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

**Final Report**

ByAmerican Institutes for ResearchSRI International****

Prepared for:U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Planning, Evaluation and Policy DevelopmentPolicy 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 PubsEducation Publications CenterU.S. Department of EducationP.O. Box 1398Jessup, 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 tele​typewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833.

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

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

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

**Contents**

**v****List of Exhibits******

**1****Executive Summary******

1I. Introduction

1II. Key Findings

5III. Challenges and Lessons Learned

**I–1****Chapter I Introduction and Evaluation Approach******

I–1The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program

I–1Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation

I–3Benchmarks for Progress

I–3Evaluation Data Sources

I–5Quantitative Data

I–6Qualitative Data

I–6Analytic Methods

I–7Analytic Issues

I–8Contents of This Evaluation Report

**II–1****Chapter II Partnership Characteristics******

II–1Highlights

II–1Key Partnership Features

II–1Scope

II–1Number and Type of Partners

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

II–7Leadership Experience and Focus of Partnership Initiatives

**III–1****Chapter III Partner Relations and Organizational Changes******

III–1Highlights

III–2Evaluation Questions

III–2Collaboration: Developing a Common Vision

III–3A Spectrum of Collaboration

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

III–10Organizational Changes: Case Study Highlights

**IV–1****Chapter IV Teacher-Preparation Reform Efforts******

IV–1Highlights

IV–1Evaluation Questions

IV–2Teacher-Preparation Program Options in Partnership IHEs

IV–2Changes in Course Offerings

IV–5Changes in Field Experience Requirements

IV–5Changes in Required Clinical Experience

IV–7Developing Technology Skills: Faculty and Teachers

IV–10Faculty Collaboration and Program Reforms

IV–10Teacher-Preparation Quality: Accountability Measures

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

**V–1****Chapter V Partner Schools and Districts******

V–1Highlights

V–1Evaluation Questions

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

Contents**(Continued)**

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

V–7Schools and Districts as Equal Partners

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

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

V–12Core Features of Professional Development

V–12Structural Features of Professional Development

V–17Partnership Approaches to Delivering Professional Development

V–19Partnerships and NCLB Initiatives

V–19School and District Involvement: Case Study Highlights

**VI–1****Chapter VI Institutionalization******

VI–1Highlights

VI–1Evaluation Questions

VI–1Activities Most Likely to Continue

VI–4Features Related to Institutionalization

6Likelihood and Importance of Institutionalization: Case Study HighlightsVI–

**VII–1****Chapter VII Challenges and Lessons Learned******

VII–1Highlights

VII–1Challenges Anticipated and Faced

VII–5Evaluation and Attributing Outcomes to Partnerships

VII–5Lessons Learned

**1****ReferencesR–******

**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 YearsA–1**

**Appendix B: IHE and Community College Partners in the 1999 Title II CohortB–1**

**Appendix C: Partnership Main Goals, Strategies for Increasing Accountability, Planned Use of Incentives, and Content Area EmphasesC–1**

**Appendix D: Survey Response by PartnershipD–1**

****

# Exhibits

2Exhibit 1 Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level: Median, Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up

3Exhibit 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

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

5Exhibit 4 Ratings of Teacher-Education Students’ Preparedness for  Meeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and District Respondents, Baseline and Follow-Up

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

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

I–5Exhibit 7 Evaluation Data by Source

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

II–3Exhibit 9 Number of Partners per Partnership

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

II–6Exhibit 11 Approximate Number of Professional Development Beneficiaries as Reported by Project Directors

II–7Exhibit 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–7Exhibit 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

III–4Exhibit 14 Average Authenticity Rating by Partnership

III–4Exhibit 15 Average Partnership Authenticity Rating by Partner

III–5Exhibit 16 Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities, as Reported by Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up

III–6Exhibit 17 Average Degree of Faculty Collaboration with Teachers: Education Compared with Arts and Sciences, at Follow-Up

III–8Exhibit 18 Faculty Involvement in “Planning” Versus “Doing” Types of Collaboration: Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty Combined, at Follow-Up

Exhibits**(Continued)**

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

III–9Exhibit 21 Ratings of the Collegiality Between Faculty Across Disciplines, as Reported by Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up

III–11Exhibit 22 Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Organizational Changes and Relationships

IV–3Exhibit 23 Faculty Ratings of Extent of Partnership Support of Alternate Route Programs, 2002–03

IV–4Exhibit 24 Content Changed in New and Revised Teacher-Preparation Courses, as Reported by Faculty, 2002–03

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

IV–6Exhibit 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–6Exhibit 27 Early Field Experience Opportunities, as Reported by Faculty Leaders in Partnerships With and Without a PDS Model: 1999–2000 and 2002–03

IV–8Exhibit 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–8Exhibit 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–9Exhibit 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–11Exhibit 31 Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities Between Faculty in Arts and Sciences and Education, 2002–03

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

IV–13Exhibit 33 Changes in Program Entry and Exit Requirements, as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 2002–03

IV–14Exhibit 34 Ratings of Teacher-Education Students’ Preparedness for Meeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and District Respondents, Baseline and Follow-up

IV–15Exhibit 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

Exhibits**(Continued)**

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

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

V–4Exhibit 38 Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level: Median, Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up

V–5Exhibit 39 Rated Level of Involvement at the School, District and Community Levels, Baseline and Follow-Up

V–5Exhibit 40 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting District and School-Level Staff Involvement in the Partnership, Baseline and Follow-Up

V–6Exhibit 41 Percentage of District Representatives Reporting Teacher Participation in Collaborative Activities with Partner Faculty at Baseline and Follow-Up

V–8Exhibit 42 Extent of Collaboration in Partnerships by Teachers and District Staff by Scope of Partnerships, Baseline and Follow-Up

V–8Exhibit 43 Average Rated Frequency of Collaborative Partnership Activities Between Schools and Partner IHEs, as Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships

V–9Exhibit 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–11Exhibit 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–11Exhibit 46 Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support of New Teachers at Follow-Up

V–14Exhibit 47 Percentage of Faculty and District Representatives Indicating Types of Partnership Professional Development Opportunities Provided to Teachers and District Staff, 2002–03

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

V–15Exhibit 49 Frequency of Partnership Professional Development Activities Between Schools and Partner IHEs, as Reported by Principals

V–16Exhibit 50 Follow-Up to Professional Development Activities as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents, 2002–03

V–16Exhibit 51 Average Number of Participants in Content-Focused Versus Non–Content-Focused Professional Development Activities, as Reported by District and Faculty, 2002–03

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

Exhibits**(Continued)**

V–18Exhibit 53 Models of Professional Development

V–20Exhibit 54 Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities, as Reported by District and Faculty

V–21Exhibit 55 Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities by Partnership, as Reported by District and Faculty

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

VI–2Exhibit 57 Average Likelihood of Sustaining Partnership Reform Efforts, as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents

VI–3Exhibit 58 Average Importance of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms, as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents

VI–5Exhibit 59 Average Likelihood of Institutionalization by Main Goals, Accountability Strategies, and Content Area Focus, as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents

VI–6Exhibit 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–7Exhibit 61 Status of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms

VII–2Exhibit 62 Percentage of Faculty Reporting Challenges to Improving Preservice Teacher Education at the Start of the Partnership Grant

VII–3Exhibit 63 Average Challenge Ratings as Reported by Faculty Toward the End of the Partnership Grant

# 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 dif​ferent 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 representa​tives from institutions of higher education (IHEs) and district project participants at two points during the grant period (2000–01; 2003–04). More than 500 principals were surveyed once, during the 2002–03 year. The study also included secondary data analyses using publicly available data on school characteristics, school-level achievement data, and pass rates on teacher assessments reported as part of the Title II HEA reporting requirements. Five diverse projects were the subject of case studies that included repeated week-long visits. 

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

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

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

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

3. Were changes in the student teacher internship com​ponent 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. 

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

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

**Exhibit 1**Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level:Median, Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up

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 fulfill​ment of some of these goals.**

One of the central concerns for district partners in the Title II partnerships was recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. The evaluation specifically investigated the partnership contributions in this regard. The evalua​tion surveys asked representatives of the partner​ships 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).

· **Partnerships focused course reform and profes​sional development on academic content needs of teachers, which were specified through discus​sions 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.

**Exhibit 2**Percentage of District Survey Respondents Reporting Partnership Support to TeacherRecruitment and Retention: Overall, High-Poverty Schools, and for High-Need Subjectsat Baseline and Follow-Up

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

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

**Exhibit 3**Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support of New Teachersat Follow-Up

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 partner​ships used to meet the subject matter needs of veteran teachers.**

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

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

When asked how individuals preparing to be teachers measured up with respect to academic knowledge, instruc​tional 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 admini​stered 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 individ​uals 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.

· **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 intern​ship 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 dura​tion of the grant period in the Title II partner​ships.**

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. 

· **Partnerships specifically addressed the account​ability 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 impor​tant to many of the grantees, who worked toward improved pass rates on teacher assessments for their students to meet an accreditation standard. Faculty in the partnerships also reported using not only external standards from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) but also state content standards to guide program reform. 

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

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

**Exhibit 4**Ratings of Teacher-Education Students’ Preparedness for Meeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and DistrictRespondents, Baseline and Follow-Up

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 evalua​tion 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; devel​oping and expanding leadership roles; assuming shared accountability; and recognizing and working to eliminate barriers.

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

Title II partnerships reported they could not remove some of the powerful institutional barriers that remain in the way of sustaining partnership program goals. Challenges high​lighted by partnership participants include:  a lack of time and recognition of faculty who take part in partner​ship 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 devel​opment over substantial distances. In future undertakings, policymakers may wish to emphasize the strength that comes from forming cohesive partnerships that are purposefully limited in their geographic scope.

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

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

**Enhance evaluation resources to monitor objectives.** Very few partnerships implemented the kind of contin​uous 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.

# 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 individ​uals 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 experi​ences, and (3) providing increased opportunities for en​hanced professional development. Additionally, the legisla​tion 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 superin​tendents, (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 implementa​tion 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.

**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:

5. 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 pro​grams: revisions to entrance and exit require​ments, content area courses, field experience and clinical experience requirements, and the integra​tion of technology in teaching practices?

· How did partnership reform of teacher prepara​tion 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? 

6. 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 profes​sional development provided to teachers in the partnership schools and districts?

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

7. Organizational changes and relationships among part​ners within a grant. 

· Did Title II partnerships begin with developing a common mission or vision about teacher prepara​tion?

· 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?

8. Efforts to institutionalize partnerships.

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

· Do partnership participants believe the partner​ship 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 partner​ships. 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, 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 partner​ships, district employees, and principals. Case study data augmented the survey data. Extant data sources were also used. (Exhibit 7).

**Exhibit 6**Partnership Evaluation Topics, Legislative Goals, and Related Features

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.

**Exhibit 7**Evaluation Data by Source

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 partici​pants. 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 pro​gress 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 partner​ship 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 representa​tives were sought. 

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

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

Elementary school principals and Title II project directors were surveyed only once―principals midway between the first and second rounds of district and faculty surveys, and project directors at the beginning of the evaluation. We surveyed project directors to gain programmatic-level baseline information regarding partners, history and re​form 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 individ​uals 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 documenta​tion, (2) preliminary and in-depth case studies, (3) follow-up interviews with case study site partners about project activities and institutionalization, (4) write-in responses and explanatory comments volunteered by respondents to survey items, and (5) in-depth interviews with selected project directors. 

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

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

### Analytic Methods

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 partici​pants 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).

**Exhibit 8**Response Rates, Withdrawal Rates, and the Number of Respondents by Survey Type

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, non​respondent 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 implemen​tation 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 collabora​tion without considering size would be uninformative and possibly misleading. 

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

*Nonresponse bias*. The analytic sample has several sources for potential bias, including survey- and item-level non​response (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 partner​ship 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 relation​ships between school districts and universities, and rela​tionships 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 pro​gram content and structure as a result of the partner​ship grant, the progress made on collaborative activities be​tween 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 profes​sional 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 part​ners and an examination of why some expectations remain unfulfilled.

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

# 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 com​munity colleges, 179 school districts, and 821 elemen​tary schools.

· The federal investment in the 1999 cohort was ap​proximately $171 million dollars. Individual IHEs within the partner​ships 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. Exam​ples 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 teacher-preparation 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 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. Under the terms of the partnership initiative, however, partnerships were not required to include these latter “other” partners in the partnership.

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

*IHE (college and university) partners*. The majority of partnerships involved a single IHE, and many others involved a single system of IHEs. On average, each partnership had 2.8 IHEs, ranging between one and 11 IHE partners. Over half (14 partnerships or 56 percent) had a single IHE partner, another seven partnerships (28 per​cent) 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 

**Exhibit 9**Number of Partners per Partnership

*(exhibit continued on next page)*

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

a Includes two of the three required partners—Departments of Education and School of Arts and Sciences. 

b These partnerships reported a value such as “numerous” in addition to a quantitative value (i.e., two libraries and numerous businesses). In these cases, only the number provided is counted here. 

c The number of partners was not specified in the partnership’s proposal.

d Not available because at the time of data collection, North Carolina had not finalized participating schools.

NOTE: Jackson County School District has three schools in the ACHIEVE Partnership and 41 schools in the Teacher Quality Enhancement Program (Jackson State). The district is included in each partnership, but counted only once toward the total. There are no non-Title II schools in the district.

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

community, public universities also experienced loss of support from state governments. Selective private institutions, on the other hand, reported enormous contributions by individual donors that supported special tuition programs or endowed chairs and schools. Meanwhile, many small- and medium-sized private and public institutions had to fight for fewer available resources. Among the partner​ships 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 

**Exhibit 10**Annual Budget by Partnership, by Lead IHE

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.

**Exhibit 11**Approximate Number of Professional Development Beneficiaries as Reported byProject Directors

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 identi​fied non-partnership funding source for teacher-prepara​tion 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 pro​mote preparation of teachers: the term was not limited to any single type of grant.

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

**Exhibit 12**Percentage of Grants Received From Other Sources and Number of GranteesReporting About Other Grants for Teacher-Preparation Reform Received byPartnerships Between 1999–2000 and 2002–03, as Reported by Faculty Leaders

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 Allocatedto Teacher-Preparation Reform, Preservice Clinical Experiences, and ProfessionalDevelopment Since 1999–2000, as Reported by Faculty Leaders 

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 dis​assemble the efforts of those planning and participating in the implementation (Bacevich et al., 2004). Thus, to the extent that partnership initiatives were coherent (fit) with reforms taking place in schools and districts or reflected the roles that universities and schools desired for each other and for new, outside partners, the process and the progress toward implementation were likely to be smoother. 

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

The partnerships developed goals that were related to the specific needs of their school partners and related to the research and professional development in which faculty in partner schools were already engaged. For example, the education faculty with the reading instruction portfolio at the University of Miami developed a week-long reading institute that provided teachers at elementary and middle schools with PDS partners the latest scientifically based reading practices. Faculty at a community college partner (San Antonio College) in the CoMeT Partnership created a course targeted to indivi​duals 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 pro​fessional 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 partner​ships. Nine identified a primary focus on standards align​ment, 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 pro​fessional 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 empha​sis on math, one on reading, and three on both math​ematics 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 partner​ships reported their overall empha​sis was on improving content study. 

*Incentives*. Many partnership funds were an important source of incentives to ensure or reward participation of either classroom teachers or faculty in partnership activities and reform efforts. Fifteen partnerships provided faculty incentives for participation in partnership efforts, and eight partnerships offered incentives to teachers. Seven of the 15 partnerships offered incentives to both faculty and teachers. Incentives included reduced tuition or tuition waivers for teachers taking college courses, in​creased 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 informa​tion on partnership-funded research and activities. In creating a teachers-in-residence program at its IHE partner, the Milwaukee Partnership Academy to Improve the Quality of Teaching went so far as to buy out two years of the teaching time for each of 34 in-service master teachers from the Milwaukee public schools.

*Increasing accountability*. A goal of the Title II Partnership Grant Program is to increase the accountability of teacher-preparation programs for producing highly qualified teachers. Within the teacher education community, account​ability 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 perfor​mance 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. 

# 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 coopera​tion with effective working relationships and mutually agreed-upon strategies, varied somewhat across the 25 partnerships. This measure was positively cor​related 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 devel​opment, 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 collabora​tion and initiatives when grant funds ended.

The Title II Partnership Grants Program sought the estab​lishment of partnerships that would change the ways in which school districts, universities and university depart​ments 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 character​istics. In addition to these disparate institutions, some partnerships incorpo​rated 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-prepara​tion 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 pre​paring 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 mutu​ally reinforcing. The features most frequently identi​fied 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, ad​dresses partnership-facilitated accountability, and Chapter VII, Challenges and Lessons Learned, discusses the recog​nition 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 col​laboration across disciplines. Grantees were reaching out to different kinds of partners and using the advisory boards and task forces to plan and advance goals, build a common mission, make plans for sustaining initiatives, and solve problems when facing challenges. District staff and teachers were involved in both planning and teaching courses, as well as in serving as student-teacher supervi​sors. 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 partner​ships to support partner initiatives related to teacher quality. Although professional relationships between edu​cation 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 col​laborations. According to Clark, collaborative activities vary from “arrangements on paper to relationships based upon patronage and grants, to ones which involve an equality of action and benefits.”

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

In this evaluation a measure—authenticity—was incorpo​rated into the surveys to assess the extent to which the col​laborative 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 mea​sured and sustained when education partnerships share the following common goals:

· Improving the quality of education by bringing to​gether 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 cur​riculum.

· Equity.

· Accessibility.

· Excellence.

· Affordability.

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 authen​ticity 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 for​mal commitment to cooperation.

The average authenticity score did not differ significantly by either the scope of the partnership (local, regional, statewide, or multistate) or the size of the budget. Authenticity was correlated with the extent of cross-discipline collaboration among faculty partners (r = .23,*p* < .05) and the extent of collaboration among faculty and district partners (r = .22, *p*< .05), and was correlated with both district staff and teacher participation in partnership activities (r = .26**,***p*< .05 and r = .20,*p*< 10). Faculty ratings of authenticity were also related to more collegial relationships between arts and sciences and education faculty (r = .25, p < .05) and between those faculty that participated in partnership grant activities (r = .30, *p*< .001). Thus partnerships of all shapes and sizes reported they were organized around a common mission and goals. Realizing these goals, however, owed a great deal to consistent leadership articu​lation of them and com​munication across all partners. In partner​ships 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. 

Collabora​tion 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 col​laborating faculty.

**Exhibit 14**Average Authenticity Rating by Partnership

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

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. 

**Exhibit 16**Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities, as Reported by Education andArts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up

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 part​nerships were established to review professional develop​ment 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.***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 collabo​rative activities (Exhibit 17). 

**Exhibit 17**Average Degree of Faculty Collaboration with Teachers:Education Compared with Arts and Sciences, at Follow-Up

NOTE: Respondents rated their degree of collaboration on a scale of 0–3, in which 0 = “although the activity took place, I did not participate,” 1 = “any participation,” and 3 = “a great deal of participation.”

Exhibit reads: Education faculty and arts and sciences faculty reported different levels of collaboration with teachers in the activity of “leading a professional development session or effort.” On a scale of 0–3, education faculty reported their level of collaboration  with teachers as 2.2, and arts and sciences faculty reported their level of collaboration with teachers as 1.4.

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

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

Two collaborative activities elicited similar levels of participation with teachers by the different faculty participants in the partner​ship (“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 experi​ence 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 insurmount​able. 

Site-visit interviews indicated dif​ferences in the professional cul​tures 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 develop​ment through this medium, they could not be induced to visit PDS schools that were part of the same partnership. “It just was not part of their rhythm,” this partnership’s leader explained. 

*“Planning” versus “doing*.” Baseline surveys and initial site visits indicated that early collaborative activities were chiefly planning in nature. There was some expectation that later data collections would document collaboration more in terms of implementing the initiatives, such as supervising student teachers, leading professional develop​ment, 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 partner​ships and other faculty respondents continued to report higher levels of involvement in planning rather than implemen​tation (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 collabo​rative 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 configu​rations in the partner​ships 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. How​ever, 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 partner​ships made an impression on top administrators. Greater percentages of faculty reported support from their deans who were more involved than from the presidents. The highest percentage of faculty reported dean-level support to partnership faculty regarding their service to schools and their collaboration with other faculty. Faculty also reported that deans recognized teacher-preparation issues as a priority (see Exhibit 20).

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

Relationships between faculty in the partnership IHEs were rated as collegial across arts and sciences and edu​cation departments. Ratings were high (near 4 on a 5-point scale), suggesting that cross-discipline relation​ships 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). 

**Exhibit 18**Faculty Involvement in “Planning” Versus “Doing” Types of Collaboration:Education and Arts and Sciences Faculty Combined, at Follow-Up

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 andSciences Combined) with Teachers by Scope of Partnership, at Baseline and Follow-Up

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

*(exhibit continued on next page)*

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 Educationand Arts and Sciences Faculty, at Follow-Up

NOTE: Ratings were on a scale of 1–5, in which 1 = “very strained,” 3 = “neutral,” and 5 = “very collegial.” 

EXHIBIT READS: Involved faculty respondents rated the general relationship between arts and sciences and education faculty as 3.8 on a scale of 1–5; faculty leaders reported this relationship as 4.0 on the same scale. 

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

*Relations with community colleges and other partners*. In the baseline surveys, project directors reported involving community colleges on advisory boards and in a number of initiatives such as recruitment of participants in preparation programs, technology training and course revisions. Qualitative data from the follow-up stage of the evaluation, however, suggests that relation​ships between community colleges and IHEs were not completely realized. In one partnership that included two community college partners, the total percentage of funds allotted to the two comprised only 3 percent of the project total. Although two programs were implemented, one for an alternate route program, the other to allow teacher-education students to begin their education programs at the community college (sub​stantially 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 estab​lished by a partner and another involved community institutions in preparing teachers for urban school com​munities.

*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 character​ized as “a partnership of partnerships.” The larger partner​ship 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.

**Exhibit 22**Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Organizational Changesand Relationships

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.

# 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 develop​ment 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 cur​riculum and instruction challenges. Their prepara​tion 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-prepa​ration programs and those who are not ready for internships.

· More intensive and carefully supervised clinical experi​ences.

· 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 pro​grams: revisions to entrance and exit requirements, content area courses, field experience and clinical experi​ence requirements, and the integration of technology in teaching practices?

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

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

### Teacher-Preparation Program Options in Partnership IHEs

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PDS model of field-based experience and supervision was indicated by the partnership IHEs as the most prevalent model (close to 67 percent, or 16 of 24 partnerships) imple​mented. Because of the prevalence of this model, the data on changes to course and program​matic 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. 

**Exhibit 23**Faculty Ratings of Extent of Partnership Support of Alternate Route Programs, 2002–03

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 fo​cusing on curricular implications of working with students with diverse learning needs as reasons for course changes. A higher percentage of faculty reported ad​dressing each of these changes while revising courses than did faculty addressing them through newly added courses, many of which already contained material, assignments or class​room content that was relevant. 

Some partnerships specifically articulated a goal of pro​gram 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).

**Exhibit 24**Content Changed in New and Revised Teacher-Preparation Courses,as Reported by Faculty, 2002–03

NOTE: Table describes courses under development or revised as a result of the partnership grant. Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because respondents made multiple changes to both new and revised courses.

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-three percent of faculty reported newly added courses were aligned with state content standards. Seventy-three percent of faculty reported revised courses were changed to be aligned with state content standards.

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

**Exhibit 25**Course Changes by Partnership Focus, as Reported by Faculty, 2002–03

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.

### 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 incorpo​rated a field experience requirement. In fact, the percent​age of faculty reporting those courses required fieldwork increased during the grant period. 

More faculty reported teacher-preparation programs in the partner​ships 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 in​creased 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. 

**Exhibit 26**Percentage of Faculty Leaders Reporting Availability of Early Field Experiencesby Course Types, Opportunities and Year First Offered: 1999–2000 and 2002–03

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

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

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

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

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

A change that was reported, however, was a trend toward multiple rather than single school placements during the internship. About one-quarter of education faculty in the partnerships reported that multiple school placements during the clinical experience were common for elemen​tary 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 intern​ship, education faculty sponsor school-based seminars each week. Sometimes the seminars are content-based, but generally they are organized around problems and con​cerns facing the teachers in training. Partnership IHEs witnessed no important changes in the occurrence of seminars offered for teacher-preparation students. For the 1999–2000 school year, 90 percent of education faculty indicated that elementary education students for example, were required to participate in a seminar regarding the student teaching experience. The number reporting a seminar requirement dropped slightly to 85 percent for the 2002–03 school year. 

There is no way to determine from these data whether the PDS has itself influenced the quality of the teacher-preparation program graduate. Anecdotal and case-study evidence supports the model much more strongly, however, with students and teachers in PDS schools remarking about the contribution to their preparedness. In addition, faculty members who served as professors-in-residence supported the arrange​ments 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. 

**Exhibit 28**Percentage of Faculty Leaders in PDS and Non-PDS Partnerships Reporting Singleor Multiple School Placements by Grade Level for Clinical Experiences in 2002–03

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 PartnershipsWith and Without PDS Models as Reported by Faculty Leaders, 2002–03

EXHIBIT READS: Respondents from partnerships with a PDS model reported an average 15.1 weeks of required clinical experience in a single school for elementary majors, with a range of 1 to 42 weeks. Respondents from partnerships without a PDS model reported an average 17.6 weeks of required clinical experience in a single school for elementary majors, with a range of 9 to 36 weeks.

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

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

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

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

**Exhibit 30**Percentage of Involved Faculty Respondents at Baseline and Follow-Up Who UsedStrategies to Prepare Teacher-Preparation Students to Use Technology in Their Classrooms

NOTE: Dash “—” indicates that strategy was not a listed response option in the survey.

EXHIBIT READS: Second row: At baseline, 85 percent of respondents reported they enhanced their own knowledge and skills through professional development; at follow-up, 37 percent of respondents reported they were using that strategy.

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

The reported use of e-mail and listservs and the Web for teacher-education courses changed little, indi​cating 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 under​stood that at least one school district was reluctant to hire new teachers who lacked technology skills. The course prepared novice teachers to integrate technology into their instructional practices in a way that would lead students to successful accomplishment of content standards. More than 100 faculty members (education and arts and sciences) from Jackson State University’s Teacher Quality Enhancement grant attended workshops at Hinds Community College on the use of the Internet and other computer applications. As a direct result of the grant-provided professional development, expectations were set for faculty: all class syllabi must include some indication that technology is being used for instruction, research, or student assignments. At the University of Miami’s Project SUCCEED, the Miami Museum of Science came on campus to hold workshops for students in presentation software and also hosted an institute for teachers at its own location. An administrator at the local high school trained student teachers to develop electronic portfolios. At one PDS school, grant funds supported half of a technology staff position. These are but a few examples of ways the Title II partnership funds found their way to faculty, students, and teachers and enhanced their technology skills.

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

### Faculty Collaboration and Program Reforms

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 assess​ments, 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 partner​ship 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-educa​tion students” (Exhibit 31).

These self-reported survey data indicated little in the way of pro​gress, 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 accom​plished. 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 in​cluded increased reliance on feedback from partner schools and school districts and more formalized assess​ment of teacher-preparation students. Partner colleges and univer​sities reported actively seeking data from each other, assessing the transfer of knowledge from teacher-education programs to classroom practice. 

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

**Exhibit 31**Average Degree of Participation in Collaborative Activities Between Faculty in Artsand Sciences and Education, 2002–03 

NOTE: Responses were indicated on a scale of 0–3, in which 0 = “Although the activity took place, I did not participate,” 1 = “any participation,” and 3 = “a great deal of participation.” (If an activity did not take place, respondents circled N/A and were not counted in the calculations.)

EXHIBIT READS: Average extent  of participation in working on project goals in committee(s) between schools of arts and sciences and schools of education faculty was 2.1 on a scale of 0–3. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass rates, especially in academic content areas, are of great interest to this evaluation because partnerships are focus​ing 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 Aggre​gate 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, particu​larly minorities.

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

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

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

Over time faculty and district respondents’ perceptions about teacher-education students preparedness changed very little for challenges such as “working with diverse popu​lations of learners,” “using a variety of instructional strategies,” and “applying standards to classroom les​sons.” 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.

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

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

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.

**Exhibit 34**Ratings of Teacher-Education Students’ Preparedness forMeeting School Challenges, as Reported by Faculty and DistrictRespondents, Baseline and Follow-up

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 chal​lenges. 

### Initiatives in Teacher-Preparation Reform: Case Study Highlights

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

**Exhibit 35**Status of Partnerships in Meeting Goals Relevant to Changes to the Content andStructure of the Preservice Teacher-Preparation Program Over the Grant Period

*(exhibit continued on next page)*

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.

# 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 multi​state) 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 “mentor​ing beginning teachers,” confirming many school district reports. 

· Partnership activities regarding recruitment, reduction of teacher attrition and filling teaching position vacan​cies 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 profes​sional 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 admini​strators 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 reten​tion of teachers in partner districts?

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

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

### Number of Districts and Characteristics of School Partners in Partnerships

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 partici​pating districts where all schools were partner schools. Finally, in districts containing both partner and non-partner schools, the balance between the two varied widely. In some districts, nearly all schools were partner schools (for example, Tucson had 73 Title II partner and seven non-partner schools) and in other districts, the situation was reversed (for example, Amphitheater, Arizona, had two partner schools and 11 non-partner schools). 

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

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

Average mathematics and reading scores on state-admini​stered student achievement assess​ments 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. 

**Exhibit 36**School Characteristics for Partnership and Non-partnership Schools, 1999–2000

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

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.

**Exhibit 38**Frequency of Individual Involvement at the School and District Level: Median,Average and Range, Baseline and Follow-Up

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 coun​seling, media coordinators, and subject matter specialists, and high-level district staff, including superin​tendents and assistant superintendents (see Exhibit 40). The involve​ment of upper-level district officials and principals could be one sign that districts and schools had made genuine commit​ments to partnership activities. Involve​ment 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.

**Exhibit 39**Rated Level of Involvement at the School, District and Community Levels,Baseline and Follow-Up

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 StaffInvolvement in the Partnership, Baseline and Follow-Up

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.

**Exhibit 41**Percentage of District Representatives Reporting Teacher Participation in CollaborativeActivities with Partner Faculty at Baseline and Follow-Up

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

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

Teacher participation was reported to have increased over the grant period. However, when participation was viewed by the scope of the partnership the average number of activities in which teachers were reported to have participated fell overall between the baseline survey and the follow-up. The average number of activities in local partnerships dropped from 8.2 to 5.8, and in regional partnerships dropped from 7.9 to 5.9. Statewide partnerships and the multistate partner​ship reported increases in the average number of col​laborative 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 fre​quently “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 activi​ties principals identified as most frequently occurring matched other data reported: the traditional relation​ship 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. Districts reported that their perception of equality as a partner improved slightly with their involvement during the life of the grant. At baseline, districts rated their sense of equality in the project at 3.0 and at follow-up, 3.5 on a five-point scale. 

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

In another partnership, the lead IHE was joined by school districts, a Head Start agency, one of the state teachers’ unions, a community college, and the state education agency. The partners met quarterly and reported to each other on their respective progress toward overall partnership goals. Each of these partners had its own purview, and as long as the partners continued to work toward broad partnership goals, they were free to act independent​ly 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 recruit​ment 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 im​provements 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.

**Exhibit 42**Extent of Collaboration in Partnerships by Teachers and District Staffby Scope of Partnerships, Baseline and Follow-Up

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 andPartner IHEs, as Reported By Elementary Principals in the Partnerships

*(exhibited continued on next page)*

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 TeacherRecruitment and Retention: Overall, High-Poverty Schools, and for High-Need Subjectsat Baseline and Follow-Up

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

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

Still, partnerships reportedly did assist some schools in recruiting new teachers. Initially, 85 percent reported that partnership activities had led to improved recruitment. At follow-up, more than half still indicated that partnerships had contributed to better recruitment, to a faster response filling vacancies, and to higher qualifications among new teachers.

Despite the fact that a number of partnerships developed induction programs, survey data from districts suggest that the partnerships contributed only moderately to the reten​tion 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 percent​age reporting such partnership contributions in the baseline survey.

*Partnership contribution in high-poverty schools.* The percentage of respondents indicating that the partnership had contri​buted to resolving recruitment needs in high-poverty schools decreased over time, and in the area of attrition, reports were stable over time. 

*Partnership contribution to staffing for high-needs subjects.* Respondents from each partnership reported also on how partnerships eased their staffing difficulties in “high-needs subjects” (the definition of “high-needs subjects” was left to the individual districts). Again, the responses suggest that the partnership activities were associated with contributions to overall staffing needs rather than staffing for “high-needs sub​jects,” 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 contri​butions 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 publica​tions 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 manage​ment, 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 pro​vided 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.

**Exhibit 45**Percentage of District Respondents Reporting Partnership Support for District NeedsRegarding Teacher Vacancies and Attrition by Scope of Partnership,Baseline and Follow-Up

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 Teachersat Follow-Up

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 develop​ment for teachers. In contrast to the inconclu​sive 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 follow​ing through with in-service professional development. 

The teacher-education programs in the Title II Partnership Grants Program were already experienced as providers of professional development for credential upgrading and for master’s degree goals held by in-service teachers. With grant funds, however, the partnerships were able to go outside of the traditional box of professional development workshops or continuing education courses, and serve a wider audience of teachers with focused professional development that drew on the knowledge base of the arts and sciences faculty. 

The research points to three core features and three structural features of professional development that have been associated with changes in teacher practice. 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).

9. **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 col​leagues (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.

10. **Opportunities for active learning.** Active learning refers to the engagement of teachers in the learning process through observation, meaningful discussion, practice, and reflection. Teachers appear to benefit through opportunities to observe and be observed by expert teachers; opportunities to integrate learning into classroom practice; opportunities to review student work with others; and opportunities to reflect, discuss and write about their learning (Garet et al. 2001; Lieberman 1996; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998).

11. **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 com​municate 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 devel​opment are:

12. **Form of the activity,** how professional development activities are organized. Research suggests that pro​fessional 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).

13. **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).

14. **Collective participation** of groups of teachers. In​cluding teachers from the same school, same depart​ment within the school, or, ideally, the same grade level in the school is thought to foster opportunities for collegial development that improves professional development in the short term and helps sustain it over the long term (Ball 1996; Knapp 1997; Talbert and McLaughlin 1993; Elmore 2002).

The professional development planned and implemented through the Title II partnerships varied considerably. While many of the professional development opportunities afforded through the partnerships would meet the features of a focus on important content and opportunities for active learning during the actual events, and somewhat qualify regarding coherence, there was a great deal of variation regarding features of form and collective participation. Professional development events were cultivated based on needs identified by faculty, school and district partners and there were many examples of workshops and institutes that lasted from two to five days and up to three weeks. Follow-up was reported to be a component of many of the professional development opportunities; however, this was not as common as would be desired and seemed to face some barriers, such as lack of resources to bring faculty back into schools during the year, as well as lack of commitment from some of the teacher participants. Except for mentoring or induction to support novice teachers, there was little embedded professional development. The most challenging feature to implement seemed to be that of collective participation; while partnerships intended to focus on teachers from PDS partners, for example, com​munication 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 partner​ships 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 profes​sional 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;” and confer​ences, about two days. Committees or task forces and peer coaching were conducted occasionally during the course of a school year. 

*Topics.* The most commonly reported topics in partnership-provided professional development included mentoring student teachers, using assessment data and focusing on teachers’ science knowledge (Exhibit 48). Focus on content areas such as teachers’ content knowledge in mathematics and reading was not as prevalent as might be expected based on site visit reports. Principal respondents indi​cated 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 perfor​mance 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 induc​tion support program or a technology institute.

**Exhibit 47**Percentage of Faculty and District Representatives Indicating Types of PartnershipProfessional Development Opportunities Provided to Teachers and District Staff, 2002–03

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

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.

**Exhibit 49**Frequency of Partnership Professional DevelopmentActivities Between Schools and Partner IHEs, as Reported by Principals 

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 administra​tors 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 develop​ment of the professional development oppor​tunities identified the continuing pedagogi​cal needs of teachers in schools with representatives of the partner school districts. 

Generally, there were more participants in professional development activities with a content-area focus than in activities without a content focus (Exhibit 51). Workshops with a content-knowledge focus had an average of 101 participants whereas workshops without a content focus had an average of 28 participants. Examples of smaller workshops included technology institutes for teachers and focused one-time seminars on topics of interest to the district or faculty.

Teacher selection for participation in professional development activities occurred in a variety of ways. This was one of the challenges identified by the partnership leaders during site visits. With adequate lead time, teacher groups could be targeted and recruited based on perceived need. However, some opportunities were advertised broadly, and a wide range of teachers responded. Two-thirds of the faculty respondents indicated that teachers volunteered to participate in professional development activities. Teachers were also referred by their principals, referred by their school districts, and 10 percent of respondents indicated that teachers were selected to participate in professional development activities through invitations. 

**Exhibit 50**Follow-Up to Professional Development Activities as Reported by District and FacultyRespondents, 2002–03

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

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.

**Exhibit 52**Professional Development Facilitators, as Reported by District and Faculty, 2002–03

EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated that college or university faculty facilitated professional develop​ment 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 profes​sional development undertaken at a sample of the partner​ships. By far the most commonly reported model was to provide content or pedagogy workshops for in-service teachers during the course of the academic year.

Professional development**occurred on-site in schools for special purposes as well*.*Education school faculty from Illinois State University entered local schools and created a learning community approach to support new teachers. The goal here, as in many projects, was to train in-service teachers to be mentors for induction-year teachers. The project also established an electronic mentoring system whereby university faculty members were on-call to help induction-year teachers.

At least three partnerships within the cohort gave in-service teachers financial support to pursue graduate course work at partner IHEs. Teachers in and around Orangeburg, S.C., could, through the Community Higher Education Council and Local Education Agency Partnership, pursue M.Ed. or M.A.T. degrees with stipends supported with Title II money. Within the partnership, Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical Experiences, in-service teachers were encouraged to take graduate-level courses at the University of South Carolina along with preservice teachers. In some instances, they were even encouraged to team teach courses with arts and sciences faculty.

Mentorship training was a common purpose for profes​sional development sponsored by many of the partner​ships. The North Carolina Central Teacher Education Partnership mentoring program**was a year-long, two-semester course involving a seminar and a practicum. The course was taught on-site in two partner school districts, and the participating teachers were given reimbursements of expenses for a distance education course plus a stipend, in addition to payment of *Federal Insurance Contribution Act**(FICA)* obligations and retirement benefits. After the seminar, the teachers were required to engage in a practicum on the cycles of assistance, during which their work was audio-taped and reviewed by a peer. After the practicum, they were assigned as mentors to induction-year teachers.

**Exhibit 53**Models of Professional Development

a Professional Development School.

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

### 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.”

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

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.

**Exhibit 55**Role of the Partnership Project in NCLB-Related Activities by Partnership,as Reported by District and Faculty

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.

**Exhibit 56**Status of Site-Specific District-Focused Partnership Activities

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

# Chapter VI Institutionalization

### Highlights

· Both IHE faculty and district-level survey respondents viewed some aspects of the shared responsibility for teacher prepara​tion established through the grant as likely to continue after the grant period was over. 

· District respondents also indicated they could antici​pate continuing to use instructional strategies devel​oped 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 partner​ship activity on which to focus efforts regarding sustainability. Finding future sources of funding was rated by faculty and districts the most impor​tant 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 participa​tion in the partnerships. 

· Partnerships based on preexisting relationships re​ported 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 relation​ships 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 institution​alization:

· Partnerships that involve prominent faculty and admini​stra​tors, 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 imple​menting and institutionalizing new reforms easier. The enhanced level of trust created by a proven relation​ship may facilitate the implementing and institution​alizing 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 institutionaliza​tion 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 sustain​ability 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. 

**Exhibit 57**Average Likelihood of Sustaining Partnership Reform Efforts, as Reported by Districtand Faculty Respondents 

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.

**Exhibit 58**Average Importance of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms, as Reported byDistrict and Faculty Respondents

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 partner​ship 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 relation​ships.” Faculty and district respondents were quite con​sistent 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​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, in​creased support by university administrators may be associated with the likelihood of institution​aliza​tion 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 prepara​tion program within the IHE. When faculty and deans rated changes in the status of the teacher-preparation pro​gram 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 rela​tionships 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 institu​tionalization. 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 respon​dent was involved in reform efforts prior to the grant was not associated with the likelihood of reform institutionali​zation but was a marginally significant predictor of the impor​tance 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). 

**Exhibit 59**Average Likelihood of Institutionalization by Main Goals, Accountability Strategies, andContent Area Focus, as Reported by District and Faculty Respondents

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 signifi​cantly 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 institu​tionalization.

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 prepara​tion (see Exhibit 60). 

**Exhibit 60**Percentage of District and Faculty Reporting Their Perceptions of the Role of thePartnership Grant Project in Reform of Teacher Education, 2002–03 

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. Superinten​dents and principals changed in some partner​ships 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 sponsor​ship for various key project initiatives were identified as being pursued (see Exhibit 61).

**Exhibit 61**Status of Efforts to Institutionalize Partnership Reforms

SOURCE: Title II Evaluation In-Depth Case Studies.

# Chapter VII Challenges and Lessons Learned

### Highlights

· Faculty reported that lack of time, problems with ar​rangements 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 partner​ships 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 col​laboration 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.

**Exhibit 62**Percentage of Faculty Reporting Challenges to Improving Preservice Teacher Education atthe Start of the Partnership Grant

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.

**Exhibit 63**Average Challenge Ratings as Reported by Faculty Toward the End of thePartnership Grant

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 partner​ship, 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 devel​opment would not likely be sustained. 

Cuts in the amount of funding available for teacher recruitment and support led to uncertainty as to how these efforts would be funded in the future. Several partnerships indicated they would no longer be able to provide stipends to mentors of induction-year teachers after the grant expires. In response, districts reported they would increase the ratio of mentees to mentors to adjust for the expected decline in the numbers of mentors; the change would reduce the time spent mentoring any one new teacher while increasing the time commitment of willing mentors. 

*Multiple reform efforts compete for limited funds*. Many state reform mandates are viewed as unfunded by districts and may compete for the same resources that partnerships were seeking to sustain the grant activities after the Title II grant ends. One partnership leader described a district grappling with competing reform efforts that were time-intensive and overwhelming, deterring teachers who were not highly qualified from pursing the alternative route to certification made available through the partnership program. 

*Relationships with other partner entities failed to materialize as planned*. Often, gestures of support from local firms and agencies failed to translate into financial help. In many instances, business partners originally slated to have a role in partnership activities were absent entirely throughout the life of the grant. One partnership principal investigator suggested that the disappointing contribution of business partners resulted from initial uncertainty about their role. Because businesses are more action-oriented and seek immediate results from their efforts, they quickly became disillusioned and discouraged, withdrawing soon after immediate action and results were not forthcoming. This lack of involvement or withdrawal of other business partners was echoed by many partnerships. 

However, despite declines in meeting attendance even at the early planning stages of the projects, many business partners still requested to be kept updated on the latest partnership developments. This suggests a commitment to education within the community and an interest in reform efforts, and perhaps the potential for future participation and support should a more successful working arrange​ment be developed. 

*Alternative replacement funding*. While many partners indicated that without partnership funds, partnership activities would simply cease to be funded, others were finding ways to continue initiatives without the grant funding. Many partnerships reported seeking other grants to continue implemented partnership efforts. Applying for these grants takes time, and obtaining them was becoming more difficult for some grantees as the partnership grant wound down. One partner described the frustrations of applying for a large federal grant, only to be turned down, “because the proposal summary was in 10-point font instead of the 12-point font required by the request for proposals.” On a more positive note, other grantees reported that they were more competitive in grant competitions because of their experience with the partnership grant. 

In an example of leveraging funding, at least three partnerships used funds to reimburse teachers for serving as mentors to new teachers. In an example of follow-through, these partnerships indepen​dently created district-level positions for master teachers or mentor coordinators to continue partnership-mentoring activities. The positions are now incorporated into and funded by district budgets. 

A few partnerships were planning to use anticipated NCLB monies to continue partnership-implemented district reforms in partner schools that were at risk regarding annual yearly progress (AYP). An IHE in still another partnership reported it had negotiated a “bulk discount” of up to 50 percent of the cost for professional development for teachers from partner districts, provided the professional development was offered in district-owned facilities. Using such a facility would reduce the overhead costs to the IHE associated with the activity. 

*Lack of shared focus.* While partnerships generally reported success in establishing buy-in for a common mission, a few reported difficulty in reigning in ideas generated by their partners. Often, partners agreed on a goal but lacked agreement on subsequent actions or process. Philosophical differences also arose among IHE partners. In one case, a project director suggested that getting full agreement or shared focus among partners on some issues was impossible. There were times when following her university’s own unilateral pursuits made more sense than seeking an elusive agreement with the other partners. In another case, a partnership saw both partner IHEs implementing changes in their respective preservice programs, but the programs identified different foci and sought to meet different goals. Another partnership with an initial emphasis on imple​menting 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 partner​ship’s professional develop​ment funds were refocused to develop and implement a course for these individuals to brush up on the content-area knowledge needed to pass the certification test. Although this partnership changed course mid-grant, the project director reported success with the new implementation as more than 80 percent of those taking the new course passed the test. 

### Evaluation and Attributing Outcomes to Partnerships

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 simulta​neously 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 part​ners 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 coordi​nating, 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 sub​stantial 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 empha​sized. 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 commit​ments of key participants’ time as a precondition for funding. Stipulations that substantial percentages of part​ner​ship 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 manage​able 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—over​crowded classrooms, substantial numbers of students per​forming 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 simulta​neously, and it is difficult for an evaluator to isolate the impacts of one reform effort from another one.

Partnerships should define measurable goals for their projects early in the life of the collaborations and gain cooperation of partner schools to collect data over time. In conducting their evaluations partnerships should incorpo​rate solid research practices, such as the use of comparison groups, and be guided by clear evaluation questions.

There is no one step that can help partnerships isolate the impact of one reform effort from another. However, evaluation plans that are modest in scope and nuanced so as to focus on highly specific reform activities are more likely to yield useful information than plans that seek to measure too much. Partnerships and their evaluators may be well advised to “think small” when attempting to evaluate their activities. If partnership participants are involved in several simultaneous reform efforts, the evaluations might also be enriched if evaluators of the various reform efforts shared information and attempted to cooperate. Evaluators of disparate efforts may not necessarily be seeking to measure the same things. On the other hand, data collected in one evaluation may often be useful to another and might also help the various evaluation efforts tease out the impacts of particular reforms. 

Future cohorts of this or any other partnership program will benefit greatly by communicating more with each other and with the Department of Education about evaluation issues and methodology. Partnerships from the initial cohort with successful evaluations have invaluable experience to share with future cohorts. This need has been recognized, resulting in more meetings where project directors and evaluators receive assistance regarding evaluation. 

# References

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 Recom​mendations.* 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 Profes​sional Learning.” In *Teacher Learning: New Policies, New Practices,*edited by M.W. McLaughlin and I. Oberman (pp. 185–201). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A. and M.W. McLaughlin. 1992. “Networks for Educational Change: Powerful and Problematic.” *Phi Delta Kappan,* 73: 673–77.

Little, J.W. 1993. “Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform.” *Educational Revalua​tion 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 Knowl​edge, 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 invita​tional 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 Mathe​mat​ics 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 Eval​uation 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 Stu​dies Service. Also posted at:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/reports.htm#higher.

U.S. Department of Education. *The NCLB Toolkit* is on the Web at the Department of Education Web site at http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf. Accessed in May 2005.

**APPENDIX A**

#### 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

*(appendix continued on next page)*

NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, the academic content cutoff scores represent the minimum score needed to pass the 50-question Mathematics Content Knowledge test, Educational Testing Service Praxis II test code 0061. The total possible score is 200. The pass rates are based on state reports of institutional data. Actual 1999–2000 average pass rates are presented in the first row, and actual 2000–01 average pass rates are in the second row. One partnership is multistate, so the state average represents the average pass rate of all the partner states. Pass rates for all partnerships are not available because some states or IHEs do not administer such certification exams. The institutions in the following partnerships reported aggregate pass rates but not pass rates broken down by assessment topics: Collaboration for Teacher Education Accountable to Children with High-Needs, Collaboration Leading to Improved Master and Bachelors Studies, Collaboration Mentoring and Technology Program, the Alaska Partnership for Teacher Enhancement, and the Milwaukee Partnership Academy to Improve the Quality of Teaching.

a Florida did not use the Praxis II. A score of 61 percent of items correct on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE). The total number of points possible varies.

b Illinois did not use the Praxis II. A score of 70 out of 100 on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS).

c Although applicants for licensure must take the Praxis II test(s) for their endorsement area(s), no minimum passing score was identified for 2003–04.

d This partnership is in multiple states. Therefore, there is no single state cutoff score to be applied.

e Massachusetts did not use the Praxis II. A score of 70 out of 100 on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL).

f Michigan did not use the Praxis II. A score of 220 out of 300 on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC).

g North Carolina license for Mathematics 9–12 required a combined score of 281 from Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061) and Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065). There were no minimum scores identified.

h Texas did not use the Praxis II. A score of 70 out of 100 on each test of subject matter is required for licensure using the Examination for the Certification of Educators in Texas.

SOURCE: Title II Institutional Accountability Reports.

**APPENDIX B**

#### 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/heatqp/TQE-partners.pdf, accessed Feb. 3, 2006.

**APPENDIX C**

#### Appendix C: Partnership Main Goals, Strategies for Increasing Accountability, Planned Use of Incentives, andContent Area Emphases

*(appendix continued on next page)*

NOTE: Content analyses of the project goals and objectives described in the proposals identified the main foci listed here and described throughout this report. A main focus was a goal or objective identified by five or more partnerships (i.e., where at least 20 percent of partnerships had the goal). Content analyses of the plans to increase accountability described in the proposals identified partnership’s plans to increase accountability, indicated here by the letters N, C, S, and T, where N indicates plans to align standards with NCATE; C indicates plans to align curriculum with state standards; S indicates plans to develop state standards; and T indicates plans to develop assessments or prepare students for assessments for teachers. Partner incentives are described in the table as follows: partnerships that offered incentives for faculty participation are indicated with an F; those that offered incentives for teacher participation are indicated with a T. If a partnership identified a content area emphasis in its main goals, in its plans to increase accountability or broaden field experiences, or in its professional development plan, it was identified as an emphasis here, where M indicates an emphasis on math; R indicates an emphasis on reading; and O indicates an emphasis on another specific content area or an emphasis on content areas in general.

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Proposals.

**APPENDIX D**

#### Appendix D: Survey Response by Partnership

*(appendix continued on next page)*

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. 

Project CoMeT. Our Lady of the Lake University Collabo�ration 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 post�secondary 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 pro�viding 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. 

1, 2

NCATE. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education is a voluntary accrediting body for the specialized program of teacher educa�tion. 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. 

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-in-residence 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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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 mem�bers 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. 

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.  

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.

Professional development school, or PDS, is a term that refers to a specific type of collaboration between a teacher-preparation program and a local school. The Holmes Partnership (a network of research universities with teacher-preparation 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. 

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 teacher-education 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.

4

Institutionalization of Partnership and Reform Activities

Resources

Prior History

Education Policy Context

Partnership Translates Vision Into Reform Models and Strategies

Teacher Preparation Courses

Clinical Experience

Teacher Recruitment

New Teacher Supports

In-service Programs

Higher Teacher*�Quality and Improved Student Achievement

Partnership Establishes Vision Influencing Reforms

How do prospective teachers learn?

What must teachers be able to do?

What must teachers know?

1, 2

Partnership Involves Education and Other Partners

Other Partners

School Districts

Arts and Sciences Unit

Teacher Education Unit Programs

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 place�ments in human services agencies, community mapping, and prison visits.

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.

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 Wisconsin-Milwaukee’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.

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.

� 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.

� The evaluation did not collect any information from “other” partners in surveys but did explore their role in interviews conducted during site visits. 

� Saskatchewan Education, Saskatchewan Partnerships.

� 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. 

� 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.

� Faculty who were leading initiatives in the partnerships tended to overreport their level of involvement. Faculty leaders (deans and depart�ment 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. 

� 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.

� 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.

� The pass rate is the number of students passing the assessment divided by the number of students taking the assessment.

� 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.” 

� 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.

� There was no “semester” or “few months” option for length of college course, but this corresponds with the length of a college term.

�Footnotes cannot be placed into text boxes; therefore, the footnote is manually typed in the text box. The footnote number has been placed at the end of “IHE and School Collaboration and the color of the footnote number has been changed to white.

# _1202718757.xls

# _1203749830.xls

# _1200899510.xls

# _1200986331.xls

# _1200730621.xls

# _1200730649.xls