Van Dempsey, Fairmont State University

1
Documenting Development Studying a Statewide
School/University Partnership

• Van Dempsey, Fairmont State University
• Jaci Webb-Dempsey, West Virginia University
• Rosalyn Templeton, Marshall University

2
Context

• Challenging geographic and economic landscape
• Mountainous, rural, developing infrastructure
• Limited resources
• Idiosyncratic political landscape
• Unique cultures of higher education and public
  schools
• Diverse organizational structures of
  universities/colleges, partnerships, and teacher
  preparation programs
• Partnerships at varying stages of development

3
West Virginia Partnerships for Teacher Quality
(WVPTQ)

• 10 Partnerships
• Bluefield State College
• Concord University
• Fairmont State University
• Glenville State College
• Marshall University
• Shepherd University
• West Liberty State College
• West Virginia State University
• WVU - Parkersburg
• WVU The Benedum Collaborative

4
A common agenda

• Development of a resource base
• Equitable distribution of resources
• Shared vision for the work
• Addressing demands for
• accountability

5
Since 2004

• Support from the Benedum Foundation, the WV
  Department of Education and the Arts, the WV
  Legislature
• Creation of statewide network of partnerships
• Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation funding
• Development of legislative funding
• Development of Board
• Adoption of targeted NCATE/FIPSE PDS Standards
• Framework for developing partnerships
• Accountability

6
Addressing accountability

• Planning session for WVPTQ Board and stakeholders
• Jenny Gordon, Cindy Reed, Lee Teitel
• Professional development for partnerships

• Targeted NCATE PDS Standards
• FIPSE Online PDS Standards Project Pilot

7
Challenges

• Legislative funding commitment increased, then
  leveled off
• Benedum Foundation funding phased out
• Increased partnership work, increased funding
  requests

8
WVPTQ Documentation Initiative

• Commissioned by primary stakeholders to develop
  strategies for documenting developmental progress
  
• Supported by funding from the Benedum Foundation
• Representative input
• University faculty/researcher perspective
• PDS/Partner School faculty perspective
• Stakeholders
• Cross-institutional research team

9
Design

• Targeted PDS/FIPSE Standards indicators as a
  framework
• Developmental perspective
• Perspectives of University and PDS faculty,
  teacher education candidates

10
Design

• Mixed methods
• Online survey of higher education and partner
  school faculty in 10 partnerships
• Case studies of 4 partnerships
• Site visits to the 4 universities/colleges and a
  sample of their PDS/partner schools
• Interviews with higher education and partner
  school faculty, teacher candidates
• Document analysis

11
Translating standards

• AT STANDARD DESCRIPTIONS (Learning Community,
  Collaboration, Accountability, Organization,
  Roles and Resources, Diversity and Equity )
• Standard I Learning Community - A. Teacher
  Preparation Developmental Guidelines
• The PDS recognizes and supports the distinct
  learning needs of faculty/staff, teacher
  candidates, students, parents and community
  members.
• Indicator 1 At StandardPDS partners
  collaboratively integrate PreK-12 instructional
  content priorities in the teacher education
  program and field-based experiences.List of
  EvidenceSyllabi, Lesson plans, Meeting minutes,
  Memos/e-mail, Other.
• Indicator 2 At StandardIHE and school
  faculty/staff ensure teacher candidates active
  participation in school and community related
  projects.List of EvidenceSyllabi, Newsletters,
  Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail, Other.(1)
• 1 Indicator 3 At StandardTeacher candidates
  observe, implement, analyze and refine
  standards-based teaching practices during the
  extensive internship.List of EvidenceSyllabi,
  Lesson plans, Reflections, Feedback/evaluation,
  Other.
• Indicator 4 At StandardPDS partners facilitate
  reflection by collaborating to provide learning
  experiences that integrate theoretical models
  with classroom practice.List of EvidenceSyllabi,
  Lesson plans, Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail,
  Other.
• Indicator 5 At StandardPDS partners engage in
  reflection with one another.List of
  EvidenceReflections, Meeting minutes, Surveys,
  Memos/email, Other.
• Standard I Learning Community B. Continuing
  Professional Development Developmental Guidelines
• The PDS recognizes and supports the distinct
  learning needs of faculty/staff, teacher
  candidates, students, parents and community
  members.
• 2 Indicator 1 At StandardPDS partners
  collaboratively create, conduct, and participate
  in needs-based professional development to
  improve instruction and positively impact student
  achievement.List of EvidenceSurveys,
  In-service/graduate courses, Syllabi, Meeting
  minutes, Other.
• Indicator 2 At StandardPDS partners plan and
  participate in activities where all school staff
  is encouraged to support and interact with
  teacher candidates.List of EvidenceOrientation
  meetings, Handbook/expectations for mentors,
  Meeting minutes, Memos/e-mail, Other.

12
Framework

• (Organized Around Categories of Developmental
  Guidelines Teacher Preparation, Continuing
  Professional Development, Research Inquiry,
  Student Achievement)
• Teacher Preparation
• (1) Standard 1 Learning Community, Indicator 3
  Teacher candidates observe, implement, analyze
  and refine standards-based teaching practices
  during the extensive internship.
• (5) Standard II Collaboration, Indicator 1 IHE
  and school faculty collaboratively plan and
  implement curricula for teacher candidates to
  provide authentic learning experiences.
• (6) Standard II Collaboration, Indicator 7 IHE
  teacher education, arts and science, and school
  faculty collaborate in planning and implementing
  content based learning experiences for PDS
  partners.
• (11) Standard III Accountability, Indicator 1
  IHE and school faculty collaboratively refine and
  implement formative and summative standards based
  teacher candidate performance assessments.
• (15) Standard IV Organization, Roles and
  Resources, Indicator 1 PDS partners communicate
  regarding roles, responsibilities, and operating
  procedures and use continuous feedback to improve
  the operation of the PDS.
• (19) Standard V Diversity and Equity, Indicator
  2 Teacher candidates demonstrate skill in
  working with diverse student, parent and staff
  populations.
• (20) Standard V Indicator 3 Teacher candidates
  demonstrate the ability to work with students
  with special needs and collaborate with special
  educators.
• Continuing Professional Development
• (2) Standard I Learning Community, Indicator 1
  PDS partners collaboratively create, conduct, and
  participate in needs-based professional
  development to improve instruction and positively
  impact student achievement.
• (7) Standard II Collaboration, Indicator 3 PDS
  partners determine professional development
  needs, plan professional development activities
  to meet those needs, implement activities and
  assess the effectiveness of the implemented
  activities.
• (12) Standard III Accountability, Indicator 4
  PDS partners work together to meet one anothers
  professional development needs.
• (16) Standard IV Organization, Roles and
  Resources, Indicator 1 IHEs recognize and
  reward the PDS work of IHE faculty and staff
  through organizational structures and incentives
  that fully integrate PDS work with the mission of
  the teacher education program.
• (21) Standard V Diversity and Equity, Indicator
  2 PDS partners engage in actions to support
  broad involvement of stakeholders in PDS
  activities and assess the results of stakeholder
  involvement.
• (3) Standard I Learning Community, Indicator 1
  PDS partners collaboratively engage in inquiry
  and/or action research.
• (8) Standard II Collaboration, Indicator 1 PDS
  partners collaboratively examine the action
  research/inquiry process.
• (9) Standard II Collaboration, Indicator 2 PDS
  partners identify the research/inquiry agenda
  based on the data-driven needs of the PDS.
• (13) Standard III Accountability, Indicator 1
  IHE and school faculty collaboratively develop
  assessments and feedback tools to be used for PDS
  program planning and improvement.

13
Teacher preparation

• Partnerships have improved teacher preparation
• Increased collaboration and communication between
  PDS and IHE faculty
• Improved clinical experiences
• Practitioner expertise valued
• Teacher Education Coordinator Network
• Teaching Fellows
• Professional Development Fellows
• Clinical instructors
• All candidates have placements in PDSs either
  for all or select placements
• Host PDSs
• PDSs hosting particular courses
• Coursework aligned with needs of clinical
  settings
• PDS faculty teach courses in their classrooms
• IHE faculty integrate focus on needs in courses

14
Teacher preparation

• Coursework and placements include a focus on
  meeting the needs of low-income, at-risk students
• Candidate case studies
• PDS professional development integrated into
  coursework
• Teaching standards have been developed and/or
  adopted, and are used as part of benchmark
  decision-making
• 10 Characteristics
• INTASC
• Dispositions

15
Research and inquiry

• Professional development agenda includes action
  research
• AR Fellows Teams
• AR professional development, funding for
  site-based initiatives coupled with AR projects
• Programs include action research experiences for
  teacher candidates
• Course
• Lesson analysis

16
Research and inquiry

• Collaborative research efforts among PDS and IHE
  faculty
• Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators
• Studying aspects of teacher preparation
• Studying effects of program on graduates
  beginning teaching experiences

17
Professional development

• Partnerships have a positive impact on
  professional development
• More relevant
• Field-tested
• Varied strategies for professional development
• Sharing expertise across schools, between schools
  and universities, across partnerships
• Partnership-wide PD
• Embedded PD (action research, book studies, etc.)
  with PDS, IHE faculty, teacher candidates around
  PDS needs
• On-site courses, customized courses
• Online PD
• Teacher candidates developing and offering PD

18
Professional development

• Leveraging/pooling professional development funds
• Matching funds for grants
• Counties/Boards of Education providing resources
  to support PD in partnerships
• Counties/schools/partnerships sharing resources
  around a common agenda
• Schools pooling funding from a variety of sources

19
Student achievement

• Partnerships have a positive impact on student
  achievement
• Improved professional development
• Improved teaching
• Improved teacher candidate performance
• Professional development targeting areas of
  student need
• IHE faculty developing customized PD
• Focus for partnership PD agenda
• Course assignments linked to clinical placements
  include an analysis of the impact of teaching on
  student achievement
• Contributing to longitudinal study of the effects
  of tutoring
• Individual case studies in reading, special
  education
• Journal entries/focused reflection
• Sustained AR projects during fulltime teaching
  placements

20
Student achievement

• Teacher candidates involved in assessment of
  student achievement data
• Candidates as resources for addressing needs of
  low-performing students
• Targeting areas of need for AR projects
• Concern with documenting impact on student
  achievement
• Studies of the impact of PD initiatives, of PDS
  involvement, of teacher candidates, of graduates

21
Partnership structures and governance

• Partnerships have created opportunities for
  redefining roles
• Teacher leaders
• Collaborative, representative decision making
• Smaller partnerships Partnership Council,
  Advisory Board
• Larger partnerships representative groups for
  roles, Executive Committee, systematic PDS input
  in teacher preparation
• Key roles
• Partnership director added to existing IHE
  faculty responsibilities, new position, or
  rotating position
• Liaisons IHE faculty working with individual
  schools, working with particular needs/site-based
  courses, members of LSICs

22
Aggregate findings

• Partnerships are idiosyncratic
• Leadership
• IHE and program structures
• Negotiation of benefits
• Development is not steady progression, renewal is
  not always simultaneous
• Loss of key leaders, faculty
• Political and practical demands
• Varying degrees of development across
  partnerships, across standards
• Newer partnerships able to fast track,
  established partnerships need to assess and focus

23
Next steps

• Inform stakeholders
• Install longitudinal documentation strategies
• Collaborative exchange within network
• Share promising practices broadly
• Paper and PPT notes available at
  http//www.fairmontstate.edu/cea