IHEs considered a difference in goals or mission or administrator
turnover as a challenge. The smallest percentage of respondents noted "a
lack of partnership grant support from IHE leadership" as a challenge at
baseline and it was rated low at follow-up; this verifies other survey
data about the perceived support of deans and presidents. Finally,
although financial support was not cited as a major challenge by faculty
at baseline or at follow-up, interviews and narrative responses on
surveys indicated it was an issue for working in schools and for
sustainability.

Reported causes of the cash shortfalls included budget cuts, multiple
reform efforts competing for the same limited funds, and partners who
failed to provide anticipated support. Each of these phenomena is
discussed in detail below.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012058 .anchor}Exhibit 62\
Percentage of Faculty Reporting Challenges to Improving Preservice
Teacher Education at\
the Start of the Partnership Grant

  ------------------------------------------------------ ------------ ---------
                                                         Percentage   
                                                         of faculty   
                                                         reporting    
                                                         challenge    

  Challenge                                              Involved     Leaders

  Lack of time to develop and sustain relationships      68           79
  (given other responsibilities)                                      

  Problems with arrangements (e.g., inability to         65           62
  schedule meetings convenient to all involved)                       

  Reward system (e.g., salary, promotion, tenure) that   53           58
  does not recognize faculty's service to or practice in              
  the K--12 schools                                                   

  Reward system that does not recognize collaboration    50           56
  within the university                                               

  Differences in climate or cultural norms between the   46           45
  college/university and the schools                                  

  Differences in climate between the schools of          47           47
  education and arts and sciences                                     

  Fragmented academic programs/isolated groups of        44           32
  faculty                                                             

  Different institutional climate or cultural norms      36           37
  across partner colleges and universities                            

  Sudden shortages in staff when faculty and/or teachers 32           38
  are recruited to work in a professional development                 
  school                                                              

  Different goals or understanding of the partnership    28           30
  grant project mission across partner colleges and                   
  universities                                                        

  Instability of school or district leadership           27           19
  (principal or superintendent turnover)                              

  Competition with other institutions for the best       24           22
  teacher-education students                                          

  Uncertainty of the mission of the partnership grant    23           19
  project                                                             

  Instability of college/university leadership (e.g.,    21           25
  turnover)                                                           

  Lack of preparation in how to work with students'      21           26
  parents in district schools                                         

  Difficulty in financial coordination across partner    21           24
  colleges and universities                                           

  Tensions between faculty involved in the partnership   20           23
  grant project and those not involved                                

  Inadequate financial resources for project activities  19           24

  Poor peer relations among faculty (e.g., competition   18           14
  for advancement)                                                    

  Lack of partnership grant project support from college 9            11
  and university leadership                                           
  ------------------------------------------------------ ------------ ---------

> NOTE: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because respondents could
> select multiple challenges.
>
> EXHIBIT READS: At baseline, 68 percent of the involved faculty members
> and 79 percent of the faculty leaders cited "lack of time to develop
> and sustain relationships (given other responsibilities)" as a
> challenge to improving teacher education.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline (2001--02) Faculty
Leadership and Involved Surveys.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130012059 .anchor}Exhibit 63\
Average Challenge Ratings as Reported by Faculty Toward the End of the\
Partnership Grant

+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Challenge                                          | Average |       |   |
|                                                    | rated   |       |   |
|                                                    | extent  |       |   |
|                                                    | of      |       |   |
|                                                    | ch      |       |   |
|                                                    | allenge |       |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
|                                                    | I       | Fa    |   |
|                                                    | nvolved | culty |   |
|                                                    | faculty | le    |   |
|                                                    |         | aders |   |
|                                                    | \(n\)   | (n)   |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Lack of time to develop and sustain relationships  | 2.3     | 2.5   |   |
| (given other responsibilities)                     | (65)    | (51)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Reward system (e.g., salary, promotion, tenure)    | 2.3     | 1.9   |   |
| that does not recognize faculty's service to or    | (70)    | (52)  |   |
| practice in the K--12 schools                      |         |       |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Reward system that does not recognize              | 2.1     | 1.8   |   |
| collaboration within the university                | (66)    | (53)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Problems with arrangements (e.g., inability to     | 1.9     | 1.9   |   |
| schedule meetings convenient to all involved)      | (72)    | (53)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Differences in climate between the schools of      | 1.8     | 1.7   |   |
| education and arts and sciences                    | (70)    | (51)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Differences in climate or cultural norms between   | 1.7     | 1.4   |   |
| the college/university and the schools             | (70)    | (53)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Fragmented academic programs/isolated groups of    | 1.6     | 1.0   |   |
| faculty                                            | (68)    | (54)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Sudden shortages in staff when faculty and/or      | 1.4     | 1.3   |   |
| teachers are recruited to work in a professional   | (60)    | (47)  |   |
| development school                                 |         |       |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Different institutional climate or cultural norms  | 1.2     | 1.1   |   |
| across partner colleges and universities           | (60)    | (43)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Competition with other institutions for the best   | 1.2     | 0.8   |   |
| teacher-education students                         | (62)    | (46)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Difficulty in financial coordination across        | 1.2     | 1.1   |   |
| partner colleges and universities                  | (55)    | (43)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Tensions between faculty involved in the           | 1.1     | 0.9   |   |
| partnership grant project and those not involved   | (65)    | (49)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Instability of college/university leadership       | 1.1     | 0.7   |   |
| (e.g., turnover)                                   | (72)    | (54)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Different goals or understanding of the            | 1.1     | 1.00  |   |
| partnership grant project mission across partner   | (63)    | (47)  |   |
| colleges and universities                          |         |       |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Inadequate financial resources for project         | 1.0     | 0.9   |   |
| activities                                         | (69)    | (53)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Lack of partnership grant project support from     | 1.0     | 0.4   |   |
| college and university leadership                  | (71)    | (54)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Uncertainty of the mission of the partnership      | 0.9     | 0.6   |   |
| grant project                                      | (71)    | (53)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Instability of school or district leadership       | 0.8     | 1.3   |   |
| (principal or superintendent turnover)             | (59)    | (49)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Poor peer relations among faculty (e.g.,           | 0.7     | 0.7   |   |
| competition for advancement)                       | (67)    | (51)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+
| Lack of preparation in how to work with students'  | 0.7     | 1.1   |   |
| parents in district schools                        | (52)    | (43)  |   |
+----------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+---+

> NOTE: Faculty responses were given on a scale of 0--5, in which 0
> indicated "not a challenge" and 4 was "a great challenge."
>
> EXHIBIT READS: At follow-up, involved faculty rated "lack of time to
> develop and sustain relationships (given other responsibilities)" at
> an average of 2.3, on a scale of 0--4; faculty leaders rated this
> slightly higher as a challenge to improving preservice teacher
> education, at an average of 2.5.
>
> SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Follow-Up (2003--04) Faculty
> Leadership and Involved Surveys.

*Budget cuts*. Partners often operated with very limited resources to
serve populations with substantial needs. Budget shortfalls have made
teaching positions in some areas of the country scarce (i.e., newly
constrained budgets often result in districts laying off teachers). One
partner­ship, for example, responded to substantial cuts in state
expenditures on K--12 education by cutting back on the number of teacher
recruiting conferences that it held for students enrolled in Future
Teachers of America programs. Professional development was also
affected; similar fiscal problems encountered by another partnership
forced it to discontinue a summer literacy workshop that served school
district teachers and administrators, and university faculty and
students. Other partnerships indicated that without the partnership
grant monies, professional devel­opment would not likely be sustained.

Cuts in the amount of funding available for teacher recruitment and
support led to uncertainty as to how these efforts would be funded in
the future. Several partnerships indicated they would no longer be able
to provide stipends to mentors of induction-year teachers after the
grant expires. In response, districts reported they would increase the
ratio of mentees to mentors to adjust for the expected decline in the
numbers of mentors; the change would reduce the time spent mentoring any
one new teacher while increasing the time commitment of willing mentors.

*Multiple reform efforts compete for limited funds*. Many state reform
mandates are viewed as unfunded by districts and may compete for the
same resources that partnerships were seeking to sustain the grant
activities after the Title II grant ends. One partnership leader
described a district grappling with competing reform efforts that were
time-intensive and overwhelming, deterring teachers who were not highly
qualified from pursing the alternative route to certification made
available through the partnership program.

*Relationships with other partner entities failed to materialize as
planned*. Often, gestures of support from local firms and agencies
failed to translate into financial help. In many instances, business
partners originally slated to have a role in partnership activities were
absent entirely throughout the life of the grant. One partnership
principal investigator suggested that the disappointing contribution of
business partners resulted from initial uncertainty about their role.
Because businesses are more action-oriented and seek immediate results
from their efforts, they quickly became disillusioned and discouraged,
withdrawing soon after immediate action and results were not
forthcoming. This lack of involvement or withdrawal of other business
partners was echoed by many partnerships.

However, despite declines in meeting attendance even at the early
planning stages of the projects, many business partners still requested
to be kept updated on the latest partnership developments. This suggests
a commitment to education within the community and an interest in reform
efforts, and perhaps the potential for future participation and support
should a more successful working arrange­ment be developed.

*Alternative replacement funding*. While many partners indicated that
without partnership funds, partnership activities would simply cease to
be funded, others were finding ways to continue initiatives without the
grant funding. Many partnerships reported seeking other grants to
continue implemented partnership efforts. Applying for these grants
takes time, and obtaining them was becoming more difficult for some
grantees as the partnership grant wound down. One partner described the
frustrations of applying for a large federal grant, only to be turned
down, "because the proposal summary was in 10-point font instead of the
12-point font required by the request for proposals." On a more positive
note, other grantees reported that they were more competitive in grant
competitions because of their experience with the partnership grant.

In an example of leveraging funding, at least three partnerships used
funds to reimburse teachers for serving as mentors to new teachers. In
an example of follow-through, these partnerships indepen­dently created
district-level positions for master teachers or mentor coordinators to
continue partnership-mentoring activities. The positions are now
incorporated into and funded by district budgets.

A few partnerships were planning to use anticipated NCLB monies to
continue partnership-implemented district reforms in partner schools
that were at risk regarding annual yearly progress (AYP). An IHE in
still another partnership reported it had negotiated a "bulk discount"
of up to 50 percent of the cost for professional development for
teachers from partner districts, provided the professional development
was offered in district-owned facilities. Using such a facility would
reduce the overhead costs to the IHE associated with the activity.

*Lack of shared focus.* While partnerships generally reported success in
establishing buy-in for a common mission, a few reported difficulty in
reigning in ideas generated by their partners. Often, partners agreed on
a goal but lacked agreement on subsequent actions or process.
Philosophical differences also arose among IHE partners. In one case, a
project director suggested that getting full agreement or shared focus
among partners on some issues was impossible. There were times when
following her university's own unilateral pursuits made more sense than
seeking an elusive agreement with the other partners. In another case, a
partnership saw both partner IHEs implementing changes in their
respective preservice programs, but the programs identified different
foci and sought to meet different goals. Another partnership with an
initial emphasis on imple­menting inquiry-based learning saw this
emphasis fall by the wayside when high-stakes testing became the highest
priority for school districts. The district excluded the inquiry method,
which it had originally supported.

The timing of NCLB regulations was cited as competing with or modifying
some of the original partnership plans. One principal investigator, for
example, explained how the enactment of NCLB changed the original plans
for professional development. Career-changers entering the teaching
field were required to demonstrate content-area knowledge by passing
state-used content assessments. Responding to this need, the
partner­ship's professional develop­ment funds were refocused to develop
and implement a course for these individuals to brush up on the
content-area knowledge needed to pass the certification test. Although
this partnership changed course mid-grant, the project director reported
success with the new implementation as more than 80 percent of those
taking the new course passed the test.

### Evaluation and Attributing Outcomes to Partnerships {#evaluation-and-attributing-outcomes-to-partnerships .unnumbered}

Many partners admitted that it was extremely difficult, if not
impossible to determine the extent that any measured outcomes were the
result of the partnership alone. Frequently, positive outcomes like
revised content in course changes and additions and increased
accountability for teacher‑ preparation outcomes (more stringent program
entrance and exit requirements, etc.) were brought about by partnership
initiatives, but other outcomes (such as increased student achievement)
could not be attributable to any single reform effort, including those
sought by the partnerships. Partners more often than not had multiple
grants and projects operating simultaneously, sometimes with shared
goals, other times competing against each other for limited resources in
pursuit of different goals. One professor submitted a list of 94 other
grants addressing teacher-preparation reform that his institution had
received since the beginning of the partnership project in 1999--2000.

The evaluator from another partnership reported that there were multiple
grants and projects happening simulta­neously in the partnership
districts and confirmed that it was seemingly impossible to separate the
effects of any one effort from the effects of other efforts. Her
challenge as an evaluator was to provide some indication of how
successful the partnership grant project was among many initiatives.

One district reported that positive changes had indeed occurred during
the grant period. According to this district's representative to the
partnership management team, partnership activities supported
induction-year teachers and contributed to important results for their
students. Over the grant period, the district closed the achievement gap
in 17 of 21 state-defined categories, and while this could not be solely
attributable to partnership activities, the district partner attributed
some of this success to the partnership.

Other difficulties in evaluating partnerships included placing program
graduates in partner districts and monitoring their progress. In one
partnership, only 5 percent of the partnership-trained teachers accepted
local teaching jobs, rendering a broader evaluation of
partnership-reformed preservice experiences infeasible. Although the
project evaluators we spoke to echoed this concern, there were also some
very determined efforts made. In one partnership, the evaluator began
tracking beneficiaries of preservice teacher‑preparation reforms, and
was able to track 38 percent of the graduating teachers the first year
and 80 percent the second year.

### Lessons Learned {#lessons-learned .unnumbered}

Based on the information gleaned from interviews of partnership
participants and the participants' responses to the various evaluation
surveys, the following lessons emerged for the attention of funders and
participants of partnerships.

**The existence of previous relationships among part­ners may help the
partnerships overcome early hurdles.** Although the partnership grants
made many things possible that would not otherwise have occurred,
partnerships funds were often used to support the continuing efforts of
partners that were already working together. As such, these grants were
largely supplemental in nature, rather than catalysts for new
relationships or new activities. The survey data indicated that
preexisting relationships helped partnerships accomplish activities
sooner, and qualitative data suggested that partnerships based on
preexisting relationships avoid the initial stages of coordi­nating,
negotiating and coming to a shared vision.

**Partnership participants should plan for substantial commitments of
time to partnership activities.** As indicated above, the deans and
faculty members who were surveyed about challenges to their partnership
efforts reported at both survey time points that "lack of time to
develop and sustain relationships" was a notable obstacle. In some ways,
it is obvious to say that any entity seeking to create educational
partnerships ought to set aside sub­stantial amounts of time in order to
ensure that the partnerships' efforts take root. However, in this case,
the obvious needs to be restated, underscored and empha­sized. From the
inception of a plan to create partnerships, IHE partners and school
districts may want to consider increasing release time for faculty,
administrators, and teachers who are charged with putting together a
partnership. Paying for release time is costly, but in the short run the
expenditure may be more productive than spending resources on a
partnership in which key individuals are not able to give collaborative
efforts sufficient attention. To ensure that partnerships focus on the
importance of setting aside time to build relationships, funders of
partnerships---be they government agencies or private foundations---may
wish to exact firm commit­ments of key participants' time as a
precondition for funding. Stipulations that substantial percentages of
part­ner­ship grant funding be used to support release time for
administrators to work on partnership relationships are one option
funders may want to consider.

**Prestige for participation in partnership activities is important.**
To make an unequivocal commitment to partnerships that reform teacher
preparation, colleges in general and schools of education in particular
may want to establish a faculty reward system that encourages
participation in partnerships. While it is true that faculty commonly
feel that their time is oversubscribed because of their teaching and
committee responsibilities, it is also true that institutions have some
leeway as to how committee assignments are made and how much weight is
given to committee activities when faculty performance is reviewed. Over
the course of this evaluation, it became clear that only a few IHEs
within any of the funded partnerships made substantial efforts to change
their reward system to encourage collaboration. An institution could,
however, choose to give participation in partnership activities the
weight of several committee assignments. This step, although dramatic
and perhaps controversial, would be particularly consistent with the
missions of institutions that have historically been devoted to training
teachers.

Leaders of IHEs may also want to consider other roles they can play in
encouraging their faculty to work with partnerships. Appointing
high-profile and highly respected individuals to work with partnerships
is one gesture that can send a powerful message to other faculty members
and department chairs. Grantees at one university remarked that their
president's public speaking on behalf of partnerships, and other efforts
to place partnership activities in the limelight, gave the partnership a
much appreciated sense of support.

This is also an area where funders could choose to exercise more
leverage over their grant applicants. Asking IHEs to discuss up front
how they might reward faculty for participation in partnership
activities is one way to encourage greater commitment to the changes in
institutional reward structures. Similarly, asking potential grantees to
discuss public relations plans for partnerships at the proposal stage
may also make a difference.

**Geographic distances between partners makes collaborating difficult.**
A frequent observation made throughout this evaluation is that partners
had difficulty arranging meetings, placing preservice teachers in
practicums, or providing professional development over substantial
distances. Distance learning technologies were sometimes helpful in
providing preservice courses and some forms of professional development,
but there were still instances where distances between partners were
notable obstacles.

There is no one approach that can resolve the "distance problem." Some
of the large partnerships funded under Title II had noteworthy success
without indicating that distance between the partners was a hindrance
for them. Nonetheless, the data suggest that smaller, more intimate
partnerships may be more manage­able than larger ones with significant
distances between partners.

**In high-need districts, partnerships should expect significant
turnover of key personnel in the schools.** People familiar with
education research literature are aware that substantial numbers of new
teachers leave the profession within the first three years of their
teaching careers. They are also generally aware that districts that
present teachers with outstanding hardships---over­crowded classrooms,
substantial numbers of students per­forming below grade level,
insufficient budget allocations, inadequate mentoring or support
mechanisms, etc.---are ripe for substantial turnover of staff and
principals. The high-need school districts that have been the members of
the Title II partnership efforts present these and other hardships to
IHE faculty.

Partners and funders who are working with such districts may wish to
take a hard look at their partnership goals. Early on, partners may wish
to reconcile their ambitions with the potential for significant staff
turnover: they may attempt to anticipate some contingencies that could
arise from the departure of key personnel. Clearly, partnerships cannot
anticipate all such contingencies, and budget constraints may limit the
number of contingency plans that a partnership may have. To the extent
that they can, though, partnerships may wish to build back-up
contingencies into their blueprints.

**Evaluation of partnership efforts is key, yet project evaluation is
not given adequate attention.** In many instances, the Title II
partnerships sought to determine whether their efforts had impact on
student achievement, but they had difficulties gathering data and
measuring this impact. These difficulties stemmed in part from the
highly ambitious nature of the partnerships and the variety of project
goals and priorities. As noted above, these difficulties also resulted
from the fact that many school districts participated in several reform
efforts simulta­neously, and it is difficult for an evaluator to isolate
the impacts of one reform effort from another one.

Partnerships should define measurable goals for their projects early in
the life of the collaborations and gain cooperation of partner schools
to collect data over time. In conducting their evaluations partnerships
should incorpo­rate solid research practices, such as the use of
comparison groups, and be guided by clear evaluation questions.

There is no one step that can help partnerships isolate the impact of
one reform effort from another. However, evaluation plans that are
modest in scope and nuanced so as to focus on highly specific reform
activities are more likely to yield useful information than plans that
seek to measure too much. Partnerships and their evaluators may be well
advised to "think small" when attempting to evaluate their activities.
If partnership participants are involved in several simultaneous reform
efforts, the evaluations might also be enriched if evaluators of the
various reform efforts shared information and attempted to cooperate.
Evaluators of disparate efforts may not necessarily be seeking to
measure the same things. On the other hand, data collected in one
evaluation may often be useful to another and might also help the
various evaluation efforts tease out the impacts of particular reforms.

Future cohorts of this or any other partnership program will benefit
greatly by communicating more with each other and with the Department of
Education about evaluation issues and methodology. Partnerships from the
initial cohort with successful evaluations have invaluable experience to
share with future cohorts. This need has been recognized, resulting in
more meetings where project directors and evaluators receive assistance
regarding evaluation.

# References {#references .unnumbered}

Abell Foundation. 2001. *Teacher Certification Reconsidered: Stumbling
for Quality*. Baltimore: Author.

Allen, M.B. 2003. *Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the
Research Say?* Denver: Education Commission of the States.

Ball, D.L. 1996. "Teacher Learning and the Mathematics Reforms: What We
Think We Know and What We Need to Learn." *Phi Delta Kappan,* 77(7):
500--08.

Bacevich, A. et al. (April 2004). *High Implementation in Low Achieving
Schools: Strategies and Lessons From an Innovative Pilot Program*.
Presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of American Education Research
Association, San Diego, Calif.

Carpenter, T.P., E. Fennema, P.L. Peterson, C. Chiang, and M. Loef.
1989. "Using Knowledge of Children's Mathematics Thinking in Classroom
Teaching: An Experimental Study." *American Educational Research
Journal,* 26(4).

Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. 2001. *Teacher Preparation
Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recom­mendations.* Seattle: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Clark, R. 1986. *School-University Relationships: Partnerships and
Networks.* (Occasional Paper No. 2). Seattle: University of Washington,
Center for Educational Renewal.

Cohen, D.K. and H.C. Hill. 1998. *Instructional Policy and Classroom
Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California* (RR-39).
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

--------- 2001. *Learning Policy: When State Education Reform Works.*
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Common Core of Data, National Center for Education Statistics 99/00,
U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved   October  2001  from,  [http://nces.ed.gov/\
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=212/2001](http://nces.ed.gov/%0Bpubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=212/2001).

Educational Testing Service. 2000. *Teaching the Teachers: Different
Settings, Different Results.* Princeton, N.J.: Author.

Ehrenberg, R.G. and D.J. Brewer. 1994. "Do School and Teacher
Characteristics Matter? Evidence from High School and Beyond."
*Economics of Education Review,* 13(1): 1--17.

Elmore, R.F. 2002. *Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement:
The Imperative for Professional Development in Education.* Washington,
D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.

Garet, M., A. Porter, L. Desimone, B. Birman, and K.S. Yoon. 2001. "What
Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample
of Teachers. *American Educational Research Journal,* 38(4): 915--45.

George, A. et al. 1986. *Concerns-Based Adoption Model*. Austin, Texas.
Southwest Education Development Laboratory.

Gitomer, D.H., A.S. Latham, and R. Ziomek. 1999. *The Academic Quality
of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of Admissions and Licensure
Testing*. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Grant, S.G., P.L. Peterson, and A. Shojgreen-Downer. 1996. "Learning to
Teach Mathematics in the Context of Systemic Reform." *American
Educational Research Journal,* 33(2): 502--41.

Guyton, E. and E. Farokhi. 1987. "Relationships Among Academic
Performance, Basic Skills, Subject-Matter Knowledge and Teaching Skills
of Teacher Education Graduates." *Journal of Teacher Education,* 38:
37--42.

Hargreaves, A. and M.G. Fullan. 1992. *Understanding Teacher
Development*. London: Cassell.

Ingersoll, R.M. and J.M. Kralik. 2004. *The Impact of Mentoring on
Teacher Retention: What the Research Says*. Washington, D.C.: Education
Commission of the States, Research Review Teaching Quality.

Kennedy, M.M. 1998. *Form and Substance in In-Service Teacher
Education.* (Research monograph no. 13). Arlington, Va.: National
Science Foundation.

Knapp, M.S. 1997. "Between Systemic Reforms and the Mathematics and
Science Classroom: The Dynamics of Innovation, Implementation, and
Professional Learning." *Review of Educational Research,* 67(2):
227--66.

Lewin, K. 1951. *Field Theory in Social Science*. New York: Harper and
Row.

Lieberman, A. (ed.) 1996. "Practices That Support Teacher Development:
Transforming Conceptions of Profes­sional Learning." In *Teacher
Learning: New Policies, New Practices,* edited by M.W. McLaughlin and I.
Oberman (pp. 185--201). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A. and M.W. McLaughlin. 1992. "Networks for Educational
Change: Powerful and Problematic." *Phi Delta Kappan,* 73: 673--77.

Little, J.W. 1993. "Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of
Educational Reform." *Educational Revalua­tion and Policy Analysis,*
15(2): 129--51.

Loucks-Horsley, S., P.W. Hewson, N. Love, and K.E. Stiles. 1998.
*Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and
Mathematics*. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press Inc.

McCutchen, D., R.D. Abbott, L.B. Green, S.N. Beretvas, S. Cox, N.S.
Potter, T. Quiroga, and A. Gray. 2002. "Beginning Literacy: Links Among
Teacher Knowl­edge, Teacher Practice, and Student Learning." *Journal of
Learning Disabilities,* 35: 69--86.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. 2003. *No Dream
Denied*. Washington, D.C.

O'Connor, R.E. 1999. "Teachers Learning Ladders to Literacy." *Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice,* 14: 203--14.

Rice, J.K. 2003. *Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of
Teacher Attributes*. Washington, D.C.: The Economic Policy Institute.

Sanders, T. 2004. "No Time to Waste: The Vital Role of College and
University Leaders in Improving Science and Mathematics Education." Work
completed under NSF grant \# REC-0450978. Presented at the invita­tional
conference on Teacher Preparation and Institutions of Higher Education:
Mathematics and Science Content Knowledge, Washington, D.C. October.

Schwartz, H.S. (ed.) 1990. *Collaboration: Building Common Agendas*.
Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

Smith, T.M. and R.M. Ingersoll. 2004. "What Are the Effects of Induction
and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover?" *American Educational
Research Journal,* 41(3): 681--714.

SRI International. 2000. *Preparing and Supporting New Teachers: A
Literature Review*. Menlo Park, Calif.: Author.

Stiles, K., S. Loucks-Horsley, and P. Hewson. 1996. *Principles of
Effective Professional Development for Mathe­mat­ics and Science
Education: A Synthesis of Standards* (NISE Brief, Vol. 1). Madison,
Wisc.: National Institutes for Science Education.

Talbert, J.E. and M.W. McLaughlin. 1993. "Understanding Teaching in
Context." In *Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and
Practice,* edited by D.K. Cohen, M.W. McLaughlin, and J.E. Talbert (pp.
167--206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

U.S. Department of Education. 2001. *Targeted Literature Review*.
Washington, D.C.: Author, Planning and Eval­uation Service.

U.S. Department of Education 2004. *Partnerships for Reform: Changing
Teacher Preparation Through the Title II HEA Partnership Program Interim
Report*. Washington, D.C.: Author, Policy and Program Stu­dies Service.
Also posted at:

> http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/\
> reports.htm#higher.

U.S. Department of Education. *The NCLB Toolkit* is on the Web at the
Department of Education Web site at
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf. Accessed
in May 2005.

APPENDIX A

####   Aggregate Pass Rate Averages on Math Content Knowledge Test by Partnership, 1999--2000 and 2000--01 for States Requiring This Assessment in These Years

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">State</td>
<td>State Cutoff Score (Percent)</td>
<td>Year</td>
<td colspan="4">Basic<br />
Skills</td>
<td colspan="3">Professional Knowledge</td>
<td colspan="3">Academic Content</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>Mathematics (Academic Content)</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Partnership Average</td>
<td><p>State</p>
<p>Average</p></td>
<td># of IHEs Reporting</td>
<td>Partnership Average</td>
<td><p>State</p>
<p>Average</p></td>
<td># of IHEs Reporting</td>
<td>Partnership Average</td>
<td><p>State</p>
<p>Average</p></td>
<td># of IHEs Reporting</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">Southern Colorado Teacher Education Alliance</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Colo.</td>
<td rowspan="2">78</td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>86.0</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14">Project SUCCEED</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Fla.</td>
<td rowspan="2">61<sup>a</sup></td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">96.0</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">98.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>94.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">Illinois Professional Learners Partnership</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Ill.</td>
<td rowspan="2">70<sup>b</sup></td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">99.6</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>98.3</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">98.8</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14">Improving Teacher Quality and Schools Through
Collaborative Partnerships</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Ind.</td>
<td rowspan="2">68</td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">92.0</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">95.0</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">Improving Teacher Quality Through KSU PDS
Partnership</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Kan.</td>
<td rowspan="2">No minimum passing score<sup>c</sup></td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14">Improving Teacher Quality Through Partnerships that
Connect Teacher Performance to Student Learning</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Multi-state</td>
<td rowspan="2">NA<sup>d</sup></td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">86.7</td>
<td>92.3</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>97.5</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>88.1</td>
<td>93.2</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">90.8</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>96.4</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>81.6</td>
<td>92.4</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">Project SITE SUPPORT</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Md.</td>
<td rowspan="2">71</td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>87.0</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">92.0</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>86.3</td>
<td>94.0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>96.3</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14">Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student
Achievement</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Mass.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">70<sup>e</sup></td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td>91.4</td>
<td>89.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>85.4</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td>93.4</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>84.9</td>
<td>90.0</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">Sponsored and Academic Programs Support</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Mich.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">73<sup>f</sup></td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14">Teacher Quality Enhancement Program</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Miss.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">62</td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>981.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Miss.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">62</td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14">Ozarks Partnership Teacher Enhancement Initiatives</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Mo.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">69</td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14">New Jersey Statewide Teacher Quality Enhancement
Consortium</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">N.J.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">65</td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>92.5</td>
<td>92.0</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>97.3</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

(appendix continued on next page)

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="16">Appendix A:<br />
<br />
Aggregate Pass Rate Averages on Math Content Knowledge Test by
Partnership, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 for States Requiring This Assessment
in These Years (Continued)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">State</td>
<td>State Cutoff Score (Percent)</td>
<td>Year</td>
<td colspan="4">Basic<br />
Skills</td>
<td colspan="5">Professional Knowledge</td>
<td colspan="3">Academic Content</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>Mathematics (Academic Content)</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Partnership Average</td>
<td><p>State</p>
<p>Average</p></td>
<td># of IHEs Reporting</td>
<td>Partnership Average</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>State</p>
<p>Average</p></td>
<td># of IHEs Reporting</td>
<td>Partnership Average</td>
<td><p>State</p>
<p>Average</p></td>
<td># of IHEs Reporting</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="16">North Carolina Central University Teacher Education
Partnership</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">N.C.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">70<sup>g</sup></td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>79.0</td>
<td colspan="2">94.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td colspan="2">N/A</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="16">Tri-County Partnership</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Ohio</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">70</td>
<td colspan="2">1999–2000</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td colspan="2">96.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td>94.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">2000–01</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>90.0</td>
<td colspan="2">93.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td>83.0</td>
<td>92.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="16">Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical
Experiences</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">S.C.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">66</td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td colspan="2">80.0</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td colspan="2">3</td>
<td>82.0</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td colspan="2">93.5</td>
<td>89.0</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="16">Community Higher Education Council and Local Education
Agency Partnership</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">S.C.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">66</td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td colspan="2">98.0</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td colspan="2">93.0</td>
<td>89.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="16">Urban IMPACT</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Tenn.</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">68</td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">97.5</td>
<td>94.0</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>88.0</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">99.0</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="16">Partnerships for Texas Public Schools</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Texas</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">70<sup>h</sup></td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>9</td>
<td colspan="2">89.1</td>
<td>90.0</td>
<td colspan="2">9</td>
<td>88.8</td>
<td>92.0</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td colspan="2">90.0</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td>89.0</td>
<td>92.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="16">CoMeT</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Texas</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">70<sup>h</sup></td>
<td>1999–2000</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td colspan="2">94.0</td>
<td>90.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td>83.0</td>
<td>92.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000–01</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td colspan="2">84.0</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td>88.0</td>
<td>92.0</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, the academic content cutoff scores
> represent the minimum score needed to pass the 50-question Mathematics
> Content Knowledge test, Educational Testing Service Praxis II test
> code 0061. The total possible score is 200. The pass rates are based
> on state reports of institutional data. Actual 1999--2000 average pass
> rates are presented in the first row, and actual 2000--01 average pass
> rates are in the second row. One partnership is multistate, so the
> state average represents the average pass rate of all the partner
> states. Pass rates for all partnerships are not available because some
> states or IHEs do not administer such certification exams. The
> institutions in the following partnerships reported aggregate pass
> rates but not pass rates broken down by assessment topics:
> Collaboration for Teacher Education Accountable to Children with
> High-Needs, Collaboration Leading to Improved Master and Bachelors
> Studies, Collaboration Mentoring and Technology Program, the Alaska
> Partnership for Teacher Enhancement, and the Milwaukee Partnership
> Academy to Improve the Quality of Teaching.
>
> ^a^ Florida did not use the Praxis II. A score of 61 percent of items
> correct on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using
> the Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE). The total number of
> points possible varies.
>
> ^b^ Illinois did not use the Praxis II. A score of 70 out of 100 on
> each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the
> Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS).
>
> ^c^ Although applicants for licensure must take the Praxis II test(s)
> for their endorsement area(s), no minimum passing score was identified
> for 2003--04.
>
> ^d^ This partnership is in multiple states. Therefore, there is no
> single state cutoff score to be applied.
>
> ^e^ Massachusetts did not use the Praxis II. A score of 70 out of 100
> on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the
> Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL).
>
> ^f^ Michigan did not use the Praxis II. A score of 220 out of 300 on
> each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the
> Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC).
>
> ^g^ North Carolina license for Mathematics 9--12 required a combined
> score of 281 from Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061) and
> Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065). There were no minimum scores identified.
>
> ^h^ Texas did not use the Praxis II. A score of 70 out of 100 on each
> test of subject matter is required for licensure using the Examination
> for the Certification of Educators in Texas.

SOURCE: Title II Institutional Accountability Reports.

APPENDIX B

##  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

####   IHE and Community College Partners in the 1999 Title II Cohort\*

Alcorn State University

Arizona State University

Arizona State University--West

Ball State University

Benedict University

Blue River Community College

Boston College

California State University--Fresno

Centralia Community College

City Colleges of Chicago

Claflin University

Clark Community College

Clark University

Copiah Lincoln Community College

Durham Technical Community College

Eastern Michigan University

East Mississippi Community College

Emporia State University

Furman University

Graceland University

Grays Harbor Community College

Hinds Community College

Idaho State University

Illinois State University

Jackson State University

Johns Hopkins University

Kansas State University

Kean University

Kentucky State University

Lamar Community College

Lesley University

Longwood University

Lower Columbia Community College

Loyola University--Chicago

Maricopa Community College District

Meridian Community College

Middle Tennessee State University

Millersville University

Mississippi State University

Morgan State University

North Carolina Central University

Northeastern Illinois University

Northeastern University

Northern Arizona State University

Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College

Otero Junior College

Our Lady of the Lake University

Palo Alto College

Piedmont Community College

Pima Community College

Roosevelt University

Rowan University

Saginaw Valley State University

San Antonio College

South Carolina State University

Southeast Missouri State University

Southwest Missouri State University

Tarleton State University

Texas A&M International University

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University Foundation

Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi

Texas A&M University at Kingsville

Texas A&M University at Texarkana

University of Alaska--Anchorage

University of Arizona

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Maryland Baltimore County

University of Massachusetts--Amherst

University of Massachusetts--Boston

University of Miami

University of Northern Iowa

University of South Carolina

University of Southern Colorado

University of Tennessee--Chattanooga

University of Tennessee--Knoxville

University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

Washington State University

West Texas A&M University

Western Kentucky University

Wheelock College

William Paterson University

Winthrop University

Youngstown State University

\*This list is based on partnership proposals and a list available on
the Web at http://www.ed.gov/programs/heatqp/TQE-partners.pdf, accessed
Feb. 3, 2006.

APPENDIX C

####   Partnership Main Goals, Strategies for Increasing Accountability, Planned Use of Incentives, and Content Area Emphases

  -------------------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------
                             Main focus                                            Accountability   Incentives   Content
                                                                                                                 area
                                                                                                                 emphasis

  Partnership Name           Recruitment   Professional   Standards   Clinical                                   
                                           Development                Experience                                 

  Arizona State                                                                                                 M, O
  University/Arizona Teacher                                                                                     
  Excellence Coalition                                                                                           
  (AzTEC)                                                                                                        

  Ball State                                                                     N, S             F            O
  University/Improving                                                                                           
  Teacher Quality and                                                                                            
  Schools Through                                                                                                
  Collaborative Partnerships                                                                                     

  Boston College/The                                                               C, T                          R
  Massachusetts Coalition                                                                                        
  for Teacher Quality and                                                                                        
  Student Achievement                                                                                            

  Graceland                                                                       N, C, S, T       F            O
  University/Collaboration                                                                                       
  Leading to Improved Master                                                                                     
  and Bachelors Studies                                                                                          
  (Project CLIMBS)                                                                                               

  Illinois State                                                                  S                F, T         O
  University/Illinois                                                                                            
  Professional Learners                                                                                          
  Partnership                                                                                                    

  Jackson State                                                                  C                F            O
  University/Teacher Quality                                                                                     
  Enhancement Program                                                                                            

  Johns Hopkins                                                                   N, C, S, T                    O
  University/Project SITE                                                                                        
  SUPPORT                                                                                                        

  Kansas State                                                                    N, T             F, T         O
  University/Improving                                                                                           
  Teacher Quality Through                                                                                        
  KSU PDS Partnership                                                                                            

  Kean University/The New                                                       N, S                          O
  Jersey Statewide Teacher                                                                                       
  Quality Enhancement                                                                                            
  Consortium                                                                                                     

  Mississippi State                                                               C                             M, R, O
  University/ACHIEVE                                                                                             
  Mississippi Partnership                                                                                        

  North Carolina Central                                                          N                F, T         M, O
  University/North Carolina                                                                                      
  Central University Teacher                                                                                     
  Education Partnership                                                                                          

  Our Lady of the Lake                                                           S                F            O
  University/Collaboration                                                                                       
  Mentoring and Technology                                                                                       
  Program (CoMeT)                                                                                                

  Saginaw Valley State                                                            C, S             F, T         O
  University/Sponsored and                                                                                       
  Academic Programs Support                                                                                      

  South Carolina State                                                           N                             M, R, O
  University/Community                                                                                           
  Higher Education Council                                                                                       
  and LEA Partnership                                                                                            

  Southwest Missouri State                                                        N                T            
  University/Ozarks                                                                                              
  Partnership Teacher                                                                                            
  Enhancement Initiatives                                                                                        
  (OPTEI)                                                                                                        
  -------------------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------

(appendix continued on next page)

  -------------------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------
  Appendix C:\                                                                                                   
  \                                                                                                              
  Partnership Main Goals,                                                                                        
  Strategies for Increasing                                                                                      
  Accountability, Planned                                                                                        
  Used of Incentives, and                                                                                        
  Content Area Emphases                                                                                          
  (Continued)                                                                                                    

                             Main focus                                            Accountability   Incentives   Content
                                                                                                                 area
                                                                                                                 emphasis

  Partnership Name           Recruitment   Professional   Standards   Clinical                                   
                                           Development                Experience                                 

  Texas A&M University and                                                                        F            O
  University                                                                                                     
  Foundation/Partnerships                                                                                        
  for Texas Public Schools                                                                                       

  University of                                                                   S                F            O
  Alaska-Anchorage/Alaska                                                                                        
  Partnership for Teacher                                                                                        
  Enhancement                                                                                                    

  University of Miami                                                             N, S                          O
  (Fla.)/School University                                                                                       
  Community Coalition for                                                                                        
  Excellence in Education                                                                                        
  (Project SUCCEED)                                                                                              

  University of South                                                             N, T             F, T         O
  Carolina/Partners for the                                                                                      
  Enhancement of Clinical                                                                                        
  Experiences                                                                                                    

  University of Southern                                                         N, S                          O
  Colorado/Southern Colorado                                                                                     
  Teacher Education Alliance                                                                                     

  University of Tennessee at                                                                        F            
  Chattanooga/Knoxville/                                                                                         
  Urban IMPACT                                                                                                   

  University of                                                                   T                F, T         
  Wisconsin-Milwaukee/The                                                                                        
  Milwaukee Partnership                                                                                          
  Academy to Improve the                                                                                         
  Quality of Teaching                                                                                            

  Washington State                                                               N, C, S          F            O
  University/Collaboration                                                                                       
  for Teacher Education                                                                                          
  Accountable to Children                                                                                        
  with High-needs (Co-TEACH)                                                                                     

  Western Kentucky                                                                N                             O
  University/Improving                                                                                           
  Teacher Quality Through                                                                                        
  Partnerships that Connect                                                                                      
  Teacher Performance to                                                                                         
  Student Learning                                                                                               

  Youngstown State                                                               T                F, T         M, R, O
  University/Tri-County                                                                                          
  Partnership                                                                                                    
  -------------------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------

> NOTE: Content analyses of the project goals and objectives described
> in the proposals identified the main foci listed here and described
> throughout this report. A main focus was a goal or objective
> identified by five or more partnerships (i.e., where at least 20
> percent of partnerships had the goal). Content analyses of the plans
> to increase accountability described in the proposals identified
> partnership's plans to increase accountability, indicated here by the
> letters N, C, S, and T, where N indicates plans to align standards
> with NCATE; C indicates plans to align curriculum with state
> standards; S indicates plans to develop state standards; and T
> indicates plans to develop assessments or prepare students for
> assessments for teachers. Partner incentives are described in the
> table as follows: partnerships that offered incentives for faculty
> participation are indicated with an F; those that offered incentives
> for teacher participation are indicated with a T. If a partnership
> identified a content area emphasis in its main goals, in its plans to
> increase accountability or broaden field experiences, or in its
> professional development plan, it was identified as an emphasis here,
> where M indicates an emphasis on math; R indicates an emphasis on
> reading; and O indicates an emphasis on another specific content area
> or an emphasis on content areas in general.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Proposals.

APPENDIX D

####   Survey Response by Partnership

  ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ------------
  Partnership Name          Baseline                           Follow-Up              
                            Survey                             Survey                 

                            District   Faculty    Faculty      District    Faculty    Faculty
                                       Involved   Leadership               Involved   Leadership

  Arizona State             5/6        1/2        5/7          2/2         0/1        1/2
  University/Arizona                                                                  
  Teacher Excellence                                                                  
  Coalition (AzTEC)                                                                   

  Ball State                4/5        1/2        1/2          2/2         0/1        1/1
  University/Improving                                                                
  Teacher Quality and                                                                 
  Schools Through                                                                     
  Collaborative                                                                       
  Partnerships                                                                        

  Boston College/The        3/8        14/14      14/14        3/5         13/14      6/9
  Massachusetts Coalition                                                             
  for Teacher Quality and                                                             
  Student Achievement                                                                 

  Graceland University/     1/2        2/4        3/5          1/1         0/2        
  Collaboration Leading to                                                            
  Improved Master and                                                                 
  Bachelors Studies                                                                   
  (Project CLIMBS)                                                                    

  Illinois State            5/16       8/15       8/13         6/6         7/10       5/8
  University/Illinois                                                                 
  Professional Learners                                                               
  Partnership                                                                         

  Jackson State             1/2        3/3        2/3                                 0/1
  University/Teacher                                                                  
  Quality Enhancement                                                                 
  Program                                                                             

  Johns Hopkins             1/2        5/6        5/6          1/1         5/5        2/5
  University/Project SITE                                                             
  SUPPORT                                                                             

  Kansas State              3/6        2/2        2/2          3/3         1/2        1/1
  University/Improving                                                                
  Teacher Quality Through                                                             
  KSU PDS Partnership                                                                 

  Kean University/The New   9/18       6/8        5/8          7/10        7/7        2/2
  Jersey Statewide Teacher                                                            
  Quality Enhancement                                                                 
  Consortium                                                                          

  Mississippi State         15/24                              18/24                  
  University/ ACHIEVE                                                                 
  Mississippi Partnership                                                             

  North Carolina Central    4/5        4/7        4/7          4/4         3/3        2/2
  University/North Carolina                                                           
  Central University                                                                  
  Teacher Education                                                                   
  Partnership                                                                         

  Our Lady of the Lake      6/8        3/3        2/3          3/4         2/3        1/3
  University/ Collaboration                                                           
  Mentoring and Technology                                                            
  Program (CoMeT)                                                                     

  Saginaw Valley State      2/4        2/2        2/2          8/9         1/2        1/1
  University/ Sponsored and                                                           
  Academic Programs Support                                                           

  South Carolina State      4/12       4/8        2/7          4/5         3/5        1/3
  University/ Community                                                               
  Higher Education Council                                                            
  and LEA Partnership                                                                 

  Southwest Missouri State  5/14       1/1        1/1          4/5         1/1        1/1
  University/Ozarks                                                                   
  Partnership Teacher                                                                 
  Enhancement Initiatives                                                             
  (OPTEI)                                                                             

  Texas A&M University and  8/28       1/1                     7/16        2/3        7/9
  University                                                                          
  Foundation/Partnerships                                                             
  for Texas Public Schools                                                            
  ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ------------

(appendix continued on next page)

  ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ------------
  Appendix D:\                                                                        
  \                                                                                   
  Survey Response by                                                                  
  Partnership (Continued)                                                             

  Partnership Name          Baseline                           Follow-Up              
                            Survey                             Survey                 

                            District   Faculty    Faculty      District    Faculty    Faculty
                                       Involved   Leadership               Involved   Leadership

  University of             1/8        2/5        1/4          1/4         2/2        0/1
  Alaska-Anchorage/ Alaska                                                            
  Partnership for Teacher                                                             
  Enhancement                                                                         

  University of Miami       1/3        2/4        2/3          3/3         2/3        2/2
  (Fla.)/School University                                                            
  Community Coalition for                                                             
  Excellence in Education                                                             
  (Project SUCCEED)                                                                   

  University of South       7/12       7/12       4/11         5/6         6/6        6/8
  Carolina/ Partners for                                                              
  the Enhancement of                                                                  
  Clinical Experiences                                                                

  University of Southern    8/16                               6/12                   
  Colorado/ Southern                                                                  
  Colorado Teacher                                                                    
  Education Alliance                                                                  

  University of Tennessee   1/4        2/6        4/4          2/2         5/6        3/4
  at Chattanooga/Knoxville/                                                           
  Urban IMPACT                                                                        

  University of             0/2        2/4        2/4          0/1         1/1        3/3
  Wisconsin-Milwaukee/The                                                             
  Milwaukee Partnership                                                               
  Academy to Improve the                                                              
  Quality of Teaching                                                                 

  Washington State          10/18      5/9        2/2          5/7         3/3        3/3
  University/ Collaboration                                                           
  for Teacher Education                                                               
  Accountable to Children                                                             
  with High-needs                                                                     
  (Co-TEACH)                                                                          

  Western Kentucky          11/21      14/29      14/23        4/10        10/15      5/14
  University/ Improving                                                               
  Teacher Quality Through                                                             
  Partnerships that Connect                                                           
  Teacher Performance to                                                              
  Student Learning                                                                    

  Youngstown State          3/6        2/5        2/4          4/5         2/2        2/2
  University/Tri-County                                                               
  Partnership                                                                         

  TOTAL                     118/253    93/152     87/135       103/146     76/97      55/85
  ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ------------

> NOTE: The number of respondents/number of individuals in survey
> population.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline and Follow-Up Faculty
Leadership, Involved, and District Surveys.

![](media/image11.png){width="8.666666666666666in" height="11.0in"}

[^1]:  *Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through
    the Title II
    HEA Partnership Program*. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.
    March 2004.

[^2]: The evaluation did not collect any information from "other"
    partners in surveys but did explore their role in interviews
    conducted during site visits.

[^3]: Saskatchewan Education, *Saskatchewan Partnerships*.

[^4]: The authenticity scale proved acceptably reliable. For the 12
    items on the scale, Cronbach\'s alpha = .949, (n= 203). Because
    affordability seemed less applicable to partnerships in the study,
    we computed average scores excluding this from the scale.
    Reliabilities were quite high for both scales (*α* = .95), and
    excluding affordability made no difference in averages, correlations
    with other variables or scale reliability, and so was retained.

[^5]: Jankowski, John E. (NSF 05-315 July 2005). INFO BRIEF Academic R&D
    Doubled During Past Decade, Reach \$40 Billion in FY 2003. Retrieved
    on Jan. 26, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
    infbrief/nsf05315.

[^6]: Faculty who were leading initiatives in the partnerships tended to
    overreport their level of involvement. Faculty leaders (deans and
    depart­ment heads) reported that deans were involved in 84 percent of
    the listed activities, whereas involved faculty reported that deans
    were involved in only 71 percent of the listed activities.

[^7]: We are aware that there were additional data sets available, but
    their release date was not consistent with the various production
    dates of this report and could not be incorporated. However, the
    most recent report on pass rate trends, the U.S. Department of
    Education's *The Secretary's Fourth Annual Report on Teacher Quality
    (2005)* confirmed that most IHEs were reporting pass rates of 95
    percent for their program completers on an annual basis.

[^8]: Four of these partnerships, each including one IHE, provided only
    aggregate pass rate data, not data broken down by each of the five
    assessment topics.

[^9]: The pass rate is the number of students passing the assessment
    divided by the number of students taking the assessment.

[^10]: Specifically, district respondents were asked to rate the extent
    to which they thought that their district was an equal partner in
    decision making for the partnership. Ratings were conducted on a
    Likert scale of 1 to 5, where a rating of 1 is "to little or no
    extent---the district is not an equal partner" and 5 is "to a great
    extent---the district is definitely an equal partner."

[^11]: This review of features was adapted from unpublished documents,
    including the AIR Professional Development Impact proposal
    submission for the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of
    Education Sciences (IES) in August 2003, and an unpublished issue
    brief for the Professional Development Impact Study Technical Work
    Group meeting held in February 2004. The core and structural
    features have been used as a framework in a number of evaluations of
    professional development programs; including the AIR study of
    Math/Science Partnerships funded by the NSF. The Title II Evaluation
    used these features as guidance in interpreting the practices in the
    partnerships.

[^12]: There was no "semester" or "few months" option for length of
    college course, but this corresponds with the length of a college
    term.