Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program (Interim Report 2004)
Downloadable File PDF (883 KB) | MS Word (1 MB)

Executive Summary: Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program (Interim Report 2004)


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

    1. Introduction

      • The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program
      • Framework for the Partnership Grants Program Evaluation
      • First-Year Evaluation Activities
      • Benchmarks for Progress
      • Description of the Partnership Grantees

    2. Findings

      Evaluation Topic 1: Characteristics of high-quality preservice teacher preparation and changes to the content and structure of the preservice teacher preparation program over the grant period

      Finding 1.1: The Professional Development School approach is the most prevalent model selected by the Partnerships to build a high-quality teacher preparation program.

      Finding 1.2: Since receiving the Partnership Grant funds, many deans of schools of education report changes in the number of graduates, required courses, and graduation requirements

      Finding 1.3: Partnership teacher preparation programs are making some progress in changing their program offerings, in aligning the content with district standards and with partner schools.

      Finding 1.4: Some Partnerships are changing the quality of both early field experiences and clinical experience for preservice teachers by creating PDS Partnerships and implementing longer, more academically focused training.

      Finding 1.5: Schools of education and arts and sciences are collaborating to build program coherence and expand the accountability for teacher preparation.

      Finding 1.6: The vast majority of Partnership projects are fulfilling the goal of developing preservice capacity in technology integration by equipping students with technology skills, upporting teachers in schools with technology and preparing faculty to use technology in their classrooms.

      Finding 1.7: Partnerships are implementing more processes for reviewing the quality of student graduates and the quality of the program.

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

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

      Finding 2.1: Partnerships are influencing the way cooperating teachers from school districts are selected, trained and recognized. More teachers are being included in preparing and assessing preservice teachers.

      Finding 2.2: Partnership benefits for school districts address overall staffing needs and the specific needs of new teachers.

      Finding 2.3: Participating in the Partnership Grants Program has increased new teacher support provided by districts and IHEs.

      Finding 2.4: School districts are more likely to share information about recruitment activities and new teachers who graduate from those institutions with Partner IHEs than with non-Partner IHEs.

      Finding 2.5: Districts and faculty report that Partnership activities are resulting in high levels of preparedness of program graduates in a variety of areas.

      Finding 2.6: Partnership projects are making it possible for teachers to collaborate on important issues with IHE faculty.

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

      Finding 2.8: Partnership grant activities enable professional development opportunities for teachers and staff in virtually all partner school districts.

      Evaluation Topic 3: The association between collaborative activities among partner institutions of higher education and schools and student achievement outcomes

      A Note about Variation

      Finding 3.1: Title II and non-Title II schools report approximately the same percentage of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program.

      Finding 3.2: Title II and non-Title II schools are reporting similar percentages of minority students in their student bodies.

      Finding 3.3: The student achievement scores reported for Title II school partners and non-Title II schools show that student performance in mathematics and reading in both groups of schools is very similar.

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

      Finding 4.1: Title II Partnerships are developing structures and incentives within IHEs to enhance communication and collaboration between education and arts and sciences faculty.

      Finding 4.2: The requirement of creating an advisory board has facilitated new alignments among institutions, business and nonbusiness partners and schools.

      Finding 4.3: When large distances separate key IHE partners, stronger partner arrangements are created on a local level, but collaboration with more distant partners may be hindered.

      Finding 4.4: Partnerships are creating new relationships between partner schools, colleges and universities and other partners.

      Evaluation Topic 5: Efforts to Institutionalize Partnerships

      Finding 5.1: Although many Partnerships are using project directors who are veterans of collaborative projects to reform teacher preparation, most faculty are new to such Partnerships.

      Finding 5.2: Faculty report that top university leadership in Partnership IHEs seems to be supportive of teacher preparation as an all-university responsibility

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

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

    3. Additional Data Collection Activities

  • References

  • Appendix A: Unresolved Issues in the Empirical and Theoretical Research Literature

  • Appendix B: List of Technical Working Group Members

  • Appendix C: Selected Characteristics of 1999 Partnership Grantees

  • Appendix D: Characteristics of Survey Respondents

  • Appendix E: School District Duplicate Responder Resolution

  • Appendix F: Documentation of Student Achievement Analyses

  • Appendix G: Number of Districts and Schools, by Partnership


  • Exhibit 1: Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Title II Partnership Grants Program

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

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

  • Exhibit 4: Scope of Partnership Projects

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

  • Exhibit 6: Changes in Teacher Preparation Entrance Requirements

  • Exhibit 7: Preservice Field Experience Changes Resulting From Partnership Activities

  • Exhibit 8: Employment Status of Faculty Survey Respondents

  • Exhibit 9: Faculty Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities with Teachers

  • Exhibit 10: Faculty Members’ Strategies for Teaching with Technology

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

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

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

  • Exhibit 14: Partnership Changes to Recognition of Cooperating Teachers

  • Exhibit 15: District Staffing Benefits of Partnership Projects

  • Exhibit 16: Induction Activities Provided by Partnerships

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

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

  • Exhibit 19: Percent of School Districts Reporting School Level Personnel Involvement in Collaborative Partnership Activities With Partner Colleges or Universities

  • Exhibit 20: Number of Districts and Schools by Partnership

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

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

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

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

  • Exhibit 25: Sample Advisory Board Members

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

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

  • Exhibit E-1: Descriptive Report of Duplicates

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

  • Exhibit F-2: Average Enrollment for Title II and Non-Title II Schools

Print this page Printable view Send this page Share this page
Last Modified: 09/09/2004