POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

 

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher 

Preparation through the Title II HEA 

Partnership Program 

 

Interim Report 

Executive Summary 

2004 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ~ OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

DOC #2003-8

 

 

 

 

Partnerships for Reform: 

Changing Teacher Preparation 

through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 

Executive Summary 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

American Institutes for Research 

SRI International

2004 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-00-CO-0082 with the 

American Institutes for Research. Dena Patterson 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 

Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Eugene Hickok

Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

March 2004 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it 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 the Under 

Secretary, Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program, 

Washington, D.C., 20004. 

To order copies of this report, 

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 

20794-1398; 

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244; 

or email, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov 

or call in your request 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. 

or order online at: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html. 

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/index.html. 

On request, this publication is also available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-

9895 or (202) 205-8113.

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 i Executive Summary

Contents 

Purpose of the Title II HEA Partnerships ..........................................................................................1 

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

Evaluation Topics and Data Collection Activities..............................................................................3

How Are Title II Partnership Projects Reforming Teacher Preparation Programs?.........................4 

Faculty Collaboration.................................................................................................................4 

Faculty and School Collaboration..............................................................................................5

Faculty Instruction with Technology .........................................................................................6 

Accountability for Student Outcomes........................................................................................7 

How Are Partnership Projects Improving Professional Development for Partner Schools 

and School Districts?........................................................................................................................7 

Professional Development Activities.........................................................................................7 

New Teacher Support ................................................................................................................8 

How Are Partnership Projects Changing the Requirements and Quality of the Clinical 

Experience for Preservice Teachers?................................................................................................9 

Professional Development Schools............................................................................................9 

Student Internships ....................................................................................................................9 

Matched Expectations................................................................................................................9 

How Are Partnership Activities with School Districts and Schools Affecting Student 

Performance on State Achievement Assessments? ........................................................................10 

“High-Need” School Partners ..................................................................................................10

Baseline Student Achievement Scores.....................................................................................11 

What Is the Role of the Formal Partnership Structure in Achieving the Goals of the Title II 

Partnership Grant Program? ...........................................................................................................13 

Elimination of Collaboration Barriers......................................................................................13 

Creation of New Alliances.......................................................................................................13 

Distance and Partnership Structure..........................................................................................14 

Structure for Sustainability ......................................................................................................14 

Future Data Collection .......................................................................................................................16 

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 iii Executive Summary

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1: Number of People and Institutions Directly and Actively Involved in 

Partnership Activities and Projects.........................................................................................2

Exhibit 2: Faculty Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities ................................................5

Exhibit 3: School and District Personnel Involvement in Collaborative Partnership 

Activities with Partner Colleges or Universities.....................................................................6

Exhibit 4: Faculty Members’ Strategies for Teaching with Technology ................................................7

Exhibit 5: Induction Activities Provided by Partnerships as Reported by Education Deans..................8

Exhibit 6: Perceptions of Faculty and School District Respondents Regarding 

New Teachers’ Preparedness................................................................................................10

Exhibit 7: Descriptive Characteristics of Title II and Non-Title Schools, 2000–01 ............................10

Exhibit 8: Average Math and Reading Scores for Title II and Non-Title II Schools, 2000–01............11

Exhibit 9: Percent of Faculty Reporting Dean Support Before and During Second Year 

of Partnership Implementation .............................................................................................15

Exhibit 10: Project Directors Who Indicated Partnership Reforms and Activities 

“Very Likely” to Continue....................................................................................................16

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 1 Executive Summary

Executive Summary 

Purpose of the Title II HEA Partnerships 

The issue of teacher qualifications has been an important one throughout our country’s history. In local, 

state and national conversations, parents and the public have struggled with questions of quantity and 

quality: Do we have enough teachers, and do the teachers we have represent the best we can provide for 

our children? Policy makers have searched for the best ways to encourage states and institutions of higher 

education to focus on and improve the qualifications of teachers through various incentive programs for 

the past 25 years. Although the teacher preparation community has progressed as it responds to concerns 

and mandates at the beginning of the 21st century, the issues of quantity and quality remain unresolved. 

The Title II Partnership Grant Program was created during the reauthorization of the Higher Education 

Act in 1998 to give an additional boost to the preparation of well-qualified teachers. Recent studies, such 

as those by William Sanders in Tennessee, suggest that teachers play a significant role in improving 

student achievement in the classroom. The approach selected for the Partnership Grant Program—the 

formation of partnerships among schools of education, schools of arts and sciences and local school 

districts—was seen as a way of bringing K–12 schools and other stakeholders (business and cultural 

institutions) further into the decision-making process concerning teacher quality. At the time, many 

teacher preparation programs were already collaborating with local schools to improve curriculum 

offerings and clinical experience. However, the framers of the Title II legislation believed that a formal 

partnership structure, with K–12 schools as partners in the preservice teacher preparation experience, 

would serve as an important reality check for faculty and administrators at institutions of higher education 

(IHEs): when sitting across from the schools at the decision-making table, colleges and universities 

cannot deny the need of schools for high-quality teachers. The legislation provided funds to Partnerships 

specifically to reform teacher preparation programs, improve clinical experience for students during their 

internship and enhance the professional development opportunities available to in-service teachers. 

The ultimate goal of the program is to improve student achievement by increasing the quality of teachers. 

The Title II Partnership Grant Program’s emphasis on content training for teachers, intensive clinical 

training, support for new teachers and intensive professional development experiences is in line with and 

supportive of the teacher-quality goals and priorities of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This 

Evaluation examines the extent to which the Partnership Program has improved teacher quality. 

Key findings from the Evaluation’s first Interim Report are highlighted in this executive summary. Data 

were collected during the years 2001-2003, addressing the first 2 years of Partnership grantee activities. 

Key Findings 

The first Partnership grantees to receive competitive funds were the 25 Partnership projects in the 1999 

cohort. These grantees received $175 million over the 5 years of the project, at an average of $7 million 

each year. 

By forming a Partnership, education institutions attempt to reach more broadly into the communities 

they serve: As one indicator of the scope of the Partnerships, more than 14,000 preservice teaching 

students and more than 13,000 current teachers and instructional specialists are reported to be 

involved in Partnership activities (see exhibit 1). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 2 

Exhibit 1 

Number of People and Institutions Directly and Actively Involved 

in Partnership Activities and Projects 

Partnership Participants Number 

Institutional Partners1

Schools 1,137

School districts 183

2-year colleges 24

4-year colleges and universities 64

Institutional Partners Total 1,408

Individual Partners2

University faculty members3 1,814

Teachers, instructional specialists, and instructional leaders benefiting from 

professional development activities 

13,780

District-level staff 1,893

School-level staff 6,152

Preservice teaching students 14,041

Individual Partners Total 37,680

1

As reported in project proposals. 

2

As reported in surveys by respondents; underestimates actual totals because not every district, school, or university 

department in all Partnerships responded to our survey. 3

 Includes 1,035 faculty from schools of education and 779 faculty from arts and sciences. 

EXHIBIT READS: 1,137 schools were reported as partners by the 25 Title II Partnerships in this evaluation. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Surveys of Project Directors, School Districts and Faculty 

Other key findings include: 

• One of the main ways school district and school instructional staff have participated in the Title II 

Partnerships, thus far, is by enrolling in summer institutes sponsored by the Partnerships in 

reading instruction, mathematics and science. School partners also serve as mentors for new 

teachers and supervisors for student interns, participate in workshops on the use of technology 

and enroll in master’s programs delivered directly to their school by university partners using 

distance-learning technology developed with Partnership funds. 

• To improve supervision of early field experiences and student teaching internships, 72 percent of 

Partnerships have selected the Professional Development School (PDS) model of teacher 

preparation. This model involves education faculty maintaining a weekly presence in partner 

schools assisting teachers and teacher education students. It is also a vehicle for involving 

teachers from the partner school in planning and teaching preparation courses. 

• Faculty in education programs have invested Title II resources in induction support programs for 

new graduates who are teaching in partner schools. Resources are funding induction support 

networks, summer institutes and continuing coursework to improve the retention of new 

graduates who are fully qualified teachers. 

• Increased communication between universities and schools in Partnerships facilitates a closer 

match between teacher preparation and school instruction needs, as evidenced by close agreement 

on the readiness of new teachers to handle curriculum and instruction challenges. For example, 

both school and faculty respondents to Title II surveys rate new teacher preparation highly in the 

areas of working with a diverse population of learners and in the use of a variety of instructional 

strategies. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 3 Executive Summary

• Title II Partnership Projects are monitoring the student achievement in partner schools and 

gathering data on the contribution of professional development and Partnership organizational 

changes to student achievement and school climate in partner schools. Several Partnerships have 

made this a component of their internal evaluations. 

• The composition of Title II Partnerships varies in important ways. Some Partnerships include as 

few as 1 district and as many as 29. Partnerships may include as few as 3 schools and as many as 

131. 

In addition, the Title II Partnership Evaluation will, by the end of the fourth year, be able to track changes 

in student achievement scores at the school level over the years of collaboration with university partners. 

The scores of Title II partners will be compared with those of non-Title II partner schools. In an initial 

review of scores during the second year of the grants, schools in Title II Partnerships were very similar to 

schools that are not participating in this federal program. 

Title II Partnership Projects have faced many barriers to achieving their goals: poor economic conditions 

in school districts, intransigence of school and academic cultures; partnership arrangements that hinder 

progress and the high numbers of teachers they are seeking to help. Yet continued efforts to assess K–12 

school needs and the performance of their preparation program graduates are leading Partnership IHEs to 

expand their expectations for teacher preparation students, to incorporate extensive field experiences in 

required courses and to extend and support the clinical experience for student interns with a specially 

trained clinical supervisor or mentor teacher. 

Evaluation Topics and Data Collection Activities 

This Evaluation addresses how well the Partnerships are implementing required activities and achieving 

the program goals. Linking the project activities and program goals is made possible through the 

conceptualization of five evaluation topics: 

• Characteristics of high-quality preservice teacher preparation and changes to the content and 

structure of the preservice teacher preparation program over the grant period. 

• Contributions of Partnership grants to schools and school districts and schools’ and districts’ roles 

in preservice teacher preparation. 

• The association between collaborative activities among partner IHEs and schools and student 

achievement outcomes. 

• Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant. 

• Efforts to institutionalize Partnerships. 

The Evaluation uses eight data sources in this Interim Report to examine the evaluation topics listed 

above: 

• A targeted literature review describing various theoretical criteria that can be used to evaluate the 

quality of teacher preparation programs. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 4 

• Year 2000 Institutional Accountability Reports from each IHE in the Partnerships with a teacher 

preparation program (“report cards” required by the 1998 Higher Education Act Amendments 

[§ 207]). 

• Year 2000 Annual Performance Reports that provide information on how the Partnerships are 

doing in terms of the performance measures established by the U.S. Department of Education 

under the Government Performance and Results Act. 

• A one-time survey of project directors that collects data on the content and structure of each 

teacher preparation program associated with the Partnership, organizational changes and 

relationships among partners and efforts to institutionalize Partnerships. 

• The first (a baseline) of two surveys of partner faculty members from both schools of education 

and schools of arts and sciences describing faculty collaboration, faculty involvement in reform 

of teacher preparation and the institutionalization of Partnership activities. 

• The first (a baseline) of two surveys of representatives from partner school districts describing 

interactions among partners, changes in teacher preparation and efforts towards 

institutionalization of Partnership activities and district-level activities. 

• Exploratory site visits to collect qualitative, contextual information on the design and 

implementation of four Partnerships. 

• School-level student achievement data derived from an extant data file compiled by the Policy 

and Program Studies Service at the U.S. Department of Education (data will be used to assess 

associations between Partnership activities and student achievement). 

Descriptive findings from the Interim Report are presented below, addressing the five evaluation topics. 

How Are Title II Partnership Projects Reforming Teacher Preparation Programs? 

Faculty Collaboration

In general, most teacher preparation programs balance components of academic content study and 

pedagogy studies, although collaboration on the details of course design and student expectations seldom 

occurs across departments. To change these practices, the Partnership projects facilitate collaboration 

between schools of education and schools of arts and sciences at the same IHE. 

Modest gains have been made in this area through Partnerships: two-thirds of faculty respondents to the 

Title II baseline surveys reported that collaboration among arts and sciences and education faculty took 

place in the 2000–01 school year. This collaboration has resulted in integrated education and content area 

courses, discipline-based workshops that build teachers’ knowledge of content-based instructional 

strategies and continuing seminars that build and extend teachers’ knowledge of generalizable 

instructional approaches. 

The most common venues for collaboration across schools of education and arts and sciences are 

committees to work on project goals, meetings to discuss preservice students and meetings to learn about 

teacher preparation and program development. Faculty from both the education and arts and science 

schools involved in Partnership projects tend to participate at the same level and in the same kinds of 

activities. Exhibit 2 shows the overall pattern of responses for faculty from both schools. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 5 Executive Summary

Exhibit 2 

Faculty Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities 

Hours of Involvement (2000-01) 

Collaborative Activity 

Number 

Participating 

Percent of 

Total 

Participating Mean SD Median Mode 

Participating in committees to 

work on project goals 105 58.3 26.8 33.8 20 10 

Meeting to discuss teacher 

education students 113 37.2 21.1 30.3 12 20 

Meeting to learn more about 

teacher education 99 55.0 20.9 28.7 15 10 

Developing teacher preparation 

program 91 49.4 37.6 76.93 15 10 

Coordinating course offerings 78 43.3 23.8 40.1 10 5 

Planning future courses 78 43.3 19.6 29.0 10 10 

Implementing management team 70 38.9 50.8 139.33 20 10 

Jointly advising teacher education 

students 62 34.4 22.1 30.3 14 20 

Revising existing courses 54 30.0 29.3 39.6 18 10 

Jointly observing teacher education 

students 44 24.4 27.7 37.7 15 10 

Co-teaching or team teaching1 23 12.8 49.7 66.9 20 10 

Co-teaching or team teaching2 24 13.3 38.3 39.0 20 10 1

Education faculty teaching at arts and sciences. 

2

Arts and Sciences faculty teaching at education. 

3

These standard deviations are high because a few faculty respondents reported large numbers of hours of involvement. In 

program development collaboration, one faculty member spent 1,000 hours, another 600 hours and all other respondents 200 or 

fewer hours. In management team collaboration, one faculty member spent 500 hours, another 400 hours and all other 

respondents 200 or fewer hours. 

EXHIBIT READS: This table describes the variety of ways in which education and arts and sciences faculty work on behalf of 

the Partnership Project; for example, 105 faculty across all projects reported participating in committees to work on project goals. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Surveys 

Many faculty members report participating in more than one of these activities. Exhibit 2 indicates that 

the highest percentage participation is in committee attendance and membership, activities reflective of 

the goals of early Partnership formation. Partnerships are seeking a more comprehensive change in the 

nature of the relationship between education and arts and science faculty. The Evaluation expects to 

document whether this kind of change occurs and is sustained. 

Faculty and School Collaboration 

School districts and schools also reported participating in collaborative activities with partner colleges 

and universities, specifically in those areas relating to teacher preparation reform, clinical experiences and 

professional development (see exhibit 3). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 6 

Exhibit 3 

School and District Personnel Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities 

with Partner Colleges or Universities 

Collaborative Activity Percent 

Serve as mentors for new teachers 94 

Collaborate on the delivery of professional development activities 76 

Redesign field experience 65 

Redesign classroom observations during student teaching 61 

Work on diversity issues with preservice students 60 

Develop, improve and use tools to assess student teachers’ performance 56 

Participate on K-12 restructuring teams 54 

Recruit students for teacher preparation programs 50 

Redesign preservice course sequence 38 

Develop standards and proficiency levels for licensure of programs 25 

Present to relevant IHE classes 23 

EXHIBIT READS: 94 percent of respondents to the school district survey indicated they served as mentors for new 

teachers as part of their involvement with their local Partnership Project. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline School District Survey 

Faculty Instruction with Technology 

The majority of Partnership projects are meeting technology integration goals by developing a preservice 

capacity for technology integration with preservice teaching students and K–12 teachers, by enhancing 

the technology in K–12 classrooms and by preparing faculty to use technology in their classrooms. In 

fact, 82 percent of the Partnerships reported that they use Title II funds to support technology in their 

preservice education programs. Partnership participants reported that the resources allotted for technology 

integration from their Partnership grant helped to develop student expertise in lesson planning by using 

multimedia applications, supported student development by using electronic portfolios and assisted 

faculty in modeling technology integration in pedagogy courses. Demonstrating the importance of 

providing technology assistance to K–12 schools, 59 percent of the Partnerships had secured funds for 

this purpose from other community organizations or grant programs prior to receiving the Title II grant. 

The Partnership Evaluation did not request information from Partnerships regarding the leveraging or 

combining of these resources. 

Faculty members in Title II partner institutions report a high level of technology use in six areas (see 

exhibit 4). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 7 Executive Summary

Exhibit 4 

Faculty Members’ Strategies for Teaching with Technology 

Instructional Strategies for Teaching Technology Percent 

Providing training to teacher education students on using technology as a tool for communication, 

research or problem solving or to obtain teaching materials or create curricula 

88 

Providing training to teacher education students on using technology for communication (e.g., 

Internet) 85 

Enhancing faculty members’ technological knowledge and skills through workshops, summer 

institutes, mentoring with technology-proficient K–12 teachers, online learning or hands-on 

classroom experiences that focus on using technology 

85 

Disseminating technology resources (articles, online help, discussion groups) via the Web to teacher 

education students 

82 

Using e-mail and listservs to interact with students in teacher education courses 79

Using videos, CDs or the Web to demonstrate case studies of exemplary classrooms to teacher 

education students 

74 

EXHIBIT READS: 88 percent of respondents to the faculty surveys reported providing training to teacher education students 

on using technology as a tool for communication, research or problem solving or to obtain teaching materials or create 

curricula. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Surveys 

Accountability for Student Outcomes 

As Title II Partnerships address the issue of teacher quality, they have taken steps to develop internal 

processes to monitor education students’ outcomes. These steps include increased reliance on feedback 

from partner schools and school districts and more formalized assessment of education students and 

program outcomes as a whole. Partner IHEs are assessing the transfer of knowledge from teacher 

education program to classroom practice; 77 percent of responding Partnerships reported using two or 

more types of assessments to determine how well graduates are doing in new teaching assignments. 

Although all Partnerships have goals of improving student achievement in their partner districts, plans for 

addressing these and other district needs rely more heavily on informal communication and Partnership 

committees as the means of gathering advice from districts rather than on formal needs assessments of the 

alignment of teacher preparation programs with district needs. A small percentage of Partnerships (22 

percent) report conducting assessments or analyzing assessment data to highlight district needs; the 

remaining Partnerships do neither. 

How Are Partnership Projects Improving Professional Development for Partner 

Schools and School Districts? 

Professional Development Activities 

Partnerships are addressing the needs of schools and school districts for professional development to 

increase the competencies of in-service teachers (teachers with full-time assignments in partner schools) 

in core instructional areas. Partnerships have involved more teachers in decisions about and delivery of 

professional development and in collaborative activities with faculty to address the needs of preservice 

students and beginning teachers. Professional development in the form of induction programs to mentor 

new teachers is probably the largest investment being made to retain qualified teachers in partner schools. 

To date, 13,780 teachers and instructional specialists and leaders in schools are reported to have benefited 

from professional development activities attributable to Title II Partnerships. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 8 

• 93 percent of school district survey respondents reported about the professional development 

opportunities made possible through the Partnerships, with an average participation of 46 staff 

members per activity. 

• The most common professional development activities include higher education workshops, 

district workshops, conferences, college credit courses and committees or task forces. Common 

topics are working with students with diverse learning needs, mentoring or supervising student 

teachers, assessing student teachers and instructing teachers to use technology. 

New Teacher Support 

Even before receiving the Title II Partnership grants, districts supported new teachers: 83 percent of the 

districts provided routine observations, 75 percent provided formal mentoring by veteran teachers, 63 

percent provided informal mentoring and 31 percent provided seminars with faculty for new teachers. 

However, these support activities were not formalized with the university partner responsible for the new 

teacher graduates until implementation of the Partnership grants. 

Participating in the Title II Partnership Grant Program has increased new teacher support provided by 

districts and IHEs. Education deans participating in the leadership of the Partnership projects described 

the involvement and commitment of the preservice teacher preparation program to the ongoing training 

and support of new teachers. These deans enumerated the forms of new teacher support, both by districts 

and IHEs, among the Title II Partnership projects (see exhibit 5). 

Exhibit 5 

Induction Activities Provided by Partnerships as Reported by Education Deans 

 Percent reporting that: 

Induction Activity 

activity was 

provided to new 

graduates 

activity 

supported by 

IHE faculty 

school or 

district staff 

supported the 

activity 

Average 

length of time 

the activity is 

available 

(in months) 

General access to teacher preparation IHE 

faculty for questions or discussion 91 88 12 25 

Teacher preparation program-sponsored 

network or support group with other 

program graduates 

54 82 18 19 

Organized mentoring program 77 36 64 26 

Continuing education through teacher 

education program coursework 80 79 21 25 

Continuing education through program 

workshops or seminars 86 61 39 19 

EXHIBIT READS: 91 percent of faculty Deans surveyed reported that general access to teacher preparation faculty for questions 

or discussion was provided to new graduates as an induction activity by Partnerships. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Survey 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 9 Executive Summary

How Are Partnership Projects Changing the Requirements and Quality of the 

Clinical Experience for Preservice Teachers? 

Professional Development Schools 

Seventy-two percent of the Partnerships have chosen to base their increased interaction with school 

partners in the PDS, a collaborative arrangement to address the needs of preservice and in-service teacher 

preparation. Respondents to the Title II Partnership Evaluation surveys indicated that the PDS 

arrangement was the most commonly used model to change the quality of the clinical experience for 

student internships. 

In PDSs, student interns are supported by professors-in-residence (PIRs) from the university partners who 

are on-site at least one day a week as a visible commitment to link teacher preparation theory with 

practice. The presence of PIRs ensures communication about student supervision between the IHE and 

the school. The PIR also facilitates detailed and systematic supervision by cooperating teachers and 

clinical supervisors. Partnership teacher preparation programs have led the way in training in-service 

teachers to become clinical supervisors by incorporating the principles of adult education and supervision. 

The impact on schools has led to improved status and recognition for teachers who mentor the newest 

members of their profession. 

Student Internships 

Typically, student interns from Partnership IHEs spend up to 20 weeks in a student internship, sometimes 

divided into two periods in different schools. Only 22 percent of Partnership teacher preparation programs 

require fewer than 15 weeks of student teaching activity, 74 percent require 15 to 20 weeks and 4 percent 

require more than 20 weeks. 

Matched Expectations 

Increased interaction between faculty in IHEs and K–12 schools seems to result in a closer match of 

expectations regarding what new teachers know and can do. Faculty and school district partners 

responding to the same set of issues indicated that overall, teacher preparation students are “adequately” 

to “very well” prepared to face the school challenges listed, choosing “not at all” prepared less than 15 

percent of the time. Respondents indicated that students are best prepared to work with diverse 

populations of learners and to use a variety of instructional strategies and least (but still adequately) 

prepared to communicate with parents and to work with special education students (see exhibit 6). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 10 

Exhibit 6 

Perceptions of Faculty and School District Respondents 

Regarding New Teachers’ Preparedness 

Area of new teacher preparedness 

Average Score 

Faculty 

Average Score

School District

Working with diverse populations of learners 4.4 4.2 

Using a variety of instructional strategies 4.3 4.3 

Applying standards to classroom lessons 4.2 4.3 

Learning how to be a learner 4.1 4.0 

Using a variety of assessment strategies 4.0 4.0 

Developing a depth in subject matter knowledge 3.9 3.9 

Knowing how to construct curricula 3.9 3.7 

Conducting effective classroom management 3.8 4.2 

Communicating with parents 3.6 3.7 

Working in a school with structural reform initiatives (e.g., year-round 

schools, block scheduling, school restructuring teams) 3.6 3.7 

Knowing how to work with special education students 3.5 3.6 

NOTE: Respondents were asked to rate new teacher preparedness on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well). 

EXHIBIT READS: On average, faculty and school district respondents rated new teacher preparedness with regards to working 

with diverse populations of learners as 4.4 and 4.2, respectively on a five-point scale. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty and School District Surveys 

How Are Partnership Activities with School Districts and Schools Affecting Student 

Performance on State Achievement Assessments? 

“High-Need” School Partners 

Title II Partnership collaborations start at the district level where their mandate is to focus on “high-need” 

school districts. One expectation of this collaboration is a measurable improvement in school-level 

student achievement scores because specific activities undertaken throughout the district or with 

individual schools eventually raise the quality of teaching within partner schools. 

The Partnership Evaluation is seeking an indication of the difference made to schools and school districts 

through Partnership participation. This difference is being measured by comparing student achievement 

scores of Title II and non-Title II schools in the same or similar districts within a state. 

Before the analysis of differences could be undertaken, a baseline descriptive analysis was conducted to 

determine how alike Title II and non-Title II schools were as the grant began. 

According to the Common Core of Data and the PPSS School-level Assessment Database, Title II schools 

closely resemble non-Title II schools on a number of key characteristics that are associated with “high 

need.” Exhibit 7 illustrates that Title II partner schools have slightly higher enrollments; but on all other 

selected characteristics, including Title I status, percent of student body that is minority, average percent 

eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch and school-level achievement in reading and math, they 

are similar. Exhibit 7 is a summary table; more detailed tables are provided in the full report comparing 

Title II and non-Title II schools on each characteristic. See exhibit 8 for details about the baseline 

achievement scores. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 11 Executive Summary

Exhibit 7 

Descriptive Characteristics of Title II and Non-Title II Schools in the Partnerships, 

2000–01 

Average Title II Schools Non-Title II Schools Difference 

% Title I 73.9 69.4 4.5 

% Minority 55.4 56.3 -0.9 

% Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch 47.7 50.7 -3.1 

Enrollment 536.2 465.8 70.4 

Standardized Math Score 95.9 96.0 -0.1 

Standardized Reading Scores 94.4 95.3 -0.6 

NOTE: The overall average is an unweighted average across all Partnerships so that all Partnerships are treated equally. 

While the averages are presented here, the breakdowns by Partnership are included in exhibits 22 –24 and Appendix F of 

the full report. We did not test for significance of the overall average differences reported here, however, significant 

differences are indicated at the Partnership level in exhibits 22-24 and Appendix F of the full report. 

EXHIBIT READS: On average, 73.9 percent of Title II schools also qualify as Title I schools, while 69.4 percent of NonTitle II schools qualify as Title I schools. 

SOURCE: CCD, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education and 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 

Baseline Student Achievement Scores

One component of the Partnership Evaluation will be an examination of the associations that might exist 

between the types of collaborative activities sponsored by Partnerships and student achievement.1

 This 

analysis, using data from a survey of principals in the Title II Partnerships and extant school-level student 

achievement data for multiple years, will appear in the final report. Since this interim report addresses 

only the first two years of the Partnership grant, just one year of baseline achievement scores for math and 

reading assessments is available as a baseline measure. These baseline math and reading scores from 

2000-01 are shown in exhibit 8 for the Title II and non-Title II schools in partner districts. 

Each row of exhibit 8 represents a Partnership. The math and reading scores are sorted by average math 

difference. For both math and reading, only one Partnership differed significantly for Title II and nonTitle II schools. 

 

1

 Appendix F in the Interim Report describes the methodology for analyses of the achievement data. The goal of the student achievement 

analysis was to compare schools within districts and then within Partnerships. Because student achievement data differed substantially across 

states, we chose not to aggregate across states. In most cases, the Partnership level was equivalent to the state level, however, there was one 

Partnership that was multistate in scope. In addition, there was one Partnership that did not work with any school-level partners in the first two 

years of the grant period. Therefore, in the exhibits related to Evaluation Topic 3 (student achievement) where each row represents a Partnership, 

there are more rows than Partnerships. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 12 

Exhibit 8 

Average Math and Reading Scores for Title II and 

Non-Title II Schools, 2000–01

Math Reading 

Partnership

Title II 

Schools (n) 

Non-Title II 

Schools (n) Difference 

Title II Schools 

(n) 

Non-Title II 

Schools (n) Difference 

25 97.8 (2) 88.3 (11) 9.6 91.9 (2) 84.5 (11) 7.4 

24 112.4 (7) 104.2 (17) 8.2 109.0 (7) 104.3 (17) 4.7 

5 96.3 (13) 90.6 (1) 5.7 95.8 (13) 86.2 (1) 9.6 

2 101.4 (112) 98.6 (18) 2.9 99.8 (112) 100.9 (17) -1.1 

4 92.3 (8) 89.5 (143) 2.8 92.2 (8) 90.5 (142) 1.7 

6 98.6 (71) 96.4 (457) 2.2 95.6 (71) 93.9 (457) 1.7 

27 83.8 (7) 81.7 (21) 2.1 85.4 (7) 83.1 (21) 2.2 

15 92.3 (5) 90.5 (19) 1.8 93.1 (5) 91.5 (19) 1.6 

19 103.3 (42) 101.9 (262) 1.4 102.2 (42) 101.4 (262) 0.8 

13 95.3 (32) 94.3 (25) 1.1 93.7 (32) 93.7 (25) 0.0 

8 97.6 (99) 96.6 (142) 1.0 95.2 (99) 94.1 (142) 1.1 

14 99.6 (6) 98.8 (23) 0.8 98.6 (6) 98.0 (23) 0.6 

20 105.0 (5) 104.5 (35) 0.6 106.5 (5) 105.5 (35) 1.0 

9 95.0 (12) 94.7 (42) 0.4 89.7 (12) 93.5 (42) -3.9 

3 102.3 (10) 102.4 (78) -0.1 102.0 (10) 103.1 (77) -1.1 

22 104.9 (3) 105.2 (7) -0.3 98.8 (3) 98.4 (7) 0.4 

11 89.6 (6) 91.8 (206) -2.3 88.9 (6) 90.8 (206) -1.8 

12 99.1 (41) 101.5 (99) -2.3 95.5 (41) 97.7 (99) -2.2 

10 79.9 (12) 83.1 (133) -3.2 no reading data available 

21 89.9 (8) 94.6 (86) -4.7 89.9 (8) 93.7 (86) -3.8 

23 99.4 (4) 104.4 (3) -5.0 no reading data available 

1 89.1 (3) 97.4 (90) -8.3 86.3 (3) 95.1 (91) -8.8 

18 80.0 (8) 97.1 (38) -17.1** 79.2 (8) 101.7 (38) -22.5** 

7 95.9 (45) − − 98.1 (45) − −

16 98.3 (60) − − 100.8 (50) − −

17 98.0 (8) − − 99.7 (8) − −

26 80.2 (114) − − 80.9 (114) − −

Average 95.9 96.0 -.13 94.4 95.3 -.58 

* p<.05, **p<.01. 

− Not applicable, Partnerships are working with all the schools in their partner districts; therefore, no non-Title II schools exist 

for comparison. 

NOTE: Achievement scores are standardized to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 within each grade and then 

averaged to the school, state and Partnership. Unless otherwise noted, blank cells are due to unavailable math or reading 

assessment data. Assessment data are not available for any schools in one Partnership. Overall average includes only those 

Partnerships with non-Title II schools. The overall means for Title II school math scores, including Partnerships for which no 

non-Title II schools exist is 95.5, and the overall mean for Title II reading scores, including Partnerships for which no non-Title II 

schools exist is 94.3. Averages presented in this exhibit are sorted by average math difference. Numbers have been rounded. 

EXHIBIT READS: A positive difference in the “Difference” column indicates that in a given Partnership, the average assessment 

score in all Title II schools is higher than the average assessment score in all non-Title II schools in Partnership districts. For 

example, on average, the Title II schools in the first Partnership row on the table score 9.6% higher on that state’s math 

assessment than the non-Title II schools in the Partnership districts. Negative differences indicate the opposite, that non-Title II 

schools, on average, have higher assessment scores than the Title II schools. 

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
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 13 Executive Summary

What Is the Role of the Formal Partnership Structure in Achieving the Goals of the 

Title II Partnership Grant Program? 

The Partnership itself is the decision-making body governing the use of the funds and monitoring the 

processes and results of the collaboration. The Title II Partnership Evaluation is investigating the extent to 

which organizational changes and relationships among partners result in higher-quality preparation for 

preservice teachers and improved response to the needs of inservice teachers. 

Elimination of Collaboration Barriers 

Representatives from the various Partnership projects indicated that because of the formal Partnership 

structure, faculty from the schools of education and arts and sciences are “speaking the same language” 

for the first time because of the grant. Yet despite the support and resources provided to partner IHEs, 

representatives of both education and arts and sciences faculties reported that a number of challenges to 

the goal of involvement in Partnership activities remain: 

• Lack of time for faculty from different departments to develop relationships (74 percent). 

• Problems with arrangements, such as inability to schedule meetings convenient to all involved 

(62 percent). 

• Reward system (such as salary, promotion and tenure) that recognizes neither faculty members’ 

work in schools (56 percent) nor collaboration within the university (53 percent) or with K–12 

schools (55 percent). 

• Differences in culture between universities and schools (47 percent). 

• Differences in climate between schools of education and arts and sciences (47 percent). 

The Title II Partnership Projects have inspired an interest in and a purpose for collaboration. They have 

also provided the forum for diverse faculty to achieve consensus on goals for curricular and instructional 

reform. With a requirement for collaboration, these projects have also forced teacher educators to think 

more broadly about the larger responsibility for teacher preparation and to consider the pipeline as a 

continuum that stretches from early in a person’s undergraduate career well into his or her induction 

phase of teaching and beyond. 

Creation of New Alliances 

The requirement of creating an advisory board has facilitated new alignments among business and 

cultural partners, IHEs and schools. Partnership advisory boards tend to comprise faculty and community 

leaders, deans of schools of education and arts and sciences, district superintendents and presidents of 

community colleges. In addition to leadership representation, most advisory boards include education and 

arts and sciences professors, district teachers and representatives from business and cultural partners. 

A new partner sector represented on some advisory boards and in Partnership activities is the community 

college. Partner IHEs find that working with community college administration and education faculty 

may help potential teachers who want to get their teacher education start at local community colleges. 

Scholarship funds go further, in some cases, for students who are picking up part of the undergraduate 

requirements at community colleges. This academic and administrative collaboration requires a better 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 14 

understanding of the population of students shared by both types of institutions and the content of the 

course work offered. 

Distance and Partnership Structure 

When large distances separate key higher education partners, strong partner arrangements are created on a 

local level, but collaboration with more distant partners may be hindered. Although advisory board 

membership promotes communication among a variety of institutions, meetings involving distant partners 

are often limited in their ability to affect the reform of teacher preparation. 

For example, a number of Partnerships describe themselves as “statewide” in scope. Instead of being a 

unified, statewide entity, however, these Partnerships tend to break into regionally oriented 

collaborations, in which each regional IHE has developed its own strategies and activities. The level of 

interaction among these regional collaborations varies. One Partnership indicated that some partners in 

different cities had forged new connections, whereas another Partnership reported that partners at 

different regional sites have almost no communication. 

Structure for Sustainability 

Many Partnerships work with organizations and schools that have a long history of collaboration, 

although not all prior initiatives aimed at school reform or teacher preparation reform have been 

successful. By broadening the constituency, establishing mutually satisfying goals, making a commitment 

to continue reform, interaction, and professional development activities in the future and through sharing 

costs, Partnerships have at least started to explore the routes to sustainability. 

Dean involvement in Partnership activities and initiatives, both among education and arts and sciences 

faculties, is on the rise, indicating university-wide support for teacher preparation. Exhibit 9 compares the 

percentages of faculty who reported support from their unit dean for Title II types of activities before and 

after the receipt of the Partnership grant. 

The relative importance of support from the education and arts and science deans has significance as a 

means to accomplish several of the features of the Partnership Evaluation institutionalization framework: 

effective leadership to attract broad participation; reciprocal change in partnering organizations; 

legitimatization of change from individuals in leadership positions; establishment of a constituency in 

larger forums and monitoring impact. Education deans have a history of forming networks to realize 

reform; for example, UNITE for deans in urban universities and the Holmes Partnership for deans in large 

research universities. Arts and sciences deans work through both subject area and higher education 

organizations to address administrative and instructional issues. Within their own institutions, deans may 

be helpful in attracting the interest of other faculty and deans. Deans can commit their support to 

continuing Partnerships with schools and deans and to monitoring departmental resources; therefore, they 

may see both the benefits and the challenges of committing faculty and funds to institutionalize reform. 

At the same time, deans are aware of the larger academic context, such as state and accreditation 

requirements, and this awareness may influence their decision about support. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 15 Executive Summary

Exhibit 9 

Percent of Faculty Reporting Dean Support before and during Second Year 

of Partnership Implementation 

 Education Arts and Sciences 

Type of Support 

Percent 

Before 

Grant 

Percent 

During 

Percent 

Before 

Grant 

Percent 

During 

Addresses issues of teacher preparation as a priority in 

speeches and strategic activities 

79* 89* 51* 65* 

Supports involvement of faculty in service to schools and 

collaboration with colleagues 

82 89 72 81 

Raises funds for faculty and unit activities related to school 

needs and teacher preparation 

46* 62* 26* 25* 

Provides release time for conducting research focused on 

K-12 school improvement or for participating in project 

activities 

40 56* 29 38* 

Asks participating faculty to make routine reports on project 

accomplishments at education or university-wide meetings N/A 71* N/A 42* 

Attends Partnership governing board meetings N/A 74* N/A 43* 

Highlights the importance of the Partnership in speeches, 

newsletters or other communications N/A 

79* 

N/A 

50* 

Provides financial support for professional development 

activities related to Partnership activities N/A 

73* 

N/A 

57* 

*p<.05, indicates significant differences between education and arts and sciences faculties in the mean proportion indicating 

support from the dean before or during the Partnership. For example, arts and sciences faculty differed from education faculty

in perceptions of dean support for the first type of support listed “Addresses issues of teacher preparation as a priority in 

speeches and strategic activities” both before the grant began (79 vs. 51%, p<.05) and currently (89 vs. 65%, p<.05). For all 

significant differences, dean support was reported more frequently by education faculty than by arts and sciences faculty. 

EXHIBIT READS: After receiving their Partnership grant, 89 percent of education faculty respondents to the faculty survey 

reported that their dean addressed issues of teacher preparation as a priority in speeches and strategic activities, compared to 65 

percent of Arts and Sciences faculty, a significant difference. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Surveys 

Partnership projects also have supplemented Partnership funds with money from other sources, another 

indication of sustainability. The grant program requires Partnerships to obtain matching funds from 

sources other than the federal government. These funds may include both monetary amounts and in-kind 

contributions. Project directors identified 66 matching-funds sources (an average of 2.75 funding sources 

in addition to the Title II grant per Partnership), all of which are committed for the entire 5-year grant 

period. The majority of cited funding sources are partner districts and departments within colleges and 

universities. To date, 9 percent of these sources have plans to continue beyond the grant, and more are 

expected to join the ranks of continuing funders. In addition, project directors reported that they continue 

to pursue alternative sources of funding from foundations, private individuals and corporations. 

Partnerships described a variety of types of in-kind contributions. Most commonly, Partnerships receive 

in-kind contributions in the form of the time and salary of faculty and of school and district personnel. In 

addition, many Partnerships receive equipment, supplies and the use of facilities. 

All project directors in the 1999 Partnership Grant cohort who responded indicated that reforms being put 

in place under the grant are being incorporated into the long-range or strategic plans of the partner 

districts and institutions. Exhibit 10 shows the number of project directors who indicated that specific 

reforms or activities are “very likely” to continue. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Executive Summary 16 

Exhibit 10 

Project Directors Who Indicated Partnership Reforms and Activities 

“Very Likely” to Continue 

Reform Strategy Number of Project Directors 

Professional development schools 22 

Support programs for beginning teachers 21 

Cross-department working arrangements 20 

Cross-department responsibility for teacher preparation 20 

New techniques for assessing students in teacher preparation programs 20 

New instructional strategies developed as part of the grant 20 

New course sequences developed as part of the grant 18 

Support for faculty involvement in schools and school districts 18 

Data sharing about the recruitment of new teachers 16 

EXHIBIT READS: 22 of the 25 project directors indicated that Professional Development 

Schools were “very likely” to continue as a strategy of Partnership reform and activity. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Project Director Survey 

School districts have a clear idea about the activities that should continue after the grant period but are in 

only the formative stages of planning strategies to achieve these goals. Some districts explain that 

institutionalization is difficult because of budget constraints and a focus on more pressing school 

problems. Other respondents report that partners who were supposed to take leadership roles in 

institutionalization efforts had not shared information with school district participants. 

Future Data Collection 

At the time of the writing of the Interim Report, the Title II evaluation was heading into its third year. 

During the third and fourth years, follow-up surveys for faculty and school district representatives will be 

fielded, and case study visits to five sites will be conducted. The surveys will seek specificity regarding 

the Partnership contributions and examine change over the life of the projects. The surveys and the site 

visits will be further informed by the newest literature about teacher preparation reform and qualified 

teachers. 

Also in the third year, a survey enhancement will be directed toward the principals of elementary schools 

currently partnering with Title II Partnership institutions. In this data collection effort, increased focus 

will be given to the impact of the Partnership on improved teaching and student achievement. 

For more information, please contact Dena Patterson, U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program 

Studies Service, dena.patterson@ed.gov.