Institutional Report
Missouri State University
Transformation Initiative Pilot: Teacher Education Alliance
NCATE
June 2011
i
Teacher Education Alliance
Table of Contents for Institutional Report
Introduction
…………………………………………………………………
1
………………………
2
Response to Joint Audit Teams Recommendations
Recommendation 1
............................................................................
2
Recommendation 2
…………………………………………………...
2
Recommendation 3
…………………………………………………...
7
Recommendation 4
……………………………………………………
7
………………………………………………………..
8
……………………………………………………….
8
………………………………………
8
…………………………………………………….
9
……………………………………………………………...
9
Progress in 2009/2010
Executive Board
Memorandum of Understanding
Funding from CFO
Expansion
Response to Candidate Survey
11
…………………………………………………..
11
……………………………………………………...
12
…………………………………………………………....
12
…………………………………………………...
13
…………………………………………………………………….
13
………………………………………………
15
Research Meetings
Progress in 2010/2011
Expansion
Input from Faculty
Research Methodology
………..
18
……………………………………………………………………
20
…………………………………………………..
20
…………………………………………
21
…………………………………...
21
……………………………...
21
Updated Key Findings from Search of Research Literature
Successes
9
……………………………………………….
National Presentations
Research
………………………………………...
Advisory Councils
Collaboration with Partners
Changes to Training and Support
Community Collaboration/Awareness
ii
Teacher Education Alliance iii
Programs for SPS Students
Challenges
…………………………………………
……………………………………………………………….
22
22
…………………………………
22
……………………………………...
22
………………………………………………….
23
………………………………………………………….
23
……………………………..
23
Conclusions
……………………………………………………………
24
References
……………………………………………………………..
25
Appendix A
……………………………………………………………
26
Appendix B
……………………………………………………………
29
Appendix C
…………………………………………………………...
31
Appendix D
……………………………………………………………
33
Appendix E
……………………………………………………………
36
Appendix F
……………………………………………………………
40
Collaboration between Partners
Yearly Personnel Turnover
Communication
Funding
Secondary Education Involvement
Teacher Education Alliance
1
OVERVIEW
The Teacher Education Alliance (TEA) is a collaboration between Springfield Public Schools
(SPS), Missouri State University, Drury University, Evangel University, and Baptist Bible
College. The focus of the collaboration is on high-poverty Springfield Public Schools (SPS),
which are having continuous difficulty making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in
communication arts, mathematics of both. The over-arching goal of the Teacher Education
Alliance (TEA) is to positively impact student achievement in the partner high-poverty schools.
A secondary goal is to identify those teacher education candidates that have a passion for
working with children of poverty and increase their preparedness to be successful in these
challenging schools.
INTRODUCTION
During the summer and fall of 2008 personnel from Missouri State University (MSU) and
Springfield Public Schools met to discuss how the university could provide assistance to have a
positive impact on some of the schools, which were persistently struggling with making AYP.
These meetings led to the development of a pilot project informally called the “AYP Project”.
SPS personnel selected an elementary, middle school and high school, which they believed
needed assistance beyond which they were already providing to have a positive impact on their
student achievement. They are respectively, Williams Elementary, Reed Middle School (now
Reed Academy) and Hillcrest High School.
To ensure the relevance of the project, the school principals were asked to create a “wish list” of
needs from their Comprehensive School Improvement Plans (CSIP) they thought MSUs’ COE
might help them to address. The resulting documents created, along with the COE remediating
efforts for each, formed the basic plan for the pilot program that began in spring of 2009. The
plan developed based on the list provided by the Williams Elementary School appears as
Appendix A; the plan developed by Reed Middle School, Appendix B. The Hillcrest High
School deferred on plan development during the pilot semester, which will be discussed later in
the challenges portion of the Institutional Report (IR).
Immediately after the August and September 2008 meetings eight education honors students
volunteered to spend time during the fall 2008 semester helping tutor students at Williams
Elementary in conjunction with the school’s existing tutoring program. This tutoring was
continued with TEA practicum students beginning in the spring 2009 Semester.
A second formative meeting involved the SPS Associate Superintendent, Dr. Peggy Riggs,
Diversity Coordinator, Dr. Nate Quinn, and Dr. Calvin Allen and Mrs. Rosalyn Thomas
representing the Community Center of Springfield, Dr. Gary Funk, President of the Community
Foundation of the Ozarks (CFO), community relations representatives from the Springfield News
Leader and administrative representatives from the TEA higher education partners. The
discussion centered on helping Robberson Elementary, a Title I School that had been involved
for several years with the News Leader employees in a lunch hour reading project. Each
Teacher Education Alliance
2
represented entity outlined how they might help individually at Robberson and what they might
do to help other Title I schools encountering difficulty meeting language arts and math criteria.
Dr. Funk suggested this effort could be more meaningful if the higher education institutions
worked together on this problem. After that comment the discussion never returned to individual
solutions. Robberson was involved with MSU at the time in the Enhancing Children’s Healthy
Opportunities Grant (ECHO) and was thus pulled from immediate consideration as a SPS TEA
site.
Soon thereafter, a meeting was organized between SPS and the higher education partners and
resulted in the formation of the Teacher Education Alliance under the original name, the Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) Project. Significant differences exist in the number of teacher candidates
involved from the higher education partners during an academic year. Although there are striking
differences, there are many similarities. Chief among the similarities that have served the
partners well in the TEA are the dedication of members and their respective institutions to the
best interests of public school students, and their determination to have the best possible teacher
preparation programs. The TEA higher education partners are dedicated to improving their
unique teacher preparation programs through synergy developed through their partnership. The
focus of this partnership is to build from a foundation of research-based inquiry that specifically
addresses NCATE Standard 3, Field Experiences and Clinical Practice and NCATE Standard 4,
Diversity. Key features of the TEA as they relate to field experience/clinical practice and
diversity are contained within the TI Proposal.
Responses to Joint Audit Team Recommendations
Recommendation 1 ‒ Consider collecting data on the retention of the completers of these
cohorts as they begin and move through their teaching careers.
As a result of this recommendation we will begin collecting data on the retention of the
completers of the cohorts as they begin and move through their teaching careers for the first three
years beginning with spring 2009 graduates. Career data has been collected to date on Williams
TEA candidate post- graduation success at procuring a teaching job and if that position is within
a Title I school (Appendix C).
Recommendation 2 ‒ Provide a description of all the clinical practices available to candidates in
the teacher education program of the four institutions as a comparison of the clinical practice
experiences of the cohort groups in the TI project.
A description of the clinical practices available to candidates in the teacher education programs
of the four institutions as a comparison of the clinical practice experiences of the cohort groups
in the TI project is as follows:
Teacher Education Alliance
3
Baptist Bible College:
Baptist Bible College offers a variety of clinical experience for elementary education candidates
in multiple settings that allow for exposure to diverse student populations. All candidates
complete an introductory field experience in conjunction with a Foundations of Education course
during the sophomore year. Upon acceptance to the teacher education program, candidates
complete practical field experiences in conjunction with methods courses during their junior year.
Candidates also complete an upper level reading practicum. The university supervisor, the
cooperating teacher, and the building principal evaluate the candidates during each of these
experiences. Each field experience and practicum consists of a minimum of 30 clock hours
during the course of a semester. Student teaching consists of a five-week block of coursework
and five initial observation days followed by a twelve-week full-time student teaching
experience completed the first semester of the senior year. The student teacher candidates
complete a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) during the semester. This product requires the student
to intensely analyze and reflect on student assessment data and post teaching reflection of each
lesson taught as a part of the unit. These candidates also complete a student teaching portfolio
that requires them to reflect upon the entire teaching experience and make informal self assessments of their personal and professional growth.
The students selected as a member of the TEA cohort participate in prescribed practical
experiences as mentioned above for non-TEA candidates through their junior year. TEA
candidates complete the application process for student teaching and ultimately are selected for
inclusion in the TEA. The candidates complete a written application, participate in an interview
with education faculty and develop a written essay on a prescribed topic. This process is
completed during the candidates’ junior year. Upon selection as a member of the TEA,
candidates’ strengths and areas of instructional needs are reviewed by the Education Unit. The
Unit shares the results with the partner site teachers and principal and collaborates with them to
place students. Candidates are paired with cooperating teachers to provide the teacher candidates
and the K-6 students in the partner school with the most beneficial partnership.
Clinical experience in the TEA differs from regular clinical experience in that the length of
placement at one site is extended beyond a single experience. Candidates in the TEA complete
two practical experiences, a junior practicum, at the same site and in the same classroom in
which they will be student teaching. Candidates complete the practica during the spring
semester, student teach during the fall semester and return for an additional reading practicum
during the following spring semester, thus completing a year and a half of experience at the TEA
partner site.
During this long-term relationship with the partner school, TEA students also differ from other
clinical experience students in the amount of and type of support they receive. Candidates at the
TEA site receive specific professional development opportunities and a dedicated site supervisor
Teacher Education Alliance
4
that supports the students, cooperating teachers and administrators. This relationship strengthens
the candidates’ ability to make effective instructional decisions in Title I settings.
Drury University:
All initial practicum students participate either in a partner school, included in the Drury TEA, or
a school, which provides a meaningful diverse internship experience. All students during phase
II assessment, which includes methods, do their methods at a TEA school for both elementary
and secondary. Central High School plays an important role in coordination of our methods
courses at the secondary level.
While all candidates complete 16 weeks of student teaching, those not in the TEA may complete
their requirements in non-TEA schools. They generally do not participate as part of a student
success team, they are assigned a student teacher supervisor that has multiple non-TEA sites, and
will not engage in the specialized professional development. Drury’s evening college program
comprises the majority of our education majors, and many are unable to participate in TEA due
to the geographic location in which they complete their final internship.
Drury University provides practical experiences for students in three phases in TEA partner
schools. During Phase One, students are immersed in early practicum experiences in diverse
urban schools. Students assist English as a Second Language learners as well as classrooms that
serve struggling readers and struggling math students. Students are placed in classrooms as part
of a shared vision with school principals and placements are based on the needs of the students
and the school.
During Phase Two, Drury students in methods courses are placed in buildings working side by
side with math and reading specialists as well as university supervisors. Elementary students in
math methods have class at McGregor Elementary and work with students during and after
school to improve math skills. Methods of Teaching Reading students work at Boyd Elementary
during the morning reading block as well as after school to help improve reading skills. Teachers
work closely with university faculty to determine the right match between university student and
elementary student.
Phase Three is student teaching. Student teachers are placed at TEA partner schools for a full
semester: sixteen weeks. The longer placement allows student teachers more flexibility to do
school-based projects and to work closely with teachers to improve student achievement. Student
Success Teams are in place in each building to support each other and to support teachers and to
provide sub days for teachers to engage in professional learning opportunities. The nature of the
Student Success Team is to meet and plan collaboratively each week to assess student learning
and to work with the supervisor and the principal to identify special projects in the building that
will address the needs of the K-12 students during the student teaching semester.
Teacher Education Alliance
5
Evangel University:
Evangel University provides clinical experience for all elementary candidates in a variety of
settings that allow for exposure to diverse student populations. Candidates in elementary
education complete an introductory field experience upon their application to the teacher
education program. Upon acceptance to the program, candidates complete field experiences in
conjunction with methods courses in both math and reading. Candidates also complete an upper
level teaching practicum where they are evaluated by a university supervisor. Each practicum
field experience at the elementary level consists of a minimum of 30 clock hours during the
course of a semester. Student teaching consists of a two week initial observation period of 30
hours followed by a twelve week full-time student teaching experience.
For students at Evangel selected as a member of the TEA cohort, the field experience is more
specific. Candidates are selected for inclusion into the TEA upon their application to student
teaching. This is completed during their junior year. Upon selection as a member of the TEA, the
candidates’ strengths and areas of instructional needs are reviewed by the TEA coordinator, the
department chair, and the principal of the partner site. Candidates are strategically matched with
teachers in the partner schools to provide the teacher candidates and the K-12 students in the
partner schools with the most advantageous experience.
Clinical experience in the TEA also differs from regular clinical experience in the length of
placement at one site. Candidates in the TEA complete a field experience, most often an upper
level reading practicum, at the same site and in the same classroom in which they will be student
teaching. This format was developed at the request of the principal of a partner school. The
rationale for this configuration is based on the value the principal placed on developing a longterm relationship with the school site and with the students within the Title I classroom.
Candidates complete the practicum in the fall semester and student teaching during the spring
semester, thus completing a year long experience at the partner site.
During the year long relationship with the partner school, TEA students differ from the regular
clinical experience students in the amount of support they receive. Candidates at TEA sites not
only receive additional professional development specific to their needs, they also have a site
coordinator that provides support and works as a liaison between the university and the public
school. This relationship with the site coordinator begins with their acceptance into the TEA and
continues throughout their experience as they work to develop and enhance their ability to work
with P-12 students in the Title I sites.
Teacher Education Alliance
6
Missouri State University:
All teacher candidates at MSU are involved in practicum experiences at three levels,
introductory, intermediate and advanced. The introductory level is an observation of teaching
and learning activities, which also involves reflection on the relationship between educational
theory and pedagogical practice. The student may be given an opportunity to work with
individual or small groups of students and help with basic tasks. The intermediate level gives the
candidate more specific opportunities to work with individuals or groups of students in a
classroom setting. The student may be asked to prepare lesson plans, and/or activities for
presentation to the class or create materials for use in the class. The advanced level of clinical
practice is student teaching, which provides the student with full-time placement in a classroom
setting or settings with a certificated teacher(s) for a period of sixteen weeks. The student is
required to plan, prepare and implement lessons, assess student achievement, reflect on their
performance, and participate in school activities. There is an assigned supervisor who will
provide feedback, support, and evaluation. During the semester of student teaching all candidates
are required to prepare a Teacher Work Sample (TWS)
http://education.missouristate.edu/services/efe/77982.htm
There are several variations of student teaching placement offered to candidates at MSU that
appear in the following table:
MSU Student Teaching Placement Options
Type of
Student Teaching
Advanced Practicum
Conventional
ELE all in Title I site
MS, SEC and SPE
may be in Title I site,
different site for ST
Teaching Academy
ELE all complete in
Academy School Site
TEA
ELE, MS and SEC
complete in TEA
School Site (MS and
SEC may vary)
Student Teaching
Placement,
duration/settings
Eight weeks in one
site generally
followed by eight
weeks in another site,
grade level usually
varies between sites
Ten weeks in one
grade, rotate in other
grades for remaining
six weeks
Ten weeks in one
grade, rotate in other
grades for remaining
six weeks
Supervision during
Student Teaching
Four meetings with
field supervisor
during student
teaching, two on
campus (beginning
and end), two formal
visits at site
On site Supervisor
On site Supervisor
Students are selected for the TEA cohort after their application for student teaching has been
approved and reviewed by the Office of Field Experience. The university faculty member, in
cooperation with university supervisor(s,) review the student teachers who apply for a TEA
Teacher Education Alliance
7
placement and, with input from the building administrator, determine what students are selected
for each building. Candidates are then matched to teachers in the partner schools to ensure the
candidates and the P-12 students in the partner schools have the most advantageous experience.
Clinical experience for candidates that are selected for TEA placement is for two semesters, with
the first semester involving the advanced practicum and the second semester student teaching.
One university supervisor is assigned to a building as a site coordinator with up to 10 student
teachers with assistance available to each student teacher as much as three days each week.
Experiences are required of the student teachers with children in several grade levels in the
building. Meetings with the supervisor and the cohort of student teachers in the building are held
regularly. Close contact is made among the cooperating teacher, supervisor and student teacher
during these months. Emphasis is placed on reflective journals, activities related to teaching,
lesson planning, weekly evaluations, and working with students of diverse populations. The
supervisors also supervise TEA practicum students at the site.
Recommendation 3 ‒ Provide additional information on how candidates are selected for the
cohorts in the TI.
The four partner higher education institutions have developed a process to select students for the
cohorts. This process was implemented in the fall of 2010 and involved an approved application
form for TEA candidates and in some cases, an interview. Candidates at MSU volunteer to be
included in TEA through the Office of Field Experience. Placement selection is based on site
school need based on information provided by the school principal and site supervisor. Planning
began in February, 2011 to add two additional schools to the TEA with collaborative selection
and placement between the partners. This effort at Delaware, Holland and York ELEs is
elaborated on in the Progress 2010/2011 Section to follow. More information will be presented
to the BOE at the fall 2011 onsite visit.
Recommendation 4 ‒ Consider hiring a consultant to assist the TEA with the research plan
(examples of possible consultants are listed in the TI Proposal).
Discussions in the spring and fall on hiring a consultant took place during a conference call with
Donna Gollnick, Senior Vice President of NCATE. She indicated plans to identify a consultant
to join the Board of Examiners (BOE) team for the onsite visit to assist the team and institution
in reviewing the progress of the transformation initiative. The partnered institutions will have the
opportunity to consider using this individual as a consultant to the project in the future.
Teacher Education Alliance
8
Progress in 2009/10
Executive Board
In early 2009 representatives from the four higher education partners and SPS established an
Executive Board to organize and implement the new partnership. The Board is comprised of a
school district administrator and representative administrators, faculty and support staff from the
higher education partners. The Board agreed to meet monthly through the fall, summer and
spring semesters of the 2009/2010 school year. In the initial meeting the district indicated
additional help was needed in Title I schools, especially with regard to language arts and
mathematics instruction. Additionally, it was recognized that many students in Title I schools
have little stability in their home lives and that school is seen as a safe, stable place of refuge for
many children. Discussions began regarding how the use of a focused field experience that
placed teacher candidates in the same school for multiple sequential semesters could help build
that bond and enhance the candidate knowledge of the school and community culture as well as
enhance academic efforts. It was decided that a variation of the Teaching Academy (TA) model
of student teaching best met the requirements to address the concerns expressed by SPS.
Board members recognized that although each institution had well regarded programs for
training education professionals, there had been minimal communication among them in the past
on how to improve their programs and the impact the programs ultimately have on P-12 students.
The board recognized the uniqueness of the partnership and felt the name AYP Project (see
page 1) was not representative of the potential the partners had engendered with their
collaboration. The effort was renamed the Teacher Education Alliance with stated goals as
follows:



Increase pupil achievement in SPS Title I schools, particularly academic performance in
communication arts and mathematics as measured by beginning, middle and end of year
Performance Series Assessments.
Improve the quality of teacher candidates who graduate from the teacher education
programs of the collaborating institutions and are potential hires for SPS Title I schools
(and Title I schools in other districts).
Facilitate the transition of newly hired teachers into the first year of fulltime teaching in
SPS schools, especially in Title I schools.
Memorandum of Agreement with SPS
In the spring of 2009 the Executive Board recognized the need for an agreement that would
formally declare the intentions of all partners to pursue the goals and spirit of the TEA. The
resulting Memorandum of Agreement document appears as Appendix D.
Teacher Education Alliance
9
Teacher Education Alliance 10
Funding from CFO
In 2009/2010 the TEA received a $25,000 “seed money” grant to establish the partnership. It was
noted that the TEA directly responds to the “Red Flag” issues of education and poverty identified
in the Springfield, Missouri Chamber of Commerce Report, Blue Ribbons and Red Flags,
Addressing Community Issues www.SpringfieldCommunityFocus.org. Additional external funding
sources are currently being sought.
Expansion
The number of TEA partner schools partnered with MSU expanded from the three pilot schools
to include Bowerman Elementary and Westport Elementary (see demographic information and
numbers of practicum and student teacher placements by school, Appendix E). These two
additional schools reviewed the Williams Elementary plan in place from the pilot project and
adopted it for their schools with little variation. The importance of the site supervisor as a liaison
between the school and the university became clear as scheduling meetings with principals and
college representatives was difficult. As the TEA has progressed, the supervisors have done a
remarkable job of developing initiatives that fit the specific needs of the school and students.
In 2009/2010 SPS’s budget allowed for funds to pay TEA practicum students to tutor in
established school programs. The candidates selected for this tutoring worked directly with
teacher leaders in the schools that coordinated the effort. This arrangement made tutors available
to work during school hours as well as before and after school. Regular classroom teachers that
tutored under established funding sources were limited to before and after school hours. Funds
were also made available from MSU to provide additional counseling hours in the schools
besides the regular hours counseling interns provided as practicum. Both of these programs were
excellent recruiting tools for the MSU TEA effort but had to be discontinued after the initial year
due to budget constraints.
Response to Candidate Survey
Williams Elementary hosted an oral survey and focus group in April of 2009 with graduating
teacher candidates to determine their view of the TEA experience and university training. This
focus group was attended by administrators from SPS and the COE, classroom teachers, the
school principal and eight graduating teacher candidates. The candidates praised the teacher
preparation program for content and the knowledge they gained from that content. They
expressed appreciation for the mentoring provided by the ST supervisor and for being part of a
cohort group of student teachers. However, two concerns were expressed by the candidates in
near unanimity: more strategies in classroom management related to real classroom situations
were needed prior to student teaching to deal effectively with students in Title I schools and
Teacher Education Alliance 11
candidates did not feel prepared for the extremes in cultural differences that poverty presented.
As a result, three additional day long professional development sessions presented by ST
supervisors and SPS teachers were created for TEA specific issues in response to concerns raised
during the spring 2009 student teacher interviews. The sessions focus on dealing with poverty
based on the work of Ruby Payne (1996) and Eric Jensen (2009), classroom management
techniques and how to employ them in the classroom, and the effective use of student data to
drive decision-making. Student teachers placed in TEA schools continued to be included in
Teaching Academy Professional Development seminars (5 per semester) presented by highly
qualified professionals and master teachers that included topics such as Beginning School with
Success, Dynamic and Creative Instruction, Love and Logic, Balanced Literacy and Related
Strategies, Brain Based Learning, and Lesson Planning and Cooperative Learning. In the
summer of 2010, supervisors and faculty attended Teaching with Poverty in Mind, (2010) in San
Antonio, Texas to refresh and deepen their knowledge base in this area. This has proved
beneficial in subsequent PD presentation for TEA candidates. Travel was accomplished using
grant funds provided by CFO.
TEA has a strong partner in SPS, a state leader in assessment for learning. The district has
implemented an assessment system that provides learning-related information useful for
teachers, principals, and district office personnel. There are two major components of the
assessment system:
INFORM is a data warehouse designed for schools and teachers to access both current and
historical assessment results for the students currently assigned to them through their student
information system. Within the INFORM system users can generate reports on student
performance for any assessment where results were obtained within the district. Additionally,
student demographics allow for users to disaggregate the performance results for the subgroups
of students they are working with. When coupled with the online assessment system, the results
of student assessments roll into INFORM as well, allowing users to immediately see evidence of
student learning progress or growth over a selected time period. When students change schools
within the district, the classroom teacher of the mobile student has access to that student’s record
within 24 hours. This is especially important for schools and districts with high student mobility.
PERFORMANCE SERIES is an online, standards-based, adaptive measurement that when
administered adjusts to each student’s ability level. Key features of the performance series are:
Measurement of student progress within and across years
Skills and concepts aligned to state standards
Web-based and adaptive
Immediate results
Testing periods throughout the year
Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures, with interim measures highly
predictive of state (MAP) annual test results
Teacher Education Alliance 12
The adaptive tests generate more difficult questions if a student is answering correctly and easier
ones if a student is answering incorrectly. The resulting scaled score can be used to measure
academic growth both within and across school years. For example, SPS currently assesses
students three times a year (beginning, middle, and end) in the content areas of reading, language
arts, mathematics, and science in grades 3-8. The results are available as a scale score in the
content level across the district, percent of students demonstrating proficiencies at the unit level,
and objective-level mastery at the student and classroom level. Additional information can be
found at: http://www.scantron.com/performanceseries.
National Presentations
In September, 2009, faculty (including the then chair of MSUs Professional Education
Committee (PEC), Dr. Carol Maples), staff and administrative representatives from the four
teacher education schools and upper administration from SPS traveled to Washington, D.C. to
present the TEA at the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Educators (NCATE)
Fall Conference. This presentation to educational leaders from around the country gave the TEA
national exposure. A highlight of that presentation was the testimony of two TEA graduates from
the spring 2009 cohort regarding their experience in the TEA. At the time of the presentation,
both teachers were in their first year of full time teaching, one in a Title I school in SPS. Both
teachers were able to provide specific examples of how experiences and knowledge gained while
student teaching in the TEA had helped them get through some of the rough spots they had
encountered thus far. While attending the conference, faculty and administrators from the four
partner teacher education units began discussions with NCATE leaders about the possibility of
exercising the Transformation Initiative Option for Drury, Evangel and Missouri State
Universities based on the TEA. Currently, Baptist Bible College is considering the option of
becoming an NCATE accredited institution.
http://apps.missouristate.edu/education/accreditation2011/TEANCATE91209.pptx
During the spring of 2010, administrators and staff from MSU traveled to Savannah, SC and
presented information on the TEA at the Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and
Universities (TECSCU) Spring Conference. As experienced with the previous presentation in the
fall, considerable interest was expressed in the model of field experience and the unique
collaboration features of the TEA. The invitation to present at TECSCU was the result of interest
and contact made during the previous falls presentation at AACTE and NCATE.
Research Meetings
The TEA offers many opportunities for research to the partner higher education institutions and
SPS. Plans began in early 2010 to organize a Research Working Group (RWG) that first met in
the summer of 2010 and again in the fall of that year. The RWG was organized and facilitated by
staff from the COEs, Institute for School Improvement (ISI). This first meeting was attended by
Teacher Education Alliance 13
faculty, staff and administrators from all of the partner institutions. In that meeting a Power Point
on the TEA project and initial results from the spring 2010 (April 23, 2010) survey and fall 2009
(December 9, 2009) survey were presented. The review focused on gathering feedback from the
teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, field supervisors and school principals. The
presentation included a summary of findings from the events and illustrating comments from
individuals in the events. Key variables for the initial research were reviewed with the
participants. Those variables included the following:
 Changes in student knowledge, skills, and attitudes
 Student motivation and engagement in learning activities
 Teacher candidate practices
 Teacher candidate abilities
 Changes in teacher candidate abilities
 Teacher candidate motivation and engagement in learning activities
 Teacher education program practices
 Teacher educator abilities
(Sell, Roger G. Introduction to Research for the TEA Transformation Initiative, p. 15).
Efforts on full implementation of this working group continue in the 2010-2011 academic year.
It is planned that this group will review the research questions, the general methodology
identified in the TEA TI Proposal and the results from small-scale data collection efforts with
student teachers, field supervisors, cooperating teachers, and principals. Our intention is that the
RWG will have at least one faculty member from each TEA institution, the Director of
Institutional Research for the SPS, an external researcher evaluator, and staff liaisons from
NCATE and MoDESE. In addition, we anticipate that candidates in advanced programs
(including teacher education, counseling, and leadership) will be engaged with faculty from their
institution and the research working group in both conducting and reporting research associated
with the TEA. Undergraduate teacher candidates, teachers, principals and other staff could
benefit and take part in the research projects.
Recently, staff from the ISI presented the research component to faculty from several MSU
colleges at an informal lunch seminar. A suggestion was put forward during this meeting that
survey data should be collected on candidates from the traditional model of student teaching and
Teaching Academies as well as candidates from the TEA. This suggestion will be incorporated
into the research plan as the RWG plans for 2012 and beyond.
Progress in 2010/11
Expansion
In the fall of 2010, the TEA elementary effort expanded again to include Sunshine ELE
partnered with MSU and Bingham ELE partnered with Evangel University.
Teacher Education Alliance 14
In the spring of 2011, an effort to increase the collaborative nature of the TEA was presented to
the Executive Board. That plan, which has been adopted for the fall of 2011, will expand TEA to
Holland and Delaware elementary schools. One candidate each from Drury, Evangel and MSU
will be placed together in these two schools highlighting the unique talents of each candidate and
the strengths of their program. This is the first effort to intentionally place candidates from
different institutions in the same TEA schools.
Students will apply for this placement and be interviewed by one of two committees each
composed of a representative from the Executive Board, a SPS principal(s) from partnering SPS
school(s), a university site supervisor, a university placement coordinator and one unspecified
University representative. Each partner institution shall be represented on the committee.
Candidates will be supervised at the site by a supervisor from one of the higher education
institutions who will be assigned to the site to provide support for TEA candidates within the
building regardless of their university affiliation. Each university will still conduct observation
and evaluation by university supervisors as their program requires.
Plans are to place one candidate from each university at the site for the 2011/12 school year. If
successful another elementary would be added in the 2012/13 academic year and a middle school
in 2013/14.
An ongoing program in science education at York Elementary will be included in the TEA
beginning in the Fall Semester of 2011. This effort has demonstrated that SPS student test scores
in science have increased as a result of the program. This program directly relates to two of the
stated goals of the TEA, increasing student achievement and preparing education candidates to
work more effectively in high poverty schools. A timeline and Missouri Assessment Program
(MAP) science scores from York ELE are included as Appendix F
Input from Faculty
Two important suggestions were offered by faculty with regard to TEA in 2011. This included a
proposal to include survey information from traditionally trained and Teaching Academy
candidates as well as those participating in the TEA for evaluation and comparison. Secondly,
inclusion of university faculty as ELE 500 supervisors to supervise practicum students as part of
the TEA site team.
Research
The big research question we propose with the TEA is:
“What are the conditions and accompanying assessments that must be in place in order for the
TEA to demonstrate that a positive transformation of the partner institutions and schools has
occurred as a result of the collaboration between Drury, Evangel, BBC, MSU and SPS?”
Teacher Education Alliance 15
Over a period of years the following TEA conditions are among those hypothesized to impact a
positive transformation of the partner institutions and schools:
 Design of the educator preparation programs – from recruitment through placement and
follow-up
 Human talents and attributes in the partner institutions and schools
 Intrinsic motivation and incentives for collaboration and improvement
 Financial, physical, and data resources in the partner institutions and schools
 School goals and vision for pre-service and continuing professional development
 School and university/college leadership and organizational structure
 Coherence and alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessment in school and
college/university settings
 Use of evidence-based practices and feedback for continuous improvement
 Community support
 Parental involvement
The following TEA assessments are among those hypothesized to impact, directly and indirectly,
a positive transformation of the partner institutions and schools:







Formative, interim, and summative performance assessments of students and candidates
linked to curriculum goals and instructional practices, including standardized tests,
curriculum based measurements, classroom achievement measures, pre- and postsurveys, observations, interviews, focus groups, self-reports, etc.
Evaluation of candidates’ knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practices by
college/university faculty, supervising teachers, cooperating teachers, and principals
Employer surveys of first-year teachers, including individual institution surveys and
state-sponsored surveys of beginning teachers
Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) data on student achievement, attendance, and
disciplinary behaviors
Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) data on school climate and school
leadership
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MO DESE) state
accreditation review and feedback
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation review
and feedback
With respect to each higher-education institution that is a collaborator in the TEA, a corollary
research question is:
What evidence is there that the design and workings of a specific teacher education program, as
part of the TEA, have contributed to a positive transformation of its teacher education program
and one or more partner schools?
Teacher Education Alliance 16
Examples from the conditions and accompanying assessments will also apply to this corollary
research question. The next section addresses how the research would be designed to answer the
two research questions.
Research Methodology
The term research methodology has different meanings to different people. Some consider it to
mean the kind of study that is undertaken, for example, a quasi-experimental study, a multipleregression study, a comparison study using surveys, a longitudinal study, or an interpretative
study using cases. However, within each type of study are the methodological decisions that
shape the quality of the study. Methodology serves to generate and/or test hypotheses linked to a
research questions while accounting for the generalizability of the results, giving attention to
confounding influences as well as other limitations on the findings.
Because we have a very broad ‘big’ question and ‘corollary’ question, it is first necessary to
break the questions down into more specific parts and then to specify for each question and
study:
 Variables represented in the research question(s) (see Attachment A in the separate TEA
Transformation Proposal, March 31, 2010, for examples of variables we have identified
from studies attempting to link teacher preparation and student outcomes)
 Research approach – qualitative and/or quantitative – used to address the research
questions with the selected variables (see Attachment B in the separate TEA
Transformation Proposal, March 31, 2010, for a description of research designs
associated with qualitative and quantitative research methods)
 Configuration of variables – independent, dependent, mediating, and/or moderatinghypothesized for the research question addressed with a quantitative approach (see
Attachment C in the separate TEA Transformation Initiative Proposal, March 31, 2010,
for a description of each type of variable)
 Population and sample selected for the study, and how the sample was selected and
assigned into experimental, control, or comparative groups
 Instruments and procedures used to collect data for each variable, from whom and by
whom, when the data is collected, and evidence that the instruments are valid and reliable
for the study
 Procedures and routines used in the data analysis to answer the research question
 Interpretation of results, including the extent to which findings are generalizable, giving
attention to confounding influences and other limitations of the study
 Implications of the study findings and limitations for future research
Teacher Education Alliance 17
Cochran-Smith (2005) aptly summarized the challenges ahead for linking teacher education
practices to teacher learning, teacher practices, and student achievement:
“Rigorous outcomes research in teacher education (and many other complex enterprises) is
difficult and expensive to do. To get from teacher education to impact on pupils’ learning
requires a chain of evidence with several critical links: empirical evidence demonstrating the link
between teacher preparation programs and teacher candidates’ learning, empirical evidence
demonstrating the link between teacher candidates’ learning and their practices in actual
classrooms, and empirical evidence demonstrating the link between graduates’ practices and
what and how much their pupils learn. Individually, each of these links is complex and
challenging to estimate. When they are combined, the challenges are multiplied” (p. 303).
Taking a close look at the chain of evidence that Cochran-Smith described, in addition to nonmalleable student background characteristics (e.g., age, sex, and race/ethnicity), and
school/university setting characteristics (e.g., organizational structure, resources, leadership,
climate, and size), at least eight sets of variables are involved in linkages accounting for the
impact of the teacher preparation program on students’ learning:
Changes in student knowledge, skills, and attitudes from one time period (e.g., beginning of
the semester) to a second time period (e.g. end of the semester) for targeted ‘standards’ based’
curriculum content and objectives;
Student motivation and engagement in learning activities linked to changes in student
knowledge, skills, and attitudes;
Teacher candidate abilities linked to student motivation and engagement in learning activities
associated with changes in student knowledge, skills, and attitudes;
Teacher candidate abilities (knowledge, skills, and dispositions) linked to teacher practices
associated with student motivation and engagement in effective learning activities;
Changes in teacher candidate abilities from the beginning to the end of their teacher education
program, or from one time period to another during the program;
Teacher candidate motivation and engagement in learning activities associated with the
development of particular teaching abilities;
Teacher education program practices e.g. instruction and supervision in content and methods
courses, work samples, practica, and student teaching linked to teacher candidate motivation and
engagement in effective learning activities; and
Teacher educator abilities (knowledge, skills, and dispositions) linked to teacher education
program practices associated with effective learning experiences of teacher candidates.
The following graphic illustrates the feedback loop and connections among the teacher education
program, candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions, candidate and beginning teacher
practices, and student outcomes:
Teacher Education Alliance 18
Among the complexities in establishing linkages such as these, Cochran-Smith (2005) noted the
following:
“There are often substantial time lags between the teacher preparation period and the eventual
measures of pupils’ achievement or other outcomes; there are many confounding and intervening
variables (which themselves are difficult to measure) that influences what teachers are able to do
and what their pupils learn; and the sites where candidates complete fieldwork and eventually
teach are quite different from one another in context, school culture, ,resources, students, and
communities” (p. 303).
No single study can deal with all of these variable sets at one time. However, over time (e.g.,
three to five years), and in a reasonable progression of studies, it is possible to establish linkages
among variables associated with professional preparation, teacher learning, teacher practices, and
student outcomes.
A beginning approach. In discussions with representatives of TEA partner institutions, to keep
the research activities manageable while providing valuable feedback for program improvement,
the consensus recommendation emerged that the initial research activities focus on a cohort of
teacher candidates who are placed in Title I schools for their practicum and student teaching
experiences. The organization scheme is that teacher candidates, in groups of five to eight
individuals, are located in one high-poverty (Title I) school for their entire last year in the
program. A cohort is defined as the total group of candidates from TEA institutions involved in
practicum and student teaching experiences at Title I schools within the SPS during a given year.
Clinical faculty supervisors and cooperating teachers from the partner schools are involved in the
guidance and mentoring of teacher candidates, during the first semester in practicum experiences
that involve teaching activities such as tutoring, and then during the second semester as student
teachers who experience a full range of teaching responsibilities. Clinical supervisors are present
in the buildings of the practicum and student teachers. In addition, counselor and administrator
interns are assigned to selected schools for additional support and professional development.
Teacher Education Alliance 19
One of our hypotheses is that, through a full year of guided experiences at a Title I school,
teacher candidates are better prepared to assume full-time teaching responsibilities than teacher
candidates without these guided experiences.
Our current data collection activities are organized around three critical periods during the
teacher candidates’ year-long experience in one school: at the beginning of the practicum period;
between the practicum period and student teaching; and, at the end of the student teaching
experience. The chart shown as Attachment C (see Attachment C in the separate TEA
Transformation Initiative Proposal, March 31, 2010, for the chart) identified key questions and
means of collecting data for each of these three critical periods in our initial research efforts. To
illustrate, Attachment E (see Attachment E in the separate TEA Transformation Initiative
Proposal, March 31, 2010, to view the report) is an initial report from one group of candidates
near the end of their fall 2009 student teaching experience.
Updated Key Findings from Search of Research Literature
What are some of the major recent findings from published research studies in teacher
education? To begin our initial literature review, we used search engines such as ERIC and
Google Scholar, we inspected first-hand issues of journals such as the Journal of Teacher
Education, and we retrieved published studies frequently mentioned in the references cited for
reports we collected. Our focus was on locating research syntheses as well as examples of studies
reported in published literature (primarily but not exclusively peer-reviewed journals) during the
past ten years.
In order to locate research studies relevant to our purpose, we used combinations of the
following descriptors for our literature search: teacher education, teacher preparation, beginning
teachers, first-year teachers, student teaching practicum, field experiences, research studies,
evaluation studies, meta-analysis, outcomes, and impact. These descriptors helped us to find,
among others, several key integrative reviews of research on teacher education (Allen, 2003;
Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,
2006; National Research Council, 2010; Wilson and Floden, 2003; Wilson, Floden, & FerriniMundy, 2001). From these syntheses and critiques of teacher education research, we located,
retrieved and reviewed examples of individual studies. We found three different kinds of teacher
preparation programs studies in the research literature: four-year undergraduate programs;
master’s programs, including internships in Professional Development Schools; and
nontraditional, alternative certification program(s) (e.g., Teach for America). Other than shortterm student learning outcomes (e.g. ,student learning measures in Teacher Work Samples used
for practicums or methods courses), we found only one study (Schalock, 2003) and a strategy for
conducting future research (Schalock, Schalock, & Ayres, 2006) that linked teacher preparation
Teacher Education Alliance 20
to teacher practices and then to student outcomes for undergraduate teacher preparation
programs.
Methodological shortcomings are noticeable throughout the research literature in teacher
education. For example, although the reports of many studies included findings or conclusions
intended to be generalizeable to a larger population, the study design (e.g., random sampling or
assignment procedures) did not support generalizations beyond the individuals involved in the
study. Studies in the published literature also often lack incomplete descriptions of basic study
features (e.g., population and sample; evidence of instrument validity, reliability, or both) for
assessing the methodological rigor or reasonableness of generalizations from the findings. Most
studies were limited to cross-sectional or snapshot data rather than a longitudinal design. Overall,
we found in the research literature in teacher education a high proportion of case studies,
descriptive studies, and small-scale studies. A few examples of these methodological findings are
the following individual studies: Birrell and Bullogh (2005) reported a study involving ten
teacher candidates from a population of 360, and all ten teachers volunteered for the study;
Broemmel, Swaggerty & McIntosh (2009) reported the case study of one teacher; Sadler and
Klosterman (2009) did not describe the population from which their sample was selected; and
Romano and Gibson (2006) used open-ended interviews and non-standardized questionnaires to
gather data form a single subject.
From our detailed analysis of the six integrative reviews, which focused particularly on studies
using research designs for generalizing results, we found several commonalities:
 Critical components of a teacher education program that have a significant effect on the
student teaching experience and that can be used as an indicator for teacher candidate
quality are: whether field experiences are linked to coursework, and, whether and to what
extent relationships among teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, field supervisors,
and program faculty are collaborative and productive.
 Programs that effectively prepare teacher candidates for teaching careers tend to have
extensive supervised clinical experiences and components that are strongly aligned with
each other and the major purpose of having a positive impact on student learning and
development.
 More often than not, there are disconnects between campus-based portions of teacher
preparation programs and school-based components.
 Commonly reported areas in which student and beginning teachers feel they are not well
prepared, include teaching multicultural populations, classroom management,
differentiation of instruction, student assessment, teaching strategies for students with
special needs, ideas for improved lessons and teaching strategies that do not work well,
time management, and linking theory to practice.
 Using indicators such as student learning achievement and growth, as well as principal
evaluations, teacher effectiveness tends to improve over the first three to five years of
Teacher Education Alliance 21
full-time teaching, after which time the effects of the teacher preparation program may
wash out because of the influence of teaching experience and the socialization of faculty
into the school culture. Sell & Pickard 2010.
With the earlier “Feedback Loop” model in place, as a result of the research study, we found it
necessary to expand the “Feedback Loop” as
follows:
Successes
Advisory Councils
Advisory Council (AC) meetings are held near the end of each semester to discuss perceptions
regarding strengths and weaknesses of the TEA placement and the affect noted on all
constituents. The AC meetings are organized by the site supervisor and include, but are not
limited to, participation by cooperating teachers, TEA candidates, principals, COE
administration and staff. An example of information received during one of those AC meetings
with the Williams ELE TEA Team yielded the following comments regarding having candidates
as practicum students the semester prior to student teaching follows: “Already knew staff,
students and building expectations.” “Absolutely, the ELE 500 students are now familiar with
the building, students, staff and the students are familiar with them.” “Yes. They knew how the
building operates. They also knew the kids and families.” “I feel it is beneficial because they are
familiar with some of the students, the challenges which we encounter at our school, and the
teachers.” “I think it is good because the ST get an idea of the building and students they have to
work with so when they start student teaching it’s not so much to learn.” “Yes—They have
worked in our building and know our STYLE, are familiar with our procedures and staff. The
students have also seen them.” “Some of the CTS along with Jennifer Webb (Williams Principal)
Teacher Education Alliance 22
did an ‘interview’ with these students during ELE 500 to help match up personality traits--example: placing a Type A candidate with a Type A CT. In my opinion, this was very beneficial
to CTs and MSU students.”
Collaboration with Partners
One of the great successes of the TEA to date is the extent of collaboration between the partners.
The partners have developed an atmosphere of trust and respect that allows for committees and
groups to express ideas in an open way that seems to be free of hidden agendas. It is possible the
right group of people came together at the right time with the right focus of effort to allow this
partnership to flourish. We have moved this collaboration to a higher level with the collaborative
placement planned for Holland and Delaware schools. We have talked about but made no plans
to date regarding teaching combined classes of university candidates with SPS teachers and
university faculty collaborating to teach these classes in SPS sites.
Changes to Training and Support of Candidates
The importance of data provided by survey and anecdotal evidence gained through conversations
with candidates, SPS teachers and administrators has allowed us insight into issues we can
address to strengthen our programs and improve our candidates success as teachers. The TEA
has added another dimension to our self reflection that combined with existing evaluation will
help the COE respond to challenges SPS has sought help with.
Community Awareness and Collaboration
Involvement in the TEA has put university personnel in contact with a variety of community
groups involved in issues dealing with poverty. One of these efforts, the Mayor’s Commission
Study Circle, involves discussions with constituents from Robberson and Weller schools. Weller
is a TEA school partnered with Evangel and Robberson was partnered with MSU for the ECHO
Grant. The Mayor’s Study Circle will seek to aid people in these neighborhoods to access what
they need and ways to seek resources to address those needs.
The Community Partnership of the Ozarks (CPO) is another community agency that is working in
the TEA schools with their Caring Connections Program. TEA personnel are engaged in
meetings with CPO and SPS to determine how we might work together on programs like After
school and summer programs, parent involvement programs, tutoring, mentoring and student
leadership and self-esteem programs.
TEA partner schools worked with a variety of community groups during the National Night Out,
in the fall of 2010. This national effort is aimed at pairing people with need to service agencies
Teacher Education Alliance 23
that are available and the programs they offer. The TEA schools as important and many times
focal points of the community were an important part of the activities. Candidates from the
universities were there to greet constituents and discuss the importance of what was happening at
the school. The Ozarks Literacy Council, a local 501 C 3, provided free books for the candidates
to distribute to the guests young children offering an opportunity to discuss the importance of
early literacy.
Academic Support and Cultural Enrichment for Students
Tutoring has been a component of candidate involvement in TEA schools since TEA began. In
2009/10 university tutors worked both during school hours and before and after school within the
host schools existing tutoring program. At Williams Elementary the site supervisor has organized
an after school sight word tutoring program that data shows has positively affected the SPS
students abilities in word recognition. At Bowerman Elementary the Future Teachers Club
organized by the site supervisor offers students a social setting that had personal responsibility
and goal setting as primary areas of focus.
Students at TEA schools have been involved in cultural enrichment programs that bring
community groups to the school as well as campus tours and events that get the students
involved on campus. Many of these students have no experience with anyone who has attended
college or has completed a college education.
Challenges
Collaboration between Partners
Although the collaboration between the partners in the TEA has previously been characterized as
strength, it also presents challenges. Most of these challenges arise from our efforts to work
together from different institutions with unique procedures and policy. Sometimes we are aware
of the differences that might create issues and other times we are not. A good example of this
was when practicum students in language arts had been placed in a TEA secondary school with
the expectation they would student teach in the same school. The school principal turned all of
the student teachers down for placement because all the placements had been filled before the
school was involved in TEA by a partner whose policy placed student teachers nearly six months
before placement occurred at the other institution. The collaboration now has in place a policy of
priority placement that allows the primary TEA partner first placement options but then allows
and encourages slots that are not filled by the primary placement entity to be filled by other TEA
institutions. With our pilot collaborative model of placement and supervision beginning in fall of
2011 we are building on the idea of adjusting what we do to best serve the partner SPS.
Teacher Education Alliance 24
Yearly Personnel Turnover
The yearly turnover of teachers who leave TEA schools with new teachers hired to replace them
have created some challenges to the TEA. At times this has affected the number of candidates
that can be placed as teachers new to the school may not have the experience necessary to host a
student teacher. This can create problems with placement offices as placement traditionally has
occurred before teachers are hired for the next year. Principals are hired more frequently in Title
I schools which also creates challenges. Not only is the principal new to the school, but they
have all been new to the TEA. The site supervisor has played a key role as a resource for
principals new to the TEA.
Communication
Communication is one of the major concerns in operations of the TEA. Issues have surfaced with
communications within and between organizations. Most of the communication issues between
organizations have been resolved once key people are identified who act as distribution points
for information in their institution.
Communication within institutions has proven especially challenging. With regard to secondary
considerations content faculty are dispersed widely across colleges contributing to lapses in
communication and facilitation of projects. Communication within COE about TEA has been
perceived by some as instructional when it is intended as informational. A perception that the
TEA is a “top down” project has developed. This is a major concern of everyone involved in the
TEA and efforts are presently in progress to attempt to address this concern. As with any effort
involving cultural change there can be misunderstanding and resistance. We believe the COE is
capable of putting aside philosophical differences in our effort to maintain our relevance and
quality of graduates into the 21st Century. We face too many external challenges to allow
differences within and among colleges to be the focus of our energies.
Funding
Funding has become a challenge since the recession that has been ongoing almost from the
inception of the TEA. In the first full year of the TEA SPS had monies they could devote to
additional tutoring that allowed TEA practicum and to a lesser extent student teachers make
additional income for their effort. During that same time the COE was able to fund additional
counseling intern hours that enhanced the positive effect of their efforts. This funding was a
recruitment incentive for TEA and students quickly began to inquire about involvement in
practicum experiences that offered this capability. In the present school year funding has become
so strained that money for transportation to campus activities and tours for SPS students has been
Teacher Education Alliance 25
curtailed. We hope to continue these programs in the future as funds become available. We have
continually searched and applied for sources of external funding related to this project.
Secondary Education Involvement
As mentioned previously communication has been a challenge with regard to TEA involvement
at the secondary level. In addition the number of diverse programs that are present in secondary
schools ensures that administrators have limited time to focus on individual programs.
We are presently engaged with SPS and our higher education partners in an effort to “restart’ the
secondary effort in TEA. In Spring 2011 it was decided by all concerned that we would take a
more measured approach and begin meeting with SPS department heads and faculty along with
content faculty from the higher education partners to implement the TEA in individual secondary
schools based on both the CSIP plan of the school and the teacher education need for high
quality placements.
Conclusions
Steady efforts have begun between the four professional education units and SPS to more closely
focus on outcomes in the training of teacher educators and the success of beginning educators
and their impact on P-12 students. We desire to have the brightest and best candidates enter the
field of education. There is a connection between the quality of a teacher education program, the
candidate’s knowledge, skills and dispositions and beginning teacher success linked to student
outcomes. It is important that all involved in education become more data driven to determine
how best to proceed. This is important information for us to consider as we strive to continually
improve the teacher training program and ensure that teacher candidates are prepared to succeed
as first year teachers in challenging schools. The importance of introducing pre-service and
novice teachers into systematic professional development is a means to link the school needs and
student issues to the systematic upgrading of the quality of teachers. If these teachers feel they
are not well prepared in certain areas, e.g., teaching multicultural populations, classroom
management, differentiation of instruction, student assessment and teaching strategies, then a
concerted effort must be made to meet those needs. The importance of faculty and master
teachers mentoring preservice or novice teachers cannot be overstated.
We are aware that despite significant efforts to improve student outcomes, large disparities in
academic achievement are generally evident for disadvantaged children in high poverty schools.
Together, we are searching, researching and trying to determine what systematic efforts can
bring about higher academic achievement in Title I schools and the success of students. To date,
the cooperation among the partners could be identified as the construct that best exemplifies
transformation. Collaboration among colleges/universities and public schools may be a good way
to increase social capital in education as trust and reciprocity develop between individuals and
institutions.
Teacher Education Alliance 26
References
Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver,
CO: Education Commission of the States.
Birrell, J. R., & Bullough, R. V. (2005). Teaching with a peer: A follow-up study of the first year
of teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 27(1), 72-81.
Broemmel, A. D., Swaggerty, E. A., & McIntosh, D. (2009). Navigating the waters of teacher
induction: One beginning teacher’s journey. The New Educator, 5(1), 67-80. Available
http://www1.ccny.cuny.edu/prospective/education/theneweducator/upload/4th-article.pdf
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know.
Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 301-306.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jensen, E., (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does To Kids Brains and
What Schools Can Do About It: San Diego, CA: Jensen Learning.
Jensen, E., (2010) Teaching with Poverty in Mind, Seminar, San Antonio, Texas
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2006). What makes a teacher
effective? Washington, DC: Author.
Payne, R.K., (1996). A Framework for Understanding Poverty: Highlands, TX: aha! Process Inc.
Romano, M., & Gibson, P. (2006). Beginning teacher successes and struggles: An elementary
teacher’s reflections on the first year of teaching. Professional Educator, 28(1), 1-26.
Sadler, T. & Klosterman, M. (2009). Transitioning from Student Teacher to Teaching
Professional: Evolving Perspectives of Beginning Science Teachers. ERIC Document
Reproductive Services ED506764.
Schalock, H. D., Schalock, M. D., & Ayres, R. (2006). Scaling up research in teacher education:
new demands on theory, measurement, and design. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 102119.
Sell, Roger G. & Pickard, Amanda J. 2010 Teacher Education Research: A Summary of Key
Findings in the Literature, July 30, 2010, pp. 1-2.
Wilson, S. M., & Floden, R. E. (2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hard
questions. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. ED 476 366
Teacher Education Alliance 27
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:
Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Teacher Education Alliance 28
Appendix
Appendix A Williams Plan
Focuses
1.
Improving
Literacy
(reading and
writing
proficiencies)
Williams Elementary
Interventions
Staffing: Literacy
Coach; 2 reading
specialists
(focusing on
grades 2-4 by
supplementing
GR+)
Daily classroom
GR+
Daily writing
(focus on weekly
conferences
with each
student)
SRI quarterly
Extended
Learning
Program –
Literacy tutoring
twice per school
year (students
qualify based on
class
performance,
benchmark
tests, SRI and
MAP scores)
Grandparent
Reading Buddies
(once weekly,
grandparent –
volunteers assist
students one on
one with
reading)
Literacy Model
(building wide
focus Whole
Faculty Study
Groups)
Implement peer
observation and
action research
within the
classroom based
MSU Interventions Williams’ Wish list
Supply 10-15 volunteers
for weekly kindergarten
tutoring. Tutors would
work once weekly for
literacy and writing
focused lessons one on
one with a tangled
kindergartner.
Responsibility
Dr. Brown – MSU
2nd semester – utilize
MSU teaching academy;
6 to 8 student teachers
(this will allow teachers
to “reverse” and teach
the lowest students
while the ST works with
the performing
students, or could
“free-up” the teacher
who can peer observe
or attend relevant
professional
development) (2 – 2nd
grade, 2-3rd grade, 2-4th
grade, 2 - 5th grade)
Dr. Brown/Peggy
Auvil
MSU
5-8 Extended Learning
Program tutors paid to
tutor on-site during the
school day (sessions
twice weekly paid by
ELP) (with exception to
SB319; those students
must be serviced after
school only)
Dr. Brown – MSU
Provide reading and
writing buddies
Send Athlete readers to
Williams to read books
during 4 RIF parties on
pre-determined RIF
dates. For students not
participating in RIF,
athletes can read to
grade levels of
classrooms. Athletes or
MSU students can read
with Gwen Marshall at
Timeline
To begin the week of
November 10
Second Semester
(Mid-January) Student
teachers are identified and
have been delivered to J
Webb
To begin the week of
November 10
TBA
ASAP (J Webb is aligning
dates with W Roy to
schedule the assemblies
and parties)
Mid January when student
teachers arrive.
This may be an
initiative that we
pursue with P2G
and Reed
W Roy Roworth –
MSU
Second Semester
(Mid-January)
J Webb has confirmation
on a dance group.)
Teacher Education Alliance 29
on WFSG
information
Williams as she leads
diversity book clubs
during 30 minute lunch
periods. (guest
speakers)
Dr. Brown/Peggy
Auvil
MSU
Third graders write
letters on the MAP test,
PEN PALS could be
beneficial (this could be
facilitated by student
teachers teaming with
students from “other”
academy teachers in
the area. (i.e. Williams
writes to Bowerman,
and so on)
W Roy Roworth MSU
Afterschool clubs
sponsored by student
athletes? Girls scouts?
Cheerleading? Ideally,
clubs would meet once
weekly after school on
site. One to two
sponsors per group
would be necessary for
management.
Focuses
2.
Improving
the
elementary
initial
indicator –
Attendanc
e
Williams Elementary
Interventions
PBS –
Assemblies
(weekly
attendance,
behavior, and
spirit assemblies
celebrating
students who do
not push
behaviors to
either the school
Focus Room, or
ODR (office
discipline
referral)
Attendance
Motto – Be
here, Be here on
time, Don’t
leave early
(common
announcement
and chant
spoken daily)
Changing the
MSU Interventions Williams’ Wish list
Campus trips Academic/Activity tours
of sporting/art facilities
(provide busing, lunch?)
Departments adopt
grade levels – donating
supplies, letters to
students, learning
activities (i.e.
accounting could teach
banking, saving, or
spending lessons;
nutrition services could
teach healthy food
choices lessons,
movement lessons, etc.)
Participate in Weekly
Friday assemblies
(practicum students,
student teachers,
athletes, mascots,
speakers…)
Counseling department
or interns to work with
Responsibility
Timeline
W Roy Roworth
Spring Semester
Dr. Brown/Roy
Roworth – MSU
ASAP (W Roy is in
communication with 3
departments)
Dates are being set through
collaboration with W Roy
and me.
Spring Semester or ASAP
W Roy Roworth –
MSU
Gay Lynn Russell /
Dr. Brown – MSU
As soon as Spring Semester
Teacher Education Alliance 30
social culture of
Williams using
PBS and the
acronym STYLE
Push HHS
(graduating class
of 2020…)
Williams’ night
at a football
game? Softball?
Soccer?
Basketball?
Band night?
Orchestra?
Invite HHS clubs
to Williams to
share school
activities which
would appeal to
elementary
students. (HHS
students could
assist in weekly
assembly)
Heighten
teacher
awareness of
persistence to
graduate
Connect to Reed
to HHS to MSU
families, making home
visits, providing
parenting classes
(parenting classes,
neighborhood dangers,
love and logic,
relationship classes,
hygiene classes)
Provide busing, tickets,
and food vouchers for
Williams’ night at
Hillcrest football,
basketball, soccer,
softball, or baseball
activities.
W Roy Roworth MSU
Teacher Education Alliance 31
Appendix B Reed Plan
SIP Objective
1&2
The percent of
students
scoring
advanced and
proficient on
the MAP will
meet or
exceed
requirements
for AYP in
2009-2010 in
communicatio
n arts and
math including
student
subgroups.
Reed Middle School
Interventions
Full-time Literacy
Coach, Two
Reading Specialists
(Title I Reading
Teachers) utilizing
Scholastic Read 180
curriculum and
software
Two Math
Specialists (Title I
Math Teachers)
Implementation of
Read 180 in Special
Education reading
classes
eMINTS classrooms
in all Special
Education
communication
arts directinstruction
classrooms
Reading
Exploratory classes
at all three grade
levels
implementing
Reader’s Workshop
model
6+1 Traits writing
model across the
curriculum and
grade levels
Continuous
Classroom
Improvement
MSU Interventions –
Reed’s Wish list
Implement MSU Middle
School Teaching
Academy; 6 to 8
student teachers (this
will allow teachers to
“reverse” and teach the
lowest students while
the ST works with the
performing students, or
could “free-up” the
teacher who can peer
observe or attend
relevant professional
development) (2 – 6th
Grade, 2 - 7th Grade, 2 8th Grade, 2 – Special
Education)
5-8 Extended Learning
Program tutors paid to
tutor on-site during the
school day (sessions
twice weekly paid by
ELP) (with exception to
SB319; those students
must be serviced after
school only)
Responsibility
Dr. Brown, W
Roy Roworth
and Gay Lynn
Russell
Timeline
Fall and
Spring
Semesters
Teacher Education Alliance 32
model which gives
students voice and
choice in terms of
how they learn
Communication
Arts, Reading and
Math Performance
Series Testing –
BOY, MOY, EOY
Extended Learning
Program Tutoring –
once a week before
and during school
21st Century Grant
– MTWTR tutoring
before programs
each day from
3:00-4:00 p.m.
Monday staff
development
meetings focused
on looking at how
data informs
instruction,
differentiated
instruction and
various “best
practice” teaching
strategies
Teacher Education Alliance 33
Appendix C Career Data Williams
Williams TEA Student Teachers
Career Follow Up Information
Spring 2009
Name
S. Bowers
E. Ross
L. O’Neal
L. Oelter
T. Wood
N. Adams
N. Edenburn
A. Bowen-Howard
District
Antonia
Springfield Lutheran
Miller, MO
Peace Corps
Mongolia
Pleasant Hope, MO
SPS
Tulsa, OK
Moved to PA
School/Grade
3rd Grade
aide
th
6 Grade
th
5 Grade and SEC
Title I
Pre K
4th Grade
Spanish
Yes
District
Park Hill, MO
SPS
Strafford
SPS
UMSL Masters
SPS
SPS
SPS
School/Grade
Title I
Freemont
Yes
Westport/K aide
subbing
Holland
Williams/MAP K aide
Boys & Girls Town
Yes
School/Grade
Bingham/K aide
2nd Grade
Title I
Yes
Yes
Weaver/5th Grade
York para
SPE/Williams sub
sub
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fall 2009
Name
B. Kasper
C. White
D. Curry
K. Fuller
J. Howell
R. Hundal
T. Neal
A. Nunn
Yes
Yes
Yes
Spring 2010
Name
J. Bolen
A. Howe
D. Ederle
A. Green
L. Hanselman
District
SPS
Cabool, MO
Moved St. Louis, MO
SPS
SPS
H. Swanson
SPS
Teacher Education Alliance 34
E. Monroe
A. Robinett-Smith
M. Vendt
No longer in ED
SPS
Westport/3rd Grade
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
Memphis, TN
Owensville, MO
sub
sub
Sub
sub
aide
sub
para
Fall 2010
L. Hunter
K. Keifer
C. Decker
K. Harbin
A. Allhands
T. Bonnot
S. Stammers
Yes
Teacher Education Alliance 35
Appendix D Memorandum of Agreement
Memorandum of Understanding
Between The School District of Springfield R-12 and:
Evangel University
Missouri State University
Drury University
Baptist Bible College
This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is written in the spirit of cooperation and good faith
between Springfield Schools and the educational institutions listed above. Springfield Schools
recognizes that in order to recruit and retain the highest level of talent in classroom teaching,
communities must have a collaborative relationship between public education and local institutions of
higher learning. The Springfield community is fortunate to be home to several highly reputable colleges
and universities with strong education programs. The intent of this MOU is to outline the processes
employed by Springfield Schools and its partners in student teaching so that a rich and fulfilling
experience is provided to the student teacher and the students of the District. With this intent, the
following terms are agreed to by all parties with regard to student teaching within Springfield Schools:
1. Assignment of Student Teachers. The educational institutions named above (hereafter
referred to as “the institutions”) will only select students for assignments as student
teachers who have successfully completed all the prerequisites for student teaching.
Personnel from the institutions and the School District of Springfield R-12 (hereafter
referred to as “District”) shall collaborate on the placement of the student teachers into
the District’s educational buildings to allow those students to receive an educational
experience.
a. In the performance of the student teaching experience contemplated by this MOU,
the student teacher shall not be an employee of the District.
b. The District will select certified and experienced classroom teachers to work with
the student teachers during the semester.
2. Confidentiality. The institutions and each student teacher assigned pursuant to this
MOU shall maintain confidentiality concerning District’s students as required by the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the statutes of the state of
Missouri. Prior to placing a student teacher in a District program or building, the
institutions shall provide training to the student regarding the requirements of FERPA
and applicable Missouri Statutes.
Teacher Education Alliance 36
3. Non Discrimination. The District and the institutions give assurance that each is an
equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate against any employee, student, or
applicant for employment or registration in a course of study or in its services to people
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, disability or
veteran status.
a. The parties agree to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to this
Agreement.
b. The institutions agree that its employees, agents, representatives and student
teachers will refrain from discrimination against any District employee, student,
parent or patron, on the basis of the person’s race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, ancestry, age, disability or veteran status, during any activity connected to
this Agreement.
4. Liability. The institutions understand and agree that the District, as a political
subdivision of the State of Missouri, has its liability limited by the Missouri sovereign
immunity statutes, Section 537.600 et seq. RSMo. The institutions further understand
that nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the District’s right to sovereign
immunity pursuant to the laws of the State of Missouri.
a. The institutions assume any and all responsibility for personal injury and property
damage attributable to: (a) the willful or negligent acts of its agents, employees,
student teachers or students while they are engaged in any activity connected to
this Agreement; and (b) injury to its agents, employees, student teachers or
students while they are on District property or engaged in any activity connected
to this Agreement.
5. Term/Termination of MOU. This MOU shall be effective on the date signed by each
of the parties and shall remain in effect until written notice of termination by any one of
the institutions to the District or vice-versa.
6. Responsibilities of the Institutions.
a. The institutions shall insure that each student teacher or employee who is engaged
in any activity connected with this MOU is familiar with, and complies with the
policies of the District’s Board of Education, the Parent/Student Handbook and all
policies/rules applicable to the District building to which the person is assigned.
b. The institutions will ensure that each student teacher is fingerprinted and
background checked in accordance with Missouri law and the policies of the
District. It is understood that the District reserves the right to refuse to allow any
person to have access to its students, employees or buildings as a result of
Teacher Education Alliance 37
information obtained through the background check, or for any other reason, at
the discretion of the District.
It is through an abundance of mutual respect and understanding of respective missions that we,
the undersigned, agree to the terms set forth in this MOU.
For the institutions:
Institution Name
Date
Name/Title of Signee
Signature
____________________
_________
___________________________
____________________
____________________
_________
___________________________
____________________
____________________
_________
___________________________
____________________
____________________
_________
___________________________
____________________
For the District:
____________________
Signature
_________
Date
___________________________
Name/Title
Teacher Education Alliance 38
Appendix E Demographic and Placement of Practicum and Student Teachers by school
Student Teachers in TEA Project from Missouri State University
Williams
ELE
Reed Middle
Westport
ELE
Bowerman
ELE
Hillcrest High
Sunshine
ELE
SP09
FA09
SP10
FA10
SP11
8
4
3
7
4
0 male/8
female
0 male/4
female
0 male/3
female
0 male/7
female
0 male/ 4
female
8 white
4 white
3 white
7 white
4 white
5
4
2
3
2
2 male/3
female
0 male/4
female
1 male/1
female
1 male/2
female
1 male/1
female
5 white
4 white
2 white
3 white
2 white
0
4
6
5
8
1 male/3
female
0 male/ 6
female
0 male/5
female
0 male/8
female
3 white/1
Indian
6 white
5 white
8 white
2
6
5
4
3
0 male/2
female
0 male/6
female
0 male/5
female
0 male/4
female
0 male/3
female
2 white
6 white
5 white
4 white
3 white
2 ENG
2 ENG
0
0 male/2
female
0 male/2
female
0 male/0
female
2 white
2 white
0 white
3
2
0 male/3
0 male/2
Teacher Education Alliance 39
female
female
3 white
2 white
Practicum Students in TEA Project from Missouri State University
SP09
Williams ELE
FA09
SP10
FA10
ELE 302:
ELE 302:
ELE 302:
7
0
5
0 male/7 female 0 male/0 female 0 male/5 female
7 white
0
5 white
ELE 500:
ELE 500:
ELE 500:
7
7
4
0 male/7 female 0 male/7 female 1 male/3 female
Reed Middle
Westport ELE
5
7 white
7 white
4 white
4
2
3
ELE 302:
ELE 302:
ELE 302:
7
0
5
0 male/7 female 0 male/0 female 0 male/5 female
7 white
0
5 white
ELE 500:
ELE 500:
ELE 500:
10
5
4
0 male/10
female
0 male/5 female 0 male/4 female
5 white
4 white
Teacher Education Alliance 40
10 white
Bowerman
Elem
ELE 302:
ELE 302:
ELE 302:
3
3
2
0 male/3 female 0 male/3 female 0 male/2 female
3 white
3 white
2 white
ELE 500:
ELE 500:
ELE 500:
3
8
2
0 male/3 female 0 male/8 female 0 male/2 female
3 white
8 white
Sunshine ELE
2 white
ELE 302:
0
0 male/0 female
0
ELE 500:
2
0 male/2 female
2 white
Students from BBC, Drury, and Evangel are involved in the project as follows:
Student Teachers and Practicum Students from Drury
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Boyd ELE
10 initial practicum
10 initial practicum
10 methods
10 methods
Teacher Education Alliance 41
2 student teachers
McGregor ELE
Pipkin M.S.
Central H.S.
10 initial practicum
10 initial practicum
10 methods
10 methods
5 student teachers
3 student teachers
10 initial practicum
10 initial practicum
10 methods
10 methods
10 initial practicum
10 initial practicum
10 methods
10 methods
11 Student teachers
O student teachers
3 student teachers
5 student teachers
Student Teachers and Practicum Students from Evangel
Weller ELE
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
10 Practicum
Students
9 Student
Teachers
3 female
3 female student
teachers
1 Hispanic & 9
Caucasian
9 Caucasian (All
Females)
Bingham ELE
1 Student
Teacher
1 Caucasian
(Female)
3
white/Caucasian
4 female
1 male
5
white/Caucasian
3
white/Caucasian
4 female student
teachers
1 male student
teacher
5
white/Caucasian
Student Teachers and Practicum Teachers from BBC
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Watkins ELE
5 student teachers
(Caucasian -
4 Practicum
students
(Caucasian –
3 Student
Teachers
(Caucasian –
Spring 2011
5 Practicum
Students
Teacher Education Alliance 42
Females)
Females)
Females)
Teacher Education Alliance 43
Appendix F
Elementary Science Methods Teacher Candidates
Address Area Title 1 School Science MAP Performance
Timeline:
Spring 2009--- Professor Roberta Aram approached Gary Danielson (York Elementary school
principal) about the possibility of her 4 sections of science methods students (about 100
elementary teacher candidates) planning and teaching science lessons in all classrooms (11
regular education classrooms) at York that fall on the topic in which their science MAP scores
were lowest----Matter and Energy
Summer 2009---Roberta Aram prepared a scope and sequence for 4 lessons for each grade K-5
based on the Missouri Science Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) for Matter and Energy. Each
lesson builds within and across grades K-5.
August 2009---Roberta Aram and instructor, Gina Wood, presented the scope and sequence and
timeline for teacher candidates to plan and teach lessons in their classrooms. Teachers approved
and provided some logistical guidance.
August 2009---candidates were presented with the scope and sequence for the Matter and energy
lessons ; pedagogical content knowledge and skills needed by candidates to teach their lessons
at York were addressed in science methods classes; content focused on matter---observing,
describing and classifying it, measuring it, changes in state of matter, some effects of energy on
matter such as heating.
September 2009---candidates observed their assigned classroom and gathered contextual
information to consider when planning their lesson
October 2009---candidates created and gave a Prior Knowledge Assessment (PKA) to York
children in assigned classrooms; candidates planned lessons based on PKA data
November 2009---candidates taught lessons
December 2009---York faculty and Roberta Aram and Gina Wood evaluated the experience and
revised it as needed for Spring semester.
Spring 2010—science methods students planed and taught science lessons using the same
process as in the fall semester; content focused on energy sources, means of transfer and
receivers -light, sound, heat, electricity.
April 2010---York 5th graders take science MAP test
Teacher Education Alliance 44
Semester/Year science
lessons taught
Difference in
Building Ave. from
State Ave
NA
NA
-2%*
-6%
NA
NA
NA
NA
Content Standard
Matter & Energy
Scientific Inquiry
Matter & Energy
Scientific Inquiry
Matter & Energy
Scientific Inquiry
Matter & Energy
Scientific Inquiry
FA2009
SP2010
FA2010
SP2011
ELE science methods
students
100
127
*York Elementary scored between 2 and 14% below the state average on all content standards.
They scored the closest to the state average on Matter and Energy.
The three year trend on Matter Energy content standard shows a dramatic improvement in 5th
grade performance in 2010. Student progressed from 27% pass rate to 50% pass rate.
See the MAP Science Content Standard Three-Year Trend Report.
http://dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/MAP0391414840.html
Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
SPRINGFIELD R-XII -- YORK ELEM. Results
Number
Content
Area
Percent
Grade Year Accountable Reportable LND*
Below
Basic Proficient Advanced BB/Basic Prof/Adv
Basic
Science
05
2008
22
22
0.0
18.2 59.1
22.7
0.0
77.3
22.7
Science
05
2009
29
29
0.0
20.7 62.1
13.8
3.4
82.8
17.2
Science
05
2010
31
31
0.0
22.6 51.6
19.4
6.5
74.2
25.8