Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Building a Technology-Rich Model of Performance-Based New Teacher Assessment
A Proposal to the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education (FIPSE)
Linda S. Hendrick
University of California, Riverside
Graduate School of Education
1
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
The Galileo Program: Building a Technology-Rich
Model of Performance-Based New Teacher Assessment
ABSTRACT
Assessing the quality of teacher performance is a well-documented and persistent problem. The Graduate
School of Education (GSOE) at the University of California, Riverside (UCR), in concert with our
collaborators, proposes to improve the assessment, and therefore the preparation of teachers along a
continuum from the Community College level through the post-baccalaureate credential. Building on
national and state teaching standards, The Galileo Project has three sequential components of a practicebased, developmental model of teacher assessment. The Year One component engages a crossinstitutional design team of colleges, public and private universities, county offices of education, and
regional and local school districts, including University of California and California State University
campuses, which are responding to a state-mandated Teacher Performance Assessment. This expert team
will design a performance assessment system that uses multiple assessment tools, and one which is built
on existing successful assessment strategies. The design team will determine the assessment
implementation (when, where and by whom), pilot the Program with university students preparing to be
elementary teachers in the spring of 2003, assess the pilot, and make necessary adjustments. In the Year
Two component, the Galileo System for Teacher Assessment and Reflection (G*STAR), students in the
UCR Teacher Education programs will be trained and supported in the use of an electronic portfolio
system, as well as other multiple assessment measures. Student outcomes include skill building in
reflective practice, use of authentic, individualized and performance-based assessment, and development
of a CD-ROM to archive professional development. Outcomes of an Information Management System
(IMS) include electronic documentation of professional development interventions and a longitudinal
computer database for tracking teacher performance. The Year Three component includes single subject
and community college students, providing full implementation along the teacher preparation continuum.
Replication at participating institutions and dissemination of results will be completed in this final year.
2
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
PROGRAM NARRATIVE
I.
Introduction
Teacher quality matters, and research evidence supports this belief. As Kati Haycock documents
in her synthesis of national evidence: Good Teaching Matters . . . A lot, quality teaching matters most
dramatically for children of poverty and color. Haycock cites a 1995 report from the National Governors
Association:
“Emergency hiring, assignment of teachers outside their fields of preparation,
and high turnover in under-funded schools conspire to produce a situation in which
many poor and minority students are taught throughout their entire school careers
by a steady stream of the least qualified and experienced teachers.” (Education Trust, 1998, p.
10).
Arguably, the most influential work in the policy arena has been the publication in 1996 of What Matters
Most: Teaching for America’s Future (Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future [NCTAF]) and the stunning body of work that report stimulated. The central message from the
entire body of work is consistently clear: What teachers know and can do is the single most important
influence on how and what students learn (NCATF, 1996, Darling-Hammond, 1998, 2000b: DarlingHammond, Wise & Klein , 1999, Darling-Hammond& Sykes, 1999).
One powerful response to the enduring problem of improving the quality of teaching has been the
development of a common core of comprehensive teaching standards at the state and national levels. The
critical need for rigorous standards for teacher preparation, initial licensing, and continuing development
has been identified as a national education agenda priority (NCTAF, 1996). The now-familiar
Commission recommendations urge states to license teachers based on demonstrated performance,
including tests of subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skill, and to use National
Board Standards for the Teaching Profession (NBSTP) as the benchmark for accomplished teaching. In
this environment, teaching standards, teacher benchmark for accomplished teaching. In this standardsbased environment, teacher preparation and assessment of teaching performance are inextricably linked.
3
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
The Galileo Project is focused on helping achieve the aims of improving teacher quality through a
technology-rich, authentic, performance-based assessment, that is practical, accountable to cultural
diversity and cost-effective.
II. Statement of the Problem
How we assess teacher quality has a direct and lasting effect upon teacher preparation, licensing,
performance, retention, and the achievement of public school students. When other factors are accounted
for or held constant, teacher effectiveness is the single most important determinant of students’ academic
success (Sanders & Horn, 1994, 1998, Education Trust, 1996, 1998). The negative impact of poor
teaching is dramatic and long-lasting. Differentiating between good and poor teaching is critical.
Defining what teachers should know and be able to do must be tightly linked to authentic, performancebased, valid and reliable assessments of such knowledge, skills and abilities. Paper and pencil tests, by
their nature of “one size fits all” and high stakes “snapshots in time” are inadequate responses to the
challenge of continuous collection, evaluation and documentation of valid and reliable teacher
performance evidence, built on standards and teacher expectations.
The national array of teacher licensing examinations is not encouraging, according to a 1999
report: Not good enough: A content analysis of teacher licensing examinations: How teacher licensing
tests fall short (Mitchell & Barth, Education Trust, 1999). Seven states have no examination
requirements for elementary certification. While forty-three states and Washington, D.C. require an
examination for secondary certification candidates, only twenty-nine require testing in the subject area,
and the knowledge tested is not deep subject matter knowledge, according to the Mitchell and Barth
analysis. In general, existing examinations test approximately tenth-grade verbal and mathematical skills.
In sum, “ Unfortunately, existing mechanisms are inadequate for assuring teacher quality . . . the
combination of too-low content and too-low passing scores renders these systems effective in excluding
only the weakest of the weak” (Kati Haycock, Education Trust, 1999, p. 2). Few would argue that what
teachers know, about what they teach, is unimportant. No amount of “pedagogical wizardry” has the
power to supplant deep subject matter knowledge. However, the Mitchell and Barth analysis leaves
4
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
untouched the question of assessing teacher performance, i.e., how is knowledge translated into powerful
teaching, and how do we know when it is? However well designed, multiple-choice, paper and pencil
tests, administered out of the act of teaching context provide weak indicators of teacher quality.
Although some teachers obviously are well prepared, mechanisms for determining the quality of
their preparation are riddled with inadequacies attributable in part to problems of political, cultural,
economic and legal liabilities, as well as false assumptions, e.g., “beginning teachers will learn what they
don’t know in time.” Passing scores are another perplexity, since they vary by state, and tend to “dumb
down” the test (Mitchell & Barth, 1999, p. 13). The assumptions, goals and projected outcomes upon
which current assessments of teachers’ preparedness to teach must be reevaluated, and new models of
assessment designed, tested and evaluated.
III.
Need for Assessing Teacher Quality
A. State Need for Assessing Teacher Quality
In California, trends in the issues and problems discussed above are writ large against a
background of rich cultural diversity, a burgeoning student population and a chronic shortage of qualified
teachers. By qualified we mean teachers who understand the subject matter they teach, know about
children and how they learn, understand the importance of children’s backgrounds, experiences,
languages and cultures, and can demonstrate mastery of pedagogy through an effective repertoire of
strategies for engaging all learners effectively and responsively (Ball & Cohen, 1999, pp. 7-10). DarlingHammond and Ball (1998) point to evidence that teacher education, expertise and licensing examination
scores, proxies for teacher quality, account for 40% of the variance in students' test scores, grades 1-7.
Not only do students of fully certified teachers with higher levels of education achieve better, but these
qualifications "are among the correlates of reading achievement" (Darling-Hammond & Ball, 1998,
pp. 3 and 6).
California has participated in the national effort with a set of teaching standards, i.e., The
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) (please see Appendix A). These are closely
aligned with teacher professional knowledge expectations set forth by The National Council for the
5
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Board Standards for the Teaching Profession
(NBSTP), and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). However,
establishing teaching standards is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing high performance
teaching. Universities have the clear and unique opportunity—indeed for some, the mission—to prepare
tomorrow’s teacher leaders.
Such a unique opportunity presents itself in California, where recent legislative changes in the
structure of the teacher credentialing system mandate that university-based teacher preparation programs
adopt a Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) examination at the end of the first level of teacher
preparation (Level I). Although California has multiple paths to teacher credentialing, teacher candidates
in a university-based program typically complete a fourth or fifth year program of pre-service teacher
education. It is at this level that California teacher credentialing authorities currently plan to implement a
Level I assessment system, the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) that is heavily dependent upon
single-dimension paper and pencil tests. The diagram below displays the California Learning to Teach
System, which is similar to teacher credentialing systems across the nation. The initial focus of the
Galileo Program is the Level I Summative Assessment shown in the Post Baccalaureate program area
(marked with the star), although we expect that the assessment results would not be radically different
from the Integrated or Internship programs.
6
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Integrated Program
•Subject-Matter Preparation
•Professional Preparation
•Support and Supervision
•Level I Summative Assessment
Post-Baccalaureate
Program
•Subject-Matter Preparation
•Professional Preparation
•Support and Supervision
•Level I Summative Assessment
Pre-Internship
Program
•Subject-Matter Preparation
•Pre-Professional Preparation
•Support and Supervision
Internship Program
•Subject-Matter Preparation
•Professional Preparation
•Support and Supervision
•Level I Summative Assessment
Induction
Induction
Program
• Advanced
Curriculum
Preparation
• Formative
Assessment and
Support
• Frequent
Reflection on
Practice
• Individual
Induction Plan
• Application of
Prior Learning
Level II Professional Credential
Preparation
Level I Preliminary Credential
California’s Learning to Teach System
Credential Renewal
Professional
Growth
Program
• Individual Development
Plan
• Advanced Curriculum
Studies
• Advanced Subject Matter
• Reflection on Practice
• Based on Teacher’s
Goals
• 150 Hours of
Professional
Development
SYSTEM QUALITIES
Multiple
MultipleEntry
EntryRoutes
Routesto
toTeaching
Teaching
for
forTeachers
Teachersfrom
fromDifferent
Different
Backgrounds
Backgrounds
ACCOUNTABILITY
ACCOUNTABILITY
•Candidate
•CandidateAssessment
Assessment
•Program
•ProgramAccreditation
Accreditation
CSTP-Driven
CSTP-DrivenMulti-tiered
Multi-tiered
Credential
CredentialStructure
Structure
COLLABORATION
COLLABORATION
•Schools/Universities
•Schools/Universities
•State
•StateAgencies
Agencies
•Practitioner
•PractitionerTeamwork
Teamwork
B. Regional Need for Assessing Teacher Quality
Only Los Angeles has a greater problem in hiring qualified teachers than do the communities
served by the UC Riverside Teacher Education Program in the Riverside, San Bernardino, Mono and Inyo
(RIMS) region. Data reported by the California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS, 2000) show that
55 percent of the state’s newly hired teachers are working on emergency permits, and 57 percent of the
new teachers in the RIMS region are teaching with emergency permits. When one turns from teacher
qualifications to student performance, the correlation between geography and student achievement is
particularly discouraging. For example, in reviewing the recently reported California 2001 standardized
testing results, the inland areas of the state do not compare favorably with the more affluent coastal areas.
7
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
If one turns to counties in the Inland Empire (a term given to the heavily populated area of
western Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), the story does not improve. In these two counties, over
20 percent of children ages 5 to 17 years live in poverty, half of the two counties’ school-age children
receive free and reduced price meals and nearly 20 percent of parents did not graduate from high school
(Calfee, 2000). Schools with a majority of students at the low end of socio-economic status hire the
teachers they can attract, usually poorly prepared teachers, and student achievement suffers. Riverside
and San Bernardino stand together practically with Los Angeles on most other measures of extreme need
as well: low levels of parent education, large numbers of non-English speaking students, high percentages
of standardized state test scores near the bottom of the state range, and a turnover of teachers that is
among the highest in the state.
We believe that a multi-dimensional formative and summative assessment alternative to the
TPAs, one that mirrors the complexity of the teaching act and yields valid and reliable indicators of
teacher quality, is appropriate and necessary, and at high levels of need a moral imperative. By formative
assessment we mean continuous performance feedback to pre-credential candidates from supportive
experts using an array of assessment tools, some of which actively engage candidates in their own
assessment. By summative assessment we mean a final evaluation of formative assessment evidence
using multiple measures in order to draw broad and deep conclusions about a candidates’ qualifications to
teach. The logical next steps in the evolution of teacher assessment is the development of a valid, reliable
and economically feasible teacher performance assessment system.
IV. Goals and Objectives of the Galileo Program
A. Overview
In California, state attempts to create a mandatory system to assess teachers’ professional
preparation, based on the CSTP and California Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs), are underway,
and are scheduled for full implementation in July, 2003. A teacher assessment at the end of Level I
teacher preparation is mandated by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), but no
fiscal support for administering, scoring or evaluating the state version—which is not adaptable to local
8
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
context--is available. Furthermore, California’s teacher induction programs for first and second year
teachers, such as the Beginning Teacher Support an Assessment Program, become mandatory
credentialing programs for the professional clear or Level II credential in July, 2003. It is most likely that
a TPA for Level II will be mandated in the near future. Reports from TPA advisory committees, reviews
of pilot materials and interviews with volunteers of early trials strongly indicate the significant need for
alternatives to cumbersome, one-time “snapshot,” paper and pencil summative assessments disconnected
from teaching context. Taking advantage of the option made available to them by the state, public and
private universities are forming consortia to create their own assessment systems that are affordable and
effective.
General planning for the development of an authentic, performance-based pre-service teacher
assessment system occurred early in 2002 at Stanford University. Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford )
and Robert C. Calfee (UCR), along with Ray Pechone (Visiting Stanford Scholar and Director of
Research and Evaluation for the State of Connecticut), led the meeting of scholars and teacher educators
from seven UC campuses, Stanford, and Mills College. The consortia has undertaken the first and second
stages of work on a large-scale alternative Level I teacher assessment system. Across campuses,
members of the consortia have identified and catalogued significant elements that entail formative or
summative performance assessment activities in their teacher preparation programs, from program entry
to the decision to grant the preliminary teaching credential. These identified elements will establish the
foundation for the next stages of conceptualization and design. Important consensus within the group has
been reached regarding fundamental design elements, including the need to develop multi-dimensional
assessment tools, coupled with performance assessment rubrics rich in valid and reliable descriptions of
high performance teaching. The designers aim toward a system that will prove generalizable and
adaptable to a broad spectrum of teacher assessment contexts. The UC Office of the President has
provided funding for this effort, as have several private foundation sources.
The Galileo Project will stand on its own as an innovative technology-rich authentic teacher
assessment system and will be institutionalized at its originating campus, UCR, after three years. Most
9
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
importantly, the Galileo Project will offer its own collaborators such as those described above, as well as
other consortia developing alternative TPAs, a technology-rich, performance-based authentic assessment
system as a critical support to those larger efforts. The first stages of conceptualization and development
of the Galileo Project have been completed by the technical staff at UCR, and portions of it have been
successfully pilot tested in two local school districts this year, at the elementary and secondary levels.
The Galileo Project builds on a constructivist view of teaching and learning, and upon teacher
preparation and assessment processes, procedures and systems already in use in our teacher preparation
and induction programs at UC Riverside. For our purposes, “constructivist” refers to two major models
of learning—psychological constructivism and socio-cultural constructivism. In the first, the learner uses
cognitive schema to make sense of daily experience and to process subsequent experience, while
engaging in problem solving to resolve cognitive discrepancies. In the second model, the role of social
interaction in the construction of knowledge within a community of learners is central to learning
(Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999, p.347). The arena for dissemination, replication and scalability of the
Galileo Project is large at the state and national levels.
We propose the Galileo Project within the context of a standards-based environment. Building on
national models of teaching standards such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) standards for Professional Development Schools, the Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) has established core standards for new teachers to serve
as a catalyst for systemic reform of teacher preparation; the National Board for Teacher Professional
Standards (NBTPS) work to create teacher leaders through rigorous standards-based processes and
procedures.
The underlying infrastructure of the Galileo Project contains: a) a well-established, universitybased educational collaborative for teacher preparation and induction, including seven University of
California campuses, along with Stanford University, San Jose State University, California State
University, Fullerton, Mills College and several county offices of education and local school districts;
b) an Electronic Portfolio for Teacher Professional Development (EPTD©) that provides evidence of
10
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
teacher performance as well as student achievement and, c) a locally developed, successful, large-scale
electronic Information Management System (IMS) for tracking teacher performance, keeping accurate
records, conducting program evaluation, generating reports and conducting research activities.
Importantly, the University of California, Riverside (UCR), and several other universities in our
collaborative have volunteered to be “early adopters” of the State’s Teacher Performance Assessment
(TPA) system in the 2002 – 2003 school year. This parallel implementation allows for systematically
comparing the teacher performance-based Galileo Model and the State-developed “paper and pencil”
TPA system.
B. Goals and Objectives
Overview: The Galileo Project incorporates three, sequential, continuous components of a
practice-based, developmental model of teacher assessment. An independent evaluator will assess each
program goal through the use of multiple formative and summative evaluation tools. The components are
as follows.
Year One: Planning, Development, Collaboration, Pilot Implementation
Year One Goals: To design and implement in a pilot study an alternative performance-based
teacher assessment system, integrated into existing UCR teacher education coursework, that will improve
teacher preparation along a continuum from the Community College level through post-baccalaureate
teacher preparation, by providing candidates with authentic performance-based assessment tools
grounded in teaching practice. CCTC approval for the G*STAR as an alternative to the state-mandated
TPA will be secured by the end of year one.
Year One Overview:
The Year One component engages the cross-institutional consortia described above in the design
of a performance assessment using multiple assessment tools of varied types: electronic, observation,
video, written, interview, interaction with cooperating classroom teachers, supervisors, faculty and peers
and networking in their communities of learners. The design team will determine the assessment
implementation—when, where and by whom--- pilot the program with UCR elementary level teacher
11
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
candidates in the spring of 2003, assess the pilot, and make necessary adjustments for implementation of
the system in the UCR Teacher Education Program. Although the Galileo Project is centered at UCR,
collaborators will pilot selected Galileo tasks on their campuses. During Year One, the Galileo Project
will originate primarily from the project campus, UCR. At the same time, collaborating universities and
colleges will pilot selected tasks from the system.
Teacher Candidate Perspective. Care will be taken to include underrepresented minority
students from UCR and collaborating institutions in this first phase of the project, as their experiences
will be valuable for informing work with community college candidates in the project’s second and third
years. G*STAR will be embedded in the UCR pre-credential Teacher Education courses and fieldwork
already in place, in order to provide elementary level pre-service candidates with integrated opportunities
for a) teacher preparation (foundation issues, pedagogy, subject matter coursework), b) assessment, and
c) fieldwork and classroom practice.
In addition to the support they receive in the UCR Teacher Education Program, G*STAR
participants will receive augmented, systematic, documented guidance, feedback, formative assessment
and support from UCR Teacher Education faculty, staff and technical support staff over the four-quarter
academic year. This process will facilitate candidates’ professional growth as well as shifts in their
perspectives from student to educator, as evidenced by concrete and tangible electronic portfolio entries
and artifacts, as well as other authentic assessment outcomes. Teacher candidates will also have the
ability to engage in distance video conferencing with support providers, program staff and university
faculty.
The nature and design of G*STAR requires candidates to be active participants in their own
formative assessment, through a cycle of planning, teaching, reflecting and applying what they learn from
their reflection on practice—what we are designating the process curriculum of the G*STAR. At the end
of Year One, candidates will complete the state-mandated TPA, and their aggregated results and
experiences will be compared with those teacher candidates who did not participate in the Galileo Project.
This comparative, summative evaluation of participants’ and non-participants’ performance on the TPA
12
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
will be reported in the aggregate to participants. Participants completing their credentials will look
forward to teacher induction programs such as BTSA that maintain the continuity of their preparation,
assessment and performance in a standards-based environment.
Timeline: Year One component will begin at notification of award, September, 2002.
[Note: Once each component is underway, its goals and activities will continue until the
completion of the Program in August, 2005].
Year One Objectives:
1). Collaborate, plan and develop G*STAR, an authentic, performance-based teacher assessment system
for pre-credential students, building on existing Electronic Portfolio systems already integrated into the
UCR Teacher Credentialing Program, and articulated with common teaching standards (CSTP, INTASC,
NCATE, NBSTP) and California Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) 2). Begin tracking teachers
longitudinally. 3). Conduct Spring 2003 pilot of G*STAR. 4). Conduct validity and reliability study of
G*STAR assessment tools. 5). Refine G*STAR. 6). Disseminate preliminary results and findings. 7).
Support replication of pilot program with collaborating institutions.
Year One Activities
1.1). Convene a Galileo Program Advisory Board representative of all collaborators on a quarterly basis
throughout the duration of the Program. 2.2). Implement the Information Management System (IMS) for
all UCR teacher candidates longitudinally. 3.3). Identify in Fall, 2002, fifteen or more elementary precredential teacher candidates as participants in the G*STAR pilot, Spring 2003. Computer and internet
access are prerequisites. 4.4). Train faculty and Teacher Supervisors on G*STAR implementation.
5.5). Convene a research group of collaborating faculty and teacher supervisors to conduct validity and
reliability studies. .6). Implement recommendations based on formative program evaluation results. 7.7).
Write preliminary Technical Reports. 8.8). Include cross-institutional collaborative faculty and staff in
training and implementation.
13
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Year One Expected Outcomes
1.1.a). Expert advice on program design and implementation. 2.2.b). A longitudinal Galileo database for
tracking teacher development trajectories. 3.3.c). Successful G*STAR pilot training. 4.4.d). G*STAR
pilot program implemented. 5.5.e). Validated assessment tools. 6.6.f). Documented action plans
informed by formative program evaluation and implemented. 7.7.g). Preliminary Technical Report.
8.8.h). Initial replication of Galileo Program.
Year Two: Expanded Implementation; Refinement for the “Pipeline;” Replication
Year Two Overview: In the Year Two component, the Galileo System for Teacher Assessment
and Reflection, or G*STAR, candidates from multiple entry points in the UCR teacher education programs
will be trained and supported in the use of the UCR learning and teaching electronic portfolio system, as
well as other multiple assessment measures. This training will be accomplished by integrating it into
existing UCR Teacher Education courses, taught by faculty and Teacher Supervisors, during the academic
year. Care will be taken to adjust the curriculum to take into account student teachers’ levels of technical
skill. Community college candidates are included in the program this year. Several local and regional
community colleges have signed Memos of Understanding (MOUs) with the UCR Teacher Credentialing
Program that facilitate early entry into UCR’s teaching programs, particularly for underrepresented
minorities who might not normally attend the university.
A central component of G*STAR is the Electronic Portfolio for Teacher Professional
Development (EPTPD), a web-based application capable of storing documents and reflections, as well as
building a virtual community of learners. Developed by the UCR RIMS/BTSA staff in 2001, the EPTPD
was designed to provide teachers in the induction phase of their career the opportunity to build an
electronic professional development portfolio. Project staff will tailor the system for G*STAR.
Another key feature of G*STAR is the Information Management System (IMS). A large scale
database system using Microsoft ACCESS© software is in operation in the UCR Teacher Induction
Program, RIMS/BTSA, to monitor crucial information about new teachers and their support providers,
and to do web-based reporting. This system has been developed and perfected at by UCR by
14
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
RIMS/BTSA faculty and staff over a period of ten years. The IMS currently in place at UCR would serve
as the technology backbone for the Galileo web-based system. As the system has already been refined
and utilized in an educational setting, the modifications required by the Galileo Project would be fairly
routine at a minimal cost.
Teacher Candidate Perspective. Participants will include candidates from multiple routes to
teaching. Community College candidates will be selected from academically talented and
underrepresented populations, and provided pedagogical knowledge and high quality entry level
supervised field experiences, congruent with the UCR Blended Program and its Memos of Understanding
(MOUs) with collaborating colleges. All community college candidates, whether on the UCR campus or
on college campuses will receive systematic guidance and support from UCR Teacher Education staff and
a community college counselor assigned to the project through the UCR Teacher Credential program. All
Galileo Project coursework will be integrated into existing community college and university coursework,
and care will be taken to adjust the curriculum for candidates’ varying levels of technical skill. Teacher
candidates from all entry levels will have access to networking electronically and face-to-face, in
arranged meetings on campus or at district school sites with Galileo participants from Year One, who will
now have opportunities to support novice colleagues--an important aspect of professional growth for both
novice and “veteran.” As active participants in their own professional growth, candidates will use
G*STAR and other authentic assessment tools in the Galileo Project.
As a result of their participation in the Galileo Project, teacher candidates at all levels will receive
training in the use of web-based assessment tools and other electronic learning and teaching tools and
strategies, in partial fulfillment of the technology skills required for the preliminary teaching credential.
Candidates will learn to capture electronically their teaching experiences such as their electronic portfolio
work, student artifacts, authentic performance assessments like video segments and appropriate
documentation of program completion, and transfer them to a CD-ROM. This electronic record of
professional development may be maintained longitudinally as a permanent and “living” chronicle of the
candidate’s professional development, and carried forward into an induction program and beyond for
15
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
completion of National Board Standards Certification. Teacher candidates from earlier entry levels will
archive and document professional growth and development at the point at which they begin the program,
and build on that record throughout their participation in the Galileo Project and beyond.
In this year, candidates for the elementary level preliminary credential (Level I), will complete
the CCTC approved G*STAR alternative teacher performance assessment system. This task will take
place over the academic year as part of a year-long formative assessment process, with benchmarks,
formative assessment feedback and performance interventions along a developmental continuum.
A summative assessment of candidates’ formative performance activities within the context of teaching
practice will be provided to participants at the completion of all requirements for the preliminary
credential. This summative assessment will be performed by skilled raters trained in G*STAR. A
summative performance report will be provided to each teacher candidate in electronic form, and is meant
to be transferred to her or his CD-ROM as part of the candidate’s longitudinal professional development
profile.
Teacher candidate outcomes for Year Two include skill building in reflective practice, use of
authentic, individualized performance-based assessment, and development of a CD-ROM to archive
professional development. Outcomes of an Information Management System (IMS) include electronic
documentation of professional development interventions and a longitudinal computer database for
tracking new teacher’s performance. The IMS will enable Field Supervision activities and outcomes to be
documented electronically. The Galileo project design is meant to be a process that empowers teacher
candidates to become reflective practitioners. By reflective we mean the ability to construct schemas out
of experience so that professional problem solving is accomplished metacognitively, by examining
practice reflectively (looking backward) and prospectively (looking forward).
Year Two Goals are: To extend and track elementary level candidates’ participation in the Galileo
Program and the G*STAR system along the “pipeline” of teacher preparation to include the multiple
routes to teaching in the California Learning to Teach System represented in a university-based approach
16
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
to teacher preparation; to include traditionally under served populations, beginning at the Community
College level and extending through to the fifth year.
Timeline: Year Two component will begin in Fall, 2004.
Year Two Objectives:
9). Expand Galileo to span the Teacher Preparation “Pipeline”--UCR Integrated (Blended), Intern and
Fifth Year programs for elementary level teacher candidates in collaboration with regional Community
Colleges and UCR GSOE undergraduate liberal studies. 10). Track teacher candidates longitudinally.
11). Continue refinement of G*STAR. 12). Assess impact of G*STAR on candidate’s perceptions of
student achievement. 13). Disseminate findings. 14). Facilitate Galileo replication across collaborating
institutions.
Year Two Activities
9.9). Identify 15 or more elementary teacher candidate participants from each of UCR’s pre-service
teacher education programs. Computer and internet access are prerequisites. 10.10). Expand appropriate
G*STAR training for faculty and Teacher Supervisors. 11.11.).Track teacher candidates’ professional
development trajectories longitudinally, from Community College entry through post-baccalaureate
programs, using the IMS. 12.12). Implement recommendations based on formative program evaluation
results. 13.13). Complete comparative analysis of State Teacher Performance Assessments (TPAs) and
G*STAR assessment system. 14.14). Conduct surveys and focus groups with participants to determine
the impact of Galileo on candidate’s perceptions of student achievement. 15.15). Complete Technical
Reports.16.16). Convene strategy sessions to plan next stages of replication.
Year Two Expected Outcomes
9.9.a). Integration of pedagogy, California Standards for the Teaching Profession, Subject Matter
Standards and Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) for multiple routes in teaching preparation.
10.10.b). Faculty training in G*STAR creates additional institutional capacity. 11.11.c). Initial mapping
of teacher candidates’ professional development along a continuum from Community College through
post-baccalaureate programs. 12.12.d). Program improvements based on formative program evaluation
17
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
results. 13.13.e). Policy recommendations based on comparison study of state-mandated TPA and
Galileo G*STAR and program evaluation. 14.14.f). Approximations of G*STAR impact on candidates’
perceptions of student achievement. 15.15.g). Policy recommendations based on completed Technical
report. 16.16.h). Cross-institutional replication.
Year 3: Expansion; Replication; Addition of Single Subject Candidates; and Institutionalization of
the Galileo Program
In Year Three of the Galileo Project the program will expand to include secondary level
candidates and all student teachers in UCR teacher education programs, from pre-service through the
M.Ed., for full implementation along the teacher preparation continuum. Replication to other
participating institutions, and institutionalization of the project into UCR Teacher Education programs
will be secured. Dissemination of results will be completed in this final year.
The Teacher Candidate’s Perspective. The third and final year of the project will offer the
opportunities, training, assessment, and services provided to teacher candidates in Year Two, as
successive graduates add capacity to networking access within an expanding community of learners.
In this year, candidates for the elementary and secondary teacher preliminary credentials (Level I), will
complete the CCTC approved G*STAR alternative teacher performance assessment system. As in Year
Two, this assessment completion will take place over the academic year and will be embedded in the
normal flow of course-taking, supervised field work and classroom practice, with appropriate
benchmarks, formative assessment feedback and performance interventions along a developmental
continuum. An electronic summative assessment of all of a candidate’s formative performance-based
assessments by trained and skilled raters will be provided to participants at the completion of all
requirements for the preliminary credential, as in Year Two, for transfer to candidates’ CD-ROM
professional development profile.
Timeline: Component III will begin in Fall, 2004.
Year Three Goals are: To complete the implementation, refinement and expansion of the Galileo
Program by including secondary teacher candidates in the program and by drawing comparisons between
18
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
the Galileo Program and the state-mandated TPAs in order to design profiles of program implementation
for dissemination to other institutions and agencies at the state and national levels; to insure Galileo’s
institutionalization on the UCR campus through its embedded nature in the UCR Teacher Education
Program, so that the work will continue after FIPSE funding ends; to seek extra-mural funding for the
Galileo Project if the program proves effective.
Year Three Objectives:
16). Expand Galileo to include Single Subject Candidates along the “Pipeline” in collaboration with
regional Community Colleges and UCR GSOE undergraduate liberal studies. 17). Track teacher
candidates longitudinally.18.) Continue refinement of G*STAR. 19). Continue Research Agenda. 20).
Assess impact of G*STAR on candidates’ perceptions of student achievement. 21). Facilitate Galileo
replication across collaborating institutions. 22). Build profiles of Galileo implementation for national
dissemination
Year Three Activities
16.1). Identify 15 or more single subject teacher candidates from each of UCR’s multiple paths to teacher
preparation as G*STAR participants. Computer and internet access are prerequisites. 16.2). Expand
appropriate training for faculty and Teacher Supervisors. 17.1). Continue to track teacher candidates
longitudinally, using the IMS. 18.1). Implement recommendations based on formative program
evaluation results. 19.1). Conduct second comparative study of California TPAs and G*STAR.
20.1). Conduct studies of teacher candidates’ perceptions of their own an their students’ opportunities to
learn through surveys and focus groups. 21.1). Write final Technical Reports. 22.1). Convene strategy
sessions to formulate suggestions for national dissemination
Year Three Expected Outcomes
16.16.a). Integration of pedagogy, CSTP, Subject Matter Standards and TPEs for candidate achievement
in multiple routes to teaching. 17.17.b). Partial fulfillment of technology requirements for Level 1
credentialing. 18.18.c). Initial mapping of teacher professional development along a continuum, from
Community College through UCR teacher credential programs. 19.19.d). Policy recommendations based
19
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
on comparative study of TPAs and G*STAR, teacher candidates’ perceptions of their own and their
students’ opportunities to learn, and final Technical Reports. 20.20.e). National dissemination through
local, state and national conferences and organizations.
V.
Responsible Staff
The core UCR staff responsible for the Galileo Project is drawn from the UCR Graduate School
of Education. Directing and coordinating the overall designing, planning and implementation of the
Program are Professor and Dean Robert C. Calfee and Linda Scott Hendrick, Ph.D. Athena Waite,
Director of Teacher Education at UCR, will join with the program directors in developing and
implementing the overall program. Professor Brian Reilly, along with Zeno Franco, B.A. and Scott
Lowder, Programmer Analysts, will provide expert technology for the Electronic Portfolio and the IMS,
and will oversee the G*STAR system development and implementation, and the training of UCR
Teacher Supervisors, who in turn will work directly with teacher candidates. Linda Sanada, B.S.,
Programmer Analyst, will be responsible for the Information Management System (IMS) and will
collaborate with the technology staff and the Program directors to integrate the two systems. Professor
John McNeil of UCLA will conduct the independent evaluation of the Galileo Project over three years.
Consultants and Advisors to the Program represent the cross-institutional nature of the Galileo Program,
and include Professor Andrea Whittaker of San Jose State University and Professor Kimberly Norman of
California State University, Fullerton, and Linda Childress, Director of the RIMS BTSA Program at the
Riverside County Office of Education. Seven Community College partners and advisors include Chaffey,
Mount San Antonio, Orange Coast, Pasadena City, Riverside, San Diego Mesa, and Santa Monica
colleges.
VI.
Institutional Capacity for Support
As a University of California campus committed to conducting research and developing
innovative programs, UCR is deeply invested in the improvement of Teacher Education and the support
of innovative programs that educate teachers. The UCR campus is deeply committed to the support of
this project, as is its Dean of the Graduate School of Education, Robert C. Calfee, who has co-authored
20
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
this proposal and will serve as co-Project Director if it is funded. At UCR, Education is a Graduate
School, not a department, has its own, and is able to manage its resources more independently than if it
were a department linked to a College. Support for the proposed project is most notable in three areas: 1)
funding, 2) personnel and 3) space. The University Office of the President has provided the UCR
Graduate School of Education with over $200,000 for recruitment and program development for
incoming teaching credential candidates. UCR Faculty and Teacher Supervisors have committed to
support and engage in the Galileo Project and the G*STAR program, in teaching, supervising and
advisory capacities. Athena Waite, Director of UCR Teacher Education has built strong bridges and
signed MOUs with local and regional community colleges. Through these early outreach programs, the
UCR Teacher Education Program works with area colleges for early identification and joint college-UCR
education of prospective teachers. Because UCR has a longstanding tradition for the development of
subject matter preparation programs for undergraduates planning to teach, faculty have agreed to support
the integration of Galileo coursework and training into existing UCR teacher education courses. The
Graduate School of Education has provided ample space for the proposed project in shared office
complexes with the Teacher Education Program, and the RIMS/BTSA program.
VII.
Evaluation Design
Overview: Evaluation will guide program development and revisions from year to year,
throughout the duration of the Galileo Project. Summative evaluation will employ a multi-method
approach and will focus on the impact of the Galileo Program on the quality of teacher performance by
means of a technology-rich performance-based assessment system. Years 1, 2 and 3 differ in evaluation
focus, but with design continuity. During years 2 and 3, we can draw upon teachers who have finished
the program as credentialed teachers, validating the assessment system and pointing to its likely future
benefits. In addition, program impact will be examined by comparing the G*STAR system with the
California Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA). We can make these comparisons because the UCR
Teacher Education Program is an “early adopter” of the TPA system and will be field testing it in 2002–
2003. A projected work plan with scrupulous details, including a working document for program
21
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
evaluation, activities and the outcomes for each of the three years of the proposed program, is in place,
and can be found in Appendix B. Of necessity, this projected work plan and its technical details will
need to be tailored to the planning, advice and recommendations of the Galileo Advisory Committee and
the unfolding of the project processes, procedures and products. The following guidelines will be used in
evaluating program outcomes. 1). A variety of data collection methods will be used as appropriate: focus
groups, samples of teacher candidates’ work (electronic portfolios and other), interviews, surveys,
systematic observations, syllabi, existing data such as norms on California Basic Education Skills Test
(CBEST) scores for populations from multiple routes to teaching, and a comparison study of State and
G*STAR TPAs. 2). Matrix sampling will be used when individual data are not necessary, and there is a
need to collect a wide range of information without being burdensome to individual respondents (i.e.,
sample from electronic portfolio, selected sections). 3). Baseline data on participants will be collected.
4). Performance of teacher candidates in the Galileo Program will be compared to UCR prior records of
performance and national norms.
The Evaluation of Program Goals
Year One Goals will be evaluated as follows.
Performance Indicator 1: Adoption and pilot implementation of the G*STAR and IMS systems by
participating institutions and agencies.
Formative Evaluation: Engagement and ratification by Advisory Board members of Galileo design
factors, and establishment of reliability and validity of G*STAR. Training and integration of the
G*STAR into existing UCR Teacher Education coursework and pilot implementation of the IMS system
with multiple subject candidates. Sources of data and method include: Document review; interviews of
Advisory Board members; interviews and surveys of potential users of the system—teacher educators,
school leaders, teacher candidates. Examination of validity and reliability evidence. Content analysis of
Teacher Education coursework syllabi and course-taking rosters.
Summative Evaluation: Documentation of agendas, processes, procedures and outcomes of Advisory
Board meetings and collaborations. Evidence of reliability and validity of G*STAR.Number of teacher
22
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
education courses integrated with the G*STAR system and number of teacher candidates taking these
courses. Candidate and faculty satisfaction with the usefulness and appropriateness of the G*STAR and
IMS systems. Rates and levels of use of the G*STAR system by program participants. Review of Year
One Technical Report.
Performance Indicator 2: Monitoring and adjusting the Galileo Program based on formative evaluation
feedback.
Formative Evaluation: Procedures and processes are in place for gathering program feedback An
action plan for program changes has been written and activated. A research plan based on program
feedback has been designed and written. Sources of data and method include: Review of IMS database,
interviews and surveys of program participants, review of program documents, classroom observations,
First Year Galileo Technical Report.
Summative Evaluation: Analysis of program changes indicated in a written program improvement plan
from the fall start-up, 2002, to spring, 2003 implementation. Review and analysis of formative evaluation
data. Evidence of improved teacher preparation through multiple sources, including examination of
electronic portfolios and observations. Documentation: Records of use and participants’ levels of
satisfaction with the G*STAR and IMS systems.
Year Two Goals will be evaluated as follows.
Performance Indicator 3: Increased numbers of teacher candidates participating in the Galileo program
along the continuum of teaching preparation.
Formative Evaluation: Number of institutions in compliance with MOUs between UCR and community
colleges. Number of participants by institution and entry level. Sources of Data and Method include:
MOUs and guidelines. Baseline data for tracking candidates’ professional development longitudinally.
Observations, surveys and focus groups related to training for candidates and supervisors, and analysis of
training materials. Samples of performance-based assessments, including electronic portfolios, related to
attainment of CSTP, subject matter standards and TPEs. Sample IMS profiles of participants, including
demographic information.
23
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Summative Evaluation: Participating community colleges use IMS in documenting candidates’
experiences in education courses, program advising, and creating cohorts among those interested in
teaching. Increased number of community college candidates pursuing teaching as a career. Increased
satisfaction of participants regarding program planning.
Performance Indicator 4: Increased number of candidates by entry level and including traditionally
under served populations, successfully participating in the Galileo Program.
Formative Evaluation: Number of participants meeting criteria from training sessions for CSTP and
Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs). Increase in number of candidates from previously under
served populations. Sources of data and method include: Analysis of Electronic Portfolio effects on
orientation to teaching, guidance and credential program planning through self reports, surveys,
interviews, focus groups with candidates, supervisors and faculty. Participant interviews regarding
contributions of performance-based assessment, including portfolios, to their attaining CSTPs and TPEs.
Samples of candidates’ performance, using mulitple measures, during and after training indicating
attainment of competence in teaching standards and the G*STAR. Sample IMS profiles of participants,
including demographic information.
Summative Evaluation: Analysis of program changes indicated in a written program improvement plan
from the fall start-up, 2002, to spring, 2003 implementation. Review and analysis of formative evaluation
data. Evidence of teacher candidate commitment to teaching, a proxy for retention in the profession.
Greater use of constructivism and effective classroom practices in participating candidate’s classrooms,
and by participating faculty and teacher supervisors. Comparison of G*STAR and TPA. Authentic,
performance-based assessment is seen as a source of information, materials and advisement.
Documentation of changes in assessment procedures in UCR Teacher Education programs. Analysis of
Second Year Technical Report.
Year Three goals will be evaluated as follows.
Performance Indicator 5: Increased numbers of secondary level subject teacher candidates participating
in the Galileo Program along the continuum of teaching preparation. Sources of data and method include:
24
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Enrollment records from the IMS, documentation of multiple entry points for teacher candidates, analysis
of course syllabi, MOUs with participating colleges, surveys of college counselors and advisors,
interviews with Galileo Project faculty and Teacher Supervisors, focus group interviews with secondary
candidate participants.
Formative Evaluation: Procedures and processes are in place for gathering program data through the
IMS system, surveys and matrix sampling of teacher candidate work. Evidence indicates secondary
teacher candidates are engaged in developmental stages of reflective practice.
Summative Evaluation: Analyses of enrollment records and course taking patterns indicate the number
of secondary candidates participating in the Galileo Project is as expected. Evidence from demographic
data indicate the group is representative of a diverse population, and from multiple program entry levels.
Self-report, analyses of candidates’ opportunities to learn and formative assessment data indicate
secondary candidates have successfully completed the program.
Performance Indicator 6: Profiles of the Galileo Project implementation that are responsive and
adaptable to local context have been designed and disseminated to other institutions at the regional state
and national levels.
Formative Evaluation: All of the formative assessment procedures undertaken in Year Two. Evidence
of collaboration with original consortia described above, as well as others at the regional, state and
national levels. Processes are in place to gather information and data from other teacher education
programs to build profiles of implementation. Evidence of improved teacher preparation through multiple
sources, including examination of electronic portfolios and observations. Documentation: Records of use
and participants’ levels of satisfaction with the G*STAR and IMS systems.
Summative Evaluation: All summative evaluation procedures performed in Year Two. Evidence of
significant linkages among teacher preparation, teacher assessment and teacher performance. Teacher
education changes in assessment procedures, course content and methodologies are in evidence. Closer
alignment of theory and practice. Changes in culture of participating schools, through use of portfolios,
in sharing methods, materials and energizing dialogue about curriculum and instruction. Candidates
25
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
perceive the value of G*STAR—support, feedback, contribution to practice and professional
development. Evidence of changes in assessment procedures in UCR Teacher Education programs.
Review of third year Technical Report.
VIII. Dissemination
The proposed program provides a model that can be replicated by other teacher education
institutions across the country. In order to disseminate the model we will take five main approaches.
First, we will establish a link from the UCR Graduate School of Education and create an interactive web
site to provide Galileo Project information and specific materials related to the project, and to provide
teacher candidates’ a platform for sharing their electronic portfolios. Second, we will utilize regional,
state and national teacher education networks with which we have a long history of engagement to
disseminate information about the project, e.g, the RIMS/BTSA Program, regionally and statewide, the
Comprehensive Teacher Education Institute Network, the California Council on the Education of
Teachers, and at the national level, The National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and
Teaching, the National Center for Innovation, and the American Educational Research Association. The
university networks within California (UC, CSU, and private colleges and universities) provide another
avenue for sharing information about the project. Third, we will make presentations at local, state and
national conferences about the program. Fourth, we will submit articles to a wide range of journals in
both print and electronic form to reach a broad audience of teacher educators. Finally, we will develop
print and electronic materials for distribution and use by local, state and national educators.
26
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
References
Ball, D.L. and Cohen, D.K., (1999). Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (EDS). Chapter 1, p. 7.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Calfee, R.C. (2000). 1999 Academic Performance Index (API) Report, cited in [Robert C.
Calfee], “Accountability, Access, Excellence,” Education Summit 2000, Sponsored by Bank of America
Foundation. Riverside: Graduate School of Education, 2000.
California Department of Education (1999-2000). California Basic Education Statistics.
Sacramento, CA.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (September, 2001). The 1999-2000
Annual Report on Emergency Permits and Credential Waivers. CA: Sacramento.
Accessed 5/16/02 online at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/annual
Darling-Hammond, L., (2000b). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state
policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds). (1999). Teaching as the learning
profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass,
Darling-Hammond, Wise, A., & Klein, (1999). A license to teach: Raising standards for
teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating Teachers: The Academy’s greatest failure or its
most important future? Academe, 85 (1), 6-33.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What
policymakers need to know and be able to do. National Education Goals Panel.
Washington, D.C.
Darling-Hammond, L., (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
27
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The Role of Teacher Expertise and Experience in
Students’ Opportunity to Learn, in Strategies for linking school finance and students’
opportunities to learn, National Governors Association, Washington, D.C.
The Education Trust. Accessed 5/15/2002 online at http:\\www. edtrust.org. Source: 199394 Schools and Staffing Survey, (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education). Published by the Education Trust, Thinking K-16 (Washington,
D.C,: The Education Trust, Summer 1998).
The Education Trust. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can
close the gap. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Hanushek, Eric A. (1992) The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of
Political Economy, 1992. Cited in Haycock, Thinking K-16, 1998. The Education Trust,
Summer, 1998).
Mitchell, R. and Barth, P. (Spring, 1999). Not good enough: A content analysis of teacher
licensing examinations :How teacher licensing tests fall short, in Thinking K-16. Washington,
D.C.: Education Trust.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996, September). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
University. Accessed on May 16 at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcomm/home.htm
Sanders, W. & Horn, S.,(1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS):
Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation
in Education, 8, 299-311.
Sanders, W. & Horn S., (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256.
28
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Key Project Personnel Summary
Robert C. Calfee became Professor and Dean of Education at UCR in 1998, following a
distinguished 27 year career as Professor of Education and Psychology at Stanford University.
Proposed Project Responsibility: Dean Calfee will serve with Dr. Hendrick as UCR CoDirector of the Galileo Project. Given that his salary is fully paid by the University, Dean
Calfee will require no compensation for his service. Nevertheless, he will be fully engaged at
every stage of the project’s development and implementation, and will serve as the project’s
chief adviser and consultant.
Dean Calfee is intimately familiar with both content standards and professional teaching
standards in California. Between 1996 and 1998 he served as Vice-chair of the California’s
Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, i.e., the
content standards to be attended to in the Galileo Project. His distinguished scholarly record
includes many important appointments and honors, including a five year tenure as Editor of the
Journal of Educational Psychology and his election as fellows in the Center for Advanced Study
in the Behavioral Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and two
divisions of the American Psychological Association. Dean Calfee’s distinguished contributions
to the field of reading and literacy have been recognized by his election to the California Reading
Association Hall of Fame (1992), and the International Reading Association Hall of Fame
(1993). Unusual for a scholar, Dean Calfee’s applied work with students in the schools, preservice teacher education students, and professional staff development for working teachers
matches in distinction that of his scholarship. At different periods in his career he served as
Director of the Stanford Teacher Education Program and as Director of that institution’s Center
for Educational Research at Stanford (CERAS). Between 1984 and 1987 he was a trustee for the
29
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Palo Alto Unified School District, and in that same general period served as Associate Director
of his university’s “The Study of Stanford and the Schools.” Dean Calfee currently serves as
Director of the California Educational Research Cooperative; a regional collaborative
organization made up of UCR, two county offices of education, and 20 school districts. He is the
developer of the highly acclaimed and successful Word Work program; a phonics-based language
development program designed to improve the basic skills of school children. In Spring of 2001,
a three-year Spencer Foundation funded study conducted in 30 Riverside elementary schools
demonstrated the program’s success. Dean Calfee’s lifetime dedication has been to make
schools work for children, a challenge that requires school systems to employ the most capable
teachers and utilize the best instructional insight available.
Linda Scott Hendrick, Ph.D., serves as the Graduate School of Education’s Director of Teacher
Induction Programs. Currently that role includes mainly responsibility for directing UCR’s large
research, data management and program evaluation role in the RIMS/BTSA program.
Proposed Project Responsibility: Dr. Hendrick will serve as co-director of the Galileo Project.
As Co-Director of the Galileo Project, it will be her responsibility, working in close
collaboration with Co-Director Dean Calfee, to coordinate and see through to successful
implementation all aspects of the program. In so doing it will be necessary for her to call on well
established and long held collegial relationships with disciplinary faculty, faculty in Education,
and public school collaborators. Dr. Hendrick
currently has the deepest and most direct day to day relationship with the RIMS/BTSA program
among university based Galileo Project staff. This makes her the ideal person for serving as an
important liaison between the Galileo Project and the RIMS/BTSA program. She will work
with Professors Reilly and McNeil to assure that program staff understand Galileo Project goals.
30
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Given her collegial and supervisorial relationship with Messrs. Franco and Lowder (see below),
she also is able to assist both the schools and the university with implementation of the
Electronic Portfolio.
Dr. Hendrick holds a Ph.D. degree from UCR with concentrations in Curriculum and
Instruction, Advanced Quantitative Research Methods and English Language Arts Education.
Over the past ten years she has become a leader in teacher induction programs, and is the
initiator of the current plan to add a Special Interest Group on that subject within the American
Education Research Association. Her research pursuits and publications have focused on the
statewide evaluation of BTSA programs in California and on the retention of students at risk of
early school leaving. She also was co-director and co-author of a study evaluating the BTSA
statewide training for principals and site administrators. For approximately eight years her
collaborative work included a broad range of curriculum strengthening projects on behalf of
American Indian youth with colleagues at the University of California, Irvine and Sherman
Indian High School. In 1997-98 she directed a summer institute for Sherman Indian High
students in residence at UCR, a program that was funded by the California Postsecondary
Education Commission’s (CPEC’s) Eisenhower Grant program.
Athena Waite is the Interim Director of Teacher Education for the Graduate School of
Education. As the director, she develops credential programs, guides the evaluation and
adjustments of existing programs, hires supervisors of teacher education, overseas recruitment,
writes grants, and is ultimately responsible for the health of the teacher education program. In
performing the many responsibilities of the director, Ms. Waite collaborates with ladder faculty,
district professionals, colleagues from other institutes of higher learning and serves on several
state level panels. One particularly critical panel is charged with restructuring California’s
31
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
teacher education programs. She also serves on a California Department of Education Special
Education Committees and has worked to develop a pilot program of induction for special
education teachers. This program will serve as a state model.
Projected Project Responsibility: Ms Waite will bring her expertise in teacher credentialing,
leadership and administration of teacher preparation to the Galileo Project, as consultant and
advisor to the designing, planning and implementation of the project, as well as liaison to
community colleges.
While at UC Riverside, Ms. Waite has taught method courses, the mainstreaming course for
special education, tutorials, supervised student teachers in all programs, and coordinated the
specialist programs. She wrote the first state approved special education program for the new
Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Severe Credentials. In addition, co-authored and was the
coordinator of two service learning grants and a team member on several other grants.
Brian Reilly, UCR Assistant Professor of Education, is intimately knowledgeable about
computer usage in the public schools.
Proposed Project Responsibility: Professor Reilly will be the chief faculty consultant to the
project’s G*STAR Electronic Portfolio component. He will endeavor to assure that the project’s
claim of enhanced teacher growth in subject content knowledge and professional skill will be
enhanced through use of the Electronic Portfolio.
After completing his B.A, degree at the University of Florida, Professor Reilly
completed his M.A. degree at Stanford and his Ph.D. from the University of California,
Berkeley. His teaching specializations, as well as his research, have included online teaching
and learning and technology in teacher education. Professor Reilly has been a worker and
emerging leader in the field of educational technology virtually since the computer age began.
32
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
During the late 1980s and early 1990s he designed and developed educational software for
elementary school students, as well as classroom analysis software for researchers. He has more
than ten years experience assisting teachers and students with the classroom use of multimedia
software. Recognition of Professor Reilly’s excellent work has come in the form of several
notable awards, including the “Best Application of Hypermedia in Teacher Education” award
from the Society for Technology and Teacher Education (1992); the Silver Apple Award from
the National Educational Film and Video Association (1994), and the Award of Excellence and
Gold Medal for Education, a New Media INVISION Multimedia Award (also in 1994).
Among Professor Reilly’s publications is “New technologies, new literacies, new problems,” in
Fischer, C., Dyer,D., and Yocam, K., eds., Education and technology: Reflections on a decade
of experience in the classroom, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
John D. McNeil, Visiting Professor of Education at UCR since 1995, is a national authority on
Curriculum and Instruction, with particular attention to Reading, Mathematics, and Social
Studies.
Proposed Project Responsibility: In addition to advising on the entire project, including the
effective utilization of the Electronic Portfolio, Professor McNeil’s principal responsibility will
be to determine the extent to which our pre-service and staff development efforts are becoming
evident in teacher candidate learning. Prior to his retirement after a long and illustrious career at
UCLA, Professor McNeil served as Director of Teacher Education on that campus and authored
more than 200 research articles and monographs, including articles that appeared in America’s
leading education journals. Also included in his bibliography are some of the leading
professional textbooks in the field of curriculum and teacher education, as well as works
authored directly for elementary school students. Among his numerous staff development
33
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
contributions was work on “Humanizing the Teaching of Mathematics,” for which he received
Eisenhower support two years ago. It is expected that he will be able to utilize insight gathered
from that Eisenhower project in his work with us.
A former public school teacher and administrator in San Diego, Professor McNeil turned
attention during the middle part of his career to higher education teaching, research, and
professional service. He is a former president of the California Educational Research
Association. Since the mid-1990s Professor McNeil has also turned to the improvement of
education internationally, especially in the developing states of the Americas. For example,
following work on his USAID/Jamaica Government Teacher Education grant on curriculum
reform in 74 Jamaican schools, he prepared in 1996 a report for the Agency for International
Development (AID), entitled Improving the Teaching of Mathematics in Jamaica. The Galileo
Project Project will present an opportunity for Professor McNeil to bring together a lifetime of
insight and experience into the assessment and preparation of teachers, staff development, and
student learning.
Linda J. Childress serves as Director of the Teacher Support Center with the Riverside County
Office of Education.
Proposed Project Responsibility: It will be her focused responsibility to contribute valuable
leadership and direction for the Galileo Project Advisory Board, where the professional goals of
RIMS/BTSA intersect with those of the UCR led subject content components of the project.
Although her position titles have changed over the years, reflecting an increasing level of
recognition and administrative responsibility, Ms. Childress has been Riverside County’s chief
administrator of new teacher support services since 1989. Joining the California New Teacher
Project in its second year, she developed early and lasting collegial relationships with schools
34
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
and universities of the region. By 1994 she was directing California largest BTSA program in
California outside of Los Angeles; a program that has proven to be a state leader in evaluation
and monitoring of services. Today, that program, RIMS/BTSA, trains and supports some 2000
beginning teachers in 56 school districts in a four-county area. She and Dr. Hendrick have a
collaborative working relationship dating back to the start of the BTSA Program and their roles
in service to the Riverside County Commission on Education in Riverside County. The nature
of the RIMS/BTSA program enables Ms. Childress to represent school districts and their staffs in
decisions affecting the nature of new teacher induction within that project’s program.
Zeno Franco is a Post Graduate Research Educationist with the UCR Graduate School of
Education’s RIMS/BTSA program and is a UCR graduate in Psychology with high honors.
Projected Project Responsibility: Working primarily on the technology development and
implementation of the Galileo Project G*STAR, Mr. Franco will serve as the project’s chief
development link between the Galileo Project’s substantive program aspects and its technical
aspects. His role will include interaction with the project’s principal directors and professional
staff, all for the purpose of assuring that appropriate content subject standards and professional
standards are incorporated into the G*STAR system. He also will review entries by teachers into
the Electronic Portfolio portion of G*STAR in an effort to learn how the process can be
simplified and improved to make it increasingly user friendly and useful to teachers.
As technology coordinator to the UCR RIMS/BTSA program, Mr. Franco’s duties have included
providing ASP programming support for the UCR RIMS/BTSA Electronic Portfolio System, NT
network administration, Internet-based data collection, wide area networking, and data management in a
server-based environment. Over the past two years, Mr. Franco has been involved in teacher retention
and recruitment research, as well as with internal RIMS/BTSA program evaluation and improvement. He
35
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
also has been active in working with the RIMS/BTSA Governance Team and the coordination of that
program’s efforts with a number of state and county agencies.
Scott Lowder is employed as a Programmer Analyst with the Graduate School of Education and is our
resident hardware and software expert.
Proposed Project Responsibility: Mr. Lowder will be our technical support expert, working
mainly with software changes in the Electronic Portfolio. He will work closely with Mr. Franco
in maintaining communication both with Galileo Project teachr UCR student teachers and with
Moreno Valley beginning teachers to assure that the Electronic Portfolio software program
operates predictably and well.
In consultation with working teachers and with Mr. Franco he designed our teacher
development prototype of an Electronic Portfolio. It is this prototype (available for inspection on
the WEB at http://www. rimsbtsa.edu that will be used as the backbone for the G*STAR
technical aspects. Mr. Lowder’s technical expertise with computing began in childhood and has
continued to develop until the present. Over the years he has become expert in the construction
and repair of personal computers, as well as in computer networking. He is expert in
hardware/software troubleshooting and installation, user support, creating libraries, WEB
maintenance and design. Prior to his employment last year at UCR he owned and operated an
independent computer support business.
Linda Sanada is Programmer Analyst II with the UCR Graduate School of Education’s
RIMS/BTSA program and is a pre-nursing graduate from San Jose State University, San Jose,
CA. She has been responsible over the past five years for the development of the UCR
RIMS/BTSA IMS.
36
Do not Cite Without Permission of the Author. All Rights Reserved
Projected Project Responsibility: Working primarily on managing the development of the IMS,
Ms. Sanada will serve serve as the project’s chief development link between the Galileo
Project’s substantive program aspects and the IMS. Her role will include interaction with the
project’s principal directors and professional staff, all for the purpose of assuring that appropriate
adaptation, design and implementation of the IMS for the the G*STAR system.
37