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.
 iii 

Contents 

LIST OF EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................. v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................1

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Key Findings............................................................................................................................................................... 1

III. Challenges and Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION APPROACH............................................ I–1

The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program..................................................................................... I–1

Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation...................................................................... I–1

Benchmarks for Progress................................................................................................................................... I–3

Evaluation Data Sources.................................................................................................................................... I–3

Quantitative Data................................................................................................................................................ I–5

Qualitative Data .................................................................................................................................................. I–6

Analytic Methods ................................................................................................................................................ I–6

Analytic Issues..................................................................................................................................................... I–7

Contents of This Evaluation Report................................................................................................................ I–8

CHAPTER II PARTNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................II–1

Highlights ............................................................................................................................................................II–1

Key Partnership Features .................................................................................................................................II–1

Scope....................................................................................................................................................................II–1

Number and Type of Partners.........................................................................................................................II–1

The Title II Investment and the Need for Supplementary Resources......................................................II–2

Leadership Experience and Focus of Partnership Initiatives .....................................................................II–7

CHAPTER III PARTNER RELATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES ................... III–1

Highlights .......................................................................................................................................................... III–1

Evaluation Questions...................................................................................................................................... III–2

Collaboration: Developing a Common Vision............................................................................................ III–2

A Spectrum of Collaboration......................................................................................................................... III–3

The Importance of Leadership Support and Involvement in Partnerships ........................................... III–7

Organizational Changes: Case Study Highlights.......................................................................................III–10

CHAPTER IV TEACHER-PREPARATION REFORM EFFORTS.............................................IV–1

Highlights .......................................................................................................................................................... IV–1

Evaluation Questions...................................................................................................................................... IV–1

Teacher-Preparation Program Options in Partnership IHEs................................................................... IV–2

Changes in Course Offerings......................................................................................................................... IV–2

Changes in Field Experience Requirements................................................................................................ IV–5

Changes in Required Clinical Experience .................................................................................................... IV–5

Developing Technology Skills: Faculty and Teachers................................................................................ IV–7

Faculty Collaboration and Program Reforms ........................................................................................... IV–10

Teacher-Preparation Quality: Accountability Measures .......................................................................... IV–10

Initiatives in Teacher-Preparation Reform: Case Study Highlights ....................................................... IV–14

CHAPTER V PARTNER SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS ............................................................... V–1

Highlights ............................................................................................................................................................V–1

Evaluation Questions........................................................................................................................................V–1

Number of Districts and Characteristics of School Partners in Partnerships..........................................V–2
 iv 

Contents 

(Continued) 

School-Level and District-Level Staff Involvement in Partnership Activities.........................................V–2

Schools and Districts as Equal Partners.........................................................................................................V–7

Partnership Contribution to Recruitment and Retention of New Teachers............................................V–7

Partnership-Provided In-Service Professional Development for Teachers ...........................................V–11

Core Features of Professional Development ..............................................................................................V–12

Structural Features of Professional Development......................................................................................V–12

Partnership Approaches to Delivering Professional Development.........................................................V–17

Partnerships and NCLB Initiatives ...............................................................................................................V–19

School and District Involvement: Case Study Highlights .........................................................................V–19

CHAPTER VI INSTITUTIONALIZATION .................................................................................VI–1

Highlights .......................................................................................................................................................... VI–1

Evaluation Questions...................................................................................................................................... VI–1

Activities Most Likely to Continue ............................................................................................................... VI–1

Features Related to Institutionalization........................................................................................................ VI–4

Likelihood and Importance of Institutionalization: Case Study Highlights ........................................... VI–6

CHAPTER VII CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED.................................................... VII–1

Highlights .........................................................................................................................................................VII–1

Challenges Anticipated and Faced ...............................................................................................................VII–1

Evaluation and Attributing Outcomes to Partnerships............................................................................VII–5

Lessons Learned..............................................................................................................................................VII–5

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................R–1

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

APPENDIX B: IHE AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARTNERS IN THE 1999 TITLE II 

COHORT ..........................................................................................................................................B–1

APPENDIX C: PARTNERSHIP MAIN GOALS, STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING 

ACCOUNTABILITY, PLANNED USE OF INCENTIVES, AND CONTENT AREA 

EMPHASES.......................................................................................................................................C–1

APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESPONSE BY PARTNERSHIP......................................................... D–1
 v 

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1 Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level: Median, Average 

and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up ...................................................................................................... 2

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

Exhibit 3 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support of New Teachers at 

Follow-Up................................................................................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 4 Ratings of Teacher-Education Students’ Preparedness for Meeting School Challenges, as 

Reported by Faculty and District Respondents, Baseline and Follow-Up....................................... 5

Exhibit 5 Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Title II Partnership Grants Program...................... I–2

Exhibit 6 Partnership Evaluation Topics, Legislative Goals, and Related Features .................................... I–4

Exhibit 7 Evaluation Data by Source .................................................................................................................. I–5

Exhibit 8 Response Rates, Withdrawal Rates, and the Number of Respondents by Survey Type............ I–7

Exhibit 9 Number of Partners per Partnership.................................................................................................II–3

Exhibit 10 Annual Budget by Partnership, by Lead IHE..................................................................................II–5

Exhibit 11 Approximate Number of Professional Development Beneficiaries as Reported by 

Project Directors ..................................................................................................................................II–6

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

Exhibit 13 Funding Sources Providing Additional Funds and Percentage of Each Allocated to TeacherPreparation Reform, Preservice Clinical Experiences, and Professional Development Since 

1999–2000, as Reported by Faculty Leaders....................................................................................II–7

Exhibit 14 Average Authenticity Rating by Partnership..................................................................................III–4

Exhibit 15 Average Partnership Authenticity Rating by Partner....................................................................III–4

Exhibit 16 Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities, as Reported by Education 

and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up ................................................................................III–5

Exhibit 17 Average Degree of Faculty Collaboration with Teachers: Education Compared with 

Arts and Sciences, at Follow-Up......................................................................................................III–6

Exhibit 18 Faculty Involvement in “Planning” Versus “Doing” Types of Collaboration: Education 

and Arts and Sciences Faculty Combined, at Follow-Up ............................................................III–8
 vi 

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

Exhibit 20 Percentage of All Faculty Reporting Evidence of Support from the President and Dean ....III–8

Exhibit 21 Ratings of the Collegiality Between Faculty Across Disciplines, as Reported by 

Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up.............................................................III–9

Exhibit 22 Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Organizational Changes and 

Relationships .....................................................................................................................................III–11

Exhibit 23 Faculty Ratings of Extent of Partnership Support of Alternate Route Programs, 

2002–03................................................................................................................................................ IV–3

Exhibit 24 Content Changed in New and Revised Teacher-Preparation Courses, as Reported by 

Faculty, 2002–03................................................................................................................................. IV–4

Exhibit 25 Course Changes by Partnership Focus, as Reported by Faculty, 2002–03 ............................... IV–4

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 31 Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities Between Faculty in Arts 

and Sciences and Education, 2002–03..........................................................................................IV–11

Exhibit 32 Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 2002–03 .............IV–13

Exhibit 33 Changes in Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 

2002–03..............................................................................................................................................IV–13

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

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
 vii 

Exhibits 

(Continued) 

Exhibit 36 School Characteristics for Partnership and Non-partnership Schools, 1999–2000 ..................V–3

Exhibit 37 Average Mathematics and Reading Scores for Partner Schools by Partnership ........................V–3

Exhibit 38 Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level: Median, 

Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up..................................................................................V–4

Exhibit 39 Rated Level of Involvement at the School, District and Community Levels, Baseline and 

Follow-Up..............................................................................................................................................V–5

Exhibit 40 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting District and School-Level Staff 

Involvement in the Partnership, Baseline and Follow-Up ............................................................V–5

Exhibit 41 Percentage of District Representatives Reporting Teacher Participation in Collaborative 

Activities with Partner Faculty at Baseline and Follow-Up...........................................................V–6

Exhibit 42 Extent of Collaboration in Partnerships by Teachers and District Staff by Scope of 

Partnerships, Baseline and Follow-Up..............................................................................................V–8

Exhibit 43 Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative Partnership Activities Between Schools and 

Partner IHEs, as Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships .................................V–8

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

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

Exhibit 46 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support of New Teachers at 

Follow-Up............................................................................................................................................V–11

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

Exhibit 48 Topics Covered in Professional Development Activities, 2002–03...........................................V–14

Exhibit 49 Frequency of Partnership Professional Development Activities Between Schools and 

Partner IHEs, as Reported by Principals........................................................................................V–15

Exhibit 50 Follow-Up to Professional Development Activities as Reported by District and Faculty 

Respondents, 2002–03.......................................................................................................................V–16

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

Exhibit 52 Professional Development Facilitators, as Reported by District and Faculty, 2002–03.........V–17
 viii 

Exhibits 

(Continued) 

Exhibit 53 Models of Professional Development.............................................................................................V–18

Exhibit 54 Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities, as Reported by District 

and Faculty ..........................................................................................................................................V–20

Exhibit 55 Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities by Partnership, as 

Reported by District and Faculty.....................................................................................................V–21

Exhibit 56 Status of Site-Specific District-Focused Partnership Activities ..................................................V–22

Exhibit 57 Average Likelihood of Sustaining Partnership Reform Efforts, as Reported by District 

and Faculty Respondents .................................................................................................................. VI–2

Exhibit 58 Average Importance of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms, as Reported by 

District and Faculty Respondents.................................................................................................... VI–3

Exhibit 59 Average Likelihood of Institutionalization by Main Goals, Accountability Strategies, and 

Content Area Focus, as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents.................................. VI–5

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

Exhibit 61 Status of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms........................................................... VI–7

Exhibit 62 Percentage of Faculty Reporting Challenges to Improving Preservice Teacher Education 

at the Start of the Partnership Grant..............................................................................................VII–2

Exhibit 63 Average Challenge Ratings as Reported by Faculty Toward the End of the Partnership 

Grant ...................................................................................................................................................VII–3
 1 

Executive Summary 

I. INTRODUCTION

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, schoollevel 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

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 schoollevel 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 teachereducation students. 
 2 

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 highquality 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. 
 3 

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 

Better 

(improved) 

recruitment

(percent) 

Higher 

qualifications

(percent) 

Faster 

ability to fill 

vacancies 

(percent) 

Enhanced 

screening 

process 

(percent) 

Reduced 

vacancies 

(percent) 

Reduced 

attrition 

(percent)

Baseline overall 85 68 62 49 37 37 

Follow-up overall 64 63 53 37 43 47 

High-poverty schools baseline 58 49 45 36 36 25 

High-poverty schools follow-up 31 35 24 15 25 27 

High-needs subjects baseline 53 37 41 35 31 22 

High-needs subjects follow-up 24 28 20 12 19 20 

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. 

Exhibit 3 

Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support of New Teachers 

at Follow-Up 

Percentage of respondents 

indicating that activity was 

Induction activity provided by the partnership 

Provided in 

2000–01 

Provided 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 teachers to participate in any support 

or induction activity 

76 66 

Seminars with new teachers and college or university faculty 76 61 

Provision of monetary support for attendance at professional conferences 68 43 

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 highquality 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 
 4 

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 teacherpreparation 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. 
 5 

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 education 

students to: Baseline Follow-up

Average

Change Baseline Follow-up

Average

Change

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

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

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

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

Develop depth in subject-matter 

knowledge 

3.9 4.1 0.2 3.9 4.0 0.1 

Construct curricula 3.9 3.9 0.0 3.7 3.6 -0.1 

Conduct effective classroom management 3.8 3.8 0.0 4.1 3.9 -0.2 

Work in a school with structural reform 

initiatives 

3.6 3.8 0.2 3.7 3.7 0.0 

Communicate with parents 3.6 3.8 0.2 3.7 3.5 -0.2 

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

Provide effective reading instruction — 4.2 — — 4.0 — 

Prepare students for state assessments — 4.2 — — 3.9 — 

Promote technology literacy in the 

classroom 

— 4.0 — — 4.0 — 

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

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. 
 6 

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 partnershipsponsored 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 highneed 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. 
 I–1 

Chapter I 

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

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 

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. 
 I–2 

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 

3

Teacher Education Unit 

Programs 

Arts and Sciences Unit 

School Districts 

Other Partners 

Partnership 

Involves 

Education and 

Other Partners 

1, 2 

What must 

teachers know? 

What must 

teachers be able 

to do? 

How do 

prospective 

teachers learn? 

Partnership 

Establishes Vision 

Influencing Reforms

Higher Teacher*

Quality and 

Improved Student 

Achievement 

Partnership 

Translates Vision 

Into Reform Models 

and Strategies 

Teacher Preparation 

Courses 

Clinical Experience 

Teacher Recruitment

New Teacher 

Supports 

In-service Programs 

Institutionalization of Partnership and Reform Activities

Resources 

Prior History 

Education Policy Context 4 

1, 2
 I–3 

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? 

2. 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? 

3. 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? 

4. 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

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

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). 

 

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. 
 I–4 

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 teacher-preparation programs over the grant period 

Strong content preparation, 

extensive clinical experience, 

and integration of technology 

• Number and types of courses required 

• Program models 

• Continuous program quality review 

• 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 teachers 

Support for in-service teachers 

Support for school leaders 

• Expanded interaction between school district personnel and faculty to support 

professional development 

• Support for new teachers through mentoring and other supports 

• Initiatives related to parental involvement 

• 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 accountability for 

preparing new teachers • Development and expansion of leadership roles 

• 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 sustained 

improvement in the quality of 

current and future teaching 

forces 

• Legitimizing the partnership and its activities to people and organizations that 

are in positions to commit resources to support it 

• Building constituencies of advocates who are 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. 
 I–5 

Exhibit 7 

Evaluation Data by Source 

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

Project director 9 9a

Faculty leaders 9 9

Faculty involved 9 9

District staff 9 9

Principal 9

Case study site visit data 

Case study visits 9 9 9 9

Extant data 

Institutional 

Accountability Reports 

(pass rates) 

9 9

Annual Performance 

Reportsb (program 

objectives) 

9

PPSS database (student 

achievement mathematics 

and reading scores) 

9 9

Common Core of Data, 

2001 (student and school 

demographics) 

9

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 

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 
 I–6 

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 from this evaluation derive from five 

sources: (1) analyses of proposals and grant documentation, (2) preliminary and in-depth case studies, (3) followup 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 crossdiscipline reform, and (3) quality features of partnershipsponsored professional development. 

ANALYTIC METHODS

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). 
 I–7 

Exhibit 8 

Response Rates, Withdrawal Rates, and the Number of Respondents by Survey Type 

Survey 

Average 

response rate 

(percent) 

Number of 

partnerships 

with 0 percent 

response rate a

Number of 

partnerships with 

100 percent 

response rate 

Withdrawal 

rate (percent) 

Number of 

respondents b

Project director 96 1/1 24 0 24/25 

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

Faculty overall c 63 0/2 d 4 — 180/287 

Education leaders 65 0/3 10 — 46/71 

Education involved 63 1/5 8 — 45/72 

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

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

District 47 1/1 0 8 118/253 

Principal survey (one-time 

administration) 

71 0/1 e 0 10 509/720 f

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

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

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 

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 
 I–8 

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

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. 
 II–1 

Chapter II 

Partnership Characteristics 

HIGHLIGHTS

♦ 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

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 teacherpreparation reform. More detail on this characteristic 

is provided in Chapter III. 

SCOPE

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

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 

Tennessee Urban IMPACT Project. Tennessee’s Urban 

IMPACT links the University of Tennessee at Knoxville 

(UTK), Knox County schools, the University of Tennessee 

at Chattanooga (UTC), and Hamilton County schools in a 

program that focuses on preparing preservice and novice 

teachers to succeed in schools in high-poverty areas and, 

thereby, improve teacher retention at these schools. For 

UTK’s five-year program, Urban IMPACT has led to the 

development of four entirely new courses plus three 

innovative initiatives—community mapping, four-week 

placements in human services agencies, and prison visits, in 

addition to the university’s two full-time semester-long 

preservice internships. With a four-year program, UTC 

recommends, but does not require, participation in one such 

placement. 

Site visit interviews indicate program implementation moved 

further and faster in Knoxville, where the co-principal 

investigator was well established and well known, and had 

strong working relationships with a wide variety of 

stakeholders at the local, district and state levels. The 

planned implementation unfolded more slowly in

Chattanooga because the co-principal investigator was 

returning to the area after many years away and did not have 

the benefit of preexisting relationships within the university, 

with local businesses, or within the K–12 education 

community. 
 II–2 

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 

 

2 The evaluation did not collect any information from “other” partners 

in surveys but did explore their role in interviews conducted during site 

visits. 

(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 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 

Project CoMeT. Our Lady of the Lake University Collaboration Mentoring and Technology Program is a partnership 

among a small, private Hispanic-serving liberal arts college, 

two local community colleges, five school districts, and a 

private school. The partnership has made teacher-preparation 

reform one of its foci; the partner postsecondary institutions’ 

cooperation around this issue is the distinguishing attribute 

of the partnership. To improve the content knowledge of 

future teachers, the three postsecondary institutions have all 

used Title II funds to align their undergraduate liberal arts 

content courses with state standards for students in grades 

K–12. This coordination was specifically designed to ensure 

continuity in training for preservice teachers who start their 

training at the community college and transfer to a four-year 

school. However, notwithstanding this cooperation, the 

partnership’s greatest emphases by far have been on providing professional development for in-service teachers and 

in recruiting new people into teaching. The most central 

features of the partnership are the various master’s programs 

that the IHE lead has created for teachers in the partnership 

districts or for career-changers in the community who wish 

to shift into teaching. 
 II–3 

Exhibit 9 

Number of Partners per Partnership 

Required partners 

Other partnership participants 

(optional partners) 

 Number of Number of 

Partnership IHEsa LEAs 

Total 

number of 

required 

partners 

reported 

K–6 

Schools 

Community 

colleges 

Other 

partners

Arizona State University/Arizona Teacher 

Excellence Coalition (AzTEC) 

3 8 11 112 3 1 

Ball State University/Improving Teacher 

Quality and Schools Through Collaborative 

Partnerships 

1 6 7 11 0 5 

Boston College/The Massachusetts Coalition 

for Teacher Quality and Student 

Achievement 

7 3 10 9 0 18 

Graceland University/Collaboration Leading 

to Improved Master and Bachelors Studies 

(Project CLIMBS) 

1 1 2 14 1 1 

Illinois State University/Illinois Professional 

Learners Partnership 

5 5 10 76 7 13b

Jackson State University/Teacher Quality 

Enhancement Program 

1 2 3 46 1 2 

Johns Hopkins University/Project SITE 

SUPPORT 

3 2 5 105 0 1 

Kansas State University/Improving Teacher 

Quality Through KSU PDS Partnership 

1 3 4 12 0 N/Ac

Kean University/The New Jersey Statewide 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Consortium 

3 10 13 13 0 5 

Mississippi State University/ACHIEVE 

Mississippi Partnership 

2 20 22 40 3 3c

North Carolina Central University/North 

Carolina Central University Teacher 

Education Partnership 

1 6 7 N/Ad 2 2 

Our Lady of the Lake 

University/Collaboration Mentoring and 

Technology Program (CoMeT) 

1 5 6 6 2 4 

Saginaw Valley State University/Sponsored 

and Academic Programs Support 

1 26 27 54 0 17 

South Carolina State University/Community 

Higher Education Council and LEA 

Partnership 

3 6 9 8 1 0 

Southwest Missouri State University/Ozarks 

Partnership Teacher Enhancement 

Initiatives (OPTEI) 

1 6 7 9 0 0 

Texas A&M University and University 

Foundation/Partnerships for Texas Public 

Schools 

9 29 38 43 0 4 

University of Alaska-Anchorage/Alaska 

Partnership for Teacher Enhancement 

1 3 4 3 0 3 

University of Miami (Fla.)/School University 

Community Coalition for Excellence in 

Education (Project SUCCEED) 

1 1 2 6 0 1 

(exhibit continued on next page) 
 II–4 

Exhibit 9

Number of Partners per Partnership (Continued) 

Required partners 

Other partnership participants 

(optional partners) 

 Number of Number of 

Partnership IHEsa LEAs 

Total 

number of 

required 

partners 

reported 

K–6 

Schools 

Community 

colleges 

Other 

partners

University of South Carolina/Partners for 

the Enhancement of Clinical Experiences 

4 2 6 5 0 0 

University of Southern Colorado/Southern 

Colorado Teacher Education Alliance 

1 17 18 60 4 3 

University of Tennessee at 

Chattanooga/Knoxville/Urban IMPACT 

2 1 3 9 0 4 

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/The 

Milwaukee Partnership Academy to Improve 

the Quality of Teaching 

1 1 2 131 0 9 

Washington State University/ Collaboration 

for Teacher Education Accountable to 

Children with High-needs (Co-TEACH) 

1 6 7 9 4 3 

Western Kentucky University/Improving 

Teacher Quality Through Partnerships that 

Connect Teacher Performance to Student 

Learning 

11 7 18 30 0 9 

Youngstown State University/Tri-County 

Partnership 

1 3 4 10 0 22 

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 http://www.ed.gov/programs/heatap-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 
 II–5 

Exhibit 10 

Annual Budget by Partnership, by Lead IHE 

Annual budget (fiscal year) 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (est.) 

Total 

budget 

(app.) 

Partnership 

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

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

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 

Tenn./Chatt./Knoxville 

$ 648,759 $ 724,336 $ 719,455 $ 603,258 $ 593,315 $ 3,289,123

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

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

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

University of Alaska–

Anchorage 

$ 1,084,457 $ 1,231,183 $ 1,306,209 $ 1,271,514 $ 1,149,405 $ 6,042,768

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 

University 

$ 1,335,632 $ 1,393,827 $ 1,141,298 $ 955,927 $ 795,957 $ 5,622,641

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

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

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

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

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

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 

University Foundation 

$ 2,550,605 $ 2,779,842 $ 2,489,197 $ 2,064,215 $ 1,803,204 $ 11,687,063

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. 
 II–6 

Exhibit 11 

Approximate Number of Professional Development Beneficiaries as Reported by 

Project Directors 

Partnership 

Total Number of Professional Development 

Beneficiaries 

The Alaska Partnership for Teacher Enhancement, 

University of Alaska-Anchorage 

 203 summer institute participants 

 255 mentoring class participants 

Community Higher Education Council and Local 

Education Agency Partnership, South Carolina State 

University 

1,500-2,000 workshop participantsa

 125 participants in M.Ed. program 

 40 participants in M.A.T. program 

North Carolina Central University Teacher Education 

Partnership 

 300 participants in mentor training program 

Project SUCCEED, University of Miami 2,500 (500 per summer) institute participants 

Project SITE SUPPORT, Johns Hopkins University 210 in mentor training; unsure how many in 

technology training. 

Improving Teacher Quality Through Partnerships that 

Connect Teacher Performance to Student Learning, 

Western Kentucky University 

 165 arts and sciences faculty 

 325 education faculty 

 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 teacherpreparation 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. 
 II–7 

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 

11%

27%

16%

17%

29%

PT3 (22)

NSF (13)

Other Foundation Support (14)

State Grants (25)

Other (9)

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. 

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 

Percentage allocated to 

Grant Source 

Teacher prep 

reform 

Preservice 

clinical 

experience 

Professional 

development 

Percent 

Total 

Total funding 

by grant 

source 

(in dollars) 

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 foundation support 33 28 39 100 $12,208,944 

Total spending in each 

category across all grant 

sources (in dollars): 

$31,385,590.98 $22,599,184.17 $38,974,968.85 $92,959,744 

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

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 
 II–8 

Project SUCCEED. (University of Miami, Fla., School 

University Community Coalition for Excellence in 

Education) Led by the Teaching and Learning (TAL) 

department in a private research university, Project 

SUCCEED has supported eight PDS schools (five were 

newly supported by the grant) in Miami Dade County 

School District (Fla.). The partnership concentrated its 

initiatives in creating a new approach to student-teacher 

supervision through the training of school-based clinical 

teachers, establishing professional development institutes in 

core subject areas and in areas of interest to faculty in the 

College of Arts and Sciences, developing a unique 

induction-support program for new teachers in the school 

district, and lending education faculty as professors-inresidence to PDS partners. A science museum partner was 

instrumental in creating a technology literacy initiative. 

Despite the involvement of dean-level administrators from 

education and arts and sciences, few new courses or 

summer professional development institutes involved 

faculty from both departments. With support from the dean 

of the school of education and the president of the 

university, and during a time of upheaval within the school 

district, the partnership managed to obtain sustainability 

commitments for some of the professional development 

and for the professors-in-residence program. 

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. 
 II–9 

NCATE. The National Council for 

Accreditation of Teacher Education is a 

voluntary accrediting body for the 

specialized program of teacher education. As a specialized accrediting body, 

NCATE must be invited on campus to 

review a program. About half of the 

teacher-education programs in 

accredited U.S. IHEs are accredited by 

NCATE. 

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 teacherpreparation 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. 

 III–1 

Chapter III 

Partner Relations and 

Organizational Changes 

HIGHLIGHTS

♦ 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 
 III–2 

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

♦ 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

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—authenticity3—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

 

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. 

Professional development school, or PDS, is a term that 

refers to a specific type of collaboration between a teacherpreparation program and a local school. The Holmes 

Partnership (a network of research universities with teacherpreparation programs) first touted the professional 

development school for its resemblance to the teaching 

hospital. In a professional development school approach, 

faculty from the education program are “in residence” at the 

school to provide close clinical support to both supervising 

teachers and student teachers. 
 III–3 

Authenticity describes the extent to 

which partnerships are systems of 

formalized cooperation with effective 

working relationships and mutually 

agreed-upon strategies that involve a 

consensus of objectives and shared 

responsibilities, resources, risks, and 

benefits. 

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 crossdiscipline 

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

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. 
 III–4 

Exhibit 14 

Average Authenticity Rating by Partnership 

Partnership Average authenticity score N 

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. 

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. 
 III–5 

Project SITE SUPPORT. This partnership at Johns 

Hopkins University had the broad goal of training new 

teachers who could meet the content requirements for 

certification in the state of Maryland, and arts and sciences 

faculty were integrally involved. The Title II requirement 

of collaboration between education and arts and sciences 

faculty led to some remarkable cultural changes. At Johns 

Hopkins University (JHU)—the leading recipient of federal 

science research dollars in the United States5—science 

faculty members started to get involved in teaching 

preservice teachers. The head of the JHU mathematics 

department is now teaching a math methods course to the 

preservice career-changers in the JHU program within the 

partnership. Similarly, one of the campus’s Nobel laureates 

in physics is now spending time co-teaching a science 

course for preservice teachers. The dean attributed this 

metamorphosis to the successful identification of research 

faculty who had an interest in urban K–12 education. In 

his opinion, this was the turning point in the project. 

Exhibit 16 

Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities, as Reported by Education and 

Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up 

Degree of participation 

Education faculty 

Arts and sciences 

faculty 

Activity Average Average 

Working on project goals in committee(s) 2.1 2.0 

Meeting to discuss teacher-education students 2.0 2.0 

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 on-site 1.2 1.0 

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

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

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). 

 

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.

Milwaukee Partnership Academy to Improve the 

Quality of Teaching. Project leaders at the University of 

Wisconsin-Milwaukee polled the undergraduates enrolled in 

arts and sciences courses and discovered that 60 percent of 

the students were in the education program. Recognizing 

that education students have needs that differ from those of 

other arts and sciences students, the arts and sciences faculty 

agreed to create special sections within arts and sciences 

courses for the education majors. Design teams of arts and 

sciences faculty worked with education faculty to create the 

syllabi for the sections, looking at the national learning 

standards put forth by individual disciplines, the state of 

Wisconsin, and the City of Milwaukee. The arts and sciences 

college even created specialty courses such as “Teaching 

Chemistry” for preservice teachers.
 III–6 

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and 

Student Achievement. In response to the collaboration 

requirements of both Title II and NCATE accreditation, 

Boston College used Title II funds to encourage arts and 

sciences faculty to revise their courses with preservice 

teachers in mind and also encouraged education faculty to 

work more closely with in-service teachers within the partner 

school districts. English Department faculty at Boston 

College began to build teaching lessons into their regular 

English literature classes. “Reading and Teaching 

Shakespeare” became a new course offering within the arts 

and sciences program. The project director commented in an 

interview that such revisions to content courses were 

considered “a dramatic cultural shift in a highly selective 

liberal arts college like Boston College. He added that 

introducing arts and sciences faculty to state teaching 

standards was also a ground-breaking effort. 

Exhibit 17 

Average Degree of Faculty Collaboration with Teachers: 

Education Compared with Arts and Sciences, at Follow-Up 

Degree of collaboration 

Activity 

Education 

faculty 

Arts and sciences 

faculty 

Leading a professional development session or effort 2.2 1.4 

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

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

Assessing the instructional practices of teacher-education students in 

student teaching experiences 

2.0 0.9 

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

Supporting new teachers who graduated from the teacher-education 

program 

1.7 0.8 

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

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 teachereducation 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. 
 III–7 

“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 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 teacherpreparation 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 

 

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. 
 III–8 

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. 

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. 

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 education in forums sponsored by 

associations and foundations (e.g., AASCU, NAICU) 

69 79 

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

education 

65 73 

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

Evidence of support from dean 

Supports involvement of full-time, tenure-track faculty in service to schools and 

collaboration with colleagues 

86 89 

Addresses issues of teacher preparation as a priority in speeches, strategic activities of the 

unit, etc. 

81 86 

Provides financial support for professional development activities related to partnership 

grant project activities 

73 79 

(exhibit continued on next page) 
 III–9 

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 project in speeches, newsletters or 

other communications 

69 73 

Attends partnership grant project governing board meetings 63 70 

Provides release time for conducting research focused on K–12 school improvement or 

for participating in project activities 

61 65 

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

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. 

Exhibit 21 

Ratings of the Collegiality Between Faculty Across Disciplines, as Reported by Education 

and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up 

 Faculty involved Faculty leaders 

Rated quality of: Average N Average N 

General cross-discipline relationships 3.8 76 4.0 53 

Cross-discipline relationships among partners 4.5 76 4.8 52 

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. 

Community Higher Education Council and Local Education Agency Partnership. South Carolina State 

University (SCSU), the lead institution in this partnership, merged its schools of Arts and Sciences and 

Education, forming a new College of Arts and Sciences and Education under one dean. The merger came about 

substantially because of the partnership grant, which had encouraged faculty from the two colleges to see their 

interconnectedness. The new dean of the college is the former superintendent of schools for the South Carolina 

Department of Education. All students in the college spend the first two years of their schooling in an arts and 

sciences track, and those students who want to become teachers take the second two years in a teachereducation track. The leader of this partnership pointed out that this merger could take place in part because 

SCSU was traditionally a teachers’ college and that, even after the school had evolved into a university, it still 

had a strong sense of its mission to prepare teachers.

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. In one partner IHE, 

Northeastern University, every faculty member within the School of Education also had an appointment in the 

School of Arts and Sciences. Efforts to revise education courses on this campus by definition had to involve 

both arts and science and education faculty. 
 III–10 

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 teachereducation 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

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. 
 III–11 

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 between JSUa

and Hinds Community College 

A relationship was created, an accomplishment made more relevant by the 

history of racial politics in Mississippi (JSU is an HBCU;b Hinds is not.). 

CoMeT, Our Lady of the Lake University 

Establish relationships between 

districts and IHEs 

Although positive relationships were established, turnover in project 

personnel may jeopardize these relationships; also, without funds, partners 

are not likely to continue to meet regularly. 

Urban IMPACT, University of Tennessee Chattanooga/Knoxville 

Establish relationship with the 

Tennessee Academy for School 

Leaders (TASL) 

TASL promoted Urban IMPACT’s workshops; Urban IMPACT now 

provides all TASL training. 

Assess preservice teachers’ level of 

“urban awareness” 

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) project director 

developed and implemented an Urban Awareness Survey. Results suggested 

that the program may increase preservice teachers’ awareness. 

Partner with local agencies to 

improve teachers’ preservice 

experience 

Preservice teachers visited prisons and participated in time-limited volunteer 

activities at other social service agencies. 

AzTEC, Arizona State University 

Establish partnerships between 

universities and districts 

Each university created or enhanced a partnership with local district(s).

c

Continue partnership between 

Northern Arizona University 

(NAU) and local districts 

The partnership with Flagstaff district continued; district teachers taught 

courses at NAU. However, the proposed outreach from NAU to Ganado 

School District did not occur owing to politics external to the project. 

Create relationships between 

universities and community 

colleges 

University of Arizona (UA) and Pima Community College collaborated on a 

program for 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 and arts and 

sciences committee to improve 

teaching 

Two committees formed, one for teaching and learning for undergraduates 

and the other for the summer professional development institutes. 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 between UMd

and Museum of Science 

Museum hosted summer institutes and developed a positive relationship with 

both education and arts and sciences faculties. 

Develop PDSs at five new schools Relationships were established. Some ideas for 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.

 IV–1 

Chapter IV 

Teacher-Preparation Reform 

Efforts 

HIGHLIGHTS

♦ 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

♦ 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? 
 IV–2 

TEACHER-PREPARATION PROGRAM OPTIONS IN 

PARTNERSHIP IHES

To set the stage for a discussion of reform in teacherpreparation 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 teacherpreparation 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

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. 
 IV–3 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville—UTK created a new 

graduate-level certificate program to prepare in-service 

teachers for the demands of urban schools and classrooms. 

Four new courses were created through collaboration 

between education and arts and sciences faculty: Trends and 

Issues in Urban Education, Improving Teaching and 

Learning in Urban Schools, Differentiating Instruction for 

Diverse Student Needs, and Action Research and Practical 

Inquiry. Community-based activities were also required of 

the students in this certificate program: four-week placements in human services agencies, community mapping, and 

prison visits. 

Exhibit 23 

Faculty Ratings of Extent of Partnership Support of Alternate Route Programs, 2002–03 

Faculty reporting support 

Activity 

Average 

rating N 

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

Supporting district or state alternate route programs with content-area courses or 

supervision of alternate route participants 

2.8 136 

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). 
 IV–4 

Exhibit 24 

Content Changed in New and Revised Teacher-Preparation Courses, 

as Reported by Faculty, 2002–03 

Newly added courses Revised courses 

Nature of the content changed Percent N Percent N 

Alignment with state content standards 53 51 73 80 

Focus on content knowledge of teacher-preparation 

students 

51 49 68 73 

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

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. Seventythree 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. 

Exhibit 25 

Course Changes by Partnership Focus, as Reported by Faculty, 2002–03 

Percentage of faculty reporting 

From partnerships with a 

main focus on standards 

(percent) 

From partnerships 

without a main focus on 

standards 

(percent) 

Type of course: 

New courses 32 69 

Revised courses 31 69 

Nature of course change: 

Alignment with state content standards 14 56 

Integration of technology 10 55 

Focus on content knowledge of teacher-preparation 

students 

13 54 

Recognition of diverse learning needs of K–12 

students 

10 57 

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. 
 IV–5 

Alignment of courses with external, non-state mandated education standards. The desire to meet external standards 

for teacher-education programs seems to have motivated several partnerships in making course revisions. Perhaps the most 

salient external motivator was the NCATE accreditation process, particularly in light of approaching or pending NCATE 

accreditation visits. The leader of the Illinois Professional Learners Partnership noted that all five IHE partners went 

through NCATE accreditation over the course of the grant and getting partners to pass the NCATE review process was a 

paramount goal. Similarly, the leader of the Community Higher Education Council and Local Education Agency 

Partnership said that her team’s decision to revise some courses was driven by NCATE accreditation standards. And the 

leader of the Alaska Partnership for Teacher Enhancement stated emphatically that this prospect was the driving force 

behind revisions. 

In three instances, a desire to assist preservice teachers in eventually meeting the standards for certification from the 

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards also seems to have motivated some course revisions. The Community 

Higher Education Council and Local Education Agency Partnership modified courses in its MAT programs so as to align 

with national board standards. Within the Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical Experiences, partner IHE Furman 

University switched from a four-year to a five-year teacher education model. The fifth year is an induction year, during 

which students are paid by the district. In addition to placing more teachers into classrooms where they were needed, the 

induction year, with concomitant opportunities for prolonged observations of students and for prolonged student 

reflection on practice, has allowed Furman to incorporate national board standards into their preservice curriculum. Within 

the Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement, some partners deliberately began to 

incorporate references to national board certification in preservice methods courses. The goal was to help preservice 

teachers begin to gather data that they will be able to use for their eventual applications for national board certification. 

CHANGES IN FIELD EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS

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

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. 
 IV–6 

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 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. 

Exhibit 27 

Early Field Experience Opportunities, as Reported by Faculty Leaders in Partnerships 

With and Without a PDS Model: 1999–2000 and 2002–03 

Percentage of faculty from 

partnerships with PDS model 

reporting field experience is offered 

Percentage of faculty from 

partnerships without PDS model 

reporting field experience is offered 

Field experience 1999–2000 2002–03 1999–2000 2002–03 

Observation 74 80 64 71 

Tutoring students 66 69 71 79 

Focused classroom observation 66 80 57 71 

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. 
 IV–7 

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 teacherpreparation 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-inresidence 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

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. 
 IV–8 

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 experience 

Percentage of faculty from 

partnerships with PDS model 

reporting types of required clinical 

experience 

(n = 35) 

Percentage of faculty from 

partnerships without PDS 

model reporting types of 

required clinical experience 

(n =11) 

Single school—elementary 54 36 

Single school—middle 46 54 

Single school—secondary (high) 43 73 

Multiple schools—elementary 23 55 

Multiple schools—middle 14 36 

Multiple schools—secondary (high) 23 18 

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. 

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 

Number of weeks 

Partnerships with PDS Partnerships without PDS 

Required placement Average Range Average Range 

Single school—elementary 15.1 1–42 17.6 9–36 

Single school—middle 14.1 0–42 16.1 9–36 

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 teachereducation 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 teachereducation 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. 
 IV–9 

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 students on using technology (e.g., 

Internet) to obtain teaching materials or create curricula 

88 — 

Enhancement of your own knowledge and skills through professional 

development opportunities or hands-on classroom experiences that focus on 

using technology 

85 37 

Provision of training to teacher-education students on using technology as a 

tool for communication, research or problem solving 

85 41 

Dissemination of technology resources (articles, online help, discussion groups) 

via the Web 

82 19 

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

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

Demonstration of technology use as part of the content within a teaching 

portfolio 

73 32 

Use of technology in content courses 71 66 

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

Use of interactive CDs or the Web for learning technology applications or 

practicing technological skills 

64 20 

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

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

Teaching workshops or summer institutes focused on technology training 55 30 

Use of Web-based assignments and projects 50 49 

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

Distance learning via the Web 32 13 

Student teaching experiences through interactive videos/assistance of teacher 

education students as they teach K–12 students online 

30 27 

Web-based strategies for assessing knowledge and skills of teacher education 

students in technology integration 

29 10 

Virtual mentoring with contact between student and mentor via Internet or 

video conferencing 

27 11 

Mentoring students to use technology in their own classrooms — 40 

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 grantprovided professional development, expectations were set 

for faculty: all class syllabi must include some indication 
 IV–10 

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

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

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 teachereducation 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. 
 IV–11 

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 on-site 1.2 90 

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

Co-teaching or team teaching courses 1.0 88 

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

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 teacherpreparation 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. 

 

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.

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 teacherpreparation 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. 

 

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. 
 IV–12 

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 yearon-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 teachereducation 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. 
 IV–13 

Exhibit 32 

Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 2002–03 

Percentage of faculty reporting assessment used for: 

Entry Exit N/A 

Type of assessment 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 assessments 56 24 9 4 30 13 

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 in specialty areas 16 7 44 19 26 11 

Portfolio assessment 9 4 61 26 21 9 

Oral defense of portfolio — — 37 16 37 16 

Clinical observation during student teaching — — 86 37 2 1 

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. 

Exhibit 33 

Changes in Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 

2002–03 

Percentage of faculty reporting change in 

assessments used for program entry or exit 

Increased/added Decreased/dropped 

No change 

Type of assessment Percent N Percent N Percent N 

Portfolio assessment 40 17 0 0 40 17 

Praxis II—teacher assessments in specialty 

areas 

33 14 0 0 37 16 

Minimum overall GPA 28 12 0 0 63 27 

Clinical observation during student teaching 28 12 0 0 54 23 

Interview with program faculty 21 9 2 1 54 23 

Oral defense of portfolio 21 9 2 1 58 25 

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

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 hours 14 6 5 2 63 27 

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. 
 IV–14 

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 education 

students to: Baseline Follow-up

Average

Change Baseline Follow-up

Average

Change

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

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

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

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

Develop depth in subject-matter 

knowledge 

3.9 4.1 0.2 3.9 4.0 0.1 

Construct curricula 3.9 3.9 0.0 3.7 3.6 -0.1 

Conduct effective classroom management 3.8 3.8 0.0 4.1 3.9 -0.2 

Work in a school with structural reform 

initiatives 

3.6 3.8 0.2 3.7 3.7 0.0 

Communicate with parents 3.6 3.8 0.2 3.7 3.5 -0.2 

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

Provide effective reading instruction — 4.2 — — 4.0 — 

Prepare students for state assessments — 4.2 — — 3.9 — 

Promote technology literacy in the 

classroom 

— 4.0 — — 4.0 — 

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

Examples of reform initiatives within the teacherpreparation 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). 
 IV–15 

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 NCATEaAccreditation Preservice course work was aligned with NCATE and INTASCb standards; 

accreditation was restored. 

Increase pass rates on Praxis II Pass rates doubled after school offered five annual workshops, set up computer lab for 

practice tests, and aligned courses with content requirements. 

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

have educational technology component. 

Assist Head Start teachers in 

obtaining A.A. degrees 

Grant paid stipends for Head Start teachers to take courses at local universities and 

through satellite offices; some teachers left Head Start on degree completion to teach 

elementary school. 

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

Improve in-service professional 

development 

The TQE program established programs with two school districts that helped inservice teachers prepare for certification from the National Board for Professional 

Teaching Standards. 

Project CoMeT, Our Lady of the Lake University 

Align OLLUc curriculum to 

TEKSd standards (state content 

standards for students) 

Alignment was completed for arts and sciences courses, although site visit interviews 

indicate some course changes did not substantively affect content structure or 

pedagogy; a handful of arts and sciences faculty were reluctant to be involved. 

Develop Technology for 

Teaching course 

Course was developed; professor allotted 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 

for in-service teachers 

Certificate program was created, first by UTKe with UTCf a year later. 

Expand urban focus of preservice 

program 

The number of urban schools for student teaching internships was expanded. 

AzTEC, Arizona State University 

Reform preservice teacher 

preparation to include inquirybased instruction 

Inquiry-based practice was included in science methods courses at UAg and NAU,h

and the geology course at NAU was reformed; inquiry-based teaching is specific to the 

instructor, so if an instructor leaves, the practice may change. 

Improve preservice student 

achievement in secondary science 

courses through reducing attrition 

NAU created a program in which 27 facultyi members problem-solved to reduce 

course attrition rates; although attrition was reduced for one course by 35 percent and 

overall test scores subsequently rose by as much as 20 percent, the program was 

discontinued because of faculty fatigue with the intervention. 

Purchase educational materials for 

preservice and in-service teachers 

NAU purchased aquariums for elementary education teachers, and science kits, 

textbooks, and lesson plans for elementary and secondary teachers; however, access to 

the science kits was inconsistent. 

Improve preservice clinical 

experiences 

A systematic observation and field experience component was added to all education 

courses. 

Project SUCCEED, University of Miami 

Create integrated science course 

for preservice teachers 

Course was created after much work by college of arts and sciences and education 

faculty and 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 on PDS 

suggestion for ESOL trainingj

ESOL component was embedded in preservice curriculum in response to identified 

needs at one partner school and state requirements. 

(exhibit continued on next page) 
 IV–16 

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 supervise 

student (associate) teachers 

UMk was asked by the state to train teachers as clinical supervisors for associate 

teachers; the 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 teachers to use 

technology 

Students were trained in using PowerPoint and preparing portfolios on CD to meet 

the 12 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. 
 V–1 

Chapter V 

Partner Schools and Districts 

HIGHLIGHTS

♦ 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

♦ 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? 
 V–2 

NUMBER OF DISTRICTS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF 

SCHOOL PARTNERS IN PARTNERSHIPS

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 nonpartner 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

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. 
 V–3 

Exhibit 36 

School Characteristics for Partnership and Non-partnership Schools, 1999–2000 

Average percentage 

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

Partnership schools 62 55 55 488 

Non-partnership schools 72 35 56 557 

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. 

Exhibit 37 

Average Mathematics and Reading Scores for Partner Schools by Partnership 

Partnership 

Average 

mathematics 

score 

1999–2000 

Average 

mathematics

score 

2001–02 

Average 

difference N 

Average 

reading 

score 

1999–

2000 

Average 

reading 

score 

2001–02 

Average 

difference N 

24 106.19 108.09 1.90 13 105.18 107.23 2.06 9 

8 102.23 103.03 0.80 12 99.23 101.39 2.16 11 

16 102.08 99.84 -2.24 41 101.25 100.62 -0.63 41 

13 100.48 98.47 -2.01 41 96.65 99.21 2.56 41 

2 99.90 99.91 0.01 10 98.81 95.49 -3.32 10 

12 99.59 92.73 -6.86 6 98.60 94.49 -4.11 6 

15 97.96 103.17 5.22 8 99.66 88.81 -10.85 8 

5 97.61 98.57 0.97 68 95.09 97.42 2.32 68 

19 97.58 99.65 2.07 5 100.70 99.27 -1.43 5 

4 96.26 100.42 4.17 13 95.75 107.11 11.36 13 

10 95.67 97.77 2.10 31 94.69 98.05 3.36 31 

6 94.94 96.64 1.70 41 97.16 97.97 0.81 41 

14 91.68 90.13 -1.55 5 92.66 91.90 -0.76 5 

23 91.33 90.79 -0.54 8 91.29 89.57 -1.72 8 

3 90.90 89.15 -1.74 8 91.17 89.76 -1.41 8 

18 89.56 91.54 1.98 6 88.92 89.26 0.34 6 

17 89.14 84.86 -4.28 3 86.28 86.80 0.52 3 

7 89.12 91.15 2.03 99 87.65 87.69 0.04 99 

25 84.12 92.51 8.39 7 86.22 90.85 4.63 7 

22 80.05 80.06 0.02 110 80.69 78.37 -2.33 110 

9 77.60 83.76 6.16 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A

20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 101.67 99.85 -1.82 48 

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. 
 V–4 

In the Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement, for instance, the project director 

moved one of his education courses from the Boston College classroom and co-taught it with a high school teacher on 

location in a Boston public school. Teachers from the Boston school district also team-taught some courses on urban 

education at Boston College with faculty from the School of Education. In another example, 34 master teachers from the 

Milwaukee public schools were given a two-year hiatus from teaching to work with the University of WisconsinMilwaukee’s teacher education program. These master teachers worked on course design teams and helped faculty 

redesign courses. They also co-taught courses to preservice teachers with arts and sciences faculty. 

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. 
 V–5 

Exhibit 39 

Rated Level of Involvement at the School, District and Community Levels, 

Baseline and Follow-Up 

2.6

2.1

0.9

2.4

2.1

1.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

School-Level Staff

District-Level Staff

Parents and Community

Leaders

Average Involvement

Baseline

Follow-up

Parents and Community 

Leaders

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. 

Exhibit 40 

Percentage of District Respondents Reporting District and School-Level Staff 

Involvement in the Partnership, Baseline and Follow-Up 

28

72

81

84

27

24

90

89

14

98

78

96

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nonmanagerial district staff and aides

Teacher aides and other classroom assistants

Superintendent and assistant superintendents

Curriculum directors, bilingual education directors,

directors of counseling, media coordinators, subject

matter specialists

School principals and other administrators

Teachers

Percentage Reporting Involvement in Activities

Baseline

Follow-up

Curriculum directors, bilingual education

directors, directors of counseling, media

coordinators, subject matter specialist

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. 
V–6 

Exhibit 41 

Percentage of District Representatives Reporting Teacher Participation in Collaborat

Activities with Partner Faculty at Baseline and Follow-Up

76.3

76.5

8

56.4

76.2

57.4

65.0

61.4

54.0

60.0

44.0

50.5

37.6

35.0

23.0

25.0

73.3

78.6

40.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Percentage of Respondents Reporting Teacher Participation

Baseline Follow-Up

Serve as mentors for new teachers

Collaborate on the creation of professional

development activities

Develop/improve/use tools to assess student

teachers' performance

Collaborate on the delivery of professional

development activities

Redesign methods of instructing

teacher education students

Redesign field experience

Redesign classroom observations during

student teaching

Participate on K–12 school restructing themes

Work on diversity issues (with preservice

students)

Redesign content of preservice teacher

education courses

Recruit students for teacher education

programs

Redesign preservice course sequence

Co-teach university courses in the preservice

program

Present to relevant IHE classes

Develop standards and proficiency levels for

licensure of programs

EXHIBIT READS: Respondents reported on teacher involvement throughout the grant: 94.1 percent of respondents to the Baseline District Survey reported thmentors 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.
 V–7 

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 

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 

 

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.” 

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

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. 
 V–8 

Exhibit 42 

Extent of Collaboration in Partnerships by Teachers and District Staff 

by Scope of Partnerships, Baseline and Follow-Up 

Average number of collaborative activities in which staff participated 

Scope Teachers at baseline Teachers at follow-up District staff at 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. 

Exhibit 43 

Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative Partnership Activities Between Schools and 

Partner IHEs, as Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships 

In collaborative activity with partner IHE 

Partnership activities 

Number 

reporting no 

participation

Number 

reporting 

any 

participation 

Average 

rated 

frequency of 

occurrence 

Worked on-site with student teachers and teaching staff to assess 

instructional practices in clinical internship 

136 300 2.8 

Collaborated in a “professional development school” arrangement 

with your school 

251 168 2.6 

Mentored beginning teachers (i.e., teachers in their first three years of 

teaching) 

240 180 2.5 

Worked with community partners to provide goods and services 

(such as technology resources, or tutoring) to your school 

234 182 2.4 

Worked on curricular issues (such as interdisciplinary instruction or 

aligning curriculum with standards) with teaching staff at your school

211 215 2.3 

Co-taught classes with teachers 307 111 2.3 

Worked to enhance the use of technology at your school (such as 

Web sites, paperless classrooms, interactive media) 

284 132 2.1 

Facilitated professional development activities to help teachers raise 

student performance on state-mandated student assessments 

258 162 2.1 

Worked to enhance teacher/parent communication 301 104 2.1 

Worked on evaluating the success of school reform efforts (such as 

implementation of outcomes of school reform models) 

280 138 2.1 

Conducted research in collaboration with teachers in their 

classrooms 

281 132 2.1 

 (exhibited continued on next page) 
 V–9 

Exhibit 43

Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative Partnership Activities Between Schools and 

Partner IHEs As Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships (Continued) 

In collaborative activity with partner IHE 

Partnership activities 

Number 

reporting no 

participation

Number 

reporting 

any 

participation 

Average 

rated 

frequency of 

occurrence 

Worked with parents and community leaders to increase their 

involvement in the school 

295 94 2.0 

Provided in-service professional development workshops for 

teachers in your school in effective instruction 

235 191 2.0 

Worked with school administrators to build leadership skills 227 195 1.9 

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. 

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 

Better 

(improved) 

recruitment

(percent) 

Higher 

qualifications

(percent) 

Faster 

ability to 

fill 

vacancies 

(percent) 

Enhanced 

screening 

process 

(percent) 

Reduced 

vacancies 

(percent) 

Reduced 

attrition 

(percent) 

Baseline overall 85 68 62 49 37 37 

Follow-up overall 64 63 53 37 43 47 

High-poverty schools baseline 58 49 45 36 36 25 

High-poverty schools follow-up 31 35 24 15 25 27 

High-needs subjects baseline 53 37 41 35 31 22 

High-needs subjects follow-up 24 28 20 12 19 20 

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 
 V–10 

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. 
 V–11 

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 

Partnership contributed to reduced 

vacancies (percent) 

Partnership contributed to reduced 

attrition (percent) 

Scope 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. 

Exhibit 46 

Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support of New Teachers 

at Follow-Up 

Percentage of respondents 

indicating that activity was 

Induction activity provided by the partnership 

Provided in 

2000–01 

Provided 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 teachers to participate in any support 

or induction activity 

76 66 

Seminars with new teachers and college or university faculty 76 61 

Provision of monetary support for attendance at professional conferences 68 43 

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

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 
 V–12 

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

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. 

2. 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 

 

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. 

and write about their learning (Garet et al. 2001; 

Lieberman 1996; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998). 

3. 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

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). 

2. 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). 

3. 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 
 V–13 

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 partnershipprovided 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. 

 

12 There was no “semester” or “few months” option for length of 

college course, but this corresponds with the length of a college term. 
 V–14 

Exhibit 47 

Percentage of Faculty and District Representatives Indicating Types of Partnership 

Professional Development Opportunities Provided to Teachers and District Staff, 2002–03 

Percent reporting partnership had provided activity 

Professional development activity Faculty (n = 56) District (n = 94) Total (n = 150) 

Workshops 52 84 72 

Courses for college credit 34 32 33 

Conferences 32 34 33 

Committees and task forces 25 25 25 

Peer coaching or mentoring 29 38 35 

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. 

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 student achievement 46 

Science: focus on teachers’ content knowledge 46 

Theories of learning 43 

Technology to support teaching and learning 42 

Math: focus on teachers’ content knowledge 30 

Reading instruction 29 

Principal/assistant principal professional development 16 

Instruction for second language learners 10 

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. 
 V–15 

Exhibit 49 

Frequency of Partnership Professional Development 

Activities Between Schools and Partner IHEs, as Reported by Principals 

Frequency of activity with partner IHE 

Partnership activities 

No 

participation 

(n) 

Any 

participation 

(n) 

Average 

rated 

frequency of 

participation 

Facilitated professional development activities to help teachers raise 

student performance on state-mandated student assessments 

61 39 2.1 

Provided in-service professional development workshops for 

teachers in your school in effective instruction 

55 45 2.0 

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. Twothirds 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. 
 V–16 

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 throughout the year 47 

Faculty from partnerships visited teachers to support 

application of new knowledge 

45 

Evaluation of workshop effectiveness was conducted 44 

Interim assignments were required of participants 37 

Specialists in schools were assigned to work with teachers 35 

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. 

Exhibit 51 

Average Number of Participants in Content-Focused Versus Non–Content-Focused 

Professional Development Activities, as Reported by District and Faculty, 2002–03 

26

8

36

12

28

37

18

29 29

101

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Workshops Courses for Credit Conference Committee Mentoring/Coaching

Not Content Focused Content Focused

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. 
 V–17 

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

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 inservice 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, inservice 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, twosemester 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. 
 V–18 

Exhibit 53 

Models of Professional Development 

Partnership 

Content or pedagogy 

workshops during the 

academic term 

In-depth 

summer 

programs PDSa

New linkages 

between IHE 

faculty and 

teachers 

Graduate 

school course 

work 

Alaska Partnership for 

Teacher Enhancement 

9 9 9

Community Higher 

Education Council and Local 

Education Agency 

Partnership 

9 9

Illinois Professional Learners 

Partnership 

9 9

Improving Teacher Quality 

Through Partnerships that 

Connect Teacher 

Performance to Student 

Learning 

9 9

Massachusetts Coalition for 

Teacher Quality and Student 

Achievement 

9 9 9

Milwaukee Partnership 

Academy to Improve the 

Quality of Teaching 

9

North Carolina Central 

Teacher Education 

Partnership 

9

Partners for the 

Enhancement of Clinical 

Experiences 

9 9 9 9 9

Project Site Support 9

Project SUCCEED 9 9 a

 Professional Development School. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Supplementary Interviews with Project Directors. 
 V–19 

PARTNERSHIPS AND NCLB INITIATIVES 

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

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.” 

At the University of Miami, Project SUCCEED, approximately 10 institutes were held over the duration of the 

partnership project, and many were held each summer over the duration of the grant. The Department of Teaching and 

Learning (TAL), the home base of the project, planned to continue to support many of these after grant funds run out. 

Still, continuing support will require that the district takes on funding for some projects and foundation support may be 

needed to maintain others. 

The ideas for the institutes emerged from proposals made by faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences and in some 

cases faculty from both education and arts and sciences to a committee established for this purpose. In two areas—

selection of teachers and follow-up—the institutes were unable to address some of their goals. For example, institutes 

offered in the first year received interest from teachers chiefly in the PDS partner schools. As the planning for the 

institutes proceeded in later years, communication to teachers and principals about the institute availability was more 

strategic: the science institute recruited teachers from schools identified as most in need, for example. Follow-up was, 

for the most part, not systematic. The science institute went the farthest in terms of follow-up. A team of graduate and 

undergraduate students was trained to visit schools and support institute participants in their classrooms. 

The institutes covered such topics as studying Shakespeare; reading; integrated science, mathematics, African-American 

studies, technology, Holocaust studies, visual thinking strategies, and developmental diversity. 

An example of cross-discipline collaboration and focus on content knowledge, the Mathematics Institute was held for 

five days and was developed to address what faculty considered a lack of mathematical knowledge among in-service 

teachers, especially those teaching at the middle grades. Developed by the education faculty responsible for teaching 

math pedagogy in TAL, the institute was delivered by both education and arts and sciences faculty. The content of the 

institute included the nature of mathematics, teaching strategies targeted to grade levels, and developing mathematical 

thinking. The institute involved participants together in some sessions and, in other breakout sessions, participants 

focused on strands of algebra, geometry, data analysis, and probability. Designed in content and approach according to 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards, the Mathematics Institute had as dual purposes to 

deepen teachers’ content knowledge and to broaden their pedagogical knowledge. 
 V–20 

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 opportunities that meet the needs of districts 

with “not highly qualified teachers” 

3.2 1.45 

b. Creating fast-track, graduate-level programs for preparation of qualified career-changers 2.9 1.55 

c. Supporting district or state alternative route programs with content-area courses or 

supervision of alternative route participants 

2.8 1.49 

d. Establishing a state definition of highly qualified teachers 2.6 1.50 

e. Implementing a Transition to Teaching Grant 2.5 1.52 

f. Providing assistance in developing state assessments for paraprofessionals 2.2 1.41 

g. Establishing the state definition of the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation 

(HOUSSE) 

2.1 1.33 

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. 
 V–21 

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 

Average 

Partnership a b c d e f g 

N 

Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology Program (CoMeT) 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 4 

Illinois Professional Learners Partnership 3.2 2.2 3.2 1.9 3.1 2.1 2.2 11 

Southern Colorado Teacher Education Alliance 3.2 2.8 3.4 1.8 3.2 3.4 3.3 5 

Collaboration for Teacher Education Accountable to Children 

with High-needs (CO-TEACH) 

3.2 2.2 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.2 5 

Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition (AzTEC) 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 3 

Ozarks Partnership Teacher Enhancement Initiatives 

(OPTEI) 

3.0 2.2 3.8 3.4 4.8 4.6 4.2 5 

Project SUCCEED 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.0 4 

Improving Teacher Quality Through Partnerships that 

Connect Teacher Performance to Student Learning 

2.9 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.4 9 

North Carolina Central University Teacher Education 

Partnership 

2.7 2.6 4.1 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.6 7 

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 Clinical Experiences 2.7 2.3 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 10 

ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership 2.6 2.0 3.2 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 13 

The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student 

Achievement 

2.4 1.6 2.6 1.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 9 

The New Jersey Statewide Teacher Quality Enhancement 

Consortium 

2.4 2.3 3.0 2.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 9 

Saginaw Valley State University 2.3 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.4 3.2 3.0 7 

Community Higher Education Council and Local Education 

Agency Partnership 

2.3 2.3 2.8 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.3 4 

Urban IMPACT 2.3 2.0 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.8 4 

Improving Teacher Quality Through KSU PDS Partnership 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.5 4 

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 Through 

Collaborative Partnerships 

1.0 1.0 2.7 1.0 3.7 3.7 2.3 3 

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. 
 V–22 

Exhibit 56 

Status of Site-Specific District-Focused Partnership Activities 

Objective Status 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Program, Jackson State University 

Provide professional 

development 

Although teachers participated in workshops at partner institutions, some teachers 

lacked resources, such as computer equipment, to implement material. 

Develop mentorship program Formal induction program was created for district 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 programs 

for first-year teachers 

Mentor programs were developed; mentor teachers were trained to train future 

mentors; schools in two districts hired a mentor facilitator. 

Enhance technology in schools Science and multimedia equipment was purchased; one school hired a technology 

coordinator. 

Provide professional 

development 

Several districts provided workshops and funding for professional development 

through CoMeT. 

Provide stipends for teachers, 

other school staff to pursue 

master’s degrees 

Although several teachers and other educational staff have used stipends to pursue 

master’s degrees, the project reported some will leave for 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 urban 

specialists 

Three cohorts of 13 to 18 students completed the program at UTK; at UTC, 

15 students were enrolled as of July 2002. 

Improve skills of in-service 

teachers in urban schools 

In-service teachers were offered workshops on technology, cooperative learning, 

and research-based teaching. 

Establish mentoring program 

for teachers in urban schools 

Formal programs were created, along with a two-day mentoring workshop. 

Commitment to embedding programs varied; mentoring program did not address 

the urban environment. 

 AzTEC, Arizona State University 

Develop induction program Several districtwide induction programs were funded in the Tucson area; UA 

estimated the attrition rates for science teachers decreased from 50 percent to 

10 percent. 

Provide professional 

development 

Eighteen teachers in the Flagstaff Unified School District participated in 

workshops on teaching mathematics standards in an integrated mathematicsscience environment. 

Establish virtual mathematics 

academy 

Nine teachers in the Flagstaff Unified School District completed an online class. 

Attrition rate was over 50 percent; 21 teachers had signed up. 

Project SUCCEED, University of Miami 

Create induction program Induction program was created, which was attended in 2003 by 60-plus 

participants and had a 98.6 percent retention for first-year teachers. 

Place professors at new PDS 

schools 

Professors were placed at all five PDSs and spent 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 in 

K–12 schools 

A reading assessment center was created at one elementary PDS, and a reading 

coordinator was funded at a middle school PDS. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies. 
 VI–1 

Chapter VI 

Institutionalization 

HIGHLIGHTS

♦ 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

♦ 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

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. 
 VI–2 

Exhibit 57 

Average Likelihood of Sustaining Partnership Reform Efforts, as Reported by District 

and Faculty Respondents 

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.6

2.5

2.7

2.6

2.7

1.6

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.5

2.5

2.8

2.3

2.8

2.9

1.9

1.8

1.8

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Implementation efforts

Average Likelihood

District

Faculty Leaders

Using instructional strategies

developed as part of the grant

Supporting faculty involvement in

schools and school districts

Maintaining district-college relationships in

terms of working arrangements

Continuing Partnership-initiated, newteacher support programs

Finding future sources of funding to

ensure the continuation of reform efforts

Co-sponsoring professional

development activities

Sharing responsibility for teacher

preparation between districts and IHEs

Sharing data about the recruitment of

new teachers

Using new techniques for assessing

teacher education students

Establishing long-term partnership

advisory boards

Maintaining collaboration between Arts

and Sciences and Education faculty

Expanding the number of professional

development schools

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. 
 VI–3 

Exhibit 58 

Average Importance of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms, as Reported by 

District and Faculty Respondents 

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.7

2.6

2.0

2.1

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.9

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.9

1.9

1.9

1.8

2.3

2.3

2.3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Implementation efforts

Average Importance

District

Faculty Leaders

 Finding future sources of funding to ensure the

continuation of reform efforts

 Using instructional strategies developed as part

of the grant

 Supporting faculty involvement in schools

and school districts

 Maintaining district-college relationships in terms

of working arrangements

 Co-sponsoring professional development

activities

 Continuing Partnership-initiated, new-teacher

support programs

 Sharing responsibility for teacher preparation

between districts and IHEs

 Using new techniques for assessing teacher

education students

 Sharing data about the recruitment of new

teachers

 Establishing long-term partnership advisory

boards

Maintaining collaboration between Arts and

Sciences and Education faculty

Expanding the number of professional

development schools

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 impor-
 VI–4 

tance, 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

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 (R2 = .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 (R2 = .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). 
 VI–5 

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 teachers 2.4 2.1 

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). 
 VI–6 

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 

Percentage in agreement 

Role of the Partnership 

Districts 

(N = 95) 

All faculty 

(N = 129) 

The reforms in which we have engaged would not have been possible without the 

partnership grant project award; the award was the enabling factor. 

52 41 

The partnership grant project award was one of several enabling factors that came 

together at the same time to bring about our present reforms in teacher preparation.

47 47 

The partnership grant project award helped to continue or institutionalize 

preexisting reform efforts. 

15 14 

The partnership grant project award provided additional momentum to accelerate 

preexisting reform efforts. 

20 9 

The partnership grant project award had no effect on reform of teacher preparation. 2 1 

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

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). 
 VI–7 

Exhibit 61 

Status of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms 

Objective Status 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Program, Jackson State University 

Form task force to study in-service 

and preservice needs 

A teacher quality task force was created, which studied needs, published 

findings, and presented to the legislature. 

Project CoMeT, Our Lady of the Lake University 

Offer discounted OLLU tuition to 

districts 

Arrangement was accepted by one partner district; the district must 

guarantee a minimum number of master’s level students. 

Seek new funding to continue 

mentoring programs 

Grants were received (Transition to Teaching, Teachers as Mentors). 

Use Title V funding to continue 

activities 

Title V funds paid for faculty release time, professional development 

stipends and laptop computers. 

Urban IMPACT, University of Tennessee Chattanooga/Knoxville 

Institutionalize mentoring program Tennessee Academy for School Leaders (TASL) adopted Urban IMPACT’s 

mentoring program. 

Institutionalize Urban Specialist 

Certificate Program 

UTK faculty recognized the certificate as part of an Ed. S. (Specialist in 

Education) degree. UTK was also recruiting education faculty with urban 

experience. (New faculty may be cut owing to budget constraints.) 

Fund tuition for participants in 

Urban Specialist Certificate program 

UTK approached local business leaders about sponsoring students. (Grant 

paid for tuition and books; it is unclear whether new students will enroll 

without a subsidy.) 

Acquire recognition for Urban 

Specialist Certificate in district, 

teachers union 

UTK approached the superintendent and the Knox County Education 

Association about recognizing the certificate for salary increases. 

AzTEC, Arizona State University 

Seek outside funding to continue 

activities 

Flagstaff district agreed to pay stipends for virtual mathematics workshop; 

NAU hopes to use science room to host community meetings. 

Project SUCCEED, University of Miami 

Institutionalize Professors-inResidence positions University promised to pay for course release for professors serving in 

schools. 

Institutionalize induction program Dean promised funding to continue the program. 

Institutionalize PDS arrangements Miami-Dade school district approved policy on PDS. 

Institutionalize summer institutes Some institutes applied for NSF grants; the district also promised funds. 

SOURCE: Title II Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies. 

 VII–1 

Chapter VII 

Challenges and Lessons 

Learned 

HIGHLIGHTS

♦ 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

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. 
 VII–2 

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 (given other responsibilities) 68 79 

Problems with arrangements (e.g., inability to schedule meetings convenient to all involved) 65 62 

Reward system (e.g., salary, promotion, tenure) that does not recognize faculty’s service to 

or practice in the K–12 schools 

53 58 

Reward system that does not recognize collaboration within the university 50 56 

Differences in climate or cultural norms between the college/university and the schools 46 45 

Differences in climate between the schools of education and arts and sciences 47 47 

Fragmented academic programs/isolated groups of faculty 44 32 

Different institutional climate or cultural norms across partner colleges and universities 36 37 

Sudden shortages in staff when faculty and/or teachers are recruited to work in a 

professional development school 

32 38 

Different goals or understanding of the partnership grant project mission across partner 

colleges and universities 

28 30 

Instability of school or district leadership (principal or superintendent turnover) 27 19 

Competition with other institutions for the best teacher-education students 24 22 

Uncertainty of the mission of the partnership grant project 23 19 

Instability of college/university leadership (e.g., turnover) 21 25 

Lack of preparation in how to work with students’ parents in district schools 21 26 

Difficulty in financial coordination across partner colleges and universities 21 24 

Tensions between faculty involved in the partnership grant project and those not involved 20 23 

Inadequate financial resources for project activities 19 24 

Poor peer relations among faculty (e.g., competition for advancement) 18 14 

Lack of partnership grant project support from college and university leadership 9 11 

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. 
 VII–3 

Exhibit 63 

Average Challenge Ratings as Reported by Faculty Toward the End of the 

Partnership Grant 

Average rated extent of 

challenge 

Challenge 

Involved 

faculty 

(n) 

Faculty 

leaders 

(n) 

Lack of time to develop and sustain relationships (given other responsibilities) 2.3 (65) 2.5 (51) 

Reward system (e.g., salary, promotion, tenure) that does not recognize faculty’s 

service to or practice in the K–12 schools 

2.3 (70) 1.9 (52) 

Reward system that does not recognize collaboration within the university 2.1 (66) 1.8 (53) 

Problems with arrangements (e.g., inability to schedule meetings convenient to all 

involved) 

1.9 (72) 1.9 (53) 

Differences in climate between the schools of education and arts and sciences 1.8 (70) 1.7 (51) 

Differences in climate or cultural norms between the college/university and the 

schools 

1.7 (70) 1.4 (53) 

Fragmented academic programs/isolated groups of faculty 1.6 (68) 1.0 (54) 

Sudden shortages in staff when faculty and/or teachers are recruited to work in a 

professional development school 

1.4 (60) 1.3 (47) 

Different institutional climate or cultural norms across partner colleges and 

universities 

1.2 (60) 1.1 (43) 

Competition with other institutions for the best teacher-education students 1.2 (62) 0.8 (46)

Difficulty in financial coordination across partner colleges and universities 1.2 (55) 1.1 (43) 

Tensions between faculty involved in the partnership grant project and those not 

involved 

1.1 (65) 0.9 (49) 

Instability of college/university leadership (e.g., turnover) 1.1 (72) 0.7 (54)

Different goals or understanding of the partnership grant project mission across 

partner colleges and universities 

1.1 (63) 1.00 (47) 

Inadequate financial resources for project activities 1.0 (69) 0.9 (53) 

Lack of partnership grant project support from college and university leadership 1.0 (71) 0.4 (54) 

Uncertainty of the mission of the partnership grant project 0.9 (71) 0.6 (53)

Instability of school or district leadership (principal or superintendent turnover) 0.8 (59) 1.3 (49) 

Poor peer relations among faculty (e.g., competition for advancement) 0.7 (67) 0.7 (51) 

Lack of preparation in how to work with students’ parents in district schools 0.7 (52) 1.1 (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 
 VII–4 

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 timeintensive 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 followthrough, these partnerships independently created districtlevel 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 districtowned 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 
 VII–5 

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

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

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 
 VII–6 

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. 
 VII–7 

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. 

 R–1 

References 

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. 

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. 
 R–2 

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/office/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/nclbteachers-toolkit.pdf. Accessed in May 2005. 
 A–1 

APPENDIX A 
 A–2 

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 

State 

State Cutoff 

Score 

(Percent) Year 

Basic 

Skills 

Professional 

Knowledge Academic Content 

Mathematics 

(Academic 

Content) 

Partnership 

Average 

State 

Average 

# of IHEs 

Reportin

g

Partnership 

Average 

State 

Average 

# of IHEs 

Reporting 

Partnership 

Average 

State 

Average 

# of IHEs 

Reporting 

Southern Colorado Teacher Education Alliance 

Colo. 78 1999–2000 95.0 93.0 1 

2000–01 86.0 93.0 1 

Project SUCCEED 

Fla. 61 1999–2000 96.0 97.0 1 100.0 99.0 1 100.0 96.0 1 a

2000–01 98.0 98.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 94.0 98.0 1 

Illinois Professional Learners Partnership 

Ill. 70 1999–2000 99.6 99.0 5 98.3 98.0 5 b

2000–01 98.8 100.0 5 97.6 98.0 5 

Improving Teacher Quality and Schools Through Collaborative Partnerships 

Ind. 68 1999–2000 92.0 93.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 98.0 1 

2000–01 95.0 93.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 99.0 98.0 1 

Improving Teacher Quality Through KSU PDS Partnership 

Kan. No minimum 1999–2000 100.0 99.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 

passing scorec 2000–01 100.0 99.0 1 99.0 98.0 1 

Improving Teacher Quality Through Partnerships that Connect Teacher Performance to Student Learning 

Multi- 1999–2000 86.7 92.3 3 97.5 95.5 2 88.1 93.2 7 

state 

NAd

2000–01 90.8 97.0 5 96.0 96.4 4 81.6 92.4 7 

Project SITE SUPPORT 

Md. 71 1999–2000 100.0 96.0 2 93.0 97.0 3 87.0 95.0 2 

2000–01 92.0 95.0 3 86.3 94.0 3 96.3 95.0 3 

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement 

Mass. 70 1999–2000 91.4 89.0 7 85.4 85.0 7 e

2000–01 93.4 93.0 7 84.9 90.0 7 

Sponsored and Academic Programs Support 

Mich. 73 1999–2000 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 f

2000–01 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Program 

Miss. 62 1999–2000 93.0 98.0 1 100.0 99.0 1 

2000–01 100.0 99.0 1 98.0 981.0 1 

ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership 

Miss. 62 1999–2000 100.0 98.0 1 100.0 99.0 1 

2000–01 100.0 99.0 1 100.0 98.0 1 

Ozarks Partnership Teacher Enhancement Initiatives 

Mo. 69 1999–2000 96.0 96.0 1 

2000–01 95.0 95.0 1 

New Jersey Statewide Teacher Quality Enhancement Consortium 

N.J. 65 1999–2000 92.5 92.0 2 

2000–01 97.3 97.0 3 

 (appendix continued on next page) 
 A–3 

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 

(Continued)

State 

State Cutoff 

Score 

(Percent) Year 

Basic 

Skills 

Professional 

Knowledge Academic Content 

Mathematics 

(Academic 

Content) 

Partnership 

Average 

State 

Average 

# of IHEs 

Re

portin

g

Partnership 

Average 

State 

Average 

# of IHEs 

Reporting 

Partnership 

Average 

State 

Average 

# of IHEs 

Reporting 

North Carolina Central University Teacher Education Partnership 

N.C. 70 1999–2000 96.0 98.0 1 79.0 94.0 1 g

2000–01 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 

Tri-County Partnership 

Ohio 70 1999–2000 97.0 98.0 1 97.0 96.0 1 91.0 94.0 1 

2000–01 N/A N/A 0 90.0 93.0 1 83.0 92.0 1 

Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical Experiences 

S.C. 66 1999–2000 100.0 100.0 3 80.0 95.0 3 82.0 93.0 4 

2000–01 100.0 100.0 3 93.5 89.0 2 97.7 97.0 3 

Community Higher Education Council and Local Education Agency Partnership 

S.C. 66 1999–2000 100.0 100.0 1 98.0 95.0 1 

2000–01 100.0 100.0 1 93.0 89.0 1 

Urban IMPACT 

Tenn. 68 1999–2000 97.5 94.0 2 87.5 88.0 2 

2000–01 99.0 95.0 2 95.0 91.0 2 

Partnerships for Texas Public Schools 

Texas 70 1999–2000 100.0 100.0 9 89.1 90.0 9 88.8 92.0 9 h

2000–01 100.0 100.0 1 90.0 91.0 1 89.0 92.0 1 

CoMeT 

Texas 70 1999–2000 100.0 100.0 1 94.0 90.0 1 83.0 92.0 1 h

2000–01 100.0 100.0 1 84.0 91.0 1 88.0 92.0 1 

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. 

 B–1 

APPENDIX B 
 B–2 

Appendix B: 

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/heatappartners.pdf, accessed Feb. 3, 2006. 
 C–1 

APPENDIX C 
C–2 

Appendix C: 

Partnership Main Goals, Strategies for Increasing Accountability, Planned Use of Incentiv

Content Area Emphases 

Main focus 

Partnership Name Recruitment

Professional 

Development Standards 

Clinical 

Experience Accountabili

Arizona State University/Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition (AzTEC) 

9 

Ball State University/Improving Teacher Quality and Schools Through Collaborative Partnerships 

9 9 N, S 

Boston College/The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement 

C, T 

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

9 N, C, S, T 

Illinois State University/Illinois Professional Learners Partnership 

9 S 

Jackson State University/Teacher Quality Enhancement Program 

9 9 C 

Johns Hopkins University/Project SITE SUPPORT 9 N, C, S, T Kansas State University/Improving Teacher Quality Through KSU PDS Partnership 

9 N, T 

Kean University/The New Jersey Statewide Teacher Quality Enhancement Consortium 

9 9 9 N, S 

Mississippi State University/ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership 

9 C 

North Carolina Central University/North Carolina Central University Teacher Education Partnership 

9 N 

Our Lady of the Lake University/Collaboration Mentoring and Technology Program (CoMeT) 

9 9 S 

Saginaw Valley State University/Sponsored and Academic Programs Support 

9 C, S 

South Carolina State University/Community Higher Education Council and LEA Partnership 

9 9 N 

Southwest Missouri State University/Ozarks Partnership Teacher Enhancement Initiatives (OPTEI) 

9 N 
C–3 

Appendix C: 

Partnership Main Goals, Strategies for Increasing Accountability, Planned Used of Incentives, and Con

(Continued)

Main focus 

Partnership Name Recruitment

Professional 

Development Standards 

Clinical 

Experience Accountabili

Texas A&M University and University Foundation/Partnerships for Texas Public Schools 

9 9 

University of Alaska-Anchorage/Alaska Partnership for Teacher Enhancement 

9 S 

University of Miami (Fla.)/School University Community Coalition for Excellence in Education (Project SUCCEED) 

9 N, S 

University of South Carolina/Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical Experiences 

9 N, T 

University of Southern Colorado/Southern Colorado Teacher Education Alliance 

9 9 N, S 

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga/Knoxville/ Urban IMPACT University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/The Milwaukee Partnership Academy to Improve the Quality of Teaching 

9 T 

Washington State University/Collaboration for Teacher Education Accountable to Children with High-needs (Co-TEACH) 

9 9 N, C, S 

Western Kentucky University/Improving Teacher Quality Through Partnerships that Connect Teacher Performance to Student Learning 

9 N 

Youngstown State University/Tri-County Partnership 9 9 T 

NOTE: Content analyses of the project goals and objectives described in the proposals identified the main foci listed here and described throughout this report. 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 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 indicate

standards; S indicates plans to develop state standards; and T indicates plans to develop assessments or prepare students for assessments for teachers. Partner in

follows: partnerships that offered incentives for faculty participation are indicated with an F; those that offered incentives for teacher participation are indicated 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 ide

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 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Proposals. 

 D–1 

APPENDIX D 
 D–2 

Appendix D: 

Survey Response by Partnership 

Baseline Survey Follow-Up Survey 

Partnership Name District 

Faculty 

Involved 

Faculty 

Leadership District 

Faculty 

Involved 

Faculty 

Leadership

Arizona State University/Arizona 

Teacher Excellence Coalition 

(AzTEC) 

5/6 1/2 5/7 2/2 0/1 1/2 

Ball State University/Improving 

Teacher Quality and Schools 

Through Collaborative Partnerships 

4/5 1/2 1/2 2/2 0/1 1/1 

Boston College/The Massachusetts 

Coalition for Teacher Quality and 

Student Achievement 

3/8 14/14 14/14 3/5 13/14 6/9 

Graceland University/ Collaboration 

Leading to Improved Master and 

Bachelors Studies (Project CLIMBS) 

1/2 2/4 3/5 1/1 0/2 

Illinois State University/Illinois 

Professional Learners Partnership 

5/16 8/15 8/13 6/6 7/10 5/8 

Jackson State University/Teacher 

Quality Enhancement Program 

1/2 3/3 2/3 0/1 

Johns Hopkins University/Project 

SITE SUPPORT 

1/2 5/6 5/6 1/1 5/5 2/5 

Kansas State University/Improving 

Teacher Quality Through KSU PDS 

Partnership 

3/6 2/2 2/2 3/3 1/2 1/1 

Kean University/The New Jersey 

Statewide Teacher Quality 

Enhancement Consortium 

9/18 6/8 5/8 7/10 7/7 2/2 

Mississippi State University/ 

ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership 

15/24 18/24 

North Carolina Central 

University/North Carolina Central 

University Teacher Education 

Partnership 

4/5 4/7 4/7 4/4 3/3 2/2 

Our Lady of the Lake University/ 

Collaboration Mentoring and 

Technology Program (CoMeT) 

6/8 3/3 2/3 3/4 2/3 1/3 

Saginaw Valley State University/ 

Sponsored and Academic Programs 

Support 

2/4 2/2 2/2 8/9 1/2 1/1 

South Carolina State University/ 

Community Higher Education 

Council and LEA Partnership 

4/12 4/8 2/7 4/5 3/5 1/3 

Southwest Missouri State 

University/Ozarks Partnership 

Teacher Enhancement Initiatives 

(OPTEI) 

5/14 1/1 1/1 4/5 1/1 1/1 

Texas A&M University and 

University Foundation/Partnerships 

for Texas Public Schools 

8/28 1/1 7/16 2/3 7/9 

(appendix continued on next page) 
 D–3 

Appendix D: 

Survey Response by Partnership (Continued)

Baseline Survey Follow-Up Survey 

Partnership Name District 

Faculty 

Involved 

Faculty 

Leadership District 

Faculty 

Involved 

Faculty 

Leadership

University of Alaska-Anchorage/ 

Alaska Partnership for Teacher 

Enhancement 

1/8 2/5 1/4 1/4 2/2 0/1 

University of Miami (Fla.)/School 

University Community Coalition for 

Excellence in Education (Project 

SUCCEED) 

1/3 2/4 2/3 3/3 2/3 2/2 

University of South Carolina/ 

Partners for the Enhancement of 

Clinical Experiences 

7/12 7/12 4/11 5/6 6/6 6/8 

University of Southern Colorado/ 

Southern Colorado Teacher 

Education Alliance 

8/16 6/12 

University of Tennessee at 

Chattanooga/Knoxville/ Urban 

IMPACT 

1/4 2/6 4/4 2/2 5/6 3/4 

University of WisconsinMilwaukee/The Milwaukee 

Partnership Academy to Improve 

the Quality of Teaching 

0/2 2/4 2/4 0/1 1/1 3/3 

Washington State University/ 

Collaboration for Teacher Education 

Accountable to Children with Highneeds (Co-TEACH) 

10/18 5/9 2/2 5/7 3/3 3/3 

Western Kentucky University/ 

Improving Teacher Quality Through 

Partnerships that Connect Teacher 

Performance to Student Learning 

11/21 14/29 14/23 4/10 10/15 5/14 

Youngstown State University/TriCounty Partnership 3/6 2/5 2/4 4/5 2/2 2/2 

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.