POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

Partnerships for Reform: 

Changing Teacher Preparation 

through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

2004 

INTERIM REPORT 

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

DOC #2003-8

 

 

 

 

 

Partnerships for Reform: 

Changing Teacher Preparation 

through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

American Institutes for Research 

SRI International 

2004 

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

American Institutes for Research. Dena Patterson served as the contracting officer’s technical representative. The 

views expressed herein are those of the contractors. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is 

intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Eugene W. Hickok

Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

March 2004 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U. S. Department of Education, Office of the Under 

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

Washington, D.C., 20004. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

Via fax, dial (301) 470-1244. 

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

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, 

call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a 

teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

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

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

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

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

9895 or (202) 205-8113.

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

 i Interim Report 

Contents 

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

Partnership Program.................................................................................................................................. 1 

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

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

Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation ................................................................ 2 

First-Year Evaluation Activities........................................................................................................... 4 

Benchmarks for Progress...................................................................................................................... 8 

Description of the Partnership Grantees............................................................................................. 10 

II. Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 13 

Evaluation Topic 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......... 13 

Finding 1.1: The Professional Development School approach is the most prevalent model 

selected by the Partnerships to build a high-quality teacher preparation program. ....................... 15 

Finding 1.2: Since receiving the Partnership Grant funds, many deans of schools of education 

report changes in the number of graduates, required courses, and graduation requirements......... 16 

Finding 1.3: Partnership teacher preparation programs are making some progress in changing 

their program offerings, in aligning the content with district standards and with partner 

schools. .......................................................................................................................................... 17 

Finding 1.4: Some Partnerships are changing the quality of both early field experiences and 

clinical experience for preservice teachers by creating PDS Partnerships and implementing 

longer, more academically focused training. ................................................................................. 18 

Finding 1.5: Schools of education and arts and sciences are collaborating to build program 

coherence and expand the accountability for teacher preparation. ................................................ 21 

Finding 1.6: The vast majority of Partnership projects are fulfilling the goal of developing 

preservice capacity in technology integration by equipping students with technology skills, 

supporting teachers in schools with technology and preparing faculty to use technology in their 

classrooms...................................................................................................................................... 23 

Finding 1.7: Partnerships are implementing more processes for reviewing the quality of student 

graduates and the quality of the program....................................................................................... 25 

Finding 1.8: Partnership grant funds have been instrumental in reforming program 

components. ................................................................................................................................... 27 

Evaluation Topic 2: Contributions of Partnership grants to schools and school districts, and the roles 

of schools and districts in preservice teacher preparation .................................................................. 28 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report ii 

Finding 2.1: Partnerships are influencing the way cooperating teachers from school districts are 

selected, trained and recognized. More teachers are being included in preparing and assessing 

preservice teachers......................................................................................................................... 29 

Finding 2.2: Partnership benefits for school districts address overall staffing needs and the 

specific needs of new teachers....................................................................................................... 30 

Finding 2.3: Participating in the Partnership Grants Program has increased new teacher support 

provided by districts and IHEs....................................................................................................... 31 

Finding 2.4: School districts are more likely to share information about recruitment activities 

and new teachers who graduate from those institutions with Partner IHEs than with 

non-Partner IHEs. .......................................................................................................................... 32 

Finding 2.5: Districts and faculty report that Partnership activities are resulting in high levels 

of preparedness of program graduates in a variety of areas........................................................... 33 

Finding 2.6: Partnership projects are making it possible for teachers to collaborate on 

important issues with IHE faculty.................................................................................................. 34 

Finding 2.7: Partnership activities involve both district- and school-level personnel. .................. 35 

Finding 2.8: Partnership grant activities enable professional development opportunities for 

teachers and staff in virtually all partner school districts............................................................... 37 

Evaluation Topic 3: The association between collaborative activities among partner institutions 

of higher education and schools and student achievement outcomes ................................................ 37 

A Note about Variation ...................................................................................................................... 40 

Finding 3.1: Title II and non-Title II schools report approximately the same percentage of 

students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program..................................................... 41 

Finding 3.2: Title II and non-Title II schools are reporting similar percentages of minority 

students in their student bodies. ..................................................................................................... 42 

Finding 3.3: The student achievement scores reported for Title II school partners and 

non-Title II schools show that student performance in mathematics and reading in both 

groups of schools is very similar. .................................................................................................. 43 

Evaluation Topic 4: Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant......... 44 

Finding 4.1: Title II Partnerships are developing structures and incentives within IHEs to 

enhance communication and collaboration between education and arts and sciences faculty. ..... 46 

Finding 4.2: The requirement of creating an advisory board has facilitated new alignments 

among institutions, business and nonbusiness partners and schools.............................................. 48 

Finding 4.3: When large distances separate key IHE partners, stronger partner arrangements 

are created on a local level, but collaboration with more distant partners may be hindered. ........ 49 

Finding 4.4: Partnerships are creating new relationships between partner schools, colleges 

and universities and other partners. ............................................................................................... 50 

Evaluation Topic 5: Efforts to Institutionalize Partnerships .............................................................. 51 

Finding 5.1: Although many Partnerships are using project directors who are veterans of 

collaborative projects to reform teacher preparation, most faculty are new to such Partnerships. 52 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 iii Interim Report 

Finding 5.2: Faculty report that top university leadership in Partnership IHEs seems to be 

supportive of teacher preparation as an all-university responsibility............................................. 53 

Finding 5.3: Partnership projects have supplemented Partnership funds with money from other 

sources. .......................................................................................................................................... 55 

Finding 5.4: Many Partnership activities are likely to continue after the grant ends..................... 55 

III. Additional Data Collection Activities............................................................................................ 57 

References.................................................................................................................................................. 59 

Appendix A: Unresolved Issues in the Empirical and Theoretical Research Literature ................A-1 

Appendix B: List of Technical Working Group Members.................................................................. B-1 

Appendix C: Selected Characteristics of 1999 Partnership Grantees...............................................C-1 

Appendix D: Characteristics of Survey Respondents..........................................................................D-1 

Appendix E: School District Duplicate Responder Resolution........................................................... E-1 

Appendix F: Documentation of Student Achievement Analyses ........................................................ F-1 

Appendix G: Number of Districts and Schools, by Partnership........................................................G-1 

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

 v Interim Report 

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1: Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Title II Partnership Grants Program1 .............. 3

Exhibit 2: Evaluation Topic(s) Associated with each Data Source ..................................................... 7

Exhibit 3: Partnership Evaluation Topics, Legislative Goals and Related Features............................ 9

Exhibit 4: Scope of Partnership Projects ........................................................................................... 11

Exhibit 5: Number of People and Institutions Directly and Actively Involved in Partnership 

Activities and Projects ...................................................................................................... 11

Exhibit 6: Changes in Teacher Preparation Entrance Requirements ................................................. 17

Exhibit 7: Preservice Field Experience Changes Resulting From Partnership Activities ................. 19

Exhibit 8: Employment Status of Faculty Survey Respondents ........................................................ 21

Exhibit 9: Faculty Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities with Teachers .................. 22

Exhibit 10: Faculty Members’ Strategies for Teaching with Technology........................................... 24

Exhibit 11: Modes of Assessment: Preparedness of Teacher Education Students Prior to 

Graduation ........................................................................................................................ 25

Exhibit 12: Aggregate Pass Rate Averages by Partnership, 1999-00.................................................. 27

Exhibit 13: Average First-Year Expenditures on Partnership Activities, 1999-00.............................. 28

Exhibit 14: Partnership Changes to Recognition of Cooperating Teachers ........................................ 30

Exhibit 15: District Staffing Benefits of Partnership Projects............................................................. 30

Exhibit 16: Induction Activities Provided by Partnerships.................................................................. 32

Exhibit 17: Perceptions of Faculty and School District Respondents Regarding New Teachers’ 

Preparedness ..................................................................................................................... 34

Exhibit 18: Shared Responsibility for Teacher Preparation Reform: Involvement of District and 

Faculty Members .............................................................................................................. 35

Exhibit 19: Percent of School Districts Reporting School Level Personnel Involvement in 

Collaborative Partnership Activities With Partner Colleges or Universities.................... 36

Exhibit 20: Number of Districts and Schools by Partnership.............................................................. 39

Exhibit 21: Baseline Descriptive Characteristics for Title II and Non-Title II Schools, 2000-01....... 40

Exhibit 22: Average Percent of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch in Title II and 

Non-Title II Schools ......................................................................................................... 41
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report vi 

Exhibit 23: Average Percent Minority Students for Title II and Non-Title II Schools ....................... 42

Exhibit 24: Average Math and Reading Scores for Title II and Non-Title II Schools, 1999–00 ........ 43

Exhibit 25: Sample Advisory Board Members.................................................................................... 48

Exhibit 26: Dean Support before and during Second Year of Partnership Implementation................ 54

Exhibit 27: Partnership Reforms and Activities “Very Likely” to Continue....................................... 55

Exhibit E-1: Descriptive Report of Duplicates.................................................................................... E-1

Exhibit F-1: Average Percent of Title I Participation among Title II and Non-Title II Schools..........F-4

Exhibit F-2: Average Enrollment for Title II and Non-Title II Schools ..............................................F-5
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 1 Interim Report 

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through 

the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1998, Congress reauthorized and amended the Higher Education Act (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 school districts in high-need areas. 

Specifically, the Partnership Grants program, along with the State Grants program and the Teacher 

Recruitment Grants program, were 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 who have the necessary 

teaching skills and are 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 the effective uses of technology in the 

classroom. 

• Recruit highly qualified individuals, including individuals from other occupations, into the 

teaching force. 

Since 1999, when the first Partnership grants were made to 25 projects, the Congress has passed the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), signed by the president on January 8, 2002. This new legislation 

presents the nation’s expectations for teacher and principal quality. A careful review of the goals of both 

Title II of the HEA and NCLB’s teacher-quality provisions indicates a great deal of congruence regarding 

the expectations for teacher quality. The goals of both laws emphasize improving the qualifications of 

teachers, expanding the supply base for the teacher workforce, and holding states and institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) accountable for the quality of preservice and in-service preparation to improve 

student achievement. Both highlight the critical importance of academic content preparation for teachers. 

Both call for high-quality professional development. Both stipulate the importance of training teachers to 

use technology effectively in the classroom. Both expect new teachers (in traditional or in alternative 

routes to certification) to have supervised, extensive classroom experience, and both call for support for 

new teachers. Finally, both the Partnership Grants Program and NCLB use the improvement of student 

achievement as a standard against which these efforts will be evaluated. 

The Title II Partnership Program is very much in the spirit of the new law. Therefore, the findings on the 

results of the Partnership Grant Program will be helpful to lawmakers, educators and the public as the 

nation continues to seek highly qualified teachers for all students. 

The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program 

As required under the Title II legislation (§ 206[d]), the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is overseeing 

an evaluation of the Partnership program based on the cohort of 1999 Partnership grantees. The 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 2 

evaluation collects data on the Partnerships through surveys and interviews with project leaders, faculty 

members, school and district officials and preservice and in-service teachers who are participating in the 

first cohort of the program. Ultimately, the evaluation seeks to determine how and to what extent the 

Partnerships are improving the quality, content and structure of teacher preparation programs, as well as 

the relationship between Partnership activities and elementary school student achievement. 

This document is the first report on the Partnership Grants Program evaluation. It brings together data 

from all sources to describe a baseline condition against which future progress will be compared. It 

provides information on the start-up of the various grants and baseline evaluation data that can be used for 

comparisons in future reports. As the evaluation progresses, future reports will be able to show trends in 

project development as well as updates on longitudinal evaluation findings. Data from this report and all 

subsequent reports will be synthesized and analyzed in a final report to be submitted at the conclusion of 

the evaluation in 2004. 

Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation 

The evaluation is based on a conceptual framework (see exhibit 1) that begins with the Partnership unit, 

defined by the members of the Partnership and the roles they play in reforming teacher preparation. The 

Partnership is influenced by its members’ shared vision and beliefs for training new teachers, for how 

teachers learn to teach and for what teachers must know and be able to do to be successful in the 

classroom. Each Partnership translates and implements its vision of teacher preparation into specific 

structures, goals and activities. As implementation takes place, the success of the Partnerships’ efforts 

depends on the vision and roles played by the partners, by the preservice students in the program and by 

outside supports for the reforms, such as funding and opportunities for institutionalization. 

The significance of the reform plans in each Partnership should be felt 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 at risk for failure. Ultimately, the expectation is that improving 

teacher quality will improve student achievement. Similarly, reforms that support active collaboration 

between institutions of higher education and local schools are also expected to have a positive effect on 

the achievement of a school’s student body. 

The evaluation assesses Partnerships’ implementation of high-quality reform models, and it documents 

and analyzes the efficacy of related reform strategies and practices by focusing on five overarching 

evaluation topics: 

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

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

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

in preservice teacher preparation. 

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

achievement outcomes. 

• Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant. 

• Efforts to institutionalize Partnerships. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 3 Interim Report 

Exhibit 1 

Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Title II Partnership Grants Program1

1 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 education 

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) The association between 

collaborative activities among IHEs and schools and student achievement outcomes; 4) Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant; 5) Efforts to institutionalize Partnerships. 

Arts and Sciences 

Unit 

School Districts 

Other Partners 

What must 

teachers 

know?

What must 

teachers be 

able to do?

How do 

prospective 

teachers 

learn? 

Develop and 

Implement 

Reform 

Models 

and Strategies

1

Course 

Content 

Structure

Clinical 

Intensity 

Quality

Higher Teacher

Quality and 

Improved Student 

Achievement

2 and 3

Institutionalization of Partnership 

and reform Activities 

Funding

Federal and Matching

Supports 

for New Teachers

1

Roles 

Played by Each

Partner 

4

Partners Vision

Teacher Education 

Unit 

Programs

Teacher 

Prospective 

Education

Program

Teachers

4

5

1 

1 

5 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 4 

First-Year Evaluation Activities 

This first-year evaluation report uses eight data sources to examine the evaluation topics (see exhibit 2).21

 

• The targeted literature review (2001), that describes various theoretical criteria that can be used 

to evaluate the quality of teacher preparation programs, plus a review of some critical articles 

published subsequent to the production of that report. These reviews were compiled to develop a 

framework for evaluating the quality of preservice teacher preparation in terms of the 

characteristics of high-quality preservice teacher preparation, the empirical evidence that 

indicates that these characteristics lead to high-quality instruction among new teachers and the 

evidence that indicates that these characteristics lead to increased academic achievement among 

the students of beginning teachers. 

• Calendar year 2000 institutional accountability reports (IARs) from each IHE in the cohort 

with a teacher preparation program. These “report cards” are required from every IHE with a 

teacher preparation program nationwide by the 1998 HEA Amendments (§207). They include 

information about program characteristics and prospective teacher achievement data. Fifty-one 

IHEs representing 20 Partnerships provided IARs. One Partnership had as many as eight 

responding IHEs, and four Partnerships had no responding IHEs. 

• Calendar year 2000 annual performance reports (APRs). These reports provide information 

on how the Partnerships are doing in terms of the performance measures established by ED under 

the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Twenty-two of 25 Partnerships (88 

percent) responded. 

• A one-time survey of project directors that collects basic information on the content and 

structure of each of the teacher preparation programs offered by the IHEs associated with that 

Partnership, on organizational changes and relationships among partners and on efforts to 

institutionalize Partnerships. Twenty-four of the 25 project directors (96 percent) responded to 

this survey. 

• The first of two surveys of partner IHE faculty that collects information about Partnership 

activities, faculty work collaboration, and the institutionalization of Partnership activities. 

Respondents were selected purposively, in consultation with project directors, so that faculty 

within each institution who were most knowledgeable about the Title II Partnership grant and 

about institutional policies and characteristics could be contacted. 

From each IHE with a teacher preparation program, the following staff were surveyed: 1) one arts 

and sciences faculty member actively involved in the Partnership, 2) one arts and sciences faculty 

member playing a leadership role in the college (irrespective of his or her involvement in the 

Partnership and of his or her title), 3) one education faculty member actively involved in the 

Partnership, and 4) one education faculty member playing a leadership role in the college 

(irrespective of his or her title or involvement in the Partnership). Community college and tribal 

college faculty were included in the respondent group because the project directors identified 

them as being involved in Partnership activities. Alternate faculty were selected when original 

faculty were unable or unwilling to respond. In total, 165 (79 percent) of the 209 faculty members 

 

2 Future reports will also include data from in-depth Partnership case studies to examine reform efforts in more detail and a baseline survey of 

Partnership school principals, to examine how collaborative activities between IHEs and schools may be improving student achievement. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

 5 Interim Report 

from 65 IHEs responded to this survey. Separate survey components addressed the unique 

knowledge that faculty leaders had of their respective programs (education and arts and sciences). 

• The first of two surveys of representatives from 165 partner school districts describing 

interactions among partners, changes in teacher preparation, efforts at institutionalization of the 

Partnership activities and district-level effects. Again, respondents were selected purposively in 

consultation with project directors. The goal was to find the individual most knowledgeable about 

the district’s participation in the Partnership grant program. In some instances, this was the 

district superintendent or another representative of the central district office. In other instances, 

the most knowledgeable person was a school principal or a teacher. Alternates were selected 

when the original representative was unwilling or unable to respond. The difference in 

respondent’s position often depended on whether the Partnership relationship was focused on the 

district at large or on a smaller subset of schools. For one Partnership with an especially large 

number of partner school districts, 20 of 42 school districts were selected to participate in the 

survey. This sampling procedure, combined with efforts to increase the response rate by 

identifying and contacting alternates to nonrespondents and accidental duplication by some 

project directors when making lists of contacts for district representatives, resulted in some 

districts having more than one respondent. After these duplications were eliminated, there were 

119 respondents representing 119 school districts, an overall response rate of 72 percent (see 

appendix E for a full description of the duplicate elimination process). 

• Four two-day exploratory Partnership case study site visits to collect qualitative, contextual 

information on the design and implementation of four very different Partnerships. Sites were 

selected to reflect the diversity of the Partnership Grant Program. During these visits, key 

Partnership leaders, education and arts and sciences faculty, district teachers and administrators 

and other partner representatives were interviewed. Some site visits also included observations of 

Partnership meetings and teacher preparation classes that had already been the focus of content or 

structural reform. Findings from each visit were written up as individual reports. This information 

was used to plan in-depth case studies that take place during years 2, 3 and 4 of the evaluation as 

well as to develop follow-up surveys scheduled for year 3 of the evaluation. 

• School-level student achievement data were analyzed from Partnership and comparable nonPartnership schools. These data were derived from an extant data file compiled by the Policy and 

Program Studies Service (PPSS)3

 at ED (school-level assessment data base, 1999–00 and 

subsequent years). First released on Oct. 19, 2001, the file contains school-level scores for all 

states on statewide achievement tests conducted during the 1999–00 school year and historical 

school-level achievement data for schools in some states. These data will be used in the final 

report to assess associations between Partnership activities and student achievement. 

The variety of data in the evaluation requires several data analysis tools. Quantitative data (student 

achievement, survey, IAR, and APR) were analyzed using SAS and SPSS statistical software packages. 

Qualitative data (some short-response items and most extended-response items) were coded and content 

analyzed either by hand in cases where there were very few respondents (e.g., in the exploratory site visit 

interviews) or with the software package QSR NUD*IST.4

 

3

 Formerly, the Planning and Evaluation Service (PES). 

4

 QSR’s Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 6 

As is often the case, not every survey respondent answered every question. Unless stated otherwise, the 

percentages reported in this report are calculated from the number of item (rather than survey)

respondents. The report specifies those cases in which the number of item respondents represents less 

than 80 percent of the survey respondents and reports either the number or the percentage. 

Characteristics of survey respondents are described in detail in appendix D. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 7 Interim Report 

Exhibit 2 

Evaluation Topic(s) Associated with each Data Source 

 EVALUATION TOPIC Literature Review Institutional Accountability Reports Annual Performance Reports Project Director Surveys IHE Faculty Surveys School District Surveys Exploratory Site Visits Extant Student Achievement Data Principal Survey1

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. 

a a a a a a a

2. Contributions of Partnership grants to schools and school districts and schools’ and districts’ roles in preservice teacher preparation. 

a a a a a a

3. The association between collaborative activities among institutions of higher education and schools and student achievement outcomes. 

a a a

4. Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant. a a a a a a5. Efforts to institutionalize Partnerships. a a a a a a1School principal analyses related to Evaluation Topic 3 will be included in subsequent reports. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 8 

Benchmarks for Progress 

Each evaluation topic represents an aspect of the evaluation framework. The Targeted Literature Review

was the principal source through which empirical, theoretical and interpretive research findings were 

reviewed to identify criteria and benchmarks for assessing the quality of teacher preparation programs; 

Partnerships (organizational changes and relationships, institutionalization); effects of Partnerships on 

schools and school districts; and the effects of teacher program and teacher quality on student 

achievement. More recently, additional sources of literature were reviewed to seek findings from rigorous 

studies that could serve as benchmarks (SRI International 2000; Educational Testing Service [ETS] 2000; 

Center for the Study of Teaching Policy [CTP] 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America’s 

Future [NCTAF] 2001; Abell Foundation 2001). 

The American Institutes for Research (AIR) and SRI International determined through these reviews that 

although a number of groups have come to agreement 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. As additional data are collected through each year of this evaluation, 

AIR expects to be able to determine the extent to which Title II types of activities (such as revising 

courses, extending clinical experiences, infusing technology and improving teaching through professional 

development) are addressing the features identified in the literature. The Title II evaluation will seek 

information that will help improve the use of these features as benchmarks for quality. 

Exhibit 3 provides an overview of the goals and features associated with evaluation topics 1 through 5. A 

more detailed table is included in appendix A. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 9 Interim Report 

Exhibit 3 

Partnership Evaluation Topics, Legislative Goals and Related Features 

Evaluation topic 

Legislative goal Features assumed to be related to teacher quality 

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

structure of the preservice teacher preparation programs over the grant period 

Strong content preparation, 

extensive clinical experience, 

and integration of technology 

• Number and types of courses required 

• Program models 

• Continuous program quality review 

• Training in the use of best practices in teaching and instructional materials 

development 

• Induction program 

• Degrees conferred 

• Entry requirements 

• Amount and quality of clinical training and field experience 

• Training in the use of technology 

• Performance on teacher assessments 

• National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation 

• Academic degrees in content areas 

• Quality of undergraduate education 

2. Contribution of Partnership grants to schools and school districts, and schools’ and districts’ roles in 

preservice teacher preparation 

Support for new teachers • Expanded interaction with school district personnel and faculty to support 

professional development 

• Support for new teachers through mentoring and on-site providers 

• Initiatives related to parental involvement 

• Improved strategies for recruitment and retention 

• Improved decision making and instructional knowledge of administrators 

3. The association between collaborative activities among IHEs and schools and student achievement 

outcomes 

Improved student achievement • Highly qualified graduates 

• Support for infusion of technology in teaching 

• Professional development in core academic content and instructional strategies 

• Assistance with evaluation and school management 

4. Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant 

Accountability for preparing 

new teachers 

• Development and expansion of leadership roles 

• Shared responsibility for accountability 

• Collaboration of school personnel and education and arts and science faculty 

• Elimination of barriers to effective working relationships 

• Status of teacher preparation on campus 

• Role of business and nonbusiness partners 

• Use of funds 

5. Efforts to institutionalize Partnerships 

Improved quality of current and 

future teaching forces 

• Legitimization of the Partnership and its activities to people and organizations that 

are in positions to commit resources to support it 

• Building of constituencies of advocates who are willing to work for reforms 

• Mobilizing of resources among public and private donors on behalf of Partnership 

goals 

• Designing and modifying organizational structures to support Partnership 

activities 

• Monitoring of the impact of Partnership activities on broader educational reforms 

SOURCE: AIR’s targeted literature review and referenced publications on page 9 of this report provided the list of features in 

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

Interim Report 10 

Description of the Partnership Grantees 

Under the Partnership Grants Program, ED awards discretionary grants with the expectation that partners 

will work to strengthen teacher preparation by holding teacher preparation programs accountable for the 

following: 

• Preparing high-quality teachers. 

• Improving prospective teachers’ knowledge of academic content through increased collaboration 

between schools of education and schools of arts and sciences. 

• Ensuring that teachers are prepared for the classroom by providing strong hands-on classroom 

experiences and strengthening the links between university faculty and K–12 teachers and 

administrators. 

• Preparing prospective teachers to use technology as a tool for teaching and learning.

• Preparing prospective teachers to work effectively with diverse students.5

Partnerships funded under the program are intended to focus on a core set of activities. These include 

revising the content and structure of courses for prospective teachers, reviewing the intensity and quality 

of clinical experiences and expanding the instructional support for new teachers. Over the 5-year grant 

period, the expectation is that Partnership activities will assist in improving the quality of new teachers’ 

instruction and fulfilling the staffing needs of high-need school districts. 

The first 25 Partnership grants were made in 1999. Twenty-five colleges and universities in 20 states 

serve as lead partners in their respective grants. The lead institutions include a mixture of public and 

private institutions, 4-year colleges and large state university systems. Two of the lead institutions of 

higher education, Jackson State University and North Carolina Central University, are Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and one, Our Lady of the Lake University, is a Hispanic-Serving 

Institution (HSI). Other partners within these 25 Partnerships include tribal colleges, community colleges 

and school districts, as well as non-profit organizations and corporations. The Partnerships include an 

average of 45 schools, seven districts, one 2-year college, and three 4-year colleges or universities. Across 

all 25 Partnerships, approximately 172 school districts are partners. These districts range from large urban 

systems to rural districts of fewer than 1,000 students. The Partnerships’ first year budgets ranged from 

just over $175,000 to more than $2.5 million, with each Partnership awarded an average of $7 million 

over the 5-year grant period. Appendix C provides specific characteristics of the 1999 cohort of 

Partnership grantees. 

Exhibit 4 shows that the Partnerships encompass a wide range of projects, diverse in scope and size. The 

majority of the Partnerships are regional in scope, followed by statewide, local and multistate. 

The total numbers of involved individuals and entities is provided in exhibit 5. As one indicator of the 

scope of the Partnerships, over 14,000 preservice teaching students and over 13,000 school personnel 

including primarily current teachers, as well as subject and technology specialists, and instructional 

leaders, are actively involved in Partnerships. 

 

5

 Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 195–244)
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 11 Interim Report 

Exhibit 4 

Scope of Partnership Projects 

48%

28%

4%

20%

Statewide Multistate Local Regional

EXHIBIT READS: 48 percent of the Partnership projects are regional in scope. 

SOURCE: Title II Program Office 

Exhibit 5 

Number of People and Institutions Directly and Actively Involved 

in Partnership Activities and Projects 

Partnership Participants Number 

Institutional Partners1

Schools 1,137

School districts 183

2-year colleges 24

4-year colleges and universities 64

Institutional Partners Total 1,408

Individual Partners2

University faculty members3 1,814

Teachers, instructional specialists, and instructional leaders benefiting from 

professional development activities 

13,780

District-level staff 1,893

School-level staff 6,152

Preservice teaching students 14,041

Individual Partners Total 37,680

1

As reported in project proposals. 

2

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

department in all Partnerships responded to our survey. 3

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

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

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

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

 13 Interim Report 

II. FINDINGS

This section of the report describes first-year findings related to the five evaluation topics. Most findings 

provide contextual information about Partnerships and their constituents at the beginning of the grant 

period and prior to the full implementation of grant activities. Findings are primarily descriptive and will 

be used as baseline information for future reports. 

For ease of reading about the findings and to further focus the reader’s attention, the data, analyses and 

contextual information for each evaluation topic are organized with the help of the following headings: 

Topic Importance: A summary explains the relationship between the topic of importance and the 

Partnership Program vision, sets the topic in the context of research literature and points to the indicators 

to which topic findings are linked. 

Topic Highlights: A summary introduces the reader to the areas of findings to come. 

Topic Findings: Specific findings related to the indicators are provided. The formulation of the findings 

was based on combining data from the multiple sources listed on pages 4–5 of this report. 

Evaluation Topic 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 

Topic Importance—The Partnership Evaluation reviewed the literature on the characteristics of quality 

for teacher preparation programs, identified the current models of delivery in use in teacher preparation 

and then investigated the extent to which these characteristics and models are prevalent throughout the 

Partnership colleges and universities. 

The beginning point for developing indicators and benchmarks were the Title II program goals, 

themselves sources of quality characteristics: 

• Improve the quality of the current and future teaching force: specifically, changes made in 

the content and structure of the teacher preparation program, the clinical and field experience 

components and the infusion of technology. 

• Increase the institutional accountability for teacher preparation: building support for teacher 

preparation throughout the institution, measuring the outcomes of teacher preparation and 

increasing the collaboration among education and arts and science faculty. 

The next step was to search the literature to determine if benchmarks had been established to assess 

progress in these areas. Although many commissions and individual organizations seem to agree on the 

value of specific competencies for individuals becoming teachers, it is more difficult to find evidence that 

specific program features or delivery modes are related to the development of these competencies and 

then, in turn, to the student achievement goals established by state or local education agencies. AIR’s 

Targeted Literature Review and Murray (2001, 2002) indicated that consensus may 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. However, knowing what is 

valued in teacher preparation provides a standard by which the Partnership institutions can be compared. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 14 

Among the standards for programs emerging from reform networks, accreditation bodies and national 

groups addressing preparation quality are the following: 

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

• More extensive early field observation activities for students who are considering entering teacher 

preparation programs and those who are not ready for internships. 

• More intensive and carefully supervised clinical experience. 

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

• Strong liberal arts training for all candidates. 

• In-depth academic study in the area of concentration, integrating research findings that are proven 

to increase student achievement. 

Modes of delivery or types of programs were also documented. The types expected among the colleges 

and universities in the Partnership projects were traditional undergraduate teacher preparation programs, 

undergraduate programs offering a degree in the content area, graduate-level programs leading to 

certification or licensure, graduate programs culminating in master’s degrees and alternative routes that 

are university based and similar, but not necessarily identical, to graduate programs leading to 

certification or licensure. 

Finally, through data collection and literature review, the Partnership Evaluation sought information about 

models or organizing philosophies for teacher preparation; that is, research-based themes that help a 

program build internal coherence for its curriculum offerings, thereby providing a base for an internal 

accountability system. 

Topic Highlights—The full range of modes of delivery is present in the colleges and universities 

participating in the Title II Partnerships, including bachelor’s, master’s, and Master of Arts in Teaching 

(MAT) degrees and alternative routes to certification. Just about 14 percent of the responding education 

deans indicated they offered an MAT degree. Alternative certification routes were described as being 

offered primarily at the graduate level. There were no details gathered in the baseline survey that would 

help clarify whether students in these alternative route programs were receiving graduate level credit at 

the same time as they were preparing for eligibility for certification. Typically, students enrolled in 

alternative certification courses that are university based have already completed a baccalaureate degree. 

The required alternative certification courses are often taken in master’s and doctoral programs. Program 

completion for many of these students may translate as eligibility for state certification, but not a graduate 

degree, because they may lack two to three courses required to complete the degree. 

The Partnership Evaluation surveys sought information about the number of students and types of degrees 

granted in the partner IHEs. Respondents indicated that about 1,600 students received a bachelor’s degree 

in education in 2000–01 and 1,886 students received a master’s degree in education. In addition, deans 

estimated that about 1,000 students completed a program determining their eligibility for licensure along 

with their degree in a content area. Although the project respondents did not provide the details or 

articulate all the different philosophical underpinnings for their respective programs, they were clearly in 

support of the Professional Development School (PDS) approach, which has been described in the 

education literature as both a model and a philosophy. The PDS approach addresses the relationship 

between the university and local schools, sites for student internships and early field experiences. A PDS 

relationship enables internship, action research and observation opportunities for students in different 

kinds of programs (undergraduate or graduate level, as well as alternative route) and thus is suited for 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 15 Interim Report 

either an undergraduate or graduate student of teacher preparation. It adheres to the same set of standards 

as articulated above, thus it provides a basis upon which Partnerships can be compared. 

In addition to favoring the PDS approach, the colleges and universities in the Partnerships have been 

making progress by working on specific features of programs, such as the duration and location of clinical 

or supervised student internship experiences; required courses; entry and exit requirements; varied and 

systematic assessment of students; and program quality. Faculty collaboration across departments 

(education and arts and sciences) is occurring because of the Partnership support; however, it is too early 

to see changes in course content or student outcomes as a result of this collaboration. 

In the first year of the Partnership, progress is being made on a number of these standards. 

Topic Findings— 

Finding 1.1: The Professional Development School 

approach is the most prevalent model selected by 

the Partnerships to build a high-quality teacher 

preparation program. 

• Seventy-two percent of the Partnerships describe 

their models of preparation as PDS. This compares 

with the national estimate based on the 525 

accredited programs of the NCATE in which only 

30 percent indicate their involvement with 

professional development school partnerships 

(Levine 2002). 

The PDS approach incorporates a number of the features 

thought to be associated with high-quality teacher preparation. These include professional development 

for in-service teachers around instructional needs; intensive field-based clinical experience; action 

research and reflection; and physical placement of faculty to support preservice and in-service needs, such 

as mentoring and systematic observation and assessment. 

The main idea behind a fully implemented PDS is that the K–12 school site is the most appropriate place 

for everyone who is involved in teaching to work together on improving schools. This notion came from 

the field of medicine, where the teaching hospital is considered the most appropriate environment in 

which medical students learn models of practice. In a PDS, the collaboration of university faculty and 

school teachers around school-embedded problems is expected to lead to continuing professional 

development for in-service teachers, to a dynamic laboratory environment in which to prepare preservice 

teachers and to the development of a learning community in which faculty and in-service teachers enrich 

each other as colleagues. 

The PDS approach has gained renewed enthusiasm as a result of the research on teacher learning 

sponsored by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement’s6

 National Center for Research on 

Teacher Learning that suggested, among other things, that faculty from both education and arts and 

sciences had a “large influence on how teachers teach” (SRI International 2000). This idea was adopted 

 

6

 Now called the Institute for Education Sciences. 

How It Works: 

The Professional Development 

School

Several Partnerships have established a 

Professor-in-Residence (PIR) Program 

in which a university content specialist 

or education faculty member spends at 

least one full day a week in a partner 

school. The PIR assignment takes the 

place of teaching one course. The 

Partnership grant makes this possible 

by buying the professor’s time. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 16 

and promulgated as a key principle for effective teacher preparation by the Holmes Group (now the 

Holmes Partnership).7

 

Unfortunately, the research literature regarding PDSs does not yet indicate whether the new roles for 

teachers and faculty in a PDS result in widespread gains in student achievement. However, the most 

comprehensive literature review suggests that the PDS model is influencing the way teachers are involved 

in preparation (Valli, Cooper, and Franks 1997). Most specifically, when a PDS is fully implemented, 

faculty and teachers work together to develop course content that reflects student learning needs and uses 

scientifically based instructional practices. Teachers are involved in setting the direction for their own 

professional development and gain a voice in the alignment of teacher preparation with curriculum 

standards. 

In many Partnerships that implemented a PDS approach, changes occurred in course content and clinical 

and field experiences. These changes resulted from the increased involvement of teachers and 

administrators working with education faculty on behalf of high-quality preparation. The evaluation data 

also indicate that sharing an understanding of the implications and responsibilities for a PDS arrangement 

is critical to being able to move the Partnership agenda forward. 

• Approximately one-third (36 percent) of the education leadership faculty reported that the school 

of education had changed its model or educational philosophy as a result of the Partnership grant. 

Four of these deans indicated that NCATE accreditation was obtained or anticipated. 

• Teacher preparation programs in Title II Partnerships are members of reform networks that share 

information about research on teacher preparation and contribute to the research on high-quality 

teacher preparation. 

Among the lead institutions are nine members of the Holmes Partnership and six members of the 

Renaissance Group, two organizations that have consistently been involved in creating the dialogue about 

high-quality preservice teacher preparation. In addition, 19 of the 25 lead institutions have teacher 

preparation programs that are NCATE-accredited and two institutions within the Partnerships are 

members of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Accreditation is a voluntary process of peer 

review. It is important to acknowledge that there is little research about the association between the 

accreditation status of a program and the quality of its graduates, as measured by the achievement of their 

students. At the same time, accreditation standards reflect many of the same standards for high quality 

cited above; therefore, accredited schools can be said to adhere to these principles and are being reviewed 

by their peers regarding the achievement of these standards. 

Finding 1.2: Since receiving the Partnership Grant funds, many deans of schools of 

education report changes in the number of graduates, required courses, and graduation 

requirements. 

During the first year of Partnership activities, between 15 and 20 percent of preparation programs using 

entrance or acceptance requirements had changed those requirements. The nature of existing and changed 

entrance requirements is illustrated in exhibit 6. These changes occurred since the Partnership began; 

however, in some cases there may have been an initiative toward the change that predated the Partnership. 

 

7

 Originally developed as an organization of research universities with teacher education programs, the Holmes Partnership includes many of the 

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

 17 Interim Report 

Two examples of such requirements are an increase in the passing score on teacher assessments and the 

requirement that students pass particular assessments before program matriculation. An increase or 

change in use of data for program admission is consistent with the findings, reported later in this section, 

that there is an increased focus on assessment of students as they prepare to graduate from the teacher 

preparation program. Partnership preparation programs are gathering more focused data on entrants, 

including their performance in their general-education and content-area courses. 

In addition to changes in entrance and exit requirements, education and arts and sciences faculty involved 

in the Partnership projects reported spending more time than they did before the Partnership existed 

strengthening the emphasis on developing content knowledge of new teachers (66 percent). Colleges and 

universities are emphasizing content knowledge preparation through the development of integrated 

content (interdisciplinary across subjects) courses, improved methods courses and improved introductory 

courses. 

Exhibit 6 

Changes in Teacher Preparation Entrance Requirements 

Requirement Percent Requiring Percent Changing 

Minimum grade point average (GPA)1 82 18 

Minimum GPA in major 74 19 

Successful course completion: 

 Minimum number of credit hours 77 18 

 Minimum number of courses 79 16 

Examination score (e.g., Praxis I, ACT)2 67 16 

Recommendations 60 14 

Interviews 79 14 

Screening activity completion 73 27 

Writing sample 11 22 

1

The minimum GPA required for acceptance into teacher preparation programs by Partnership schools ranged from 

2.5 to 3.2, with an average of 2.66 (SD = .194). 

2

The most widely reported of these tests was the Praxis, cited by 29 percent of those using exams as an entrance 

requirement 

NOTE: The “percent requiring” is the percent of faculty leader (deans) respondents indicating that the activity was a 

requirement for the 2000-01 academic year. 

EXHIBIT READS: 82 percent of leadership respondents reported minimum grade point average to be an entrance 

requirement into teacher preparation programs, 18 percent of these respondents reported they had changed this 

requirement as a result of the Partnership. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Leadership Surveys 

Finding 1.3: Partnership teacher preparation programs are making some progress in 

changing their program offerings, in aligning the content with district standards and with 

partner schools. 

• Forty-one percent of Partnerships report aligning their curriculum with K–12 standards. 

For instance, one Partnership has provided stipends for faculty of content courses to revise coursework so 

that preservice teachers develop the pedagogical skills needed to teach skills specific to the state 

assessment in conjunction with the content of the particular discipline. Content standards vary across 

states and teacher preparation programs tend to focus on strategies teachers will find useful wherever they 

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

Interim Report 18 

• Eighty-six percent of Partnerships report that 

their projects include goals for increasing K–12 

achievement. 

All Partnerships are working toward improving student 

achievement in their partner elementary schools and 

many (72 percent) also target middle and high schools. 

• Mathematics and reading instruction are the 

primary focuses of preservice teacher education 

course revisions. 

• Science and social studies are receiving less 

focus in terms of revisions in preparation courses. 

However, they are the subjects of professional 

development activities. 

To gather advice from district partners, Partnerships are relying more heavily on informal lines of 

communication and partnership-created committees than on formal needs assessments to align their 

teacher preparation programs with district needs. A small percentage, 22 percent, of Partnerships report 

conducting assessments or analyzing assessment data to highlight district needs; the remaining 

Partnerships do neither. 

Finding 1.4: Some Partnerships are changing the quality of both early field experiences and 

clinical experience for preservice teachers by creating PDS partnerships and implementing 

longer, more academically focused training. 

Students who are preparing to be teachers generally are required to participate in two kinds of schoolbased experiences: early field experiences and clinical or student internships. Early field experiences tend 

to be integrated into a variety of academic courses and involve a range of requirements, such as 

observation and limited participation in supportive teaching activities. These early field experiences 

usually precede the clinical or student internship, which is a supervised student teaching experience of 

much greater length, typically lasting up to a whole semester. During the clinical or student internship, 

university students are supervised by faculty from their education programs as they gradually take charge 

of the instruction in a classroom under the watchful eye of the assigned classroom or cooperating teacher. 

Both faculty and cooperating teachers tend to provide feedback, often based on a set of standards set by 

the district or by the university or both. In some K–12 schools, cooperating teachers or other teachers may 

become clinical supervisors through participation in a uniquely designed professional development 

program and become charged with this observation and assessment of student interns. This practice varies 

by state and district. Partnerships are changing the quality of the field experience to require preservice 

students to undertake observation experiences and limited teaching experiences in schools before their 

student teaching internship. These experiences are integrated into introductory education courses, 

psychology or sociology, and special education courses. Students are required to be in a school for a 

certain number of hours and to write a reflective piece on their placement. 

• Faculty leaders within schools of education report that 58 percent of the required courses in their 

teacher preparation sequence demand an early field experience. 

Students are permitted to participate in early field experiences starting in the sophomore (71 percent) or 

junior (77 percent) year in Partnership preparation programs, less frequently in the freshman (57 percent) 

How It Works 

Students acquiring English as a second 

language present reading instruction 

challenges that are not always covered 

in courses for general education 

teachers. One Partnership is providing 

faculty and experts to help elementary 

school teachers become knowledgeable 

about the literature and the latest 

strategies for teaching reading to these 

students and to integrate the knowledge 

base throughout required education 

courses to meet state expectations.
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 19 Interim Report 

or senior year (57 percent). Courses offering field experiences most often tended to be education methods 

courses (78 percent), but also were academic in nature, for example, in the student’s major or area of 

specialization (28 percent). 

• These field experiences required, on average, a student time commitment of 26.6 hours, usually to 

be spent in more than one school and in more than one level of class (e.g., elementary and middle 

or high school). 

Time spent in course-related field activities most frequently included making general and focused 

observations, aiding teachers and tutoring and teaching small groups. Slightly less frequent activities 

included teaching an entire class and shadowing a teacher. 

• Twenty faculty leaders reported that the most common changes being made in requirements for 

students specializing in elementary education as a result of the Partnership project included 

enhancing or expanding field experiences. These changes are illustrated in exhibit 7. 

Exhibit 7 

Preservice Field Experience Changes Resulting From Partnership Activities 

15%

60%

15%

10%

Expansion of Pre-service Fieldwork Increased Collaboration

Community Involvement Restructuring

EXHIBIT READS: 60 percent of respondents to the faculty surveys reported the most common change in preservice 

field experience resulting from the Partnership project to be an expansion of pre-service fieldwork. 

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

Interim Report 20 

• The most common way Partnerships are changing the quality of the clinical experience is by 

creating PDS partnerships with K–12 schools. 

In this PDS environment, student interns are supported by 

PIRs from the universities who are on-site and readily 

available to answer questions of practice. The PIR concept 

emerged from the goals of the Holmes Partnership and the 

PDS approach to teacher preparation reform. The individuals 

who serve as PIRs are regular full-time faculty in schools of 

education who have been released from one course in their 

regular faculty load. They commit their time from that course 

release to be on site in a PDS for 1–2 days every week. As 

full-time faculty, PIRs have research portfolios and prior 

experience as faculty supervisors of student interns and some 

have long-standing research relationships with the partner 

schools. While in Partnership schools, PIRs supervise student 

interns, meet with cooperating teachers and meet with 

teachers. In some Partnership schools, PIRs are delivering 

course content at the master’s degree level for in-service 

teachers and working with school liaisons to accomplish instructional goals of the partners with support 

from the Partnership. 

• Elementary and secondary programs do not tend to specify different student teaching 

requirements for students. 

These students spend an average of 7 hours per day in schools and attending seminars related to student 

teaching. Most elementary education students (86 percent) and secondary education students (92 percent) 

spend one semester in student teaching; a smaller percentage (11 percent and 5 percent, respectively) of 

elementary and secondary education students spend 1 year in student teaching. Sixty-one percent of 

elementary education students and 64 percent of secondary education students spend their student 

teaching in a single school setting while others spend their student teaching in multiple school settings. 

These requirements are typical for preparation programs across the country. 

Twenty-two percent of teacher preparation programs in the Partnership colleges and universities require 

fewer than 15 weeks of student-teaching activity, 74 percent require a time commitment of 15 to 20 

weeks and 4 percent require more than 20 weeks. 

• The supervisors of these student teachers were mostly part-time faculty in departments or schools 

of education. 

Supervision of student teachers is one area where preparation programs have been vulnerable to criticism. 

Many programs have relied on retired teachers or principals to take on this role because they cannot free 

up the time for their regular full-time faculty. However, among the Partnership institutions, the teacher 

preparation programs have made changes in this practice. The most important shift has been to provide 

training for in-service teachers to become clinical supervisors, incorporating principles of adult education 

and supervision. This change has been undertaken because the standards for supervisors have been raised 

by districts and states. IHE teacher education programs have seen increased diversification of faculty and 

administrative staff roles. Within many programs, specific individuals will have responsibility for 

coordinating work with schools and cooperating teachers, placing students in internships, coordinating 

supervision by faculty and K–12 teachers and maintaining assessment results for students. Within partner 

schools (reported in the next section) there has been improved status and recognition for newly trained 

clinical supervisors. 

How It Works: 

One Strategy for Clinical 

Training

One IHE with predominantly white 

middle-class students encourages 

graduates to accept jobs in highneed, urban schools by placing 

student interns in such schools 

and giving them explicit diversity 

training. In that way, the IHE 

hopes to cultivate the students’ 

interest in teaching in such an 

environment while exposing them 

to the reality of the challenges.
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 21 Interim Report 

Exhibit 8 

Employment Status of Faculty Survey Respondents 

EXHIBIT READS: 24 percent of respondents to the faculty surveys indicated their employment status 

as full-time education faculty. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Surveys 

Finding 1.5: Schools of education and arts and sciences are collaborating to build program 

coherence and expand the accountability for teacher preparation. 

• Two-thirds of faculty respondents report that collaboration among education and arts and sciences 

faculty took place in 2000–01, primarily through committees to work on project goals, meetings 

to discuss teacher preparation students and meetings to learn about teacher preparation and 

program development. 

The Partnership Evaluation analyzed responses to the same items from the perspectives of faculty from 

both education and arts and science departments and identified no differences in mean hours of 

involvement or in percent participating in each activity. Exhibit 9 describes the participation in mean 

hours of involvement of faculty from both departments. 

Full-time Education Faculty

Part-time Education Faculty

Part-time Education Faculty not employed by IHE

24%

42%

34%
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 22 

Exhibit 9 

Faculty Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities 

with Teachers 

Hours of Involvement (2000-01) 

Collaborative Activity 

Number 

Participating 

Percent of 

Total 

Participating Mean SD Median Mode 

Participating in committees to 

work on project goals 105 58.3 26.8 33.8 20 10 

Meeting to discuss teacher 

education students 113 37.2 21.1 30.3 12 20 

Meeting to learn more about 

teacher education 99 55.0 20.9 28.7 15 10 

Developing teacher preparation 

program 91 49.4 37.6 76.93 15 10 

Coordinating course offerings 78 43.3 23.8 40.1 10 5 

Planning future courses 78 43.3 19.6 29.0 10 10 

Implementing management team 70 38.9 50.8 139.33 20 10 

Jointly advising teacher education 

students 62 34.4 22.1 30.3 14 20 

Revising existing courses 54 30.0 29.3 39.6 18 10 

Jointly observing teacher education 

students 44 24.4 27.7 37.7 15 10 

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

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

Education faculty teaching at arts and sciences. 

2

Arts and Sciences faculty teaching at education. 

3

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

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

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

respondents 200 or fewer hours. 

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

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

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

 23 Interim Report 

Many faculty members report participating in more than 

one of these activities: 37 percent are attending 

meetings to discuss teacher preparation students; 55 

percent are attending meetings to learn more about 

teacher preparation (see exhibit 9). In addition, 58 

percent are participating in committees on project goals. 

More faculty members are collaboratively coordinating 

course offerings and planning future courses (43 

percent) than are revising existing courses (30 percent). 

Fewer respondents are participating in teaching courses 

at the opposite college (13 percent of arts and sciences 

faculty and 13 percent of education faculty). 

The lower percentage of faculty members who are 

reporting that they are teaching courses in the opposite 

college or department was supported by case-study 

interviews with faculty and with deans of departments. 

The process of creating and gaining approval for 

integrated courses or teaching posts in different 

departments is lengthy and may require the involvement of deans and academic councils. For example, 

one Partnership worked for a year to gain the support of the arts and sciences faculty for a new 

undergraduate course that will serve the needs of both elementary education majors and content area 

majors in arts and sciences. 

Faculty participating in Partnership-sponsored collaborative activities reported spending more time 

working with project management and program development than on activities involving certain teaching 

practices, such as revising existing courses, coordinating course offerings, joint advising, teaching at the 

opposite college, planning future courses or jointly observing student teachers. 

Finding 1.6: The vast majority of Partnership projects are fulfilling the goal of developing 

preservice capacity in technology integration by equipping students with technology skills, 

supporting teachers in schools with technology and preparing faculty to use technology in 

their classrooms. 

• Eighty-two percent of the responding Partnerships reported that they use Title II funds to support 

technology integration and use in their preservice education programs. 

Fifty-nine percent of these Partnerships had secured other funds for the same purpose prior to receiving 

the Title II Partnership grant (such as Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Grants). 

Only 17 percent of these Partnerships had not used other grant funds to supplement Partnership support of 

technology integration. Most Partnerships (90 percent) assess their graduates’ proficiency in technology. 

According to the Partnership respondents, the securing of funds for technology equipment, professional 

development and classroom instruction through other sources highlighted the need and importance of 

additional funds. No information on the way in which funds from more than one source were used 

together or to leverage other resources was collected as part of the evaluation surveys.

How It Works: 

Education and Arts and Sciences 

Collaboration

One Partnership has established a 

program in which freshmen 

undergraduates with an interest in 

teaching and undergraduates who are 

not education majors take three general 

education classes together during their 

first semester and another three during 

their second semester. Many of these 

courses are team taught by faculty from 

the schools of education and arts and 

sciences. During this period, the 

students regularly observe teachers in 

high-needs classrooms and bring their 

observations back to the IHE to discuss 

with faculty and classmates.
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 24 

Seventy-seven percent of Partnerships use course completion projects or observations of work (e.g., as 

classroom presentations using technology or preparation for student teaching that incorporates 

technology) as a way to assess new student skills in technology use; 45 percent of Partnerships report 

using exams to assess new student competencies. Several Partnerships use both methods. Faculty in 

education schools of Partnership colleges and universities who were involved in Partnership activities 

provided information on the strategies they were using to teach teacher education students to use 

technology. These activities and the percentages of faculty who report using them are presented in exhibit 

10. 

Exhibit 10 

Faculty Members’ Strategies for Teaching with Technology 

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

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

an instructional strategy for teaching technology. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Surveys 

Instructional Strategies for Teaching Technology Percent 

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

research, or problem solving or as a way to obtain teaching materials or create curricula 88 

Providing training to teacher education students on using technology (e.g., Internet) 85 

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

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

experiences that focus on using technology 

85 

Disseminating technology resources (articles, online help, discussion groups) via the Web 82 

Using e-mail and listservs for teacher education courses 79 

Using videos, CDs, or the Web to demonstrate case studies of exemplary classrooms 74 

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

Using technology in content courses 71 

Providing one-on-one technical assistance 65 

Using interactive CDs or the Web 64 

Providing students with field experiences 62 

Developing multimedia tools to support student teaching experiences 62 

Teaching workshops or summer institutes focused on technology training 55 

Using Web-based assignments and projects 50 

Using electronic portfolios (video, Web, CD-ROM) for teachers 42 

Providing distance learning via the Web 32 

Using student teaching experiences through interactive videos or through assistance of teacher 

preparation students as they teach K-12 students online 30 

Using Web-based strategies for assessing the knowledge and skills of teacher education students in 

technology integration 

29 

Providing virtual mentoring with contact between student and mentor via Internet or video conferencing 26 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 25 Interim Report 

Finding 1.7: Partnerships are implementing more processes for reviewing the quality of 

student graduates and the quality of the program. 

• Eighty-six percent of responding Partnerships use a formal assessment process (e.g., performance 

evaluations by administrators or teacher mentors; clinical observations by mentors, IHE faculty, 

or administrators; GPA; or subject-area performance tests in core academic areas) prior to 

students’ graduation to inform their recommendations for certification. The 14 percent of 

Partnerships not using a formal assessment process plan to implement one. 

One of the dimensions of a high-quality or high-performing preparation program is the implementation of 

self-monitoring processes for review of candidates as they enter the program and before they leave. Many 

programs reserve the right to base their recommendation to the state licensure authority on the candidate’s 

performance in student teaching activities. Program administrators also seek feedback from their school 

clients about the success or failure of recent graduates as a way of determining the quality of their 

product. Using formal assessments is thought to speak to the demand to screen out candidates who may 

do well in course work but are likely to fail at student teaching. Formal assessments are important for 

several reasons: teacher education students and new teachers receive feedback on their performance and 

progress, teacher preparation programs can use the data to reflect on the success of their students and 

programs and districts or schools can examine assessment data to evaluate the teacher as a candidate for 

employment. 

Data from the faculty surveys further describe assessments used to determine the preparedness of teacher 

education students before graduation (see exhibit 11). Many assessment tools rank high among faculty 

members, including students’ GPA, written and portfolio assessments and clinical observations during 

student teaching. Only oral portfolio defenses ranked low among faculty. 

Exhibit 11 

Modes of Assessment: 

Preparedness of Teacher Education Students Prior to Graduation 

Assessment 

Percent reporting 

use 

Percent reporting that assessment 

affects certification1

Minimum overall GPA 80 82 

Subject area GPA 80 74 

Written subject area assessments 80 76 

Written teaching skill assessments 80 67 

Clinical observations during student teaching 80 73 

Portfolio assessments 78 60 

GPA in pedagogy coursework 78 77 

Oral portfolio defenses 17 79 

1

Number in column represents percentage of respondents reporting use who also indicate that assessment affects certification. For 

example, 17 percent report using oral portfolio defenses; of that 17 percent, 79 percent indicate that these defenses affect teacher 

certification. 

EXHIBIT READS: 80 percent of respondents to the faculty surveys reported using the minimum overall GPA of teacher 

education students to determine their preparedness before graduation. 

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

Interim Report 26 

• Seventy-seven percent of responding 

Partnerships report using two or more types of 

assessments to determine how well their recent 

graduates are doing in new teaching assignments. 

Collecting these data is important for general 

feedback and for formal induction programs. 

According to §207 of Title II of the Higher Education 

Act, all colleges and universities with teacher preparation 

programs (that enroll students who receive federal 

financial assistance) must report annually (through an 

IAR) to their state the pass rates of program completers 

for state certification or licensure examinations. Pass 

rates are required for regular teacher preparation 

programs, and also for alternative-route programs. 8

 

States vary with respect to the number of teacher assessments required for licensure and also with respect 

to the pass or cut score designated for test takers. For example, one state may require a prospective 

biology teacher to pass the assessment in both the content area of biology and the pedagogical area related 

to instruction of biology; another state may require only the pedagogical portion. 

Despite this variation, which represents state policy on teacher preparation standards, researchers have 

used pass rates to measure teacher quality, student achievement and teacher preparation quality. However, 

these studies have not yielded definitive data about the effectiveness of a course content or preparation 

program structure. Additionally, in the first year of the IAR submission (reported on in this evaluation), 

all possible data problems were not alleviated. Therefore, the pass-rate data reported here should be 

considered a first look at one indicator of teacher quality. 

The evaluation collected IARs from 51 institutions in 20 Partnerships, providing institutional-level 

aggregate pass-rate data on five types of assessments: Basic Skills, Professional Knowledge, Academic 

Content, Teaching Special Populations, and Other Content.

9

 The pass rate is the number of students 

passing the assessment over the number of students taking the assessment. Exhibit 12 shows for each 

Partnership the average institutional pass rate and the number of partner institutions that reported pass 

rates for each type of assessment. For purposes of comparison, the table also contains the state average for 

each type of assessment. Fourteen Partnerships have average pass rates that fall below the state average 

on at least one assessment. However, Partnership pass rates, on average were not very different from the 

state averages. The overall average difference between Partnership and state pass rates for Professional 

Knowledge was -1.67, meaning that on average, the difference between Partnership and state pass rates 

were nearly zero, with the overall Partnership average slightly below the state average. The overall 

average difference for Academic Content is -1.68; for Teaching Special Populations, 1.83; and for Other 

Content, -2.24. 

 

8

 A “regular” teacher preparation program is any program that is not designated by the state as an alternative-route program. In April 2001, 

institutions reported on a variety of program characteristics and pass rates to their state Title II coordinators. The data were then used to complete 

a state survey of items, which was submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in October 2001. The secretary’s report to the country on the 

state of teacher preparation was released on June 11, 2002. 9

 Although institutions of higher education are required to make these data available to the public, the evaluation was not able to acquire them 

from all institutions participating in Partnership grants. 

How It Works: 

Assessing Students

In one Partnership, faculty members 

meet regularly to analyze the work of 

their student teachers. Using a formal 

portfolio of work examples, faculty 

members identify the transfer of 

knowledge from university courses to 

teaching practice. Course revision and 

program coherence result from these 

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

 27 Interim Report 

Exhibit 12 

Aggregate Pass Rate Averages by Partnership, 1999-00 

Basic 

Skills 

Professional 

Knowledge Academic Content Teaching Special Populations 

Other 

Content 

Partnership Average State Average Partnership IHEs Partnership Average State Average Partnership IHEs Partnership Average State Average Partnership IHEs Partnership Average State Average # of

Partnership IHEs 

i

Partnership Average State Average Partnership IHEs 

 95.0 93.0 1 

96.0 97.0 1 100.0 99.0 1 100.0 96.0 1 

99.6 99.0 5 98.3 98.0 4 98.3 96.0 3 99.0 98.0 3 

92.0 93.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 98.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 

100.0 99.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 

86.7 92.3 3 97.5 95.5 2 88.1 93.2 7 98.4 94.4 5 98.8 97.5 4 

100.0 96.0 2 93.0 97.0 3 87.0 95.0 2 95.0 91.0 1 

91.4 89.0 7 85.4 85.0 7 93.7 95.0 3 

100.0 100 1 100.0 100.0 1 

 93.0 98.0 1 100.0 99.0 1 

 100.0 98.0 1 100.0 99.0 1 100.0 90.0 1 

 96.0 96.0 1 98.0 100.0 1 95.0 99.0 1 

 92.5 92.0 2 100.0 100.0 1 95.5 97.0 2 

96.0 98.0 1 79.0 94.0 1 74.0 91.0 1 

97.0 1 97.0 96.0 1 91.0 94.0 1 100.0 98.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 

100.0 100.0 3 80.0 95.0 3 82.0 93.0 4 94.0 90.0 2 100.0 100.0 2 

100.0 100.0 1 98.0 95.0 1 

 97.5 94.0 2 87.5 88.0 2 94.5 96.0 2 95.0 95.0 1 

100.0 100.0 9 89.1 90.0 9 88.8 92.0 9 90.3 91.0 4 100.0 99.0 1 

100.0 100.0 1 94.0 90.0 1 83.0 92.0 1 94.0 91.0 1 

NOTE: Each row represents a Partnership. The pass rates presented are based on state reports of institutional data. One 

Partnership is multistate in scope, so the state average represents the average pass rate of all the partner states. There are pass 

rates for only 20 of the 25 Partnerships because some states or IHEs do not administer such certification exams. 

EXHIBIT READS: In the Academic Content assessment for the Partnership in the first row, the average Partnership pass rate 

was 95 percent, compared with a 93 percent state pass rate. 

SOURCE: Institutional Accountability Reports 

Finding 1.8: Partnership grant funds have been instrumental in reforming program 

components. 

• In the first year of the Partnership activities, 41 percent of funds expended were used for reforms 

in the teacher preparation program. 

On average, each Partnership spent $832,000 on Partnership activities during the first year of the grant. 

Of these funds, $760,000 went to activities required by the Title II grant and the remaining funds went to 

Title II allowable activities. The APR reports covering the first year’s activities indicate that Partnership 

spending was highest for implementing reforms to hold Partnership teacher preparation programs 

accountable for preparing competent teachers; promoting strong teaching skills, including integrating 

research-based teaching methods into the curriculum; and integrating technology into teaching and 

learning (such as teaching students to evaluate software and prepare electronic portfolios). The next 

highest amount was for professional development, and the lowest was for clinical experiences. The 

apparent focus on reform activities does not appear to come at the expense of clinical experience, 

however. Because many of the school partners were already sites where student teachers were placed, 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 28 

enhancing clinical experiences may have required fewer resources compared with a variety of other 

activities (e.g., developing committees, hosting professional development institutes, attending meetings, 

bringing in speakers and hiring staff to manage reform initiatives). 

Exhibit 13 presents the average first-year expenditures by the Partnerships by type of activity, as well as 

the percent of the total associated with each type. 

Exhibit 13 

Average First-Year Expenditures on Partnership Activities, 1999-00 

Funding Category Amount Percent 

Required Title II activities 

 Reforms $337,000 41 

 Professional development $236,000 28 

 Clinical experience (student teaching) and interaction $187,000 22 

Other Title II allowable activities, not specified $72,000 9 

Total $832,000 100 

EXHIBIT READS: On average, 41 percent of first-year expenditures on Partnership activities, or $337,000, are 

spent on implementing reforms to improve teacher preparation programs. 

SOURCE: Annual Performance Reports 

Additionally, 16 project directors credited the Partnership with further institutionalization of preexisting 

reform efforts and 18 project directors reported added momentum in accelerating reform efforts already 

begun. 

Evaluation Topic 2: Contributions of Partnership grants to schools and school 

districts, and the roles of schools and districts in preservice teacher 

preparation 

Topic Importance—The Partnership Evaluation is investigating the role of the Partnership and the 

teacher preparation model in increasing the quality of the teaching force by improving professional 

development and improving the hiring and retention of new teachers. Specifically, the evaluation 

reviewed the literature to identify benchmarks regarding the following: 

• Increase the quality of the teaching force through professional development: supporting clinical 

supervisors, delivering professional development in core academic subjects and involving school 

faculty in improving the teacher preparation program course offerings and clinical experience. 

• Improve the hiring and retention of new teachers: recruiting a diverse cohort of students through 

scholarships, developing school mentors and experts, developing beginning teacher support 

programs for new teachers and tracking student achievement as it is related to teacher quality. 

As in the review conducted for Evaluation Topic 1, the evaluation uncovered few benchmarks. However, 

there seems to be a growing body of evidence that beginning teacher support programs can be influential 

in hiring, retaining and improving the quality of the teacher workforce. 

Topic Highlights—As a result of Title II Partnership Grants Program funds, school districts report 

increased teacher recruitment for high-risk schools; improved new-teacher support and retention; 

improved collaboration with education faculty; access to professional development in core academic 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 29 Interim Report 

areas, chiefly reading instruction; and enhanced instruction in mathematics and science. School and 

district personnel are able to collaborate with higher education faculty in a variety of ways. The 

preparation and assessment of student teachers are improving as cooperating teacher selection, roles and 

responsibilities are enhanced. Support for new teachers has also received attention, which may translate 

into better teaching and higher retention rates. Partnership-related professional development opportunities 

have reached a large number of in-service teachers as well. 

Topic Findings— 

Finding 2.1: Partnerships are influencing the way cooperating teachers from school 

districts are selected, trained and recognized. More teachers are being included in 

preparing and assessing preservice teachers. 

Cooperating teachers are those teachers volunteering to mentor a student intern in their classroom. Over 

the internship period, students are gradually given more responsibility until they can take sole 

responsibility for the direction of the students in the classroom in which they are placed. Respondents 

reported, on average, 20 cooperating elementary teachers and 10 cooperating middle and high school 

teachers per district, representing a total of 875 schools in Partnership districts. Just over half of the 

districts distinguish between supervising cooperating teachers and “clinical“ teachers who are trained in 

adult learning and supervision. Projects are working with a relatively small pool of cooperating teachers. 

Progress is affected by factors such as principal turnover and commitment. 

• Cooperating teachers play an essential role in the training and support of new teachers. 

Partnerships have changed the way these teachers are selected and trained by districts. 

Sixty-one districts report that since the Title II grant began, they select cooperating teachers jointly with 

partner IHEs or have begun collaborating in selecting cooperating teachers as a result of the grant. Eleven 

districts report that principals are no longer solely responsible for selecting cooperating teachers, and 10 

districts no longer exclusively rely on teachers to volunteer to serve as cooperating teachers. Several 

Partnerships provide additional training to cooperating teachers, mostly through combinations of courses, 

workshops and ongoing mentoring relationships. 

• As a result of Partnership relationships, school districts have also adopted new ways of 

recognizing the contributions of cooperating teachers and have increased the frequency of this 

recognition (see exhibit 14). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 30 

Exhibit 14 

Partnership Changes to Recognition of Cooperating Teachers 

Form of recognition 

Percent of districts recognizing cooperating teachers in 

various ways 

Invited to attend IHE activities 47 

Included in IHE faculty seminars 38 

Participated in University course planning 31 

Conducted research with partner IHE faculty 27 

Provided support to take courses in the following: 

 Student-teacher supervision 27 

 Student-teacher assessment 22 

Receives letters of thanks 21 

Receives financial bonuses 19 

Receives graduate credit for training 16 

EXHIBIT READS: Of the districts who recognize cooperating teachers, 47 percent do so by inviting them to IHE activities. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline School District Surveys 

Finding 2.2: Partnership benefits for school districts address overall staffing needs and the 

specific needs of new teachers. 

• The Partnership relationships between IHEs and school districts developed or expanded school 

district staffing needs overall. First-year Partnership activities have improved teacher recruitment 

in districts, reduced teacher attrition and led to faster filling of vacancies, among other benefits 

(see exhibit 15). 

Exhibit 15 

District Staffing Benefits of Partnership Projects 

Partnership Benefits to District Staffing Percent of Districts Crediting to Partnership 

Better teacher recruitment 75 

Higher qualifications of certified teachers 61 

Faster filling of vacancies 56 

Enhanced teacher screening processes 45 

Fewer teacher vacancies 33 

Reduced attrition 33 

Improved record keeping 27 

EXHIBIT READS: 75 percent of respondents to the school district surveys credited the Partnership project for their district’s 

improved teacher recruitment. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline School District Surveys 

Partnership relationships and activities have similar beneficial outcomes on high-poverty schools and on 

staffing in district-defined high-need subjects. 

• Partnerships graduated and placed more than 3,229 new teachers in Partnership schools. 

School districts’ overall staffing quality has benefited from membership in Title II Partnerships, as exhibit 

15 demonstrates. Additionally, partner school districts have also benefited specifically from the new 

graduates that Partnership IHEs provide to the district. Fifty-six percent of the school districts report 

reduced teacher attrition and turnover among newly hired teachers as a result of the Partnership project. 

Thirty-seven percent report a gain in teaching staff that is directly attributable to the Partnership activities, 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 31 Interim Report 

58 percent report no change and 5 percent report a loss. Similar changes are observed in district-defined 

high-need subjects and in high-poverty schools. 

The number of certified teachers attributable to Partnership relationships and activities has increased by 

an average of 7 per district, but the number of out-of-field teachers remains unchanged. Five districts (6 

percent) report reductions in the number of out-of-field teachers, 83 percent report no change and 11 

percent of districts actually increased the number of out-of-field teachers. 

• Many partner districts have changed their recruitment strategies as a result of the Partnership. 

Forty-three of the school districts changed recruitment activities owing to the district’s involvement in the 

Title II Partnership Grants Program. As of 2001–02, district recruitment strategies include attending job 

fairs (90 percent), advertising in local papers (85 percent) and recruiting through an Internet site (85 

percent). Districts also place ads in educational publications (59 percent) or use local networking such as 

word of mouth, student teachers, college placement offices and personal connections. 

District participation in teacher recruitment generally involves the human resource office (71 percent), the 

superintendent’s office (65 percent) or the curriculum office (50 percent). Other participating personnel 

include the principal and specialized program staff, such as ESL or special education staff. 

District requirements for evidence of satisfactory teacher preparation include recommendations (93 

percent), transcripts only (not as part of a teaching portfolio, 84 percent), test scores (76 percent), 

portfolios (50 percent) and the IHE guarantee of new-teacher skills (25 percent). 

Finding 2.3: Participating in the Partnership Grants Program has increased new teacher 

support provided by districts and IHEs. 

• In the first year of the grant period, new teachers have received additional support from districts 

as a result of district participation in Partnerships. 

The most frequently cited activities include training for mentors of new teachers (86 percent), mandatory 

supervision or mentoring by school principals (70 percent), mandatory mentoring by veteran teachers or 

IHE faculty (69 percent) and opportunities to attend professional conferences (67 percent). 

Prior to the Title II Partnership grants, districts were already providing support to new teachers: 83 

percent of the districts provided routine observations, 75 percent provided formal mentoring by veteran 

teachers, 63 percent provided informal mentoring and 31 percent provided seminars with IHE faculty for 

new teachers. 

Support for new teachers has been increasingly recognized as important by many states. A well-designed 

“induction program,” as it is called, involves Partnership colleges and universities. Although teachers are 

necessarily involved as mentors, full induction programs must also have faculty involvement. Exhibit 16 

shows that faculty involvement is the key ingredient in these new teacher-support programs. One example 

of a Partnership initiative aimed at intensifying and institutionalizing new teacher supports is a continuing 

Beginning Support Institute led by an adjunct faculty member. During the summer, new teachers meet in 

a seminar and receive instruction, support and materials for their classrooms. During the year, teachers 

participate in reunions held at the school sites. The program is for teachers with 1 to 3 years of experience 

and is integrated into the school district’s overall professional development structure for teacher 

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

Interim Report 32 

Exhibit 16 

Induction Activities Provided by Partnerships 

 Percent reporting that: 

Induction Activity 

activity was 

provided to new 

graduates 

activity 

supported by 

IHE faculty 

school or 

district staff 

supported the 

activity 

Average 

length of time 

the activity is 

available 

(in months) 

General access to teacher preparation IHE 

faculty for questions or discussion 91 88 12 25 

Teacher preparation program-sponsored 

network or support group with other 

program graduates 

54 82 18 19 

Organized mentoring program 77 36 64 26 

Continuing education through teacher 

education program coursework 80 79 21 25 

Continuing education through program 

workshops or seminars 86 61 39 19 

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

or discussion was provided to new graduates as an induction activity by Partnerships. Additionally, 88 percent reported that IHE 

faculty supported this activity. 12 percent reported that school or district staff supported said activity. The average length of time 

this activity is available is 25 months. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Leadership Surveys 

Finding 2.4: School districts are more likely to share information about recruitment 

activities and new teachers who graduate from those institutions with Partner IHEs than 

with non-Partner IHEs. 

• An overwhelming majority of the Partnership school districts report improved communication 

with partner IHEs. 

Eighty-eight percent of the school district respondents believe that as a result of the Partnership, 

communication between the IHE and cooperating teachers related to the performance of student teachers 

has improved. 

• Partner school districts share feedback about new teacher preparedness and performance with 

partner IHEs. 

Approximately two-thirds of all districts report that they are more likely to share information about 

recruitment activities with partner IHEs than with nonpartner institutions, and 61 percent of school 

districts communicate about recent hires with the partner IHEs from which the teachers graduate. This is 

still a relatively infrequent activity between schools and preparation programs. Having faculty in schools 

on a continuing basis to work with new, preservice and in-service teachers facilitates feedback about 

preparation outcomes. 

Most of the districts communicating with IHEs about new hires (82 percent) include feedback about the 

quality of the new teachers. The content of this feedback specifically concerns the effectiveness of 

individual new teachers (82 percent), the effectiveness of new teachers in general (80 percent), the 

preservice knowledge and skills that lead to low- or high-quality teaching (69 percent) and additional 

professional development opportunities required based on new teacher performance (63 percent). 

Meanwhile, 39 percent of all districts report that they provide no direct follow-up after hiring a partner 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 33 Interim Report 

IHE graduate, although 53 percent of these districts issue reports on recruitment activities and share those 

reports with partner IHEs. 

• Partnerships are conducting qualitative and quantitative research on new teacher performance. 

Among the qualitative methods Partnerships are using to look at student teacher and new teacher 

performance are observations and videotaping to determine whether reforms and professional 

development are translating into higher-quality teaching. Additionally, one Partnership is collecting and 

analyzing teacher work samples and another is seeking feedback on grant activities through focus groups 

with new teachers. 

Finding 2.5: Districts and faculty report that Partnership activities are resulting in high 

levels of preparedness of program graduates in a variety of areas. 

According to school district respondents, Partnership activities have improved the quality of teacher 

preparation. Eighty-four percent indicate that the Partnerships have improved teacher performance. 

• Partner school districts indicate that Partnership activities have enhanced the ability of teacher 

preparation students to use instructional strategies and to apply standards to classroom lessons. 

School districts report that partner IHEs produce new teachers who are better able to use a variety of 

assessment strategies, apply standards to classroom lessons, manage classrooms effectively, work with 

diverse populations of learners, use a variety of instructional strategies and know how to be better learners 

as a result of Partnership activities (see exhibit 17). 

• Partner faculty members indicate that Partnership activities have enhanced the ability of teacher 

preparation students to work with diverse populations of learners and use a variety of 

instructional strategies. 

Faculty responding to the same set of issues indicate that overall, teacher preparation students will be 

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

prepared less than 15 percent of the time. Respondents indicate that they think students will be best 

prepared to work with diverse populations of learners and to use a variety of instructional strategies and 

less (but still adequately) prepared to work with special education students and to communicate with 

parents. While these scores were self-reported, the fact that individuals representing different partner 

institutions could agree on how well students were likely to meet their standards reflects well on the 

unified vision the Partnerships have established regarding high-quality teacher preparation. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 34 

Exhibit 17 

Perceptions of Faculty and School District Respondents 

Regarding New Teachers’ Preparedness 

Average Score: 

Area of new teacher preparedness Faculty School District

Working with diverse populations of learners 4.4 4.2 

Using a variety of instructional strategies 4.3 4.3 

Applying standards to classroom lessons 4.2 4.3 

Learning how to be a learner 4.1 4.0 

Using a variety of assessment strategies 4.0 4.0 

Developing a depth in subject matter knowledge 3.9 3.9 

Knowing how to construct curricula 3.9 3.7 

Conducting effective classroom management 3.8 4.2 

Communicating with parents 3.6 3.7 

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

schools, block scheduling, school restructuring teams) 3.6 3.7 

Knowing how to work with special education students 3.5 3.6 

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

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

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

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

Finding 2.6: Partnership projects are making it possible for teachers to collaborate on 

important issues with IHE faculty. 

• Faculty and district partners agree that there is a high level of involvement with each other 

because of the Partnership, particularly in collaborative preservice and professional development 

activities. 

Nearly all school district survey respondents (94 percent) report that teachers are involved in collaborative 

activities with IHE faculty. The most common collaborative activities in which they are involved are 

professional development activities and preservice teacher experiences (see exhibit 18). Less frequent 

activities were those that brought district teachers to IHEs. 

Exhibit 18 also indicates that the extent of faculty involvement seems to parallel district-level 

involvement across this group of Partnership activities. The only area where the extent of involvement 

seems higher for teachers than for IHE faculty is in the creation of professional development activities. 

Co-teaching has thus far seen the lowest level of involvement as a collaborative activity sponsored by the 

Partnership project. 

The following further indicates the extent to which Partnerships are facilitating information exchange 

between partner schools and IHEs: 70 percent of IHE faculty respondents report that meetings to discuss 

program goals, principles and general redesign issues are taking place, and 59 percent report that there are 

meetings to determine the needs of new teachers. Fifty-eight percent report collaboration on professional 

development, and 55 percent report collaboration on the assessment of instructional practices of student 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 35 Interim Report 

teachers. More than half of the respondents report being involved in such meetings. Other activities taking 

place include collaboration on both the content (53 percent) and methods (53 percent) of teacher 

preparation courses, with about half the respondents participating in each. Co- or team-teaching occurred 

less frequently (47 percent). 

Faculty members report spending the most collaborative 

time working on professional development with partner 

teachers, about 85 hours per year on average. Those who 

attended meetings to discuss program goals, principles 

and general redesign issues spent about 74 hours per 

year on average. Respondents collaborating on teacher 

preparation course content spent more time (79 hours per 

year) than those working on methods of instructing 

teacher preparation students (56 hours per year). Finally, 

respondents indicated spending 52 hours per year co- or 

team-teaching and 39 hours per year assessing 

instructional practices. 

Exhibit 18 

Shared Responsibility for Teacher Preparation Reform: 

Involvement of District and Faculty Members 

Activity 

Percent 

District Respondents 

Reporting Involvement 

Percent 

Faculty Respondents 

Reporting Involvement 

Collaborate on creating professional development activities 80 59 

Redesign methods of instructing teacher preparation students 57 55

Redesign content of preservice teacher preparation courses 44 52 

Co-teach university courses in the preservice program 35 34 

EXHIBIT READS: 80 percent of district respondents and 59 percent of faculty respondents report involvement in collaborating 

on creating professional development activities for teacher preparation programs. 

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

Finding 2.7: Partnership activities involve both district- and school-level personnel. 

Districts identified 312 individuals who volunteer for or are appointed to a leadership role within the 

Partnership. The average length of involvement for these leaders is 2.4 years. These statistics indicate that 

relationships between partner IHEs and school districts predate grant awards in many instances. 

Approximately 60 percent of school district respondents report being involved with Partnership activities 

from the inception of the Partnership Grant Program. Among these pioneers, 50 percent have official 

titles or positions in the Partnership, including coordinators and liaisons, advisory board or steering 

committee members and project directors. The district positions included principals, teachers, program 

coordinators and superintendents. 

Almost all Partnerships had incorporated school district staff into their activities by the spring of 2001. 

Nearly all (96 percent) districts report the involvement of teachers; middle-level district staff, including 

How It Works: 

IHE Faculty and K–12 Teachers 

Working Together 

In one Partnership, faculty from 

English and theater departments 

created a professional development 

institute that brings teachers of English 

and drama in high schools together. 

Knowledge of how to teach the subject 

matter is expanded by the two 

different, but complementary, 

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

Interim Report 36 

directors, coordinators and specialists; school principals and other administrators (89 percent); and 

superintendents and other high-level district staff (78 percent). 

School districts report participating in additional collaborative activities with partner IHEs, specifically in 

teacher preparation reform, clinical experiences and professional development (see exhibit 19). 

Exhibit 19 

Percent of School Districts Reporting School Level Personnel Involvement in Collaborative 

Partnership Activities With Partner Colleges or Universities 

Collaborative Activity Percent 

Serve as mentors for new teachers 94 

Collaborate on the delivery of professional development activities 76 

Redesign field experience 65 

Redesign classroom observations during student teaching 61 

Work on diversity issues with preservice students 60 

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

Participate on K-12 restructuring teams 54 

Recruit students for teacher preparation programs 50 

Redesign preservice course sequence 38 

Develop standards and proficiency levels for licensure of programs 25 

Present to relevant IHE classes 23 

EXHIBIT READS: 94 percent of respondents to the school district surveys indicated collaboratively mentoring new 

teachers with partner colleges and universities. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline School District Surveys 

• Many more school-level staff participate in Partnership activities than do district-level staff. 

On average, 19 district-level administrators participate actively per Partnership. Involvement tends to 

cluster around two or three representatives per district. Those involved tend to hold middle- and upperlevel district positions (superintendents, subject matter specialists and curriculum directors). At the same 

time, an average of 58 school-level principals and teachers per Partnership participate actively. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 37 Interim Report 

Finding 2.8: Partnership grant activities enable professional development opportunities for 

teachers and staff in virtually all partner school districts. 

The vast majority of school district survey respondents 

(93 percent) report in-service professional development 

opportunities for current teachers associated with the 

Partnership grants, with an average participation rate of 

46 staff members per activity. 

• In total, 13,780 teachers, school instructional 

leaders and instructional specialists are reported 

to have benefited from professional 

development activities attributable to the Title II 

Partnerships. 

The most common in-service professional development activities are higher education workshops, district 

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

training for diversity, mentoring or supervising student teachers, assessing student teachers and 

instructing teachers in the use of technology. 

Evaluation Topic 3: The association between collaborative activities among 

partner institutions of higher education and schools and student achievement 

outcomes 

Topic Importance—Title II Partnership grants have funded many collaborative activities between highneed school districts and IHEs. Among these activities are supports for school principals, enhancement of 

school technology resources, support for the retention of new teachers and opportunities for enhanced and 

ongoing professional development that improves the academic content knowledge of teachers and 

promotes strong teaching skills. 

Collaborations start at the district level, but eventually make an impact on the teaching faculty and 

students in specific schools. One expectation of this collaboration is a measurable effect on school-level 

student achievement scores. 

The Partnership Evaluation examines several associations between Title II activities and student 

achievement at the school level: 1) whether student achievement levels change in Title II elementary10

school partners over the course of the grant period; 2) whether student achievement in Title II schools is 

growing more rapidly than student achievement in non-Title II elementary schools; and 3) whether Title 

II-funded collaborative activities in elementary schools can be associated with changes in student 

achievement levels. Three sources of data are being used: 

• Title II Principal Survey. To document the collaborative opportunities funded by Title II 

Partnerships at the school level, the evaluation is conducting a one-page survey addressed to 

 

10 Elementary schools were defined as schools serving students in grades Pre-K to 6; schools serving higher grades (up to 12) were included as 

long as they also served elementary grades. The analysis focuses on schools serving grades Pre-K to 6, because statewide school-level assessment 

data for reading and math at the same elementary grades are available for most states. Statewide assessment data for the same secondary grade 

levels are less commonly available across states. Elementary schools represented approximately two-thirds of all the schools with which 

Partnerships were involved. 

How It Works: 

Professional Development for 

Teachers 

One Partnership has met in-service 

needs and technology objectives by 

providing distance learning degreegranting courses at school partners for 

teachers seeking a master’s degree.
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 38 

elementary school principals identified as partners by Project Directors.11 This survey will collect 

data in the fall of 2002 from a population of approximately 800 principals. 

• Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) Student Achievement Database. To document 

student achievement levels, the evaluation will rely on data from the PPSS national database of 

school-level student achievement scores. Data from 1999–00, 2000–01, and 2001–02 will be used 

as they become available to examine changes in student achievement over time. 

• Common Core of Data. To document key characteristics that could affect the outcomes for 

student achievement, descriptive data about school features from the National Center for 

Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) will be incorporated in the comparative 

analyses.12

The associations between Title II activities and student achievement will be documented in the final 

evaluation report due to be released in late fall 2004. This first evaluation report has been prepared prior 

to the first administration of the principal survey. To establish a context for future analyses, data from the 

PPSS national student achievement data file and CCD data are used to describe key features of Title II 

schools and compare them with non-Title II schools in their districts and states. In this report, only the 

baseline descriptive data are reported. 

Topic Highlights—Developing a simple descriptive comparison of Title II and non-Title II schools is 

complicated because Title II Partnerships vary widely in the composition of their school district and 

school partners. Some Partnership districts may include many Title II schools and few non-Title II 

schools, while others may contain only a few Title II schools and many non-Title II schools. Thus the 

results obtained in comparing Title II and non-Title II schools may depend on how districts and schools 

are weighted in the analysis. Some examples of the variability among Partnerships include the following: 

• Four states (Texas, Mississippi, Missouri and South Carolina) have more than one Partnership 

grant in the state. 

• One Partnership operates in five states. 

• In four Partnerships, all of the Partnership districts are those in which all schools are Title II 

schools. 

• In 13 other Partnerships, only some of the Partnership districts include districts where all schools 

are Title II schools. 

• In districts that have both Title II and non-Title II schools, the balance between the two varies 

widely. In some districts, nearly all schools are Title II schools. In other districts, the situation is 

reversed. 

Appendix G provides a complete listing of Partnerships and participating districts, describing the number 

of participating districts with the number of Partnership schools and non-Partnership schools in each 

district and Partnership.13 These data are summarized in exhibit 20. 

 

11 One Partnership did not identify any schools as partners and was therefore not included in the analyses. 12 Four key features of schools were selected from CCD to provide a descriptive picture of the districts and schools that are current partners: Title 

I status, minority enrollment, total enrollment, and number of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch. Title I status, minority enrollment, 

and participation in lunch program were thought to be indicative of the extent of the “need” represented among the school district partners. Since 

Title II Partnerships are mandated to work with high-need school districts, it was important to establish the extent to which these are indeed 

represented within the Partnerships. 

13 The number of districts and schools differs from the general description provided in exhibit 5. The focus was on elementary schools only, and 

Partnerships reported fewer district partners at the time of this analysis. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 39 Interim Report 

Exhibit 20 

Number of Districts and Schools by Partnership 

Partnership Number of Districts 

Number of Title II 

Schools 

Number of Non-Title II 

Schools 

1 3 3 92 

2 8 112 23 

3 6 11 84 

4 1 6 224 

5 1 14 1 

6 5 76 479 

7 2 46 4 

8 2 105 159 

9 10 13 162 

10 3 12 42 

11 3 9 152 

12 26 54 110 

13 6 9 0 

14 20 40 28 

15 5 6 29 

16 17 60 0 

17 6 8 21 

18 1 9 41 

19 29 43 283 

20 2 5 42 

21 6 9 105 

22 1 131 0 

23 7 30 44 

24 3 10 26 

Total 172 821 2,147 

NOTE: Each row in the table represents a Partnership. The data is presented in no particular order. In one state where two 

Partnerships exist, one district has three schools in one of the Partnerships and 41 in another. The district, while listed as a 

member of each Partnership, is counted only once. There are no non-Title II schools in the district. One Partnership is not 

listed here because a list of school partners was not available. 

EXHIBIT READS: In Partnership 1, there are 3 participating districts and 3 participating schools in those districts. These 

three schools are Title II schools, and the other 92 schools in those districts are non-Title II schools. 

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

Topic Findings—Baseline descriptive data illustrate the variety of Partnership compositions of districts 

and schools, as well as the similarities and differences between partner schools and non-partner schools in 

the same districts. Title II school partners tend to have just slightly larger enrollments than do non-partner 

schools in the same district. Title II partner schools are similar to non-Title II schools in a variety of ways, 

including Title I participation, percentage minority students and eligibility in the free- and reduced-price 

lunch program. 

Additionally, average reading and math assessment scores are nearly identical for Partnership and nonPartnership schools. According to these baseline data, students in Title II and non-Title II schools seem to 

have similar characteristics and identical performance on school achievement tests in reading and math 

(see exhibit 21). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 40 

Exhibit 21 

 Baseline Descriptive Characteristics for Title II and Non-Title II Schools, 

2000-01 

Average Title II Schools Non-Title II Schools Difference 

% Title I 73.9 69.4 4.5 

% Minority 55.4 56.3 -0.9 

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

Enrollment 536.2 465.8 70.4 

Standardized Math Score 95.9 96.0 -0.1 

Standardized Reading Scores 94.4 95.3 -0.6 

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

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

We did not test for significance in the overall average differences reported here; however, significant differences are 

indicated at the Partnership level in exhibits 22-24 and Appendix F. 

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

SOURCE: CCD, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education and School-Level Assessment 

Database. American Institutes for Research, John C. Flanagan Research Center (2001). Funded by the Policy and 

Program Studies Service, U.S. Department of Education 

A Note about Variation 

Because districts vary widely in the number of Title II and non-Title II schools they include, developing a 

simple descriptive comparison of the schools participating in Title II Partnership projects in relation to 

other schools in the same districts is difficult. Such a comparison is further complicated because the 

results vary across districts within Partnerships. Many Partnerships included districts with many Title II 

schools and few Non-Title II schools (and vice versa), so simple averages represent the relationship 

characterized by the district in the Partnership containing the highest percentage of the Partnerships’ Title 

II or Non-Title II schools because means are dominated by the scores in districts with the most schools. 

(A specific example of this is provided in appendix F.) 

To deal with the variation across districts in size, proportion of Title II and non-Title II schools and 

results, a hierarchical linear modeling approach was used. This approach considers that schools are 

clustered within districts. In addition, in Partnerships for which the results vary substantially across 

districts (like the example described in appendix F), the approach pools the within-district differences, 

weighting each district by the precision of the estimated differences. Using this approach, the estimated 

averages are more consistent with the general within-district pattern than are the results that would be 

obtained by simply averaging Title II and non-Title II schools. A complete description of the 

methodology used for these analyses and the rationale for the approach are provided in appendix F.14

 

14 Appendix F describes the methodology for analyses of the achievement data. The goal of the student achievement analysis was to compare 

schools within districts and then within Partnerships. Because the format of student achievement data differed substantially across states, we 

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

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

period. Therefore, in the exhibits related to Evaluation Topic 3 (student achievement) where each row represents a Partnership, there are more 

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

 41 Interim Report 

Finding 3.1: Title II and non-Title II schools report approximately the same percentage of 

students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program. 

The overall percentages of students eligible for free- and reduced-price lunch were quite similar for Title 

II and non-Title II schools. The average percentage eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program 

ranged from 27.5 to 72.0 in Title II schools, compared to a range from 29.8 to 72.0 for non-Title II 

schools (see exhibit 22). 

Exhibit 22 

Average Percent of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 

in Title II and Non-Title II Schools 

Partnership 

Title II 

Schools (n) 

Non-Title II 

Schools (n) Difference 

1 70.8 (6) 62.3 (208) 8.4 

4 59.7 (10) 53.8 (23) 5.9 

10 46.9 (6) 44.0 (29) 2.9 

12 71.5 (7) 70.1 (20) 1.4 

13 67.4 (12) 66.0 (146) 1.4 

15 45.8 (102) 45.2 (146) 0.6 

16 48.2 (43) 47.7 (282) 0.4 

17 30.1 (47) 29.8 (105) 0.3 

18 72.0 (33) 72.0 (25) 0.0 

14 62.2 (8) 63.3 (147) -1.1 

11 41.4 (3) 44.1 (8) -2.7 

7 37.5 (4) 40.9 (4) -3.5 

6 27.5 (10) 32.1 (76) -4.6 

5 35.4 (7) 40.2 (17) -4.8 

3 36.4 (12) 42.9 (42) -6.4 

2 39.0 (5) 46.7 (36) -7.6 

9 36.2 (2) 56.7 (11) -20.5 

8 30.2 (13) 55.4 (1) -25.2+

19 58.2 (46) − −

20 41.9 (52) − −

21 45.3 (9) − −

22 60.6 (120) − −

Average 47.7 50.7 -3.1 +

p<.01, *p<.05, **p<.001. 

− Not Applicable, Partnerships are working with all the schools in their partner districts; therefore, no nonTitle II schools exist for comparison. 

NOTE: Data are not available for schools in five Partnerships. Average includes only those Partnerships with 

non-Title II schools. The overall mean for Title II schools including Partnerships for which no non-Title II 

schools exist is 48.4.

EXHIBIT READS: In Partnership 1, 70.8 percent of students enrolled in Title II schools were eligible for 

free lunch programs, compared to 62.3 percent of students enrolled in non-Title II schools. A positive 

difference in the “Difference” column indicates that in a given Partnership, the average percent of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in all Title II schools is higher than the average percent of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in all non-Title II schools in Partnership districts. For example, on 

average, the Title II schools in Partnership 1 have 8.4 percent more students eligible for free or reduced- price 

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

non-Title II schools, on average, have higher percentages of students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch 

than the Title II schools. 

SOURCE: CCD, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 42 

Finding 3.2: Title II and non-Title II schools are reporting similar percentages of minority 

students in their student bodies. 

The average percentage of minority students in Title II elementary school partners varies from 3.2 to 90.7 

percent, and for non-Title II schools, the percentages range from 19.7 to 88.6. Although the range of 

percentages was larger for Title II schools, on average, according to exhibit 23, Title II schools and nonTitle II schools were nearly identical in percentage of minority students. 

Exhibit 23 

Average Percent Minority Students for Title II and Non-Title II Schools 

Partnership 

Title II 

Schools (n) 

Non-Title II 

Schools (n) Difference (p) 

1 49.3 (10) 33.1 (24) 16.1 

7 51.1 (12) 44.2 (42) 6.9 

8 80.9 (3) 74.7 (90) 6.2 

11 43.9 (8) 40.7 (92) 3.3 

12 54.0 (43) 50.8 (282) 3.3 

13 78.9 (7) 75.7 (20) 3.2 

15 24.6 (10) 22.4 (80) 2.2 

16 90.7 (6) 88.6 (208) 2.2 

18 70.8 (8) 68.7 (147) 2.2 

21 84.3 (12) 83.4 (146) 0.9 

22 65.7 (112) 65.1 (18) 0.6 

20 66.7 (102) 68.1 (146) -1.3 

19 75.6 (33) 77.7 (25) -2.0 

17 51.3 (71) 53.4 (463) -2.2 

14 18.3 (47) 20.7 (105) -2.4 

10 65.2 (3) 68.8 (8) -3.6 

9 64.3 (5) 70.1 (36) -5.8 

6 13.3 (7) 21.4 (17) -8.1 

5 11.4 (13) 19.7 (1) -8.3 

4 69.2 (6) 78.9 (29) -9.6 

3 32.7 (4) 43.8 (4) -11.1 

2 56.8 (2) 68.6 (11) -11.9 

23 80.2 (120) − −

24 79.6 (46) − −

25 40.4 (52) − −

26 3.2 (9) − −

Average 55.4 56.3 -0.9 

 *p<.05, **p<.001.

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

schools exist for comparison. 

NOTE: Data are not available for schools in one Partnership. Average includes only those Partnerships with non-Title 

II schools. The overall mean for Title II schools including Partnerships for which no non-Title II schools exist is 54.7. 

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

percent of minority students in all Title II schools is higher than the average percent of minority students in all nonTitle II schools in Partnership districts. For example, on average, the Title II schools in Partnership 2 have 11.9 percent 

fewer minority students than the non-Title II schools in the Partnership districts. Positive differences indicate the 

opposite, that non-Title II schools, on average, have higher percentages of minority students than the Title II schools. 

 SOURCE: CCD, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 43 Interim Report 

Finding 3.3: The student achievement scores reported for Title II schools and non-Title II 

schools show that student performance in mathematics and reading in both groups of 

schools is very similar. 

Exhibit 24 illustrates that Title II and non-Title II schools performed similarly on the reported 

assessments for reading and math. For both math and reading, only one Partnership differed significantly 

for Title II and non-Title II schools. 

Exhibit 24 

Average Math and Reading Scores for Title II and 

Non-Title II Schools, 1999–00

Math Reading 

Partnership 

Title II 

Schools (n) 

Non-Title II 

Schools (n) Difference 

Title II Schools 

(n) 

Non-Title II 

Schools (n) Difference 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 95.9 (45) − − 98.1 (45) − −

16 98.3 (60) − − 100.8 (50) − −

17 98.0 (8) − − 99.7 (8) − −

26 80.2 (114) − − 80.9 (114) − −

Average 95.9 96.0 -.13 94.4 95.3 -.58 

*p<.05, **p<.001. 

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

for comparison. 

NOTE: Achievement scores are standardized to a mean of 100 and a SD of 15 within each grade, then averaged to the school, 

state and Partnership. Unless otherwise noted, blank cells are due to unavailable math or reading assessment data. Assessment 

data were not available for any schools in one Partnership. Overall average includes only those Partnerships with non-Title II 

schools. The overall means for Title II school math including Partnerships for which no non-Title II schools exist is 95.5, and the 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 44 

overall mean for Title II reading including Partnerships for which no non-Title II schools exist is 94.3. Averages presented in 

this exhibit are sorted by average math difference. 

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

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

example, on average, the Title II schools in Partnership 25 score 9.6 percent higher on that state’s math assessment than the nonTitle II schools in the Partnership districts. Negative differences indicate the opposite, that non-Title II schools, on average, have 

higher assessment scores than the Title II schools. 

SOURCE: School-Level Assessment Database. American Institutes for Research, John C. Flanagan Research Center (2001). 

Funded by the Policy and Program Studies Service, U.S. Department of Education 

Because scores were standardized within each state or Partnership, comparisons should be interpreted in 

relative terms. For example, in one Partnership, the mean reading score for Title II schools was 79.2. This 

means that the achievement in Title II schools was below average for all schools in the state, but provides 

no information as to the relation of this average as compared to any other Partnership or state’s average. 

Evaluation Topic 4: Organizational changes and relationships among 

partners within a grant 

Topic Importance—The Title II Partnership Program provides funds to support the creation of a 

partnership among schools of education, schools of arts and sciences, schools, districts, community 

organizations, businesses and cultural institutions. Each Partnership, through its advisory committees and 

action committees, works on behalf of its vision for quality teaching. The Evaluation of the Title II 

Partnership Program investigates the ways Partnerships do their work and the features of Partnerships that 

affect the success of meeting project and program goals. 

Organizational change is one of the three major concepts linking the components of the Partnership 

Evaluation framework. As organizations, K–12 schools, education schools and arts and sciences schools 

have very different characteristics. The successful implementation of a Partnership requires recognizing 

the unique conditions in which each organization operates, finding ways to involve each group in the 

accomplishment of goals that all consider meaningful and useful and overcoming barriers. 

In addition to key academic partners, the Partnership projects work with businesses and other partners, 

such as cultural institutions and teacher unions. Some of these organizations are more comfortable with 

change and have different expectations for the speed at which change should happen, especially in 

schools at risk for failure. 

The Targeted Literature Review identified a number of collaborative initiatives supported by the federal 

government, foundations and policy organizations that have sought a change in the working relationships 

between faculty in K–12 schools and those in schools, colleges, and departments of education. Although 

little research was found that empirically tested the importance of these relationships to teacher behavior, 

teacher preparation or student success, these writings address key issues that can be used in the analysis of 

changes made possible by the Partnerships. 

Changes in teacher preparation and professional development have been driven both by outside forces, 

such as the political community interested in accountability, and by internal education community 

interested in reform. Literature indicates that using collaborations or partnerships is one of the most 

popular approaches to creating change in teacher preparation. Important findings from the Targeted 

Literature Review include several guiding principles for building Partnerships: 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 45 Interim Report 

• Developing a shared mission and a set of goals representing a reasonable assessment of the 

strengths and weaknesses of the partner organizations and the realistic view of the external 

environment. 

• Accepting that there is room for more than one kind of leader in an effective Partnership and 

recognizing that rotating opportunities among leaders is a proven method to maintain creativity, 

provide new chances for developing leaders and sustaining collaborations. 

• Seeking change related to the transformation of relationships and establishing goals that reflect a 

compelling case for that change. 

• Developing and implementing Partnership activities that approach change positively. 

• Broadening the range of institutional stakeholders represented in the Partnership. 

• Emphasizing and supporting communication among all partners. 

• Appreciating barriers to change and focusing 

on a small number of barriers that realistically 

can be removed. 

• Creating zones of comfort for the members of 

the Partnership. 

• Building resources for the support of 

Partnership activities from all partners. 

• Designing processes that will support change 

and the effective features of the Partnership. 

• Building continuing capacity or structures that 

will allow effective strategies to continue or 

improved strategies to emerge without destroying the relationships and accomplishments that 

have been put into place. 

These findings lead to an understanding of Partnership development as a process that requires both 

flexibility and persistence, as well as a substantial commitment on the part of the participants. When the 

right groundwork is laid through well-functioning governance structures, through broad and deep 

leadership development and through reasonable and measurable goal identification, the future of 

sustaining initiatives is likely to be brighter. 

Topic Highlights—Title II Partnership grants have helped preservice teacher education programs forge 

new relationships and strengthen preexisting collaborations to assess and improve new teachers’ depth of 

subject matter knowledge and instructional skills. It is still too early in the grant period to determine the 

mechanisms by which these collaborations will affect actual reforms in preservice teacher education, yet 

there is some indication from school districts that the PDS environment will lead to more feedback for 

teacher preparation faculty and improved assessment of students undergoing clinical preparation. The 

prospect is that this kind of collaboration will lead to better prepared new teachers, who, entering a 

supportive environment, will likely stay longer. 

How It Works: 

Collaboration to Improve Student 

Achievement Performance 

With assistance from the Title II 

Partnership project, students and 

teachers in one partner district are 

working with a new Web-based 

resource. Practice problems and 

strategies help teachers assess 

students as they prepare for annual 

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

Interim Report 46 

Topic Findings— 

Finding 4.1: Title II Partnerships are developing structures and incentives within IHEs to 

enhance communication and collaboration between education and arts and sciences 

faculty. 

Establishing or enhancing the relationship between an 

IHE’s education and arts and sciences faculty is integral 

to the Title II Partnership grants. Working together, 

education faculty and their counterparts in the academic 

discipline departments assess and improve new teachers’ 

depth of subject matter knowledge and their knowledge 

of how to teach that subject for student success. 

• Partner faculty report that internal structures 

facilitate collaboration and communication 

between faculty in education and arts and 

sciences. 

According to the initial faculty surveys, 70 percent of 

respondents indicate that an internal structure is already 

in place that brings the education and arts and sciences 

faculty together as a unit for governance purposes. In most of these institutions, this is an academic senate 

or special issue committee that offers faculty a chance to mix ideas and disciplines or, at the very least, to 

report on research and special events in their departments. 

• Baseline data show that relationships between education and arts and sciences faculty in 

Partnership IHEs are generally collegial. 

In general, relationships between education and arts and sciences faculty are reported to be positive at 

IHEs in the Partnerships. Two-thirds of the faculty respondents report “somewhat” (41 percent) or “very” 

collegial (28 percent) relations; 21 percent said that relations were “neutral.” Only 10 percent of 

respondents indicated that relations between the two schools at their IHE were strained (1 percent said 

“somewhat strained,” and 9 percent said “very strained”). There were no statistically significant 

differences in responses from faculty in education and arts and sciences. 

What distinguishes the Title II Partnership IHEs from other IHEs is a concerted effort to create 

opportunities (such as a curriculum committee for reviewing program offerings) for education and arts 

and sciences faculty to work together on planned activities for schools or for teacher preparation 

programs. Participation in these activities may be translating into improved relationships between faculty 

members from the two departments. Faculty involved in the Partnership grant indicated a positive 

perception about their colleagues from the other department: 79 percent of faculty report “very collegial” 

relations, 14 percent report “somewhat collegial,” 5 percent report “neutral” and only 2 percent indicated 

“somewhat strained.” These positive perceptions may result from a combination of the current grant 

activities and a historical collaborative approach to addressing the challenges of teacher preparation that 

predated the grant. 

• Partnership activities are nurturing and improving the relationships between partner education 

and arts and sciences faculty, but faculty report numerous challenges that hinder progress. 

How It Works: 

Education and Arts and Sciences 

Faculty Working Together

Partnerships create curriculum 

committees combining the expertise of 

arts and science and education faculty 

to address the needs of both 

undergraduate preparation in the 

content area and pedagogical 

preparation for teaching. Progress may 

be measured, but one of the 

implications is the establishment of new 

relationships between faculty members.
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 47 Interim Report 

In some cases, the Partnership grants report deep commitments from the education and arts and sciences 

departments that were not present prior to the grant. As one Project Director commented, “The 

Partnership has created a new multi-institutional culture that did not exist before. It is more than a 

Partnership; it is a new way of dealing with issues. It is now OK to call someone else for assistance.” 

Some respondents reported that faculty from education and arts and sciences are “speaking the same 

language” for the first time because of the grant. Faculty from the two schools are coming together to 

revise curricula to integrate content and pedagogy, to plan professional development activities and to 

improve the clinical components of teacher preparation. Involving the deans from both departments in 

decision making (e.g., as co-principal investigators) and using Partnership funds to support release time 

for faculty facilitate these collaborative activities. 

Despite the support and resources provided to partner institutions, representatives of both education and 

arts and sciences faculty reported that a number of challenges to the goal of involvement in Partnership 

activities remain: 

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

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

(62 percent). 

• Reward system that does not recognize faculty members’ work in schools (56 percent). 

• Reward system (e.g., salary, promotion, tenure) that does not recognize collaboration within the 

university (53 percent) or with K–12 schools (55 percent). 

• Differences in climate between IHEs and schools (47 percent). 

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

When asked to rank the challenges, respondents most often chose lack of time as the number one 

challenge, followed by the university reward system’s lack of recognition for work in schools. 

Despite the barriers, the Title II Partnership projects have inspired an interest in and purpose for 

collaboration. Title II Partnership projects have also provided the forum for diverse faculty to achieve 

consensus on goals for curricular and instructional reform. With a requirement for collaboration, these 

projects have also forced teacher educators to think more broadly about the larger responsibility for 

teacher preparation and to consider the pipeline as a continuum that stretches from early in a person’s 

undergraduate career well into his or her induction phase of teaching and beyond. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 48 

Finding 4.2: The requirement of creating an advisory board has facilitated new alignments 

among institutions, business and nonbusiness partners and schools. 

• Almost all Partnerships report that they have an advisory board, but the level of power afforded to 

these boards and the processes they use to make decisions differ. 

Ninety-two percent of Partnerships have advisory boards. Thirty percent of these advisory boards meet 

and reach a consensus on issues; 40 percent make recommendations to the project director who makes the 

ultimate decisions. Thirty percent have some other method or a combination of methods for making 

policy decisions. For instance, some Partnerships describe smaller steering committees that are involved 

in decision making. Others report that key personnel such as the principal investigators collaborate with 

the project director to make decisions. In no Partnership does the decision-making responsibility fall 

entirely on the project director. 

Partnership advisory boards tend to be composed of faculty and community leaders. Deans of schools of 

education and arts and sciences, district superintendents and presidents of community colleges appear on 

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

and sciences professors, district teachers and representatives from business and nonbusiness partners (see 

exhibit 25). One Partnership even includes parents and teacher preparation students on its advisory board. 

Exhibit 25 

Sample Advisory Board Members 

Project Director 

Dean, School of Education

Dean, School of Arts and Sciences 

Department Chair, Curriculum and Instruction 

Vice President of Academic Affairs, Technical College 

President, Technical College 

Executive Director, Teachers’ Education Association 

District Director of Educational Services 

District Superintendent 

District Director of Technology 

President, Chamber of Commerce 

President, School Board 

CEO, Private Industry
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 49 Interim Report 

• Most Partnerships share governance responsibilities across multiple partners. 

Twenty-one Partnerships (95 percent) that submitted APR data report a formal governance structure. 

Seventy-one percent of these formal structures include a representative from each partner IHE, from both 

education and arts and sciences, from each school district and from each other partner. Although 

Partnerships approach the roles and procedures of advisory boards and governance differently, it appears 

that they undertake shared decision making and that they have attempted to include diverse sets of 

stakeholders in teacher education on their advisory boards. 

• One of the newer partner sectors represented on boards and in Partnership activities is the 

community college. 

Some Partnership projects are newly recognizing this 

pathway to teacher preparation for undergraduate students. 

Partner IHEs are finding that working with community 

college general education faculty and with the 

administration may help those who want to get their start 

at local community colleges. Scholarship funds go further, 

in some cases, for students who are picking up part of the 

undergraduate requirements at community colleges. This 

academic and administrative collaboration requires a better 

understanding of the population of students shared by both 

types of institutions and the content of the coursework 

offered. 

Finding 4.3: When large distances separate key IHE partners, stronger partner 

arrangements are created on a local level, but collaboration with more distant partners 

may be hindered. 

Partner relationships within institutions and among local

partners appear to be strong. However, some Partnerships 

that involve partners that are separated by large 

geographical distances are having difficulty forging 

meaningful relationships. 

For example, three of the four Partnerships visited during 

the exploratory site visits describe themselves as 

“statewide” in scope. Instead of being a unified, statewide 

entity, however, these Partnerships tend to break into 

regionally oriented collaborations in which each regional 

IHE has developed its own strategies and activities. The 

level of interaction between these regional collaborations 

varies. For example, one Partnership indicates that some 

partners in different cities had forged new connections 

whereas another Partnership reports that partners at 

different regional sites have almost no communication. 

How It Works: 

Partnering with Community Colleges

Community colleges have made efforts 

to align their general education and prepreparation courses with the courses at 

the 4-year institutions with teacher 

preparation programs so that students 

who transfer into the universities are “on 

the same page“ as the students already 

in the program. In one Partnership, 

community college faculty are invited to 

participate in summer workshops with 

university faculty to gain exposure to 

reformed teaching methods. 

How It Works: 

Partnerships across Distances 

In several Partnerships with a statewide 

or multistate scope, each partner IHE 

has its own set of partners based on the 

needs of the local school district(s). 

Often, these regional collaborations 

have also formed separate governance 

structures. A larger coordination effort 

on behalf of the project occurs at the 

project director level. Representatives 

from the regional collaborations meet 

infrequently to discuss projectwide 

goals, such as the time devoted by 

education and arts and sciences faculty 

to working with teachers in partner 

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

Interim Report 50 

Whether the distance between partners will diminish the accomplishments of the Partnership as a whole 

remains to be seen. The fact that local partners need to interact with distant partners for distributing funds 

and developing grant activities suggests how difficult it may be to accomplish a cohesive, yet 

geographically dispersed Partnership. 

Finding 4.4: Partnerships are creating new relationships between partner schools, colleges 

and universities and other partners. 

Fifty-eight business partners are involved across all 25 Partnerships. Of these, 28 percent were building 

on prior relationships with the IHEs, and 36 percent had a relationship with the partner school district(s) 

that predated the grant. These numbers are not mutually exclusive because prior partner relationships 

could have existed with both the IHE and the school. On average, the Partnerships have 2.4 business 

partners, but the number ranges from 10 in one Partnership to none in four Partnerships. The average 

length of time that business partners have worked with one or more of the partners is 2.0 years—the 

length of time that the grant has been in place. Seventy-two percent of the business partners have pledged 

their commitment to the project for its full 5-year lifespan. Among the business and industry 

representatives involved in the Partnerships are local chambers of commerce, banks, technology 

corporations and communications companies. 

• Other partners tend to be advisors rather than providers of goods and services. 

Ninety percent of business partners are reported to provide advisory assistance to the Partnership, 22 

percent provide financial assistance and 5 percent provide equipment. The advisory role that business 

partners play is most often participation on teacher preparation advisory boards and committees. Project 

directors report that some business partners were involved in grant planning and in the development of 

project goals. The business partners also act as liaisons between the academic and business communities 

and provide universities with access to the business sector. 

• Nonbusiness partners include nonprofit organizations and state agencies. 

Project directors describe a total of 64 nonbusiness partners, including state chapters of the National 

Education Association, parent and community groups, a Future Teachers’ club, a Hispanic education 

foundation and state departments of education. Ninety-four percent of nonbusiness partners have 

committed assistance for the entire life of the project. 

On average, Partnerships have 2.7 nonbusiness partners; however, nine Partnerships have no nonbusiness 

partners. As is the case with business partners, most nonbusiness partners (91 percent) play an advisory 

role. Areas of focus for the nonbusiness partners include 

community and family roles in teacher education, 

minority and general recruitment and the needs of 

community college transfer students. Nonbusiness 

partners provide professional development to in-service 

teachers and mentor and tutor student and new teachers. 

Like the business partners, the nonbusiness partners also 

help in the development of Web sites. 

Fifty-nine percent of nonbusiness partners also contribute 

to Partnerships in a financial capacity, and 33 percent 

contribute equipment. Project directors report that 

nonbusiness partners also offer their facilities for 

meetings and equipment and materials for professional 

How It Works: 

Business Partners

A common topic on which business 

partners advise and support 

Partnerships is the use of technology in 

education. For instance, one business 

partner offers technology training to both 

preservice and in-service teachers, and 

another partner aids in the use and 

design of Web sites. In terms of financial 

and material support, some business 

partners have pledged funding for 

scholarships and equipment donations, 

such as cable modems and software. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 51 Interim Report 

development activities. Nonbusiness partners have been involved in Partnership activities for an average 

of 2.4 years, slightly longer than the business partners have served in their current capacities. This 

difference suggests that prior to the Partnership grant, teacher preparation programs were more likely to 

have worked with nonbusiness partners than with business partners. Indeed, project directors report that 

about half of nonbusiness partners contributed in similar ways both to the college or university and to 

partner districts before the start of the Partnership grant. 

Evaluation Topic 5: Efforts to Institutionalize Partnerships 

Topic Importance—Many of the Title II partners have had productive relationships around school 

reform and teacher quality issues in the past; however, these relationships and their outcomes may have 

had limited effect on the institutionalization of reforms affecting the quality of the teaching workforce. 

Title II funds are provided to Partnerships for 5 years. The Partnership Evaluation is investigating specific 

features of Partnerships that contribute to the sustainability of project activities beyond the funding 

period. 

A challenge for any grant recipient is to sustain the successes after the funding ends. The Targeted 

Literature Review found four factors that can aid or hinder the institutionalization of Partnership 

activities: 

• Effective leadership. Partnerships that involve prominent faculty and administrators, such as 

deans and superintendents, gain visibility on campus and in the community and are more likely to 

attract the participation of faculty and teachers. 

• The value that a university administration places on collaboration. “Ownership” of teacher 

preparation by the university as a whole augurs well for institutionalization. For instance, 

institutions that reward collaboration with raises, release time or credit toward tenure will 

encourage participation in Partnership activities. One site visit interviewee indicated that faculty 

at her institution were under tremendous pressure to publish and that Partnership participation 

was not counted as a factor in promotion and tenure decisions. Consequently, faculty whose 

publication possibilities lay outside the Partnership were less likely to participate in its activities. 

• Preexisting relationships. Preexisting relationships among partners make the implementation 

and institutionalization of new reforms easier. Some Partnerships are building on relationships 

that have been in place for up to 14 years. The enhanced level of trust facilitates the implementing 

and institutionalizing of reforms. 

• Reciprocal and relevant change. Changes are likely to be institutionalized when they are 

reciprocal between a K–12 school and a school of education and reflect a coherence between 

what the school needs and what the program attempts to provide. 

This evaluation is interested in both the continuation of the Partnership structures and the positive 

outcomes of Partnership activities as components of the institutional process. To examine these issues, we 

have adopted a framework that has been used historically to examine policy change and sustainability in 

national and cross-national contexts. This policy change framework, created under the auspices of 

Management Systems International, identifies five dimensions that can be used to examine the 

institutionalization of Partnership structures and activities.15

 

15 American Institutes for Research. (2001). The 2000–2001 Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking Project Impact and Institutionalization 

Study. New York: Open Society Institute. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 52 

• Legitimization—The extent to which people and organizations view a Partnership and its 

activities as legitimate and are in positions to commit economic and political capital in support of 

it. 

• Constituency building—The extent to which those who stand to benefit directly from the growth 

of the Partnership are advocates and are willing to work and push for reforms. 

• Resource mobilization—The extent to which public and private donors allocate limited 

resources for the Partnership and mobilize those resources on behalf of the Partnership’s goals. 

• Organizational design and modification—The extent to which organizations implementing the 

Partnership are willing to make reforms and modifications to existing administrative, regulatory 

and support structures to support the Partnership. 

• Monitoring the impact—The extent to which the effect of implementing the Partnership on 

broader educational reforms and changes in behavior can be documented. 

This framework will be used on an ongoing basis to analyze the institutionalization of Partnership 

structures and activities. 

Topic Highlights—Partnerships are engaging in activities that are associated with institutionalization, 

such as expanding constituent members of the Partnership, matching goals and expectations of partners, 

assessing progress, seeking additional support for Partnership activities from other sources and planning 

for organizational change that would support project goals. But at present, most Partnerships have not 

established formal mechanisms or strategies for ensuring that reforms are institutionalized. 

Topic Findings—As of the spring of 2001, all respondent project directors reported that efforts are 

underway to institutionalize the Title II Partnership activities. These efforts fall into two main categories: 

1) finding future funding sources and 2) developing strategies for ensuring that reforms are continued 

when Federal funds are no longer available. 

Finding 5.1: Although many Partnerships are using project directors who are veterans of 

collaborative projects to reform teacher preparation, most faculty are new to such 

Partnerships. 

• Slightly over half of the Partnerships are building new relationships in newly formed initiatives; 

the other Partnerships are building on preexisting efforts. 

Ten project directors report that their Partnership projects are based on a preexisting initiative or project. 

These 10 project directors were involved with these projects an average of 6.1 years prior to the receipt of 

the Partnership grant. Nine of these preexisting initiatives were Partnerships between colleges or 

universities and districts. 

At the same time, only 17 percent of faculty respondents indicate that they had been involved with a 

project that predated and formed the basis of the Partnership Grant. Those respondents indicate that they 

had been involved in the previous project for 1 to 4 years. These statistics suggest that reform initiatives 

are being spread out across college and university departments as project directors find new faculty to 

involve in teacher preparation.
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 53 Interim Report 

Finding 5.2: Faculty report that top university leadership in Partnership IHEs seems to be 

supportive of teacher preparation as an all-university responsibility. 

When asked to rate the amount of top university leadership support for teacher preparation on a scale of 1 

to 5 (1 being “no support” and 5 being “a great deal of support”), faculty responses averaged 3.6. Fiftyseven percent of faculty chose 4 or 5, and 26 percent chose 3 (“some support”). Eight percent assessed the 

level of support as “a little,” or 2, and only 1 percent indicated “no support,” or 1. 

• Partnership IHE presidents have publicly spread the responsibility for teacher preparation across 

the entire institution. 

Just under half (46 percent) of faculty respondents say that their president has asked the entire IHE to take 

responsibility for preparing new teachers. Forty percent say that their president has participated in 

national dialogues about teacher preparation in forums sponsored by associations and foundations. About 

one-third of respondents (35 percent) say that their president represents the institution on statewide 

education groups addressing the reform of teacher preparation. Thirty-two percent of respondents report 

that support has changed since the start of the Partnership grant project. 

 

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

sciences faculty, is on the rise. 

Exhibit 26 compares the percentages of faculty who report support from their unit dean for Title II-type 

activities before and after the receipt of the Partnership grant. The areas of support perceived by faculty as 

receiving increased attention by deans are directly related to faculty involvement with schools and their 

needs, areas of service not typically rewarded in the university hierarchical structure. This indicates 

continued benefit for schools and school districts as a result of the Partnership involvement. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 54 

Exhibit 26 

Dean Support before and during Second Year of Partnership Implementation 

 Education Arts and Sciences 

Type of Support 

Percent 

Before 

Grant 

Percent 

During 

Second 

Year 

Percent 

Before 

Grant 

Percent 

During 

Second 

Year 

Addresses issues of teacher preparation as a priority in speeches 

and strategic activities 

79* 89* 51* 65* 

Supports involvement of faculty in service to schools and 

collaboration with colleagues 

82 89 72 81 

Raises funds for faculty and unit activities related to school needs 

and teacher preparation 

46* 62* 26* 25* 

Provides release time for conducting research focused on K-12 

school improvement or for participating in project activities 40 56* 29 38* 

Asks participating faculty to make routine reports on project 

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

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

Highlights the importance of the Partnership in speeches, 

newsletters or other communications 

N/A 79* N/A 50* 

Provides financial support for professional development activities 

related to Partnership activities 

N/A 73* N/A 57* 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

increase from the 79 percent of respondents who reported such dean support before receiving the grant. 

SOURCE: Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Faculty Surveys 

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

means to accomplish several of the features denoted in the Partnership Evaluation institutionalization 

framework. This framework identifies features critical for institutionalization: having effective leadership 

to attract broad participation, developing reciprocal change in partnering organizations, legitimatizing 

change from individuals in leadership positions, establishing a constituency in larger forums and 

monitoring impact. Education deans have a history of forming networks to realize reform, for example, 

UNITE for deans in urban universities and the Holmes Partnership for deans in large research 

universities. Within their own IHEs, deans may be helpful in attracting the interest of other faculty, as 

well as colleagues from related departments. Deans are in a position to commit their political support to 

continuing partnerships with schools and deans monitor departmental resources; therefore, they may see 

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

same time, deans are aware of the larger political context, such as state and accreditation requirements, 

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

 55 Interim Report 

Finding 5.3: Partnership projects have supplemented Partnership funds with money from 

other sources. 

The grant program requires Partnerships to obtain matching funds from sources other than the federal 

government. These funds may include both monetary amounts and in-kind contributions. Project directors 

identified 66 matching-funds sources (an average of 2.75 funding sources in addition to the Title II grant 

per Partnership), all of which are committed for the entire 5-year grant period. The vast majority of cited 

funding sources were partner districts and departments within IHEs. To date, 9 percent of these sources 

have been earmarked to continue funding beyond the grant, and more are expected to join the ranks of 

continuing funders. In addition, Project directors report that they are continuing to pursue alternative 

sources of funding from foundations, private individuals and corporations. 

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

receiving in-kind contributions in the form of time and salary of IHE personnel (faculty and 

administrators). In addition, many Partnerships are receiving equipment, supplies and the use of facilities. 

Finding 5.4: Many Partnership activities are likely to continue after the grant ends. 

• Project directors indicate the incorporation of Partnership activities into long-term plans. 

All project director respondents indicated that reforms being put in place under the grant are being 

incorporated into the long-range or strategic plans of the partner districts and institutions. Exhibit 27 

shows the number of project directors who indicated that specific reforms or activities are “very likely” to 

continue. 

Exhibit 27 

Partnership Reforms and Activities “Very Likely” to Continue 

Reform Strategy Number of Project Directors 

Professional development schools 22 

Support programs for beginning teachers 21 

Cross-department working arrangements 20 

Cross-department responsibility for teacher preparation 20 

New techniques for assessing students in teacher preparation programs 20 

New instructional strategies developed as part of the grant 20 

New course sequences developed as part of the grant 18 

Support for faculty involvement in schools and school districts 18 

Data sharing about the recruitment of new teachers 16 

EXHIBIT READS: 22 of the 25 Project Directors indicated that PDSs were “very likely” to continue as a strategy of 

Partnership reform and activity after the Partnership Grant ended. 

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

Interim Report 56 

• School districts have a clear idea about the activities that should be continued after the grant 

period but are only in the formative stages of planning strategies to achieve these goals. 

School districts believe that a variety of core activities should continue after the completion of the Title II 

Partnership grant period. These include mentoring, professional development and enhanced support for 

new teachers and cooperating teachers. Although school districts know what activities they would like to 

see continued, only about half of the respondents (49 percent) have efforts under way to institutionalize 

the activities. 

School districts report that they are “very likely” to continue sharing responsibility with IHEs for teacher 

preparation (83 percent), supporting programs for beginning teachers (83 percent), sustaining IHE 

involvement in schools and school districts (76 percent), developing new instructional strategies (73 

percent), fostering PDSs (67 percent) and sharing information about teacher recruitment (68 percent) after 

the Partnership ends. 

Of the Partnerships that are institutionalizing Partnership activities, 67 percent indicated that these efforts 

are in progress, and 33 percent described them as planned. For instance, 71 percent of the districts making 

changes to continue Partnership activities indicated that Partnership goals are being incorporated into the 

district’s strategic plans. These statistics suggest that the institutionalization of activities is not yet a major 

Partnership focus. Districts also explained that institutionalization is difficult because of budget 

constraints and a focus on more pressing school problems. Finally, some respondents reported that 

partners who were supposed to take leadership roles in institutionalization efforts had not shared 

information with school district participants. 

• Many Partnerships plan to continue to have 

meetings with stakeholders in teacher preparation 

after grant funding ends. 

Several Partnerships describe work groups and 

curriculum committees that will keep the reform dialogue 

active. In general, Partnerships plan to continue to 

involve a more diverse group of people in teacher 

preparation (e.g., arts and sciences faculty, K–12 

practitioners, administrators and community members) 

than in the past. 

• Some project directors indicate that they are 

trying to formalize relations between the IHEs 

and school districts that will outlive the grant. 

Five Partnerships are developing mentoring programs for partner districts. One Partnership proposes to 

develop a joint appointment position for a faculty member to both teach in the university classroom and 

mentor in the school classroom. Five Partnerships are developing assessment and data management 

systems so that they can track the progress of teacher preparation candidates through the program and into 

their early years of teaching. 

The general feeling among individuals interviewed as part of the exploratory site visits is that the 

relationships established between faculty and teachers and administrators will outlive the life of the grant 

and that at least some changes in the content of the teacher preparation programs will continue. 

How It Works: 

Institutionalizing Partnerships

One Partnership is working to 

institutionalize reforms by developing a 

cadre of urban teacher leaders. The 

partner universities will provide these 

teachers with additional content and 

diversity skills training through graduate 

credit. The teachers will then become 

leaders in their schools and agents for 

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

 57 Interim Report 

III. ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

In the fall of 2002, the evaluation fielded a question enhancement to the evaluation surveys. A one-page 

survey was administered to principals of Title II partner schools, asking them to identify collaborative 

activities with partner colleges and universities. The data from the principal survey will be analyzed with 

two other sources of data to examine the associations between Title II activities and student achievement 

at the school level: 

1. The PPSS national database of school-level student achievement scores. Data from 1999–00, 2000–

01, 2000–02, and 2002–03 will be used as they become available to examine changes in student 

achievement over time. 

2. The CCD file containing key characteristics that could affect the outcomes for student achievement. 

At the conclusion of this Evaluation, these data will be used to examine whether student achievement 

levels have changed in Title II elementary school partners over the course of the grant period. Most 

importantly, the principal survey data and student achievement data will be examined to investigate 

whether Title II-funded collaborative activities in elementary schools can be associated with changes in 

student achievement levels. The associations between Title II activities and student achievement will be 

documented in the final evaluation report. 

A follow-up round of surveys to faculty and school district representatives will be conducted in the fall of 

2003. The second round of case-study visits will also take place in the spring of 2003, the third year of the 

evaluation. A third round of visits and interviews are planned for 2004. At the conclusion of the 

evaluation, a final report will be produced that provides information and analyses on the data collected 

since this first report. The report will focus on progress made towards achievement of the program goals, 

examined through the five evaluation topics. 

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

 59 Interim Report 

References 

Abell Foundation. 2001. Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore: Abell 

Foundation. 

American Institutes for Research. 2001. Targeted literature review. Washington, D.C.: United States 

Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. 

American Institutes for Research. 2001. The 2000–2001 Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking 

Project impact and institutionalization study. New York: Open Society Institute. 

Ayres, Q. W., and Bennett, R. W. 1983. University characteristics and student achievement. Journal 

of Higher Education, 54(5): 516–532. 

Baker, E. 1994. Restructuring preservice teacher education governance: Beyond collaborative 

efforts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research 

Association, New Orleans, La. 

Basinger, J. 2000, March 10. Joint faculties formed to help train teachers. The Chronicle of Higher 

Education, 46(27), http://chronicle.com/weekly/v46/i27/27a02004.htm (accessed October 4, 

2000). 

Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CTP). 2001. Teacher preparation research: Current 

knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and 

Policy. 

Darling-Hammond, L. 1996. Teaching and knowledge. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on 

teacher education. 2nd ed. New York: Association of Teacher Educators. 

Darling-Hammond, L. 1998. Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a National 

Commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1): 5–15. 

Darling-Hammond, L. 2001. The research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to 

“Teacher Certification Reconsidered.” Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching 

and America’s Future, American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education. 

Dill, W. 1998, November-December. Guard dogs or guide dogs? Adequacy vs. quality in the 

accreditation of teacher education. Change, 30(6). 

Educational Testing Service (ETS). 2000. Teaching the teachers: Different settings, different results. 

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 

Fullan, M. 1998. Managing change. Paper included in the summary report from the Superintendents’ 

and Deans’ Summit on Transformation and Collaboration for Student Success. Philadelphia: 

Mid-Atlantic Network of Superintendents and Deans. 

Goldhaber, D. D., and Brewer, D. J. 1999. Teacher licensing and student achievement. In Better 

teachers, better schools, ed. M. Kanstoroom and C. Finn, 83–102. Washington, DC: TBFF. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report 60 

Grisham, D., Laguardi, A., and Brink, B. 2000. Model classrooms: A theory to practice link for 

preservice teacher education. Journal of Reading Education, 26(1): 1–8. 

Grossman, P. 2000. Memo: Thoughts on evaluation of partnership grants program. Paper prepared 

for the Teacher Quality Project Panel Meeting, Department of Education and American 

Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. 

Grossman, P., Thompson, C., and Valencia, S. 2001. District policy and beginning teachers: Where 

the twain shall meet. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and 

Policy. 

Hass, J., and Stoffels, J. 1998. Supporting change in teacher education institutions. In Changing the 

practice of teacher education: Standards and assessment as a lever for change, ed. M. Diez, 

145–155. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications. 

Hollingsworth. 1989. Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational 

Research Journal, 26(2), 160–89. 

Howey, K., Arends, R., Galluzzo, G., Yarger, S., and Zimpher, N. 1995. RATE VIII: Teaching 

teacher: Relationships with the world of practice. Washington, DC: American Association of 

Colleges for Teacher Education. 

Howey, K. R., and Zimpher, N. L. 1986. The current debate on teacher preparation. Journal of 

Teacher Education, 37(5): 41–49. 

Howey, K. R. and Zimpher, N. L. 1989. Profiles of preservice teacher education: Inquiry into the 

nature of program. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

Jacobson, S. 1998. Preparing educational leaders: A basis for Partnership. In Transforming schools 

and schools of education: A new vision for preparing educators, ed. S. Jacobson, C. 

Emihovich, J. Helfrich, H. Petrie, and R. Stevenson, 71–97. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 

Press. 

Levine, M. 2002. Why invest in Professional Development Schools? Educational Leadership, 59(6): 

65–67. 

Mitchell, D., Scott, L., Takahashi, S., and Hendrick, I. 1997. The California Beginning Teacher 

Support and Assessment program: A statewide evaluation study. Riverside, CA: California 

Educational Research Cooperative. 

Monk, D. H. 1994. Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and 

student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2): 125–145. 

National Alliance of Business. 1998. Improving the quality of teaching. The business role. Successful 

strategies series. Washington, DC: National Alliance of Business. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2000. Progress through the pipeline: 1992–93 college 

graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 61 Interim Report 

National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. 1993, November. An annotated bibliography: 

Findings on learning to teach. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher 

Learning. 

National Science Foundation. 1997, May. Preliminary findings report from the evaluation of NSF’s 

Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program. Arlington, VA: National 

Science Foundation. 

Natriello, G., Zumwalt, K., Hansen, A., and Frisch, A. 1990. Characteristics of entering teachers in 

New Jersey. Revised version of paper presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association. 

Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. 1991. How college affects students: Findings and insights from 

twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Puriefoy, W. 2000. Quality now! Results of national conversations on education and race. 

Washington, DC: Public Education Network. 

Raymond, M., Fletcher, S. H., and Luque, J. (2001). Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher 

differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford, CA: 

CREDO, Hoover Institution. http://credo.stanford.edu/working_papers.htm. 

Schaffer, E., Stringfield, S., and Wolfe, D. 1992. An innovative beginning teacher induction 

program: A two-year analysis of classroom interactions. Journal of Teacher Education, 

43(3): 181–192. 

Schnug, J., and Shelly, A. 1998. Mission: possible. In Changing the practice of teacher education: 

Standards and assessment as a lever for change, ed. M. Diez, 61–69. Washington, DC: 

AACTE Publications. 

Smith, D. C. 1990. Accreditation of teacher education institutions: An interview with Richard 

Kunkel. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4): 3–6. 

Sparks, D. 1996. A new form of staff development is essential to high school reform. The 

Educational Forum, 60: 260–266. 

SRI International. 2000. Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review. Menlo Park, 

CA: SRI International. 

Stroble, B., and Luka, H. 1999. It’s my life, now: The impact of Professional Development School 

partnerships on university and school administrators. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3 

and 4): 123–135. 

Teitel, L. 1992. The impact of Professional Development School Partnerships on the preparation of 

teachers. Teaching Education, 4(2). 

Valli, L., Cooper, D., and Frankes, L. 1997. Professional development schools and equity: A critical 

analysis of rhetoric and research. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education, 22. 

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. 

APPENDIX A 

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

 A-1 Interim Report 

Appendix A: 

Unresolved Issues in the Empirical and Theoretical Research Literature 

Research Topic 

Unresolved Issues in the Empirical Research Literature Unresolved Issues in the 

Theoretical Research Literature 

1. Characteristics of high-quality preservice teacher preparation and changes to the content and structure 

of the preservice teacher preparation programs over the grant period 

• Program effectiveness in institutions of higher education with teacher prep 

programs has been evaluated on the basis of the quality of its graduates as 

measured by their SAT scores and their scores on content and pedagogical tests. 

Analyses indicate certain institutional characteristics are important: control, size 

and full-time enrollment of student body (ETS 2000). 

• Student achievement on national assessment tests has been correlated with 

licensure status and found both to make a difference (Darling-Hammond 2000) 

and not to matter (Goldhaber and Brewer 1999). 

• Effective teachers score higher on tests of verbal ability (The Abell Foundation 

2001). 

• Preparation in the content area has been associated with math and science 

achievement, but there is a threshold effect in terms of the number of courses 

taken and a difference identified for middle and high schools only (CTP 2001). 

• Subject-matter preparation is inadequate for teaching toward high subjectmatter standards (CTP 2001). 

• Subject-mater and pedagogical preparation of teachers had an impact on student 

achievement in math and science (Monk 1994). 

• Characteristics of the teacher preparation institution contribute to the scores of 

graduates on teacher assessments; however, educational attainment of faculty 

has the largest effect on the scores (Ayres and Bennett 1983; Pascarella and 

Terenzini 1991). 

• Researchers do not agree on what is most important in terms of course 

revision—the number of courses, the content of courses, the level of course 

content, alignment to student standards for type of pedagogical preparation 

(ETS 2000; CTP 2001). 

• Research on pedagogical content is lacking; however, some suggest that 

pedagogical preparation should prepare teachers who can routinize discipline, 

management and instruction before focusing on subject matter (Hollingsworth 

1989; Grossman, Thompson, and Valencia 2001). 

• Promising attributes of clinical and field experiences include connectedness, 

coordination with coursework, action research and reflective writing (CTP 

2001). 

• Change in the number and type of field experiences (short-term observations of 

classrooms integrated with academic subject study—such as psychology or 

pedagogical courses—such as reading across the curriculum) has not been 

documented (no research findings). 

• Grassroots initiation of the implementation of professional development 

features, such as schoolwide mentoring and role expansion for school faculty 

and administrators facilitates successful implementation; time, trust and 

incentives are key variables in successful PDS relationships; barriers such as 

lack of common vision could prevent successful implementation (Valli et al. 

1997). 

• Yearlong experience in 5th-year program or in PDS contributes to the quality of 

what new teachers learned and results in higher retention rate (CTP 2001; 

Grisham, Laguardi, and Brink 2000; Darling-Hammond 1998). 

• Research comparing 4-year programs to extended programs found that they did 

not produce noticeable differences in teacher candidates’ belief or knowledge 

about teaching practice (National Center for Research on Teacher Learning 

1993). 

• Strong entry and exit 

requirements 

• Exemplary teaching methods of 

faculty 

• Quality of undergraduate precourses 

• Continual quality review 

• Extended clinical experiences 

• Coherent curriculum 

• Contribution of the teacher 

preparation program: 

knowledge of how to teach the 

subject, knowledge of how to 

teach diverse learners, 

instructional strategies, 

multiple approaches to 

discipline and management, 

success in applying classroom 

routines 

• Measures of teacher behavior 

and knowledge, such as 

supervisor ratings or self-report 

of knowledge by teachers 

(researchers believe these are 

flawed) 

• Measure of program 

accomplishments (e.g., percent 

of students with new 

competencies or who have 

participated in new courses; 

percent of faculty using 

technology or participating in 

professional development 

• Agreement on accomplishment: 

faculty and schools agree that 

students have met expectations 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report A-2 

Appendix A: 

Unresolved Issues in the Empirical and Theoretical Research Literature (Continued) 

Research Topic 

Unresolved Issues in the Empirical Research Literature Unresolved Issues in the 

Theoretical Research Literature 

2. Contribution of Partnership grants to schools and school districts, and schools’ and districts’ roles in 

preservice teacher preparation 

• Conflicting research results are being used to indicate that teachers can be 

effective without full licensure (Goldhaber and Brewer 1999; DarlingHammond 2000). Licensure Category definitions may be the cause of 

ambiguous results. 

• Reviews of research comparing alternative certification with traditional 

certification also conflict in regard to the impact on students (Natriello, 

Zumwalt, Hansen and Frisch 1990; Smith 1990; Hoover Institute study 2001; 

CTP 2001). 

• Collaboration leads to education and arts and sciences faculty working with K12 teachers in developing teacher preparation curriculum (Basinger 2000). 

• Administrators should participate in training programs with PDS teachers 

(Jacobsen 1998). 

3. The association between collaborative activities among IHEs and schools and student achievement 

outcomes

• Research on beginning teacher support programs shows that they may reduce 

attrition rates and may have a number of positive effects for the mentors 

involved from the school, but no research has yet linked the programs to growth 

in student achievement (SRI International 2000). 

• Literature on PDS offers no outcome data on retention (SRI International 2000). 

• Disciplinary-based professional development may be critical for reform (Sparks 

1996). 

• Induction programs facilitate improvement in all skill domains (Mitchell, Scott, 

Takajashi, and Hendrick 1997), decrease time spent on classroom management 

and organization and increase time on academic activities (Schaffer Stringfield 

and Wolfe 1992). 

4. Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant 

• Professors in the academic disciplines as well as those in SCDEs have a large 

influence on how teachers teach (SRI International, National Center for 

Research on Teacher Learning 2000). 

• Research on collaborative alliances between schools and institutions of higher 

education shows that the greatest amount of activity in alliances relates to 

establishing new governance structures (SRI International 2000). 

• Reculturing faculties in the school of education requires forming Partnerships 

that create new culture and programs affecting schools and SCDEs (Fullan 

1998). 

• UNITE deans have reported on the success of reform based on setting goals on 

the basis of core values, an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the 

program, and an assessment of the external environment (Howey and Zimpher 

1998). 

• Governance bodies sometimes have more leverage for change if they are 

outside the body that is the focus of change efforts (Puriefory 2000). 

• Teachers and school personnel should perhaps be involved in governance 

bodies (Baker 1994). 

• Research on change indicates that removing certain barriers will make a 

difference (Schnug and Shelly 1998; Hass and Stoffels 1998). 

• Common vision of good 

teaching 

• Integration of faculty from 

education and arts and sciences 

• All-university responsibility for 

teacher preparation 

• Status of teacher preparation 

program raised by 

collaborating across campus 

and engaging in high-profile 

reforms with school districts 

• Involvement of IHE leadership 

• Critical conditions necessary 

for a PDS relationship, as 

described by Whitford and 

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

 A-3 Interim Report 

Appendix A: 

Unresolved Issues in the Empirical and Theoretical Research Literature (Continued) 

Research Topic 

Unresolved Issues in the Empirical Research Literature 

Unresolved Issues in the 

Theoretical Research 

Literature 

4. Organizational changes and relationships among partners within a grant 

• Barriers to structural change in Partnership institutions include: marginalization 

of faculty, lack of resources, lack of personal involvement of most faculty, and 

resentment of attention paid to participants from college or university 

administrators (Teitel 1992). 

• Barriers that are linked to the structure of arts and science schools could prevent 

arts and sciences faculty from finding a meaningful role in collaborations, 

especially in PDS (Basinger 2000; Valli, Cooper and Frankes 1997). 

• Deans of education can facilitate reform with time, money and materials, and 

communication with superintendents (Howey, Arends, Galluzo, Yarger and 

Zimpher 1995). 

• Collaborative projects can be effective with leadership rotation and allowance 

for different types of leaders: transformational and participatory (Stroble and 

Luka 1999). 

• Partnerships have not had any effect on altering the incentive or reward system 

for faculty (Valli, Cooper and Frankes 1997). 

• PDS are not changing the structure of teacher preparation. Faculty and teachers 

are still far apart in practices and views on students teaching (Valli, Cooper and 

Frankes 1997). 

• Professional Development can be job-embedded when uniquely trained teachers 

have leadership roles in schools (Howey and Zimpher 1986). 

• Business collaboration can involve sharing business expertise, new curricula, 

and teaching practices in the disciplines of math and science (National Alliance 

of Business 1998). 

• Accredited programs are associated with higher student achievement (DarlingHammond 1996). Accredited programs do not affect student scores on teacher 

assessments (Dill 1998). 

• CETP projects, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), led to 

developing and implementation of new science and mathematics content and 

methods courses and related field experiences (NSF 1997).

• NCATE standards for basic 

functions of a PDS (clinical 

preparation of new teachers, 

continuing professional 

development of school and 

university faculty, support of 

children’s learning and 

support of research directed at 

improving teaching and 

learning) 

5. Efforts to institutionalize Partnerships 

• Program evaluations from NSF do not show encouraging results (CETP) in 

terms of additional tiers of faculty becoming involved in successive years or in 

recruiting students to the revised courses (SRI International 2000). 

• Barriers to institutionalization 

• Features critical to 

institutionalization 

APPENDIX B 

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

 B-1 Interim Report 

Appendix B: List of Technical Working Group Members 

Sylvia Auton, director of staff development and training, Fairfax County Public Schools 

Daniel Fallon, chair of the educational division, Carnegie Corporation of New York 

Mary Futrell, dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George 

Washington University 

Phillip Metcalf, career and technical coordinator, Wawasee Area Career and Technical Cooperative 

Richard L. Pattenaude, president, University of Southern Maine 

Maria T. Tatto, associate professor of teacher education, Michigan State University

APPENDIX C 

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

 C-1 Interim Report 

Appendix C: 

Selected Characteristics of 1999 Partnership Grantees 

Number of: 

Lead IHE and Partnership Name 

Scope 1st-Year Grant 

Budget 

Estimated 

Total 

Budget 

4-

Year 

IHEs 

2-

Year 

IHEs 

Districts Schools 

Arizona State University 

Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition Statewide $2,557,786 $13,861,653 3 3 9 178 

Ball State University (IN) 

Improving Teacher Quality and Schools 

through Collaborative Partnerships 

Regional $509,936 $4,221,538 1 0 7 21 

Boston College (MA) 

The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher 

Quality and Student Achievement 

Statewide $1,404,153 $7,180,930 7 0 3 18 

Graceland College (MO) 

Collaboration Leading to Improved 

Masters and Bachelors Studies 

Regional $177,124 $1,228,608 1 1 1 20 

Illinois State University 

Illinois Professional Learners Partnership Statewide $2,413,734 $12,772,860 5 1 6 33 

Jackson State University (MS) 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Program Regional $582,678 $2,835,144 1 1 2 68 

Johns Hopkins University (MD) 

Project SITE SUPPORT Regional $2,357,370 $12,725,041 3 0 3 161 

Kansas State University 

Improving Teacher Quality through KSU 

PDS Partnership 

Local $1,114,008 $6,429,178 1 0 3 16 

Kean University (NJ) 

New Jersey Teacher Quality 

Enhancement Consortium 

Statewide $1,574,713 $8,578,007 3 0 10 13 

Mississippi State University 

ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership Regional $1,736,695 $9,052,673 2 3 21 45 

North Carolina Central University 

Teacher Education Partnership Local $705,419 $3,885,915 1 2 6 0 

Our Lady of the Lake University (TX) 

Collaboration, Mentoring and 

Technology Program 

Regional $1,335,632 $5,853,193 1 2 5 11 

Saginaw Valley State University (MI) 

Partnership Grant for Improving Teacher 

Quality 

Regional $1,796,881 $9,208,329 1 0 22 54 

South Carolina State University 

Community Higher Education Council 

and Local Education Agency Partnership 

Regional $1,745,658 $7,764,307 2 1 5 14 

Southwest Missouri State University 

Ozarks Partnership Teacher 

Enhancement Initiatives 

Local $600,598 $2,831,436 1 0 7 16 

Texas A&M University System 

Partnerships for Texas Public Schools Statewide $2,550,605 $11,874,235 9 0 29 43 

University of Alaska, Anchorage 

The Alaska Partnership for Teacher 

Enhancement 

Regional $1,084,457 $6,135,305 1 0 4 11 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report C-2 

Appendix C: 

Selected Characteristics of 1999 Partnership Grantees (Continued) 

Number of: 

Lead IHE and Partnership 

Name 

Scope 1st-Year Grant 

Budget 

Estimated 

Total 

Budget 

4-

Year 

IHEs 

2-

Year 

IHEs 

Districts Schools 

University of Miami (FL) 

Project SUCCEED Local $1,976,707 $10,328,561 1 0 1 8 

University of South Carolina 

Partners for the Enhancement of 

Clinical Experiences 

Statewide $967,994 $4,242,340 4 0 1 6 

University of Southern Colorado 

Southern Colorado Teacher 

Education Reliance 

Regional $749,159 $3,817,600 1 4 17 108 

University of Tennessee 

Urban IMPACT Regional $648,759 $3,269,647 2 0 1 18 

University of Wisconsin, 

Milwaukee 

The Milwaukee Partnership 

Academy to Improve the Quality of 

Teaching 

Local $1,445,018 $8,497,823 1 1 1 206 

Washington State University 

Collaboration for Teacher 

Education Accountable to Children 

with High Needs 

Statewide $1,969,070 $9,892,049 1 5 7 14 

Western Kentucky University 

(CA, IA, KS, KY, MI, MO, PA, TN, 

VA)

Improving Teacher Quality through 

Partnerships that Connect Teacher 

Performance to Student Learning 

Multistate $1,146,097 $6,021,859 10 0 9 42 

Youngstown State University (OH) 

Tri-County Partnership Regional $262,249 $2,638,515 1 0 3 13 

NOTE: Partnership districts were reported to number 183 by proposals; however, the student achievement analysis and process of 

matching of districts yielded 172 district partners. 

SOURCE: Grant proposals, Project Directors 
APPENDIX D 

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

 D-1 Interim Report 

Appendix D: Characteristics of Survey Respondents 

Project Directors 

• Twenty-four of the 25 project directors responded to our survey. 

• Twenty-two project directors have been involved in the Partnership since its inception. 

• Twenty-one project directors have served in that capacity since the Partnership’s 

inception. 

Faculty 

• A total of 165 faculty (79 percent) responded to the survey. Of those, 41 were arts and 

sciences leaders, 45 were education involved, 48 were arts and sciences involved, and 46 

were education leaders. (The survey sought data from four groups of faculty: deans from 

education, deans from and arts and science entities, faculty from the education and 

faculty from arts and sciences who were designated by Project Directors as involved in 

the Partnership activities.) Fifty-three percent of all responding faculty called education 

their home discipline; 9 percent listed their discipline as in the social sciences; 18 percent 

reported being in the humanities; and 16 percent from math and hard sciences. 

• Forty-six percent of respondents identified themselves as full professors; 31 percent, 

associate professors; 17 percent, assistant professors; and 15 percent, deans. Very few 

respondents identified themselves as lecturers (less than 3 percent), adjunct faculty (less 

than 3 percent), jointly appointed faculty (less than 3 percent) or endorsed chairs (less 

than 3 percent). 

• Ninety-eight percent were full-time faculty. 

• Sixty-three percent are tenured; 17 percent are tenure track. Eight percent were not on a 

tenure track; 13 percent report that tenure is not applicable. 

• Fifty-six percent of respondents conducted research about the preparation of teacher 

preparation students.

• Many respondents had been teachers. Thirty-seven percent had been elementary school 

teachers, 34 percent had been middle school teachers and 43 percent had been secondary 

school teachers. (Respondents could check more than one category.) 

• Fifteen percent had been chairs of curriculum and 36 percent had been department chairs. 

• Very few had worked as counselors: (less than 3 percent in elementary school; less than 2 

percent in middle school; and less than 4 percent in secondary school). 

• Seven percent had worked as assistant principals, 9 percent as principals and less than 2 

percent as superintendents. 

• Sixty-six percent reported that they have been involved with the project since its 

inception. On average, respondents have been involved with the Partnership for just less 

than 2 years (1.9 years +/- 0.8). The shortest amount of time was zero years; the longest, 

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

Interim Report D-2 

• Thirty percent reported having previous experience with other reform Partnerships or 

network (Holmes, Renaissance, etc). Their involvement lasted on average, 6 years. Most 

indicated 3 to 5 years.

• Only 17 percent of respondents (155) indicated that they had been involved with a project 

that predates and forms the basis of the Partnership Grant. Those respondents indicated 

they had been involved in this previous project for 1 to 4 years.

School District Representatives

• There were 119 district respondents (72 percent). 

• Thirty-three percent of school district representatives are superintendents or assistant 

superintendents, 25 percent are school principals or vice-principals, and 30 percent are 

program directors or coordinators. 

• Half have positions within the Partnership project, including co-principal investigator, 

advisory board member and project director. 

• Twenty-seven percent of respondents had held positions as principals or vice principals; 

22 percent, as program directors and coordinators; 15 percent, as teachers; 15 percent, as 

superintendents/assistant superintendents; and 8 percent, as supervisors, specialists or 

consultants (other). Most (61 percent) had held these positions for 5 years or less. Only 7 

percent were teachers. 

• Respondents had worked for the school district for an average of 17 years (SD = 11), 

ranging from 0 to 27. 

• Over half of the school district representatives had been involved with the Partnership 

project since its inception (59 percent). On average, the length of involvement was 2.4 

years (SD = 2.7), with most respondents (89 percent) reporting 3 years or less. 

• Thirty-seven percent of the school district respondents reported that the Partnerships 

require a time commitment. This ranged from 2 to 72 hours per month.
APPENDIX E 

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

 E-1 Interim Report 

Appendix E: School District Duplicate Responder Resolution 

Because the purpose of the surveys was to acquire the best possible information about partner institutions, 

AIR asked Partnership project directors to identify the most appropriate school-district-level Partnership 

contacts (and an alternate respondent for instances in which the primary respondent was not able or 

willing to participate). Although most identified a single contact (and alternate) for each of the multiple 

Partnership school districts, a few identified multiple contacts for a single district, instead of one primary 

and one alternate. As a result, there were multiple respondents (n = 18) for seven of the 121 school 

districts that completed our survey. 

In total, we received 18 multiple responses from seven of the 119 school districts that completed the 

survey. To eliminate duplicate respondents from the dataset, we conducted intradistrict correlations for 

the 626 numeric items on the survey. Although not all of the 626 numeric variables were applicable to all 

respondents, we believed all should have a high degree of consistency among respondents. We then 

examined the level of similarity in responses and found that they ranged from .197 to .930 in intradistrict 

correlations. 

In instances in which the level of similarity was relatively low (any intradistrict correlation of less than 

0.8 (i.e., if there were more than two duplicates per district but any one pair correlated less than .8, all 

were considered dissimilar, even if the others correlated >.9), we retained the primary respondent in the 

dataset and deleted all others. This decision is based on the primary respondent being the person whom 

the project director identified as the most knowledgeable person to complete the survey and whose 

responses should therefore be the most accurate. This procedure resolved five of the seven instances of 

duplication. 

In instances in which the level of similarity was relatively high (all intradistrict correlations between all 

pairs greater than .8), we retained the survey of the respondent who answered the largest number of 

questions. The presumption in these situations is that the primary and alternate respondents would have 

continued to answer the questions similarly if each had completed the survey. This strategy resolved the 

remaining two instances of duplication (see exhibit E-1). 

Exhibit E-1 

Descriptive Report of Duplicates 

Number of Respondents Number items Pairwise Correlation(s) Resolution 

2 181 .643 Dissimilar—Primary contact 

2 161 .711 Dissimilar—Primary contact 

2 178 .912 Similar—Most complete 

2 260 .930 Similar—Most complete 

3 222-277 .197, .426, .636 Dissimilar—Primary contact 

3 91-226 .633, .654, .914 Dissimilar—Primary contact 

4 163-219 .388, .815, .833, .841, .855, .917 Dissimilar—Primary contact 

NOTE: The number of items used to compute correlation, includes only those that are numeric and that both respondents 

provided an answer for. 

EXHIBIT READS: The first row shows two respondents from one school district survey who completed 181 common items. The 

correlation between the responses was .643, which made them dissimilar; we retained the primary contact. 

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

Interim Report E-2 

Having these duplicates served as an unexpected validity check of our survey data. The majority of the 

duplicates were very similar, with 13 of the 16 pairs correlating at .63 or better. Only three pairs had 

relatively low correlations (.197, .388 and 426), all of which were from two very large school districts. 

These correlations do not indicate a lack of validity, but simply reflect the fact that perspectives differ 

among district-level personnel because of the size of these districts. Overall, the correlations were quite 

high and indicate an acceptable level of validity within this data set. 
APPENDIX F 

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

 F-1 Interim Report 

Appendix F: Documentation of Student Achievement Analyses 

The paragraphs below document the process of our analysis and briefly summarize the issues we 

encountered and the approach we took in resolving them. 

Data 

PPSS School-Level Assessment Data Base, 2000–01. 

Common Core of Data, 2001 (AY 1999-00). 

Process 

The main purpose of the analysis is to compare the characteristics of Title II and non-Title II schools. 

(When no comparison group existed, i.e., all schools in all districts in a Partnership were Title II schools, 

only the mean for Title II schools is presented.) We conducted the analysis separately by Partnership. (For 

the Partnership that included schools in more than one state, the analysis was conducted separately for 

each state within the Partnership.) We carried out the analysis in a multilevel framework to reflect the 

nesting of schools within districts. The multilevel model is based on two assumptions: 1) the mean value 

for non-Title II schools may vary across the districts in a Partnership and 2) the mean difference between 

Title II and non-Title II schools may also vary across the districts in a Partnership. The strategy we used 

provides estimates of the overall Partnership mean for non-Title II schools in the districts in the 

Partnership, the overall mean difference between Title II and non-Title II schools in the districts in the 

Partnership and the variation in these values across the districts in the Partnership. 

To provide descriptive comparison data, Title II school partners were identified and then compared with 

the non-Title II schools in the same district. If all the schools in a district were Partnership schools, 

baseline data describing these schools is provided, but no comparisons were made. Data from Title II and 

non-Title II schools were aggregated up to the district-level, and then district level data were aggregated 

to the state level. In most cases, the state and Partnership levels were identical, (i.e., most Partnerships 

operate in a single state). When they were not, as with one Partnership that operates in five states, data 

were aggregated to the state level within Partnership so that a separate mean is presented for each state 

within this Partnership. 

The estimated Partnership mean for Title II schools resulting from this procedure implicitly weights each 

district by the variance of the estimated non-Title II mean for the district, and the estimated Partnership 

difference between Title II and non-Title II schools implicitly weights each district by the variance of the 

estimate of the difference between Title II and non-Title II schools in the district. Because means based 

on more schools have less variance than means based on fewer schools, using these weights give the 

means based on more schools (the more accurate and precise estimates) more weight than means based on 

fewer schools.16

The multilevel approach we took is a compromise between two other approaches that might be taken. One 

approach would be to ignore districts and compute the simple mean difference between all Title II and 

 

16 The parameter estimates are based on maximum likelihood methods under the assumption that non-Title II means and the 

difference between Title II and non-Title II schools vary across districts. In some Partnerships, the results showed no variation 

across districts in the difference between Title II and non-Title II schools. In that case, we assumed that only the non-Title II 

mean varied across districts. In Partnerships with only one district, we used the simple Title II and non-Title means to estimate 

the Title II vs non-Title II difference. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report F-2 

non-Title II schools in a Partnership. Although this method has the virtue of simplicity, it may produce 

misleading results if the number of Title II and non-Title II schools is not evenly balanced across districts. 

An alternative approach would involve computing the difference within each district that has both Title II 

and non-Title II schools and then averaging the differences. This too would be relatively straightforward, 

but it would weight small and large districts equally, and it would omit districts that do not have non-Title 

II schools. 

Variation 

The fourth grade mathematics baseline achievement scores for a hypothetical Partnership presented in the 

Table below illustrate this variation and the rationale for our approach. 

 Title II Schools Non-Title II Schools 

District Number of 

schools 

Mean math 

achievement 

Number of 

schools 

Mean math 

achievement 

A 2 112.1 10 111.3 

B 8 93.9 0 — 

C 9 105.1 3 115.7 

D 3 114.4 1 116.5 

E 6 109.7 1 66.9 

F 4 93.1 0 — 

G 1 106.9 0 — 

H 66 97.1 6 88.0 

Total 99 99.3 21 103.4 

In districts A, E and H, Title II schools have higher mathematics achievement than non-Title II schools in 

the same districts; in Districts C and D, the results are the reverse. In Districts B, F and G, all schools are 

participating in Title II, so a comparison cannot be made. Although Title II schools have higher baseline 

scores than non-Title II schools in three of the eight districts and lower scores in two districts, the simple 

average is higher for non-Title II than Title II schools. 

This result is due to the mean for non-Title II schools being dominated by the scores in District A, which 

has nearly half of the non-Title II schools while the mean for Title II schools is heavily influenced by 

District H, which has nearly two-thirds of the Title II schools in the Partnership. 

To deal with the variation across districts in size and results, we have used a hierarchical linear modeling 

approach. Using this approach, the estimated average for Title II schools in our example is 99.3; the mean 

for non-Title II schools is 103.4. This result is more consistent with the general within-district pattern 

than the simple average. 

Variation in Test Score Metrics 

The state-reported assessment scores in the assessment database are reported in a variety of formats. 

These included scale scores, percentiles and percentages of students falling into assessment levels. In 

addition, when scores were reported as a percentage of students, they took various forms. For some states, 

scores were reported as cumulative proportions (for example, the percent of students scoring at the 

advanced level; at proficient or above and at basic or above.) Other states report the percent of students 

achieving at each level (i.e., the percent scoring at the advanced, proficient, basic or below basic level). 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 F-3 Interim Report 

Finally, in some states, percents are reported for all but the lowest level. We treated these percents as 

follows: 

• Scale scores: Because we did not know how each state standardized its assessments, we 

standardized the reported values to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. 

• Percentages at level cutoffs: We standardized each level to have a mean of 100 and a standard 

deviation of 15 and then averaged the mean of each level. 

• Percentiles and raw scores: Standardized to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. 

Standardization of Assessment Scores 

Data were standardized within each Partnership state prior to averaging. All available school assessment 

scores from each state were used in the standardization (including those schools in districts without any 

Partnership schools). Scores were standardized within each grade and for each assessment type. Because 

scores were standardized, comparisons across states or Partnerships should be interpreted in relative terms 

(see exhibit 24). For example, in Tennessee, the mean reading score for Title II schools was 79.2. This 

means that the achievement in Title II schools was below average for all schools in the state, but provides 

no information as to the relation of this average as compared to any other state’s average. 

Additional Background Tables 

Exhibits F-1 and F-2 illustrate Partnership data for the characteristics of Title I participation and 

enrollment currently presented in exhibit 21 as overall averages. 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report F-4 

Exhibit F-1 

Average Percent of Title I Participation among Title II and Non-Title II Schools 

Partnership Title II Schools (n) Non-Title II Schools (n) Difference 

2 100.0 (10) 60.8 (26) 39.2* 

4 75.0 (4) 40.0 (5) 35.0 

5 83.3 (6) 54.0 (224) 29.3 

6 100.0 (3) 75.0 (8) 25.0 

8 59.8 (105) 45.1 (159) 14.7* 

9 87.5 (43) 77.9 (283) 9.5 

11 71.4 (7) 65.0 (20) 6.4 

12 81.7 (12) 75.8 (42) 6.0 

13 66.7 (3) 60.9 (92) 5.7 

14 84.0 (6) 80.6 (29) 3.4 

15 85.5 (37) 82.6 (28) 2.9 

17 44.2 (11) 44.2 (84) 0.0 

16 75.4 (8) 77.3 (21) -1.9 

10 89.6 (9) 96.5 (152) -6.9 

7 37.6 (5) 53.4 (42) -15.8 

3 64.3 (14) 100.0 (1) -35.7 

1 50.0 (2) 90.9 (11) -40.9 

18 78.9 (49) − −

19 82.7 (60) − −

20 84.0 (131) − −

Average 73.9 69.4 4.5 

*p<.05, **p<.001. 

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

II schools exist for comparison. 

NOTE: Data not available for schools in eight Partnerships. Average includes only those Partnerships with non-Title II 

schools. The overall mean for Title II schools including Partnerships for which no non-Title II schools exist is 75.1. 

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

percent Title I participation in all Title II schools is higher than the average percent Title I participation in all non-Title

II schools in Partnership districts. For example, on average, the Title II schools in Partnership 2 are significantly higher 

in Title I participation (39.2 percent) than the non-Title II schools in the Partnership districts. Negative differences 

indicate the opposite, that non-Title II schools, on average, have higher percentages of Title I participation than the 

Title II schools. 

SOURCE: CCD, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 F-5 Interim Report 

Exhibit F-2 

Average Enrollment for Title II and Non-Title II Schools 

Partnership Title II Schools (n) 

Non-Title II Schools

(n) Difference 

1 685.3 (6) 440.7 (29) 244.6* 

2 819.9 (5) 586.4 (36) 233.5+

3 615.7 (8) 396.9 (147) 218.7** 

4 618.2 (71) 451.8 (463) 166.4 

5 709.3 (3) 574.3 (8) 135.1 

6 682.5 (12) 572.8 (146) 109.7 

7 352.0 (3) 255.6 (91) 96.4 

8 468.4 (8) 393.9 (92) 74.5 

9 638.7 (112) 566.8 (18) 72.0 

10 603.5 (7) 531.9 (20) 71.6 

11 501.9 (8) 434.1 (39) 67.7 

12 351.6 (12) 295.0 (42) 56.7 

13 434.6 (10) 381.0 (24) 53.6 

15 499.8 (7) 454.1 (17) 45.7 

20 520.6 (43) 490.4 (282) 30.2 

21 551.3 (33) 529.1 (25) 22.2 

22 382.1 (47) 360.0 (105) 22.0 

23 461.5 (10) 470.4 (80) -9.0 

19 274.3 (4) 305.3 (4) -31.0 

18 808.2 (6) 843.6 (208) -35.5 

17 399.0 (2) 436.3 (11) -37.3 

16 430.2 (13) 471.0 (1) -40.8 

14 524.2 (102) 471.6 (146) 52.6* 

24 500.6 (46) − −

25 258.6 (52) − −

26 205.7 (9) − −

27 471.5 (120) − −

Average 536.2 465.8 70.4 + p<.01, * p<.05, **p<.001 

− Not applicable, four Partnerships are working with all the schools in their partner districts; therefore, no nonTitle II schools exist for comparison. 

NOTE: Enrollment data not available for schools in one Partnership. Average includes only those Partnerships with 

non-Title II schools. The overall mean for Title II schools including Partnerships for which no non-Title II schools 

exist is 510. 

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

average student enrollment in all Title II schools is higher than the average student enrollment in all non-Title II 

schools in Partnership districts. For example, on average, the Title II schools in Partnership 1 have significantly 

more students enrolled (245) than the non-Title II schools in the Partnership districts. Negative differences indicate 

the opposite, that non-Title II schools, on average, have more students enrolled than the Title II schools. 

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

APPENDIX G 

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

 G-1 Interim Report 

Appendix G: 

Number of Districts and Schools, by Partnership 

Partnership 

Number 

of 

Districts Districts 

Number 

of Title II 

Schools 

Number of 

Non-Title II 

Schools 

University of Alaska, Anchorage 

The Alaska Partnership for Teacher 

Enhancement 

3 Anchorage School District 1 68 

 Kashunamiut Schools 1 0 

 Lower Kuskokwim Schools 1 24 

Arizona State University 

Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition 

8 Amphitheater Unified District 2 11 

 Creighton Elementary District 8 0 

 Flagstaff Unified District 9 3 

 Madison Elementary District 6 1 

 Nogales Unified District 6 1 

 Osborn Elementary District 5 0 

 Santa Cruz Valley Unified District 2 0 

 Tucson Unified District 74 7 

Ball State University (IN) 

Improving Teacher Quality and Schools 

through Collaborative Partnerships 

6 Carmel Clay Schools 1 8 

 Cowan Community School Corp 1 0 

 Harrison-Wash Com School Corp 2 0 

 Indianapolis Public Schools 2 57 

 M S D Wayne Township 1 10 

 Muncie Community Schools 4 9 

University of Miami (FL) 

Project SUCCEED 

1 Dade County School District 6 224 

Graceland College (MO) 

Collaboration Leading to Improved Masters and 

Bachelors Studies 

1 Independence 30 14 1 

Illinois State University 

Illinois Professional Learners Partnership 

5 City of Chicago School Dist 299 14 473 

 North Chicago School Dist 187 1 6 

 Pekin Public School Dist 108 8 0 

 School District 46 44 0 

 Wheeling C C School Dist 21 9 0 

Johns Hopkins University (MD) 

Project SITE SUPPORT 

2 Baltimore City Public School System 91 44 

 Montgomery County Public Schools 14 115 

Jackson State University (MS) 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Program 

2 Hinds County School District 5 0 

 Jackson Public School District 41 0 

Kean University (NJ) 

New Jersey Teacher Quality Enhancement 

Consortium 

10 Bridgeton City 1 4 

 Camden City 1 25 

 Garfield City 2 3 

 Newark City 2 54 

 Passaic City 1 12 

 Paterson City 2 30 

 Perth Amboy City 1 6 

 Plainfield City 1 9 

 Rahway City 1 3 

 Vineland City 1 16 

Kansas State University 

Improving Teacher Quality through KSU PDS 

Partnership 

3 Geary County Schools 1 13 

 Kansas City 1 29 

 Manhattan 10 0 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report G-2 

Appendix G: 

Number of Districts and Schools, by Partnership (Continued) 

Partnership 

Number 

of 

Districts Districts 

Number of 

Title II 

Schools 

Number of 

Non-Title II 

Schools 

Boston College (MA) 

The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher 

Quality and Student Achievement 

3 Boston 6 82 

 Springfield 1 32 

 Worcester 2 38 

Saginaw Valley State University (MI) 

Partnership Grant for Improving Teacher 

Quality 

26 Akron-Fairgrove Schools 1 0 

 Almont Community Schools 2 0 

 Anchor Bay School District 2 4 

 Bad Axe Public Schools 2 0 

 Bay City School District 4 7 

 Beecher Community School District 3 2 

 Bridgeport-Spaulding Comm. School 

District 

1 4 

 Brown City Community Schools 2 0 

 Bullock Creek School District 1 2 

 Cass City Public Schools 3 0 

 Center Line Public Schools 2 3 

 Chippewa Valley Schools 2 8 

 Church School District 1 0 

 East Detroit Public Schools 1 7 

 Essexville-Hampton Public Schools 1 2 

 Flint City School District 1 33 

 Lapeer Community Schools 2 10 

 Mt. Clemens Community School District 3 1 

 New Haven Community Schools 1 0 

 Reese Public Schools 1 1 

 Roseville Community Schools 9 1 

 Saginaw City School District 3 21 

 Sigel Twp. School District #4f 1 0 

 South Lake Schools 2 2 

 West Branch-Rose City Area School 1 2 

 Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools 2 0 

Southwest Missouri State University 

Ozarks Partnership Teacher Enhancement 

Initiatives 

6 Cabool r-iv 2 0 

 Fair Play R-II 1 0 

 Miller R-II 3 0 

 Sheldon R-VIII 1 0 

 Shell Knob 78 1 0 

 Wheaton R-III 1 0 

Mississippi State University 

ACHIEVE Mississippi Partnership 

20 Amory School District 1 1 

 Calhoun County School District 1 3 

 Choctaw County School District 3 0 

 Claiborne County School District 1 0 

 Clay County School District 1 0 

 Franklin County School District 2 0 

 Greenwood Public School District 1 5 

 Jackson Public School District 3 0 

 Jefferson County School District 1 1 

 Leflore County School District 3 2 

 Leland School District 2 0 

 Louisville Municipal School District 4 0 

 Lowndes County School District 3 0 

 Meridian Public School District 1 8 

 Natchez-Adams School District 2 3 

 Noxubee County School District 3 1 

 Oktibbeha County School District 1 3 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program

 G-3 Interim Report 

Appendix G: 

Number of Districts and Schools, by Partnership (Continued) 

Partnership 

Number 

of 

Districts Districts 

Number of 

Title II 

Schools 

Number of 

Non-Title II 

Schools 

 Philadelphia Public School District 1 0 

 Starkville school district 4 1 

 Wilkinson co school dist 2 0 

 

 

Our Lady of the Lake University (TX) 

Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology 

Program 

5 Edgewood Independent School District 

(ISD) 

1 16 

 Floresville ISD 1 4 

 Marion ISD 1 0 

 Poteet ISD 1 0 

 Southwest ISD 2 9 

University of Southern Colorado 

Southern Colorado Teacher Education 

Reliance 

17 Aguilar Reorganized 6 1 0 

 Branson Reorganized 82 1 0 

 Cotopaxi RE-3 1 0 

 Crowley County RE-1-J 1 0 

 East Otero R-1 3 0 

 Florence RE-2 3 0 

 Fowler R-4J 2 0 

 Huerfano RE-1 3 0 

 La Veta RE-2 1 0 

 Lamar RE-2 4 0 

 Manzanola 3J 1 0 

 Primero Reorganized 2 1 0 

 Pueblo City 60 23 0 

 Pueblo County Rural 70 9 0 

 Rocky Ford R-2 2 0 

 Trinidad 1 3 0 

 Walsh RE-1 1 0 

South Carolina State University 

Community Higher Education Council and 

Local Education Agency Partnership 

6 Calhoun County School District 1 3 

 Felton Laboratory 1 0 

 Marion School District 03 1 0 

 Orangeburg School District 04 2 3 

 Orangeburg School District 05 2 9 

 Sumter School District 17 1 6 

University of Tennessee 

Urban IMPACT 

1 Hamilton County School District 9 41 

Texas A&M University System 

Partnerships for Texas Public Schools 

29 Aldine ISD 1 43 

 Alice ISD 1 8 

 Amarillo ISD 3 34 

 Bryan ISD 2 15 

 Canyon ISD 1 6 

 Commerce ISD 1 1 

 Conroe ISD 1 28 

 Corpus CHRISTI ISD 3 41 

 Driscoll ISD 1 0 

 Flour Bluff ISD 2 2 

 Granbury ISD 1 5 

 Greenville ISD 1 8 

 Gregory-Portland ISD 1 4 

 Hico ISD 1 0 

 Hooks ISD 1 1 
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program 

Interim Report G-4 

Appendix G: 

Number of Districts and Schools, by Partnership (Continued) 

Partnership 

Number 

of 

Districts Districts 

Number 

of Title II 

Schools 

Number of 

Non-Title II 

Schools 

 Kingsville ISD 2 5 

 Laredo ISD 2 19 

 Lingleville ISD 1 0 

 Mesquite ISD 2 27 

 Mineral Wells ISD 1 2 

 Morgan Mill ISD 1 0 

 Mount Pleasant ISD 1 5 

 New Boston ISD 2 0 

 Premont ISD 2 1 

 Santa Gertrudis ISD 1 0 

 Stephenville ISD 1 2 

 United ISD 2 19 

 

 Waller ISD 3 1 

 Weatherford ISD 1 6 

University of South Carolina 

Partners for the Enhancement of Clinical 

Experiences 

2 Richland School District 01 4 28 

 Richland School District 02 1 14 

Washington State University 

Collaboration for Teacher Education 

Accountable to Children with High Needs 

6 Aberdeen School District 2 7 

 Inchelium School District 1 0 

 Portland Area Office 1 6 

 Spokane School District 2 41 

 Tacoma School District 2 38 

 Yakima School District 1 13 

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 

The Milwaukee Partnership Academy to 

Improve the Quality of Teaching 

1 Milwaukee School District 131 0 

Western Kentucky University 

Improving Teacher Quality through 

Partnerships that Connect Teacher Performance 

to Student Learning 

(CA, IA, KS, KY, MI, MO, PA, TN, VA) 

7 Bowling Green IND 1 6 

 Central Unified 3 8 

 Emporia 4 5 

 Franklin County 1 5 

 Lancaster School District 2 11 

 Warren County 5 9 

 Waterloo Community School District 14 0 

Youngstown State University (OH) 

Tri-County Partnership 

3 Beaver Local School District 4 0 

 Warren City School District 3 12 

 Youngstown City School District 3 14 

Total 172 821 2147 

NOTE: Jackson County School District has three schools in the Mississippi Partnership, and 41 schools in the Jackson State 

University Partnership. The district is listed with each Partnership, but only counted once toward the total. There are no nonTitle II schools in the district. North Carolina Central University Teacher Education Partnership is omitted from Appendix 

G because this is a table of district and school partners and at the time they were in transition with a new project director and 

did not have any information to report.