Documenting Development: Studying a
Statewide School/University Partnership
Van Dempsey, Fairmont State University
Jaci Webb-Dempsey, West Virginia University
Rosalyn Templeton, Marshall University






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


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

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




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



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

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





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

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




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

“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.

(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 another’s 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.





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



Coursework and placements include a focus on meeting the needs of low-income, atrisk 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




AR Fellows Teams

AR professional development, funding for sitebased initiatives coupled with AR projects
Programs include action research experiences for teacher candidates

Course

Lesson analysis




Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators
Studying aspects of teacher preparation

Studying effects of program on graduates’ beginning teaching experiences



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


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




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



Teacher candidates involved in assessment of student achievement data


Candidates as resources for addressing needs of lowperforming 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




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




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





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