IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Independence and Interdependence of a Professional Development School Partnership
Robert F. Sumowski
Georgia College & State University, USA
Joseph M. Peters
Georgia College & State University, USA

169

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Abstract
Professional Development School Partnerships have the potential to provide uniqueexperiences for teacher candidates and also provide important professional development for
the K-12 school personnel involved in the relationship. According to the National Associationof Professional Development Schools (2008), a key essential to a successful partnership
involves the entities’ ability to achieve objectives together that neither partner might be able tofully accomplish individually. Our Professional Development School is a model for how thepartners’ joint mission operates beyond each institution’s ability to provide the experiences andservices in isolation. Although both the school district and the university are independent
entities, their interdependence in the Professional Development School allows us to accomplish
the overarching mission to improve education at all levels in our community from six weeks
old to the doctoral level. The benefits are initiatives such as a joint Montessori Academy forchildren, participation on advisory councils, and a grade seven through twelve Early College
program. Classrooms are made available for university faculty to do research, preservice
teacher candidates can observe and practice, and first-generation at-risk students have thesupport they need for college placement. Professional development offerings by university
faculty and District staff in areas such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports allow
District teachers a unique professional development experience and the ability to continue andachieve a university certificate for their participation.
Keywords: professional development school, positive behavior interventions and supports,
independence, interdependence

170

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Over 30 years ago, the Holmes Group introduced the concept of Professional Development
School (PDS) relationships as “working partnerships among university faculty, practicing
teachers, and administrators that are designed around the systematic improvement of practice”(1986, pp. 66-67). They likened them to teaching hospitals, where research and practiceexchanges occur that benefit both entities. Since that time, PDS relationships have grown froma “concept to a vibrant and important reality;” “a cornerstone of serious attempts tosimultaneously improve teacher education and public schools” (Teitel, 2004, p. 1). Today the
National Association for Professional Development Schools (n.d.; 2019) supports an annual
conference and the School-University Partnerships journal. In this publication, the authors
highlight the importance of the interdependence of the relationship while still maintaining
University and District independence. Various examples, such as instituting a Positive
Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) program, a Montessori Academy, an Early
College Program for middle and high school students, and multiple joint grants, illustrateexamples of the independent and interdependent relationship.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the various aspects of the PDS partnership
between a University and its neighboring PreK-12 school district in light of its independentand interdependent relationship utilizing a mixed methods design. The study is relevant to thosestudying or planning to implement similar partnerships in that it illustrates successes andchallenges within the PDS model. Following a review of relevant literature, the researcherspresent an outline of the methodology that guided the study, results, and a discussion of the,the study’s limitations, and suggestions for further research. Four categories, including (1)adhering to essentials guiding the partnership, (2) reading and mathematics literacy support,(3) developing and supporting joint programs, and (4) positive behavior interventions andsupports are explored as they relate to the independent and interdependent relationship andstudent and district success.
Establishing the Relationship
The PDS partnership was developed in 2015 between a state university and a county-wide
charter school district in central Georgia. It was shortly after the District’s superintendent andthe College of Education’s dean were hired. Both had previous experiences with PDS
partnerships in other settings. After initial exploratory discussions and guidance from external
PDS consultants, the University and District developed a memorandum of understanding(MOU) and assigned a liaison from each entity to coordinate monthly PDS meetings to guideand coordinate the partnership’s many activities. The liaison role was seen as essential to thepartnership (Parker, Parsons, Groth, & Brown, 2016).
Because literacy was an initial priority, a literacy faculty member represented the College of
Education (COE), spending a day each week in the District. As the partnership progressed, asecond faculty member with PBIS experience was also assigned to the District. In addition to
the monthly PDS meetings, the COE Dean, Georgia College & State University (GCSU)
President and Provost, and the District Superintendent met on an annual basis to review thepartnership and look at potential opportunities that fit within the guiding essentials of a PDS
relationship.
Literature Review
Professional Development Schools originated with the goal of creating school-university
partnerships for educational change through enhanced professional development (DarlingHammond, 1994, 1998; Goodlad, 1990; Holmes Group, 1986, 1990; Levine, 1992, 1998).

171

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Professional development is enhanced when there is a supporting environment (Chang, Chen,& Chou, 2017; Tracz, Beare, & Torgerson, 2018). These partnerships are designed to promote
professional development of both the novice and veteran teacher (Carpenter & Sherretz, 2012;
Darling-Hammond, 1994; Ismat, 1999; Nzarirwehi & Atuhumuze, 2019). The latter is often
overlooked however, and there can often be a lack of parity (Al Seyabil, 2017; Breault, 2014).
Oftentimes the impetus for the relationship is that colleges need places to place preservice
teachers (Walsh & Backe, 2013). One goal of our partnership and supporting research was tochallenge the notion that these relationships are limited to just professional development and aplace to assign preservice teachers.
As the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) points out“[a]nother important teaching function of colleges of education is providing continuing
professional education for teachers, school administrators, and other education professionals”(2018a, p. 37). Darling-Hammond (1998) emphasizes the duality of the relationship bystressing that a professional teacher continues to learn from teaching.
These new programs typically engage prospective teachers in studying researchand conducting their own inquiries through cases, action research, and structured
reflections about practice. They envision the professional teacher as one who
learns from teaching rather than as one who has finished learning how to teach,and the job of teacher education as developing the capacity to inquire
systematically and sensitively into the nature of learning and the effects ofteaching (Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 9).
PDS provides a role for teacher educators to assist both novices and experts with the importantend goal of promoting student achievement, an often-overlooked area of the partnership(Abdal-Haqq, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Darling-Hammond, Ramos-Beban,
Altamirano, & Hyler, 1998; Murrell, 1998, Renyi, 1996). According to the National
Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) vision, there needs to be “equal
representation of, and access for, all educators invested in improving education” (2008a). One
primary goal of our partnership and supporting research was to challenge the notion that these
relationships are limited and simply facilitate things that occur without a PDS relationship.
Professional development work in the schools also promotes Boyer’s concept of thescholarship of engagement as faculty share their expertise in the schools (Andrews & Leonard,
2018; Boyer, 1996). This can be challenging at times since successful partnerships involve
collaborative relationships that support school-wide approaches with every teacher involved(Colwell, MacIsaac, Tichenor, Heins, & Piechura, 2014; Parsons & Renyi, 1999). Additionally,
there can also be challenges to the role the teacher educator plays in the school, how thehierarchy is established, and when there are organizational changes (Ronen, 2018; Schack,2011). One area for our partnership was classroom management through positive behavioral
approaches.
Early College Program
In Georgia, Early College is a partnership between the Georgia Department of Education andthe University System of Georgia. Public schools partner with public colleges and universities
to offer high school courses and dual enrollment opportunities. According to the Board ofRegents of the University System of Georgia (2017, para. 2), “[e]arly College is an intervention
strategy for students who may not be well served by traditional high schools. The initiative also

172

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019seeks to change the face of higher education by targeting those students traditionally
underrepresented on college campuses.”Montessori Academy
Montessori education was developed by Maria Montessori, an Italian physician. It dates backmore than 100 years. It is characterized by “children working independently and in groups,
often with specially designed learning materials; deeply engaged in their work; andrespectful of themselves and their surroundings” (American Montessori Society, n. d., para.
2). Another distinguishing feature is that “children are provided freedom to explore subjects inblended classrooms where older students solidify their own knowledge by helping the younger
students learn” (Montessori Academy at the Early Learning Center, n. d., para. 1).
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) is “a systems
approach to establishing the social culture and behavioral supports needed for all children in aschool to achieve both social and academic success” (Horner, Sugai, & Lewis, 2015, p. 1). SWPBIS initially involves a leadership team where behavior specialists, administrators, regularteachers, and special needs teachers attend training sessions on PBIS, establish schoolwide
goals, and begin an implementation plan (Netzel & Eber, 2003). This is followed by schoolwide implementation, where the team provides ongoing professional development for thebuilding staff, analyzes the behavioral policies already in place, adjusts as needed, and begins
documenting outcomes with a research-based approach (Cressey, Whitcomb, McGilvrayRivet, Morrison, & Shander-Reynolds, 2018; Hirsch et al., 2019; Horner et al., 2014; Horner,
Sugai, & Lewis, 2015; Netzel & Eber, 2003; Sugai & Horner, 2009). The core elements of
PBIS are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Core elements at each of the three tiers in the PBIS prevention model
Prevention Tier
PrimaryCore Elements
Behavioral Expectations Defined
Behavioral Expectations Taught
Reward system for appropriate behavior
Clearly defined consequences for problem behavior
Differentiated instruction for behavior
Continuous collection and use of data for decision-making
Universal screening for behavior support
Secondary
Progress monitoring for at risk students
System for increasing structure and predictability
System for increasing contingent adult feedback
System for linking academic and behavioral performance
System for increasing home/school communication
Collection and use of data for decision-making
Basic-level function-based support
Tertiary
Functional Behavioral Assessment (full, complex)
Team-based comprehensive assessment
Linking of academic and behavior supports
Individualized intervention based on assessment information focusing on (a)prevention of problem contexts, (b) instruction on functionally equivalent skills, andinstruction on desired performance skills, (c) strategies for placing problem behavior
on extinction, (d) strategies for enhancing contingence reward of desired behavior,and (e) use of negative or safety consequences if needed.
Collection and use of data for decision-making
Reference: Horner, Sugai, & Lewis, 2015, p. 2

173

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

The National Association of Professional Development Schools Essentials
The National Association of Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) provided a policy
statement titled “What It Means to Be a Professional Development School,” at its annual
meeting April 12, 2008 (2008b). This statement, based on the work from a summit the prioryear, delineated what it meant to have a PDS relationship by providing guidelines that wereshown as the “nine essentials” (2008a). The purpose of this document was to specificallydelineate what a professional development school relationship was and eliminate the “catchall” models that were not true PDS relationships. In the document, they provided the nine
required essentials of a PDS as:
1. A comprehensive mission that is broader in its outreach and scope than the mission of
any partner and that furthers the education profession and its responsibility to advanceequity within schools and, by potential extension, the broader community;
2. A school–university culture committed to the preparation of future educators thatembraces their active engagement in the school community;
3. Ongoing and reciprocal professional development for all participants guided by need;
4. A shared commitment to innovative and reflective practice by all participants;
5. Engagement in and public sharing of the results of deliberate investigations ofpractice by respective participants;
6. An articulation agreement developed by the respective participants delineating theroles and responsibilities of all involved;
7. A structure that allows all participants a forum for ongoing governance, reflection,and collaboration;
8. Work by college/university faculty and P–12 faculty in formal roles acrossinstitutional settings; and9. Dedicated and shared resources and formal rewards and recognition structures.
(2008b, pp. 2-3).
These essentials are all important to the proper functioning of a PDS relationship.
Evaluating the Success of a Professional Development School
When referring to the evaluation of the long-term professional development school relationshipat the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and its partners, the authors note the lack of
empirical studies on PDS models (Lewis & Walser, 2016). Bentley and Hendricks (2018)
qualitatively discuss their collaborative experiences in promoting literacy, but do not provide
the overall partnership specifics. Polly, Reinke, and Putnam (2019) explore their partnership inlight of Goodlad’s postulates (Goodlad, 1994) and the AACTE clinical practice report(American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2018b). They address thenine essentials, but the article is essentially a synthesis of the NAPDS, AACTE, and Goodlad’s
postulates.
Many studies discuss the PDS partnership from a university perspective, but often only focus
on the field experiences for preservice teachers. Darling-Hammond (2010) cites positive
experiences for teachers, but as M. Caparo, R. Caparo, and Helfeldt report, studies are“equivocal as the learning that occurs during field experiences” (2010, p. 132). This is due tothe contextualization of programs involving specific partners. Darling-Hammond & Bransford(2005) have documented gains in student performance resulting from PDS initiatives (seepages 415–416). This study looks at the PDS relationship, support for the nine essentials, andthe outcomes of a strong PDS.

174

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Methodology and Methods
Participants
The partnership is with a county charter school system in rural Georgia. It is a Title I school
district with four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The student
population is representative of the county's population. Over 80% of the students qualify forfree or reduced-price meals and there is an approximate enrollment of 5,500 students. The
racial makeup is 65% black, 28% white, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% multi-racial.
Research Design
Because of the various components of the PDS relationship, a mixed methods approach wasused to study the various outcomes of the partnership. A variation of the explanatory design
was used because the quantitative and qualitative data was collected in separate phases andlater used to support the research questions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006). Johnson,
Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) describe mixed methods research as follows:
Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team ofresearchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research
approaches (e. g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection,
analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth ofunderstanding and corroboration (p. 123).
Table 2 shows the four main areas we used to examine the PDS partnership and why they wereincorporated into the design.
Table 2: Areas of support
Four areas used to study the partnership and why they were chosen
1. Adhering to
2. Reading and3. Developing and
4. Positive Behavior
essentials guiding
mathematics literacy
supporting joint
Interventions andthe partnershipsupportprograms
Supports
Because this was an
One of the first partner
Two major ongoing
PBIS was the second
emerging partnership,
activities was to provide programs are the Early major area of partner
both groups wanted toliteracy support. This isCollege where grades
support after thehave a highly successful a key evaluative area for 7-12 students attend
literacy support. This
professional
schools in Georgia (Theregular and college
area provided the ability
development school
College and Careerclasses on thefor the district torelationship, and because Readiness Performance
university campus and become a “PBIS
both entities had PDS
Index that ranks schools a Montessori
district” with therelationships with otherand includes literacy
Academy for birthGeorgia Department ofinstitutions with various data as measured by thekindergarten children
Education, having alevels of success, it was
Georgia Milestonesof parents from thespecial education
important to adhere tostatewide exam). It is
district and university
professor familiar withthe to nine essentials as
also an area that washave childcare in the
PBIS on site to provide
outlined by the National initially determined as
district’s early
professional
Association forneeding support.
learning center. We
development and also
Professional
Positive results in thiswere especiallyinvolve the special
Development Schools.
area would show that the interested in looking at education preservice
Since this would be
PDS relationship was
how the partnershipteachers was a win fordifficult to explore in abenefiting the schools
would help facilitate
both partners and aquantitative way, aand participatingproblem solving when reason to look at if there
qualitative approach was preservice teachers.
there were problems at was success in that area
taken.
either partnership site. of the PDS partnership.

175

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Table 3 illustrates the components of the design with the research methodology and questions.
Table 3: Research questions and methodology
Research Question
Did the University and theDistrict adhere to nineessentials as outlined by the
National Association forProfessional Development
Schools?

Research Method
Qualitative evaluation research(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011;
Newman, 2011) conducted byinternal evaluators looking at
the nine required essentials by
the National Association forProfessional Development
Schools (National Association
for Professional Development
Schools [NAPDS], 2008b) incomparison to the outcomes ofthe partnership. Interviews
were the primary source ofdata when comparing thestandards to the practices.

Will there be overall gains inelementary school student
achievement (e.g. literacy,
math, and science) as measured
by the school’s state grade on
the College and Career Ready
Performance Index (CCRPI)
that includes the Georgia
Milestones end-of-grade
assessment in reading andmathematics?
Will joint projects be mutually
beneficial to both partnerorganizations?

Comparing 2014 baseline
College and Career Readiness
Performance Index (CCRPI)
scores to 2017 scores with acorrelated two-tail t-test(Lowry, 2019).

Will the Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports
program lead to a significant
reduction in discipline
incidents reported to the state?

Comparing 2014 (baseline
Office Disciplinary Referrals(ODR) scores to 2016 scoreswith a correlated two-tailed ttest (Lowry, 2019).

Qualitative evaluation research(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011;
Newman, 2011) conducted byinternal evaluators looking at
the outcomes of the partnership
through interview data anddiscussions.

176

Design References“The systematic
identification and assessmentof effects generated bytreatments, programmes,
policies, practices, andproducts.” (Jupp, 2009, p.
104).
“At the most elemental level,
evaluation research is aimed atdetermining whether a program
was actually carried out. At amore complex level, researchis concerned with theeffectiveness and/or the
economic attributes of aprogram. Ideally suchinformation should contributeto decisions about whether toexpand, curtail, or modify aprogram.” (Gordon & Morse,
1975, p. 339)
“The t-test for correlated
samples is especially useful inresearch involving human or
animal subjects precisely
because it is so very effective
in removing the extraneous
effects of pre-existing
individual differences”(Lowry, 2019).
The conclusions can lead to “anew design and development
model” or “an enhanced
version of an existing designand development model”(Richey & Klein, 2007, p.
136). Supporting data includes“user perceptions and reports.”

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Ethical ApprovalInstitutional Review Board approval was provided to study the Professional Development
School relationship with the district. In this study, only top-level, public data were used so that
individual teachers or students could not be identified.
Results and Discussion
The findings can be grouped into four categories that reflect the research questions. These
include (1) adhering to essentials guiding the partnership, (2) reading and mathematics literacy
support, (3) developing and supporting joint programs, and (4) positive behavior interventions
and supports. The narrative also provides information on what occurred as part of thepartnership.
Category 1: Adhering to Essentials Guiding the Partnership
Our PDS partnership is guided by the nine required essentials developed by the Executive
Council and Board of Directors of the National Association for Professional Development
Schools (NAPDS, 2008b). All members of the partnership agreed to this claim.
Essential 1. The first essential is “[a] comprehensive mission that is broader in its outreach andscope than the mission of any partner and that furthers the education profession and its
responsibility to advance equity within schools and, by potential extension, the broader
community” (NAPDS, n.d., para 4). Both parties agreed that it was important to the region to
improve the education of PreK-12 students. Few local students were competitive in gaining
admission to GCSU, given that it is a selective institution in the state system (GCSU, 2016).
As the president of the university pointed out in a meeting, “[w]e need to work collaboratively
if we are going to change the educational situation in our community” (S. Dorman, personalcommunication, August 8, 2018). At that time a goal was set to seek funding to establish acenter for rural education to assist middle Georgia rural communities in advancing education,
especially with economically-challenged communities.
The formal PDS memorandum of understanding between the District and University reflects
the comprehensive mission essential and starts out with the following:
Professional Development Schools (PDSs) represent a partnership among schools,
universities, and community stakeholders. The Baldwin County School District andGeorgia College are committed to becoming a driving force in the community bytransforming P-20 education and developing students, educators, and leaders who thinkcritically and design innovative and creative opportunities within a democratic andglobal society. The mission of the professional development school partnership
between BCSD and GCSU is to improve P-20 education for our students, educators,
and leaders through collaborative engagement in teaching and learning (Georgia
College & State University & The Baldwin County School District, 2015, p. 1).
Essential 2. The second essential is “a school – university culture committed to the preparationof future educators that embraces their active engagement in the school community” (NAPDS,
n.d., para 4). The College of Education has a long history of having a strong teacher preparation
program. Preservice teachers spend 2-3 days a week in the field as juniors and complete a yearlong internship as seniors. The District is a primary place for placing students for active
engagement in the classroom (C. Garrett, personal communication, July 30, 2019). Currently,
the middle grades program preservice teachers are all placed in the district’s middle school.

177

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Likewise, the special education program is holding class in the district and those students areworking in the schools. The early childhood/elementary and secondary programs are also
placed in the district whenever possible.
Essential 3. The third essential is an “ongoing and reciprocal professional development for allparticipants guided by need” (NAPDS, n.d., para 4). Due to the high poverty level of thecommunity, all schools in the District are Title I. In 2015, three of the four elementary schools
were considered “Focus Schools” by the State of Georgia due to not reaching minimum
achievement levels (Baldwin County School System, 2015). This put literacy professional
development for the District teachers as a high priority. It also offered additional professional
development opportunities for the preservice teachers assigned to the schools. We continue tosupport this effort and the scores on the state of Georgia Milestones exam reflect that the effort
is working.
Essential 4. The professional development opportunities also met the fourth essential of a“shared commitment to innovative and reflective practice by all participants” (NAPDS, n.d.,para 4). This was seen as classroom teachers tried new methods to engage students and provide
positive behavioral supports. Likewise, preservice teachers gained valuable insight into ways
to manage the complexities of the classroom. Working together, the partners were able tosecure state funding for the competitive Literacy for Learning, Living, and Leading (L4GA)
grants to cover things like sub pay and formal professional development for teachers.
Essential 5. The fifth essential is for “engagement in and public sharing of the results ofdeliberate investigations of practice by respective participants” (NAPDS, n.d., para 4). Sharing
the partnership outcomes continues to be an ongoing process with presentations at manynational and international conferences such as the International Academic Forum, the HawaiiInternational Conference on Education, National Association of Professional Development
Schools, and the International Conference of the Association for Positive Behavior Support.
One important outcome of the PBIS initiative was the assistance in the development of the
Georgia Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) strategic plan 2014-2020(Georgia Department of Education, 2014) and the associated rules that became the first everPBIS endorsement program for teachers (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, 2019).
Essential 6. The sixth essential is an “articulation agreement developed by the respective
participants delineating the roles and responsibilities of all involved” (NAPDS, n.d., para 4).
Early in the partnership, stakeholders met on several occasions to develop a comprehensive
articulation agreement which is reviewed each year and updated as needed. The roles were
outlined as seen below.
•

Georgia College Responsibilities:
o Goal 1: To improve educational opportunities for children enrolled in theschool:§ Provide human resources (teaching candidates) to lower teacher-pupil
ratios;§ Provide focused, differentiated instruction in tutoring and small groups
based on teaching candidate assignments;§ Assist in improving achievement levels;§ Prepare interns with methods reflecting best practices.
o Goal 2: To provide both informal and formal professional development for178

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Baldwin County teachers and Georgia College teaching candidates:§ Provide support in school-wide professional learning programs andactivities as requested;§ Facilitate in-classroom demonstrations and assistance as requested;§ Interact with school faculty in ways that promote professional growth.
o Goal 3: To administer teacher education standards and evaluation associatedwith certification:§ Communicate supervision and accreditation standards;§ Provide efficient procedures for evaluation requirements;§ Provide direction of intern mentoring and supervision.
•

Baldwin Schools Responsibilities:
o Goal 1: To provide exemplary teacher education opportunities for teaching
candidates:§ Model best practices in all curricular areas;§ Model differentiated instruction;§ Model progressive practices (discipline, inclusion, etc.);§ Mentor interns by supervising and providing feedback to planning andteaching;§ Provide supervised opportunities to develop independence in teaching;§ Adhere to standards and requirements associated with certification;§ Seek opportunities to collaborate with Georgia College faculty for
professional learning.
o Goal 2: To facilitate inquiry and research at the school site in accordance with
BCSD policy and Georgia College Institutional Review Board Policies:§ Assist in obtaining permissions for inquiry and research, in accordancewith federal statues and Baldwin County Schools policies;§ Facilitate requirements for Institutional Review Board approval;§ Willingness to engage in inquiry and support teaching candidates’
requirements;§ Provide access to institutional data and assessment/test data forresearch purposes, as legally permitted(Georgia College & State University & The Baldwin County School
District, 2015, pp.1-2).

Essential 7. Built into the articulation agreement is the seventh essential for “a structure thatallows all participants a forum for ongoing governance, reflection, and collaboration”(NAPDS, n.d., para 4). The University faculty and administrators, classroom teachers, andschool administrators continue to suggest new ways to enhance the partnership and meet on amonthly basis. With the addition of a high school teacher career academy, a new pathway to
becoming a teacher is now being explored where the University and District will partner toprovide a seamless entry into the teaching profession.
Essential 8. The eighth essential is “work by college/university faculty and P–12 faculty informal roles across institutional settings” (NAPDS, n.d., para 4). As the partnership developed,
the superintendent was awarded faculty status and invited to teach courses for the university.
Likewise, District and University faculty, teachers and administrators are involved in sharedinitiatives and committees.

179

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Essential 9. The ninth essential is “dedicated and shared resources and formal rewards andrecognition structures” (NAPDS, n.d., para 4). Teams worked together to identify resources touse in professional development and collaborative research. As it relates to recognition, theDistrict, Superintendent, and teachers have been recognized during award ceremonies at the
University and University personnel have been recognized by the District. Based on the nineessentials, there were many collaborative efforts that benefited both entities, and theparticipants all agreed that the nine essentials were followed.
Category 2: Reading and Mathematics Literacy Support
One of the first collaborative activities that we worked on was to apply for literacy grants to
support reading improvement in the District. This was determined by the superintendent andelected board of education to be an essential goal for the incoming administration. Because theDistrict, which serves a total of seven schools, did not have grants management staff, theUniversity’s grants center assisted in all aspects of the preparation and application process to
prepare the grant. In 2016, we were awarded the “K-2 Mathematicians and Writers” literacy
grant and began implementation of the literacy program within each of the P-12 schools in theDistrict. Supplemental assistance was provided through a University faculty member withexpertise in literacy who was reassigned one course per semester to work in the District, which
was paid from the grant.
Over the course of the next two years, the PDS partnership continued the “Read Baldwin
County” initiative. The designated faculty member continued to work within the District in its
implementation and eventually was assigned by the University to work full-time within theDistrict to support literacy and act as the PDS liaison between the partners. An additional
literacy faculty member supported the program in the summers.
This arrangement allowed the University to have teacher candidates’ field placements occur inclassrooms where literacy professional development and implementation was taking place at
the ground level. We could then test the theoretical concepts out with real students in a P-12
field-based settings, which resulted in a three-fold benefit to teacher candidates, the District,and its students. An added benefit to this arrangement was that it allowed the University tooffer a Reading Endorsement through state certification within the District.
As new opportunities arose, the partnership expanded its collaborative efforts. The next
opportunity was to work on Middle Grades science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) in a partnership that also included the arts called “STEAM Ahead”, which began in2017 and has continued through the submission of multiple subsequent grants. This effort
allowed the University to provide a faculty member a course reassignment to oversee thisSTEAM project which provided professional development to the District’s middle grades
teachers. We also brought our middle grades teaching candidates to the school for on-siteclasses and observations.
One thing PDS leaders learned through this process is that many granting agencies look for astrong partnership between PDS entities when making funding decisions. The strength of thecontinuing partnership between our two entities has played a role in the partnership’s ability tocontinue to obtain grant funding. Overall, there was a significant improvement in the District’s
College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI) scores when comparing schools
from the 2014 baseline to 2017 (see Tables 4 & 5). The CCRPI score reflects content masteryand include achievement scores in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social
studies based on student performance on the statewide Milestones assessments (Georgia

180

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Department of Education, 2019). Although the results are not significant, there is a positivegain. Note that the 2018 data cannot be used in any comparisons. The state of Georgia has
redone the CCRPI algorithm which prevents direct comparisons from previous years (see:https://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx).
Table 4: College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI) data
2014 CCRPI
71
71
55
52
59
66

BH Elementary
CS Elementary
ER Elementary
MW Elementary
OH Middle School
BH High School2017 CCCRPI
69
73
61
56
60
76

Note: Numbers are rounded off; Data source: http://ccrpi.gadoe.org

Table 5: County-wide College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI)
comparison: 2014 to 2017
Meana-Meanb
-3. 5

t
-2.05

df
5

P (one-tailed)
0.04

Note: Data includes all four elementary-level schools, one middle school, and the one high school. 2014 serves
as the baseline and is compared to 2017. Note that in 2018 CCRPI rubrics were changed and cannot becompared to previous years.

Category 3: Developing and Supporting Joint Programs
Four programs that are based on the independence and interdependence of the professional
development school partnership are the Early College program, the Montessori Academy, anda community butterfly house and garden and the newly-established educational doctorate.
The partnership between the District and University includes an Early College program locatedon a university campus (see: https://www.gcsu.edu/earlycollege). This program, which serves
approximately 300 primarily first generation and at-risk middle and high school students,
allows participants to complete their daily Georgia middle and high school education
requirements at the University. High school student participants are allowed to dually enroll at
the University to attend college courses. The Early College Program benefits College of
Education teacher candidates, as well, in that it enables them the opportunity to have fieldplacement in the same location as their education courses, which is important for students
without transportation. The program consistently achieves 100% college placement of highschool seniors.
Another recent example of collaboration between the partners is the creation of a Montessori
Academy at the District's Early Learning Center (see: https://montessorielc.com/). The
Academy serves children aged 6 weeks to Kindergarten, and provides parents access to theMontessori delivery model. Employees of the Academy are certified teachers and trained inMontessori. District and University employees have priority in enrolling their children and,once they are all enrolled, all additional seats are open to students from the community.
A third emerging program involves the District, University and Milledgeville Rotary Club. The
Club will provide funding and volunteer support for a butterfly house and community garden.
The partnership of the Dean of Education and Superintendent, both Rotary Board members,

181

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

demonstrated that there is a strong partnership which showed the Rotary it was an initiative
worth making the investment.
A fourth program that supports the PDS relationship is the new educational doctorate that
supports leaders in the District. Two District principals are already enrolled with more applying
to enter subsequent cohorts. The doctorate was formed to help support current and emerging
leaders in the District so they would not need to drive hours away for a program.
Category 4: Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
Another important component of the partnership involves collaboration in the area of Positive
Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Through the partnership’s monthly meetings,
assistance with district-wide behavior management was identified as a need in the District andalso a need for teacher candidates so that they could observe, develop, and implement positive
behavior management approaches. Because PBIS is a statewide initiative in Georgia, theDistrict applied to become a PBIS district. After introducing school District representatives tothe staff of the Georgia DOE’s PBIS team, the DOE’s team agreed to assist the District. The
resulting student behavior support process began during Spring Semester 2015, when the
University assigned a professor with an extensive background as a practitioner in behavior
support to work with the District as a professor-in-residence in its efforts to address behavior
management.
The behavior support process adopted by the PDS partnership was multifaceted, including
components of establishing, training, and supporting the use of PBIS as the District’sframework for managing student behavior. In tandem with this effort, the partnershipestablished a district-level behavior support program and related processes, contributions to apartial reconfiguring of the existing student code of conduct, and behavior management support
program for teachers whose classroom management practices caused administrators concern.
In order to supplement the District’s new proactive approach, the superintendent hired theDistrict’s first behavior specialist, a former social worker with experience in counseling youth
in a local mental health setting. The professor-in-residence met extensively with the new
behavior specialist.
Next, the superintendent requested that the professor-in-residence conduct initial introductory
training sessions pertaining to PBIS and proactive behavior management prior to the advent ofDistrict implementation on the first day of the fall term in 2015. During the summer of 2015
the professor-in-residence planned and conducted professional development training sessions
in PBIS for District administrators, school-based PBIS leadership teams, existing teachers, andnew teachers alongside the District’s superintendent and PBIS coordinator.
The Office Disciplinary Referral (ODR) data tracked throughout the initial year of
implementation reflected an immediate and substantial decline in district-wide office referrals
and a decrease in the District’s suspension rates across each of its seven schools. According to
Georgia Department of Education data, referrals were greatly reduced (see tables 6 & 7). This
trend largely continued throughout the following two school years among each of the District’s
elementary schools with progress fluctuating somewhat at the middle and high school levels.

182

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Table 6: District-wide office disciplinary referral data (2014 to 2016)
SchoolBH Elementary
CS Elementary
ER Elementary
MW Elementary
OH Middle School
BH High School
Total
Mean

2014 Referrals
270
249
734
367
1508
2748
5876
979

2016 Referrals
153
374
578
230
1193
1420
3948
658

Note: Data includes referrals from all six schools in the District. 2017 and beyond could not be compared due tosystematic changes in the data collection; Data source: https://www.gadoe.org/schoolsafetyclimate/Pages/StudentDiscipline.aspx

Table 7: District-wide office disciplinary referral comparison (2014 to 2016)
Meana-Meanb
321

t
+1.53

df
5

P (one-tailed)
0.09
Note: data includes referrals from all six schools in the District. 2017 and beyond could not be compared due tosystematic changes in the data collection.

PBIS challenges. Challenges are expected with the implementation of any PDS initiative, andthis partnership was no exception. Initial challenges reported by the professor-in-residence
included procuring entrée into schools and the cooperation of schools’ administration andfaculty. However, once the superintendent articulated her backing and support of the professor
as an equal partner in PBIS implementation, cooperation among staff increased dramatically,
and the resulting relationships flourished throughout the extent of the faculty member’s
involvement with the District. As an example, at the beginning of the professor’s involvementin Fall 2015 an elementary principal was unresponsive to requests to hang student-friendly
PBIS matrix posters in key locations throughout the building (a common component of PBIS
implementation), arguing that the posters would damage wall paint. The superintendent spoke
privately with the principal, helping him to understand that she backed all PBIS-relatedsuggestions and expected him to work with the professor as her designee in the initiative. Fromthat moment forward, the principal became an active partner-and ultimately an advocate-of
PBIS-related practices such as this one.
Another challenge to the behavior support component of the PDS partnership was one not
atypical in many such cooperative efforts-mission creep. The professor-in-residence, who had
served as an investigator into allegations of discrimination in his previous P-12 directorship,
was asked to conduct a time-consuming formal Human Resources investigation into allegations
that one of the District’s administrators had discriminated against a student with disabilities.
Though the faculty member was willing and able to conduct the investigation, the investigative
process proved to be extensive and detracted somewhat from the time he was able to devote tomonitoring district-wide PBIS implementation.
Limitations of the Study
The primary limitation of the study is that there can be confounding variables such as changes
in the administration and teaching staff, other state, district, and school-wide initiatives, and183

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

community influences. These are often hard to eliminate from something like the CCRPI,
which is an overall score for an entire school.
Recommendations for Further Research
The researchers feel that it is important to go beyond the administrators and key personnel
looking at the program’s success and interview individual teachers to see how they see thepartnership. This may lead to new ways to collaborate in the future. In light of the many
professional development schools that were not able to sustain the relationship, we need tocontinue to explore ways to keep our program strong (Dresden, Blankenship, Capuozzo, Nealy,& Tavernier, 2016).
Because PDS partnerships vary greatly depending upon the contexts and dynamics involved
between participating partners, the authors are hesitant to generalize beyond the present
context. Consistent with the concept of reader generalizability, the reader might best be able
to determine whether our experiences are relevant to their own individual contexts.
In summary, the partnership is an overall success. Literacy continues to improve and behavioral
incidents continue to decline. Early College and the Montessori Academy are both doing well.
Both parties agree that it is important to continue the relationship.
Conclusion
Our PDS model exemplifies how the joint PDS mission has reached beyond each institution’s
ability to provide the experiences and services in isolation. For example, when the Early
College program required space for P-12 students at the University’s campus while, inconverse, the joint Montessori Academy needed space for its pre-kindergarten children within
the District’s Early Learning Center. The interdependence in the PDS allows the partners toaccomplish the overarching joint mission to improve education at all levels in our communityfrom six weeks old to the doctoral level. The University provides grant assistance, professional
development, and courses to K-12 teachers, while the District opens its classrooms for fieldobservation and practice with the University’s teacher candidates.
Since 2015, the Professional Development School partnership between the university and theschool district exemplifies the PDS guiding essentials of achieving “a comprehensive missionthat is broader in its outreach and scope than the mission of any partner and that furthers theeducation profession and its responsibility to advance equity within schools and, by potential
extension, the broader community” (National Association of Professional Development
Schools, 2008b). Though the evolution of the partnership, expected challenges have given way
to a multi-faceted and highly effective delivery of services that have benefited both the
University and the District in a profound way.

184

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1999). Unraveling the professional development school equity agenda.
Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3/4), 145–160. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1493129
Al Seyabil, F. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ views on school-university partnership in the
Omani EFL context. International Education Studies, 10(3), 125–133.
https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ies.v10n3p125
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018a). Colleges of education: anational portrait. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018b). A pivot toward clinicalpractice, its lexicon, and the renewal of educator preparation. Washington, DC:
Author.
American Montessori Society (n. d.). What is Montessori education? Retrieved fromhttps://amshq.org/About-Montessori/What-Is-Montessori
Andrews, P. G., & Leonard, S. Y. (2018). Reflect, analyze, act, repeat: Creating criticalconsciousness through critical service learning at a professional development school.
Education Sciences, 8(148), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030148
Baldwin County School System. (2015). Charter system application. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Charter-Schools/Documents/2 Baldwin Petition.pdf
Bentley, E., & Hendricks, M. B. (2018). Dreaming big: The ongoing story of thecollaboration between a university, a school district, an author, and an illustrator.
School-University Partnerships, 11(4), 78–86.
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. (2017). Early college. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gaearlycolleges.org/
Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy ofArts and Sciences, 49(7), 18–33. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3824459
Breault, R. (2014). Power and perspective: the discourse of professional development school
literature. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 22–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.869547
Caparo, M. M., Caparo, R. M., & Helfeldt, J. (2010). Do differing types of field experiences
make a difference in teacher candidates’ perceived level of competence? Teacher
Education Quarterly, 37(1), 131–154.
Carpenter, B. D., & Sherretz, C. E. (2012). Professional development school partnerships: An
instrument for teacher leadership. School-University Partnerships, 5(1), 89–101.
Chang, D. F., Chen, S. N., & Chou, W. C. (2017). Investigating the major effect ofprincipal’s change leadership on school teachers’ professional development. IAFOR
Journal of Education, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.5.3.07
Colwell, C., MacIsaac, D., Tichenor, M., Heins, B., & Piechura, K. (2014). District andUniversity perspectives on sustaining professional development schools: Do the
NCATE standards matter? Professional Educator, 38(2), 1–12. Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1048336.pdf

185

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Cressey, J. M., Whitcomb, S. A., McGilvray-Rivet, S. J., Morrison, R. J., & ShanderReynolds, K. J. (2018). Handling PBIS with care: scaling up to school-wide
implementation. Professional School Counseling, 18(1), 90–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001800104
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development schools: schools for developing aprofession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership, 55(5), 6–11.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ramos-Beban, N., Altamirano, R. P., & Hyler, M. E. (1998). Be thechange. Reinventing school for student success. New York: Teachers College Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dresden, J., Blankenship, S. S., Capuozzo, R. M., Nealy, A. U., & Tavernier, M. D. (2016).
What is a PDS? Reframing the Conversation. School-University Partnerships 9(3),64–80. Retrieved from http://napds.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/93-all.pdf
Georgia College & State University & The Baldwin County School District. (2015).
Memorandum of understanding. Milledgeville, GA: Authors.
Georgia College & State University. (2016). Our path to preeminence: The 2016-2021
Georgia College strategic plan. Retrieved from https://www.gcsu.edu/
Georgia Department of Education. (2014). Georgia positive behavior interventions andsupports (PBIS) strategic plan 2014-2020. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gadoe.org
Georgia Department of Education. (2019). A family’s guide to Georgia’s College and Career
Ready Performance Index. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gadoe.org
Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2019). Positive behavior intervention andsupports (PBIS) endorsement program. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gapsc.com/Rules/Current/EducatorPreparation/505-3-.109.pdf
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: better teachers, better schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, G., & Morse, E. V. (1975). Evaluation research. Annual Review of Sociology, 1,
339–361.
Hirsch, S. E., Brown, C. P., Halley, E. A., Beach, J., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Spence, S. E., &Kennedy, M. (2019). Ten tips to consider when creating and screening PBIS films.
Beyond Behavior, 28(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295619845830

186

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: a report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing,
MI: Holmes Group. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED270454.pdf
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: principles for the design of professional
development schools. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
Horner, R. H., Kincaid, D., Sugai, G, Lewis, T. Eber, L., Barrett, S., & Johnson, N. (2014).
Scaling up school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: experiences ofseven states with documented success. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,16(4), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713503685
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. (2015). Is school-wide positive behavior support anevidence-based practice? Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/research
Johnson, B. R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Jupp, V. (Ed). (2009). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Levine, M. (1992). Professional practice schools: linking teacher education and school
reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Levine, M. (1998). Designing standards that work for professional development
schools. Washington DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education.
Lewis, S., & Walser, T. M. (2016). Advancing a professional development system: evolution
and evaluation. School-University Partnerships, 9(3), 130–152.
Lowry, R. (2019). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics. Retrieved fromhttp://vassarstats.net/textbook/index.html
Montessori Academy at the Early Learning Center (n. d.). About. Retrieved fromhttps://montessorielc.com/about
Murrell, P. C. (1998). Like stone soup: The role of the professional development school in the
renewal of urban schools. New York: AACTE Publications.
National Association for Professional Development Schools. (2019). Vision, purpose, history.
Retrieved from https://napds.org/visionpurposehistory/
National Association for Professional Development Schools. (2008a). 9 essentials. Retrieved
from https://napds.org/nine-essentials/
National Association for Professional Development Schools. (2008b). What it means to be aprofessional development school. Retrieved from https://napds.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Nine-Essentials.pdf
National Association for Professional Development Schools (n.d.). The nine required
essentials of a PDS. Retrieved from https://napds.org/nine-essentials/
Netzel, D. M, & Eber, L. (2003). Shifting from reactive to proactive discipline in an urban
school district. Journal of Positive Behavior Interactions, 5(2), 71–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007030050020201
Newman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

187

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Nzarirwehi, J., & Atuhumuze, F. (2019). In-service teacher training and professional
development of primary school teachers in Uganda. IAFOR Journal of
Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.7.1.02
Parker, A. K., Parsons, S. A., Groth, L. A., & Brown, E. L. (2016). Pathways to partnership: adevelopmental framework for building PDS relationships. School-University
Partnerships, 9(3), 34–48.
Parsons, B., & Renyi, J. (1999). Breathing the professional development school spirit into allschools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3/4), 263–276. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1493137
Polly, D., Reinke, L. T., & Putnam, S. M. (2019). Examining school-university partnership:
synthesizing the work of Goodlad, AACTE, and NAPDS. School-University
Partnerships, 12(3), 24–40.
Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning. Transforming professional
development for student success. Washington, DC: The National Foundation for the
Improvement of Education.
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ronen, I. (2018). The impact of organizational and personnel changes on a college-school
partnership vision. Teacher Development, 22(5), 668–684.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2018.1473288
Schack, G. D. (2011). Multiple roles and relationships of professional development school
liaisons: the struggle for collegiality within hierarchical settings. Peabody Journal of
Education, 74(3/4), 306–309. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1493142
Sugai, G, & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive
behavioral supports: integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17,
223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903235375
Teitel, L. (2004). Two decades of professional development school development in the
United States. What have we learned? Where do we go from here? Journal of Inservice Education, 30(3), 401–416. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13674580400200335
Tracz, S. M., Beare, P., & Torgerson, C. (2018). A longitudinal case study of a schooluniversity partnership for training teachers. The Journal of School Administration
Research and Development, 3(1), 42–56.
Walsh, M. E., & Backe, S. (2013). School–university partnerships: reflections andopportunities, Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), 594–607,
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.835158
Corresponding author: Robert Sumowski
Contact email: Robert.sumowski@gcsu.edu

188

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 2 – Winter 2019

Acronyms
AACTE: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
COE: College of Education
CCRPI: College and Career Readiness Performance Index
DOE or GaDOE: Georgia Department of Education
GCSU: Georgia College & State University
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
NAPDS: National Association for Professional Development Schools
ODR: Office Disciplinary Referral
PBIS: Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
PDS: Professional Development School
SW-PBIS: School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
STEAM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics

189