Simultaneous Renewal Through Professional Development School Partnerships

By Shroyer, Gail; Yahnke, Sally; Bennett, Andrew; Dunn, Cindi

ABSTRACT

The authors describe the premises, processes used, and outcomes of a K-16 simultaneous renewal model, as implemented through the Kansas Sate University Professional Development School Partnership Project. The goal of this partnership is to improve K-12 teaching and learning while improving a university teacher-preparation program through collaboration between university faculty and multiple-partner district administrators and teachers. Because of their experiences, the authors believe that teacher education and K- 12 student learning can be enhanced by establishing a culture of collaboration, inquiry, and continuous growth, supported by multifaceted program assessments, professional development, and a mindset that all K-16 educators are responsible for one another’s students. Two major conclusions emerged from this analysis of K-16 simultaneous renewal: (a) significant educational change requires extensive and continuous time, resources, professional development, and implementation support across systems involved and (b) K-12 students must be placed at the center of any teacher-education initiatives.

Key words: K-12 teaching and learning, professional development school partnerships, simultaneous renewal, university teacher- preparation program

To provide every child with the education needed to ensure his and her future success, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) challenged our nation to “provide every student in America with what should be his or her educational birthright: access to competent, caring, qualified teachers in schools organized for success” (1996, p. vi). This challenge is supported by Darling-Hammond (2006), who posited that “Education is increasingly important to the success of both individuals and nations, and growing evidence demonstrates that-among all educational resources-teachers’ abilities are especially crucial contributors to students’ learning” (p. 300). Cochran-Smith (2006) reported that, although problematic at times, “Over the past several years, a new consensus has emerged that teacher quality is one of the most, if not the most, significant factor in students’ achievement and educational improvement” (p. 106).

The image of highly qualified teachers practicing in successful schools has caused some educators to wonder, “What comes first, good schools or good teaching?” (Goodlad, 1994, p. 1). According to Goodlad, the answer is that both must come together. “There must be a continuous process of educational renewal in which colleges and universities, the traditional producers of teachers, join schools, the recipients of the products, as equal partners in the simultaneous renewal of schooling and the education of educators” (pp. 1-2). Our research documents an endeavor to collaboratively reconstruct and simultaneously renew teacher education and K-12 schools participating in the Kansas State University (KSU) Professional Development School (PDS) Partnership.

We use the terms collaborative reconstruction and simultaneous renewal to represent the process through which KSU Arts and Sciences faculty, College of Education faculty, and K-12 PDS educators jointly examine, reflect on, and enhance the KSU teacher-education program and K-12 PDS systems. Collaboration, inquiry, program assessment, and professional development have supported this reconstruction and renewal process. Sometimes the evidence suggests that existing courses or field experiences in our Grades K-12 PDSs or Grades 13-16 teacher-education program are meeting our expectations for teaching and learning and that their successes are shared throughout our partnership. Other times, the evidence suggests that minor adjustments, major revisions, or even a complete reconstruction of a K-16 course, field experience, or program is warranted, so the college and PDS partners collaborate to modify, redesign, or even create new courses or programs. We refer to this process that Goodlad (1994) defined as “simultaneous renewal of schooling and the education of educators” (pp. 1-2) interchangeably as collaborative reconstruction, simultaneous renewal, continuous improvement, or K-16 reform.

The KSU simultaneous renewal process is based on a PDS model to improve K-16 teaching and learning through enhanced teacher education across the continuum of teacher growth-from initial preservice preparation through the continuous professional development of practicing teachers. PDSs provide an ideal way to initiate and sustain simultaneous renewal because they involve educational stakeholders in inquiry and reflective practice to discover how to collaboratively develop and maintain effective education systems in K-12 schools and colleges of education (Holmes Group, 1986, 1990, 1995).

Our research traces the history and impact of this K-16 simultaneous renewal process across two time frames: (a) initial renewal efforts from 1989 to 1999 and (b) renewal efforts from 1999 to 2005. Specifically, we trace the impact of K-16 simultaneous renewal on the KSU teacher-education program and K-12 student learning in the PDSs from 1989 to 2005. The research suggests substantial impact on teaching and learning across the PDS partnership. We document continuous renewal in the KSU teacher- education program and enhanced learning for K-12 students

The Setting

KSU is a land grant institution located in a rural region of the state. The College of Education has the largest teacher-preparation program in the state and is one of the largest education colleges in the nation, graduating over 400 elementary and secondary teacher- education students each year. The College of Arts and Sciences includes 25 departments (18 of which were involved in the KSU PDS Partnership Project) that educate teachers in the core academic subject areas in which they teach.

The three partner school districts included in this study were Geary County Unified School District 475, Kansas City, Kansas Unified School District 500, and Manhattan-Ogden Unified School District 383. Twenty-one schools from those districts participated- 13 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 3 high schools.

Geary County School District is located in a poor rural region, which encompasses, and is adjacent to, the Fort Riley Military Installation. The school district has 16 schools that struggle with student poverty, diversity, and transiency. It is one of the more racially and ethnically diverse districts in the state; 47% of the student population is minority, 55% is economically disadvantaged, and 6% are English language learners (ELLs; see Figure 1).

Kansas City, Kansas School District is a large urban district affected by tremendous poverty (74% of the students are economically disadvantaged), diversity (school student populations range from 70%- 90% minority), and a rapidly expanding English language learner population (19.5 % of the district students are ELLs).

Manhattan-Ogden School District is located in a rural university region adjacent to the Fort Riley Military Installation. The district has 11 schools, which serve diverse socioeconomic populations (31% economically disadvantaged).

The ultimate vision of the KSU PDS partnership is to create and sustain a community of learners dedicated to continuous learning and K-16 systemic renewal. Specifically, the KSU PDS partners are committed to preparing all educators to meet the changing needs of diverse learners, particularly those with the greatest educational needs. We believe that PDS partners should be jointly engaged in, and responsible for, the (a) initial preparation of new teachers, (b) continuing professional development of all educators, (c) support of children’s learning, and (d) support of practice-based inquiry directed toward improved teaching and learning.

Research Framework

In what ways can PDS partnerships foster simultaneous renewal in teacher education and K-12 schools?

Although still tentative, there is definitely a growing collection of evaluation data that points to the positive impact of professional development school partnerships. . . . There is also the growing recognition of the importance of documenting PDS outcomes in credible ways, and the increasing use of multiple measures and conceptual frameworks that link outcomes with processes. (Teitel, 2001, p. 13)

To address this concern and to construct a more meaningful understanding of renewal in our teacher-education program and in our three partner school districts, we initiated a multifaceted, longitudinal study to examine the process and impact of change on all of our partner organizations.

Since 1989, participants in the KSU PDS Partnership have used an evaluative case study design to gather a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative data (Guba &. Lincoln, 1981). Data sources included multiple surveys and interviews of PDS teachers, administrators, K-12 students, KSU faculty, and KSU students; numerous institutional and project documents and records; and student-assessment data. Researchers used quantitative (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitative (content analysis, pattern analysis, and constant comparison) techniques to analyze all data. Multiple collaborative researche\rs made observations, cross- checked data, and triangulated their results to increase the validity and reliability of their findings (Merrian, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

We analyzed the impact of our simultaneous renewal efforts by examining institutional changes in the KSU teacher-education program and in the K-12 PDSs. In addition, we documented the impact of the reform efforts on K-12 learning in mathematics, reading, social studies, and science. The student achievement data used for this analysis include Kansas student achievement measures in the four fields at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. We tracked achievement gains in our PDSs in relationship to statewide achievement gains as larger points of comparison. We also compared achievement gains to school improvement action plans sponsored by the PDS partnership. We triangulated project records, interviews, surveys, and student achievement scores to identify patterns, make interpretations, and finalize conclusions.

The researchers and authors of this article include two teacher educators (one elementary and one secondary) who direct the PDS partnership representing the College of Education, a mathematician and co-director of the PDS partnership representing the College of Arts and Sciences, and a former Manhattan-Ogden high school teacher and clinical instructor who now serves as our PDS partnership program evaluator from the Office of Educational Innovation and Evaluation in the College of Education.

The results of this analysis are presented in the following three major sections. The first section provides (a) a description of the simultaneous renewal process presented as a case study of change across two timeframes, (b) initial renewal efforts from 1989 to 1998, and (c) recent renewal efforts initiated with the funding of a U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant from 1999 to 2005. The second section highlights the outcomes of the renewal process in terms of the teacher-education program at KSU, and the third section focuses on student achievement outcomes.

The Simultaneous Renewal Process

Simultaneous Renewal From 1989-1998

In 1990, KSU received a 5-year grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a collaborative teacher-education model to reform teacher education and K-12 teaching and learning. The funded project (TPE9050015) was initiated in 1989 by a group of 52 elementary teachers, administrators, science and mathematics educators, and scientists and mathematicians on the basis of identified needs to enhance elementary science and mathematics education in the Manhattan-Ogden school district, which surrounded the KSU campus. Needs assessments conducted in 1989 indicated that district teachers, as well as the student teachers placed in their classrooms, were not comfortable teaching mathematics or science, science was rarely taught at all, and K-6 students were not receiving science and mathematics instruction needed to prepare them for the 21st century (NSF Proposal TPE9050015).

During early planning meetings in 1990, NSF project participants agreed that education must be viewed as a continuum from kindergarten through college. Our renewal efforts were thus centered on the belief that improvements at any one of these levels would not succeed without improvements at the other levels. With support from the NSF, KSU, and the Manhattan-Ogden District, participants began planning reform efforts to improve elementary science and mathematics teaching in the Manhattan-Ogden school district while improving the elementary science and mathematics teacher-education program at KSU. We designed our reform efforts based on national standards in mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989), a national framework for mathematics, science, and technology education (National Center for Improving Science Education [NCISE], 1989) and recommendations from Project 2061: Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989).

We organized all NSF project participants into three planning teams: mathematics, life science, and physical science. Each team included K-6 teachers, a K-6 administrator, scientists or mathematicians from the College of Arts &. Sciences, and science or mathematics educators from the College of Education. Each team was responsible for examining, and revising if necessary, content courses, methods courses, and field experiences (in life science, physical science, or mathematics) on the basis of research and the reform movement.

In 1990, NSF project participants helped create three PDSs to become exemplary sites of science and mathematics teaching. By 1998, the number of PDSs grew to 15, including our first high school partnership, and the focus of the PDSs expanded from science and mathematics to include all subject areas.

NSF project directors and staff also created a PDS model to provide continuous professional development to help school and university participants deepen their understanding of all children and their diverse learning needs, science and mathematics content, and effective science and mathematics teaching. We conducted monthly professional development days and annual summer institutes from 1990 to 1995 for project participants as part of the professional development plan. These professional development days and summer institutes provided opportunities for planning team members to read reform documents (The Mathematical Association of America [MAA], 1991; National Research Council [NRC], 1988; National Science Teachers’ Association [NSTA], 1988), examine the mathematics standards (NCTM, 1989), the NCISE framework (1989), and early drafts of the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993). The documents provided the foundation for changes in the KSU teacher-education program and K-16 teaching practices. From 1995-1998, three Eisenhower Professional Development grants for Mathematics and Science supported the initial NSF project’s simultaneous renewal efforts.

As part of the renewal efforts, district and university participants worked diligently to implement mathematics and science standards into the KSU program and their own teaching. PDS teachers piloted new science and mathematics curricula, planned and implemented yearly “innovations in action” to improve their teaching, and conducted action research to determine the effectiveness of new practices. Math and Science After School Clubs, Summer Magnet Schools, and Family Math and Science Nights provided opportunities for experienced and future teachers in the teacher- education program to jointly enhance their teaching while providing enrichment opportunities for children and parents (Shroyer, Ramey- Gassert, Hancock, Moore, & Walker, 1995).

KSU sponsored the Math and Science After School Clubs as field experiences for science and mathematics elementary undergraduate methods students. KSU students conducted the clubs with support from PDS teachers and KSU faculty. The clubs began in 1990 with 100 K-6 students and 25 KSU students in three PDSs. By 1998, they were conducted at eight schools by over 100 KSU students and involved approximately 600 K-6 students a semester. PDS teachers conducted the Math and Science Family Nights with support from KSU students and faculty. The PDSs offered up to six Math and Science Family Nights a semester to provide enrichment for children and opportunities for parents to become more familiar with standardsbased teaching. By 1998, the family events involved three to six PDSs a year.

Simultaneous Renewal From 1999-2005

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education awarded KSU Colleges of Education and Arts and Sciences and three partner districts a Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) grant (No. P336B990039). Project districts included the Geary County School District, the Manhattan- Ogden School District, and the Kansas City, Kansas School District. Project directors represented each project partner and facilitated, coordinated, and aligned all project activities.

The purpose of the 5-year collaborative project was to develop, implement, assess, revise, institutionalize, and disseminate a performance-based teacher-preparation program on the basis of national standards to meet the needs of K-12 schools to prepare quality teachers with the content knowledge, technological capabilities, and teaching skills necessary to effectively teach all K-12 students, particularly those with the greatest needs. Planning teams, involving KSU content specialists, teacher educators, and PDS practicing teachers and administrators collaboratively designed, implemented, assessed, revised, institutionalized, and disseminated all new program standards, performance indicators, and assessment rubrics. As part of the program development and revision process, over 30 faculty and administrators from 18 departments examined 22 courses from the College of Arts and Sciences, whereas more than 30 faculty from 6 departments in the College of Education simultaneously examined 20 methods courses and 8 field experiences. Over 100 practicing teachers and administrators also helped revise the teacher-preparation program while planning and implementing improvements in 21 PDSs.

Five key components provided a foundation for our TQE project activities: (a) rigorous and coherent performance-based standards collaboratively developed by content specialists, education specialists, and school practitioners; (b) a strong foundation in challenging academic content (mathematics, language arts, science, social sciences, technology, humanities, and fine arts) based on national standards; (c) effective methods of teaching academic content based on national and state standards, current research, and best practice; (4) extensive clinical field experiences teaching diverse learners in a variety of PDSs under the guidance of mentor teachers; and (e) continuo\us mentoring, support, and assistance for graduates during their first 3 years of teaching.

To implement the TQE vision, the TQE project directors identified the following project goals: (a) expand existing partnerships to enhance collaboration; (b) develop coordination and alignment in teacher education to address the needs of K-12 schools while improving teacher quality; (c) collaboratively reform the KSU teacher-preparation program (content courses, methods courses, and clinical field experiences in PDSs); (d) provide opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development for KSU faculty to provide support for course revision and teacher-preparation reform efforts; and (e) provide opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development for beginning and experienced teachers and administrators to support clinical experiences conducted in PDSs, and (f) enhance teacher retention.

A wide variety of PDS partnership initiatives have been implemented since 1999 to implement those goals. All project participants met monthly and during annual summer institutes from 2000 to 2004 to examine and improve teaching and learning in the KSU teacher-education program and in the K-12 PDSs. Nine planning teams began in 1999 and continued meeting through the summer of 2004 (mathematics, science, language arts, humanities, social studies, foundations, special education, ELLs, and mentoring) to collaboratively design projects to address the continuum of teacher education from preservice preparation through mentoring of new teachers to professional development programs for faculty and experienced teachers. The teams met also to design action research projects and a network to support teachers through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBTPS) certification process.

The TQE simultaneous reform process began during the first planning year of the TQE grant (1999-2000), with K-16 educators focusing on improvements in their individual classrooms. Faculty and teachers were introduced to standards for beginning teachers (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1992; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2001) and experienced teachers (NBPTS, 1998). Each team also examined state and national content standards for teachers and K-12 students in their field (NCTM, 2000; NRC, 1996; National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 1998; National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE] & International Reading Association [IRA], 1996). The teams also read and discussed reform documents (American Council on Education, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1999; NCTAF, 1996, 1998; NRC, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1998, 1999, 2000).

After examining the standards and the reform documents, each team aligned an individual course or unit of study to the national standards. To facilitate that process, the participants identified their intended course or unit outcomes in terms of the material that they wanted students to learn and be able to perform as a result of their course or unit. Participants compared their course or unit outcomes with the national standards in their field and identified the standards addressed. Participants then identified or created learning experiences to help their students achieve each outcome. Finally, each participant selected assessment strategies to determine whether students had achieved each intended outcome. Participants specifically identified the performance data that they intended to collect to demonstrate the desired learning (see Table 1).

At the beginning of this work, we focused on individual courses or units of study to personalize the improvement process. Teachers and education faculty were familiar with the alignment process, but it was a novel experience for faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences. All participants were challenged by the task of identifying performance assessments to demonstrate students’ learning. The assessment tasks stimulated conversations on learning and an enhanced awareness of our responsibility to ensure that all students learn.

The following year, in 2000-2001, team members implemented any changes in their courses needed to better align with the standards and gathered evidence of student learning. Team members participated in a peer-consultation process (Bernstein, 1996) to support and guide the course improvement efforts. Bernstein designed peer consultation to develop teaching skills among college faculty. We adapted this model to enhance our K-16 simultaneous renewal efforts. Participants formed small teams representing two or three K-12 teachers, arts and sciences faculty members, and education faculty members.

Peer consultation has three exercises or interactions (Bernstein, 1996). Exercise I was “Teaching as Scholarship: Reflections on a Course Syllabus,” in which participants selected a course syllabus or curriculum unit to share with their peer-consultation team. Team members reflected on each course or unit in terms of its purpose, expectations, instructional methods, assessment strategies, and alignment to the national standards. Exercise II was “Capturing the Particulars of Classroom Practice,” in which participants examined the unique ways that each team member implemented his or her course plans, with a focus on effective instructional strategies. Team members visited one another’s classrooms and collaboratively reflected on the teaching process, student engagement with, and reaction to, various teaching approaches, equitable instruction, and the effectiveness of instructional strategies suggested during professional development sessions. Exercise III was “Putting the Focus on Student Learning,” in which team members reflected on teaching in terms of student learning. They examined course or unit assessments in terms of their ability to promote and document important course concepts.

From 2001 to 2005, we expanded individual course revisions to initiate systemwide program improvements in our teacher-education programs and PDSs. To begin the process, teams developed performance- based licensure standards for our teacher-preparation programs. We categorized the standards as professional standards for all K-12 teachers; general education content standards for all teachers; and elementary, middle school, and high school subject-specific standards. Teams examined national and state standards for beginning teachers as part of this process (INTASC, 1992; Kansas State Board of Education [KSBE], 2002; NCATE, 2001).

After reviewing national and state standards for beginning teachers, teams articulated performance standards for the KSU teacher-preparation program. Then teams identified the content courses, methods courses, and field experiences in which the standards would be taught and assessed. They also described the evidence that would be collected in the course and field experience to demonstrate that the standards had been met and to design criteria (rubrics, scoring criteria, etc.) to document and measure this evidence (see Table 2).

By 2005, the planning teams had created new K-12 teacher- education, performance-based licensure standards while implementing a standards-based curriculum and instructional strategies in their K- 16 classrooms.

During 2000 to 2005, we continued to develop our PDSs. Each PDS identified a clinical instructor to serve as a teacher leader to facilitate all PDS efforts at the school. The clinical instructors were partially released, using KSU funds, to support PDS initiatives. KSU paid for both a replacement teacher to teach from one to three classes per day for the secondary school clinical instructors and a half time partner teacher to provide release time for clinical instructors in each elementary PDS. Each PDS also had at least one faculty liaison from the College of Education to help clinical instructors as facilitators of pds activities. The clinical instructors and faculty liaisons jointly supervised, assessed, and provided weekly seminars for undergraduate students practicing in the PDSs and provided professional development and other support to PDS teachers. The clinical instructor, building principal, and a faculty liaison jointly coordinated all school-based PDS activities.

We also asked the clinical instructor at each PDS, with assistance from teachers and administrators at each building, to complete a school improvement action plan (see Appendix). In that plan, the school faculty used student assessment data to identify schoolwide strengths and areas of need. The PDS faculty then identified at least one school improvement goal to become a focus for partnership improvement efforts. The action plans for the 21 PDSs focused on increasing student achievement in reading and mathematics. The PDS clinical instructors, teachers, and administrators also identified schoolwide strategies for implementing each goal and the evidence for demonstrating that each goal had been achieved.

The PDS faculty selected a wide variety of assessment strategies to document student achievement, including state-developed assessments, teacher-constructed informal and formal assessments, observational data, performance data, and student portfolios; as well as parent, teacher, and student surveys. Evidence of impact was gathered through teacher-developed action plans, curriculum- embedded activities, and schoolwide comparisons of assessment results.

A synthesis of the action plan data and improvement strategies from across the partnership were presented to planning team members each summer during the summer institutes, and teams identified ways in which they could help the schools realize their school improvement goals. The action plans also were used to plan professional development opportunities to be offered through the school year and during the summer institute. The action planning process helped all partners become more aware of the importance of c\ontinuous inquiry, multifaceted assessments of learning, and data- based decision making.

Those recent simultaneous renewal efforts were supported by numerous state and federal grants from 1999 to 2005. The PDS Partnership received two NSF teacher-preparation grants and four state professional development and teacher-education grants. We also participated in the National Education Association (NEA) Professional Development School Research Project and the NCATE Professional Development Schools Standards Project during this period.

Impact on KSU Teacher-Preparation Program

Impact on Teacher-Education Programs From 1989 to 1998

The impacts of our initial renewal initiatives have been reported in six dissertations and in multiple papers and presentations summarized by Shroyer, Wright, and Ramey-Gassert (1996). We present only the highlights of the studies because they have been reported previously. The most striking outcome of the initial reform efforts was the development and expansion of our PDS partnership. The KSU PDS partnership began in 1990 with three schools in one district. By 1998, the partnership had expanded to 15 PDSs in two districts.

Our early simultaneous renewal efforts also affected teachers and teaching practices in the KSU teacher-education program. We developed nine science and mathematics undergraduate courses and six semesters of field experiences conducted in PDSs through these reform initiatives. Pre- and postsurveys, interviews, observations, and project documents demonstrated an increase in inquiry teaching, group work, and a strong focus on student understanding in content courses (Cooper, 1995; Govindarajan, 1993; Zollman, 1994). As a consequence of the project, we completely revised the KSU teacher- education program into a field-based PDS program at the elementary and secondary levels.

Future teachers in the KSU teacher-education program also were affected positively by the initial reform movement. The first cadre of 30 undergraduate students who completed the revised program demonstrated improved science and mathematics content knowledge, science teaching efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward science, and teaching (Shroyer &. Wright, 1995; Stalheim-Smith & Scharmann, 1994; Wilson, 1996). We used the Expert Science Teaching Educational Evaluation Model (Burry-Stock, 1993) to complete follow-up interviews and observations with a smaller segment of students. Those teaching in Kansas showed a continuous increase in teaching proficiency during the first 5 years of practice (Bolick, 1996; Shroyer &. Wright, 1998).

Impact on Teacher-Education Programs From 1999 to 2005

The greatest impact of our recent simultaneous renewal efforts was the creation of performance-based, teacher-education standards that align with three sets of standards for teachers: (a) Program Standards for Teacher Preparation (NCATE, 1998); (b) National Model Standards for Beginning Teachers (Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium [INTASC], 1992), and the Standards for Professional Teachers (NBPTS, 1998).

We examined and modified introductory courses in core academic areas, methods courses, and field experiences, where needed, to align with the newly developed performance-based standards. For example, we incorporated Danielson’s (1996) framework for teaching across methods courses and field experiences to provide a common definition and more complete coverage of the principles of quality teaching. In another case, the social studies team created a new capstone course to address gaps in key content areas that they identified through their examination of state and national standards. The KSU College of Education, with assistance from PDS partners, also developed a performance-based portfolio and imbedded content assessments to assess students in relation to the newly developed standards.

We implemented two additional areas of undergraduate elementary concentration and certification through the TQE project (English as a second language and special education). In addition, we established six new PDSs (bringing the total to 21 PDSs across three districts) to provide intense teaching experiences in diverse, high needs, rural, and urban elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools.

The TQE directors and project staff organized opportunities for enhanced professional development for practicing teachers, administrators, and faculty to improve academic content knowledge, technological capabilities, teaching skills, and leadership skills necessary to reform the KSU teacher-preparation program. From 2000 to 2004, over 60 college faculty engaged in regular professional development and participated in 4-month-long summer institutes. PDS partnership faculty participants collaboratively established the Faculty Exchange for Teaching Excellence that continues to provide ongoing workshops and opportunities for faculty to discuss instructional strategies to improve teaching and learning. In addition, new teachers practicing in our PDSs were mentored during their initial 3 years of teaching to enhance teacher retention.

Survey and interviews indicate that KSU faculty and school partners who participated in the PDS Partnership activities developed a better understanding of each others’ work environment, the reform movement in teacher education, effective teaching strategies, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and increased understanding of performance-based assessment. The Colleges of Agriculture, Arts and Sciences, Education, and Engineering frequently engaged in joint educational ventures with one another and with our school partners. University and school faculty have attended conferences, made joint presentations, and implemented research projects together to enhance teaching and learning.

Our recent TQE simultaneous renewal efforts also enhanced the learning of our teacher-education students. We monitored the students by tracking their progress on the Principles of Learning and Teaching Exam required for licensure. Our performance data revealed a rise in performance from spring 2000, when 90% of our students met the state passing score, to spring 2005, when 97% of our students met the state’s passing score.

The impact of our first TQE grant from the U.S. Department of Education was so positive for all participants that PDS partners collaborated in 2005 to write an additional TQE grant to expand the partnership to include two additional districts (bringing the total to five district partners by the end of 2005) and three community college partners in the highly diverse region of southwest Kansas. We based our second TQE proposal on needs identified through our continuous renewal process. That grant, Equity and Access Enhancing Teacher Quality through Multi-institutional Partnerships, was funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and the PDS Partnership has continued to embrace new challenges, such as (a) transferability issues, (b) articulation agreements, (c) diversified teaching force, and (d) K-16 support for ELLs, which are all tremendous needs in our state.

Impact on K-12 PDSs

Impact on PDSs From 1989 to 1998

The greatest impact of our early renewal initiatives was on the science attitudes and practices of teachers in our first three PDSs. Pre- and postcomparisons indicated significant gains in teachers’ attitudes toward science and science teaching efficacy beliefs (Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996; Willhite, 1995). Pre- and postsurveys, interviews, and observations of the original PDS teachers also indicated increased science teaching, with a larger emphasis on hands-on inquiry. In addition, the teachers received more than a dozen state and national science and mathematics teaching awards (Shroyer et al., 1996).

Teachers in the first three PDSs were highly engaged in developing their own science and mathematics teaching expertise and sharing their knowledge and skills with colleagues. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Education recognized the action research professional development plan collaboratively developed by Woodrow Wilson Elementary PDS teachers as one of five national sites for “Excellence in Professional Development” (WestEd, 2000). The development plan also was highlighted in former President Clinton’s Call to Action for American Education in the 21st Century (1997), Promising Practices: New Ways to Improve Teacher Quality (U.S. Department of Education, 1998), and Ideas That Work: Mathematics Professional Development (Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, 1999). PDS teachers also shared their expertise with other teachers through more than 30 presentations at state, regional, and national science and mathematics conferences (Shroyer et al., 1996).

Impact on PDSs From 1999 to 2005

A major outcome of our more recent reform initiatives has been increasing the learning of K-12 students in our PDSs. From 2000 to 2005, we asked the clinical instructors, teachers, and administrators in each PDS to examine various indicators of student performance and to identify targeted areas for improvement on a School Improvement Action Plan. In the 21 schools, our goal was to improve mathematics or reading, or both. We provided extensive professional development and support for the partner schools in reading and mathematics on the basis of needs identified in each action plan.

The student achievement data reported in this article were based on state assessment scores from 2000-2005. We collected average student scores for each PDS from 2000-2005, then calculated average yearly gains in reading, mathematics, social studies, and science for each PDS. We averaged the scores from the PDS sites within each district; Figures 2-5 show the percentage gains from 2000-2005 for each assessment level (elementary school, middle school, high school) of each content test (reading, mathematics, science, social studies). Our three partner districts \are reported as Districts A, B, and C in these figures to respect our partners; they represent one, four, and eight elementary PDS sites, respectively. Districts B and C have two middle school PDS sites, and District A has one middle school PDS site. All partnership districts have one high school PDS site represented in Figures 2-5. Partner schools with low scores in 2000 showed the largest percentage gains; partner schools with the highest scores in 2000 showed the lowest percentage gain over the period.

The 21 schools in our partnership have shown gains in reading from 2000 to 2005, and 13 of these schools had larger gains than the average state gain. Seven of the 13 elementary schools in the partnership reported larger gain scores than the state average gain (5.0%) over the same timeframe. The three elementary schools that showed the greatest percentage of growth (14.6%, 18.8%, and 19.0%) over the 5 years assessed are each located in different partner districts and also are the three elementary schools in the partnership with the largest number of economically disadvantaged students. At the middle level, the five schools showed increased reading scores from 2000 to 2005. Four of the five schools reported larger achievement gains than the average state achievement gains (3.1%) over the same timeframe. The one middle school that had the greatest gains in reading (15.6%) is the middle school with the largest number of economically disadvantaged students. The three high schools in our partnership also showed reading gains. Two of the high schools reported gains in reading (7.4% and 4.2%) greater than the average state gain. One of the high schools has the largest number of economically disadvantaged students. We averaged reading scores from the PDS sites within each district (see Figure 2 for the percentage gains from 2000-2005 for each assessment level).

All of our partnership schools showed student achievement gains in mathematics; 13 of these schools had larger gains than the average state gains. Eight of the 13 elementary schools reported gains greater than the average state gains (22.7%) over the same period. The four elementary schools with the largest gains (40%- 66%) had some of the largest numbers of economically disadvantaged students. Three of the five middle schools had gains greater than the state gains in mathematics (13.8%). The middle school with the greatest number of minority and economically disadvantaged students had one of the largest increases in mathematics scores (36.3%). Two of the high schools had greater increases in mathematics than the average state gains (7.7%). The high school with the greatest gain (16.2%) is the high school with the largest number of economically disadvantaged students. Mathematics scores from the PDS sites within each district were averaged (see Figure 3 for the percentage gains from 2000-2005 for each assessment level-elementary school, middle school, high school).

Eighteen schools in the partnership reported student achievement gains in science; 13 of these schools had larger gains than the average state gains. Five of the 13 elementary schools showed gains greater than the average state gains (6.5%) over the same period. The two elementary schools with the largest gains (17.9% and 18.1%) have some of the largest numbers of economically disadvantaged students. All of the middle schools had gains greater than the state gains (5.2%) in science. The middle school with the largest increase in science scores (17.5%) had over 55% economically disadvantaged students. The three high schools in the partnership had greater increases in science than the average state gains (5.6%). The high schools with the greatest gains ( 10.2% and 11.2%) are high schools with large numbers of minority and economically disadvantaged students. We averaged science scores from the PDS sites within each district (see Figure 4 for percentage gains from 2000-2005 for each assessment level-elementary school, middle school, high school).

Students in Grades 6, 8, and 11 complete the state assessments for social sciences. Six of the elementary schools in the partnership are K-5 and do not have scores for the social sciences assessment. Fourteen of the 15 schools in which students completed social science state assessments improved over the period. Five of seven K-6 elementary schools in the partnership showed gains in student achievement over the period that were greater than the 7.7% state gain. One of the two elementary schools with the largest gain (25.9% and 32.1%) has over 50% minority enrollment and 58% economically disadvantaged students. Four of the five middle schools had gains greater than the state gains (6.9%) in social science. Two of the three high schools in the partnership had greater increases in social science than the average state gains (4.9%). We averaged social science scores from the PDS sites within each district (see Figure 5 for the percentage gains from 2000-2005 for each assessment level-elementary school, middle school, high school).

Although we cannot say without question that increases in student achievement are related to the simultaneous renewal efforts, evidence from our data support such an interpretation. All the schools in the project demonstrated improvements in reading, all but one school demonstrated improvements in mathematics, all but three schools demonstrated improvements in science, and all but one school demonstrated improvements in social sciences. The two content areas targeted most for improvement through our partnership efforts were mathematics and reading. The majority of schools had far greater achievement gains in mathematics and reading than average state achievement gains. As a comparison, PDS school improvement action plans never included any schoolwide plans for improving social studies. Because improvement efforts and professional development support was aligned with the improvement action plans, our partnership rarely offered professional development in social studies before 2005. Although all but one school demonstrated improvements in social sciences state assessments, student achievement gains averaged across all partner districts are above the state average achievement gains only at the middle school level (see Figure 6). The strong PDS focus on mathematics and reading, compared with social studies, is an indicator of the powerful influence of state and national accountability initiatives related to No Child Left Behind legislation.

Student achievement has not been a consequence of our collaborative work alone, but requires schools to deliberately extend these collaborative efforts to focus on school improvement. A comparison of action planning data, school improvement annual reports, and student achievement data indicates that the PDSs that demonstrated the greatest student achievement gains are those in which the clinical instructors, teachers, administrators, and faculty liaison took the school improvement action planning process the most seriously. Those schools collaborated with numerous faculty, took full advantage of multiple resources, used data to identify areas of weakness, and targeted improvement efforts and professional development efforts specifically on those identified areas of weakness. Strong connections exist across all sites between student achievement, targeted areas for improvement according to student achievement scores, and continuous professional development and resources for teachers.

As part of our professional development offerings for experienced teachers in the PDS Partnership, in fall 2000, we initiated a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) study and support group for teachers interested in pursuing NBPTS certification. Since the inception of this study and support group in 2000, over 70 PDS teachers participated in this process. In surveys and informal conversations, teachers who participated in the NBPTS process recognized it as one of the strongest forms of professional development that they had experienced.

We developed and implemented mentoring plans across the three TQE partner districts as one of the goals of the TQE project. The mentoring team, with lead teachers from the three partner districts, studied the mentoring literature and attended conferences and mentoring training sessions in 2000, the first year of the TQE project. The mentoring team then created mentoring plans for each district during the 2001-2002 academic year. From 2002-2005, we piloted and institutionalized the plans across the three partner districts. Surveys of new teachers in partner districts continue to indicate that we institutionalized strong mentoring programs across our PDS Partnership. Approximately 90% of teachers who were newly hired in partnership districts indicated in an April 2006 survey that they were confident that they would remain in teaching and that they believed they were prepared to do so.

We also tracked retention rates of our graduates because our ultimate purpose was to increase the retention rate of graduates teaching in Kansas. The 1-year retention rates of newly hired teachers that were mentored increased during the TQE project in all three districts. The 3-year retention rate for the class prior to the start of our TQE project was 82%. The 3-year retention rate for the most recent class to have had time to accumulate 3-year retention data (calendar year 2000) is 98%. However, the retention data is collected by our state and does not include graduates teaching out of state.

Conclusions

We documented a multi-institutional endeavor to simultaneously renew teacher education and K-12 schools through PDS partnerships. Project partners agree that the greatest impact from these renewal initiatives is enhanced collaboration and understanding and awareness of, and personal reflection on, teaching and learning.

We believe that simultaneous rene\wal is enhanced by developing a culture of collaboration, inquiry, and continuous growth that is supported by multifaceted program assessments, professional development, and the establishment of a mindset that we are responsible for one another’s students. We believe that that culture has helped create an appreciation for innovation, experimentation, and risk taking among faculty and teachers that has driven the improvement process. Most important, we believe that teacher educators and content faculty working together with PDS teachers and administrators can create good schools and good teachers simultaneously. Through our collaborative efforts, we significantly improved the KSU teacher-preparation program while enhancing K-16 teaching and learning.

The triangulation of program documents, interviews, surveys, and assessment data has led to two major conclusions regarding K-16 simultaneous renewal: (a) significant educational change requires extensive and continuous time, resources, professional development, and implementation support across the systems involved and (b) K-12 students must be placed at the center of any teacher-education initiatives. Those two conclusions represent the lessons that we learned regarding K-16 simultaneous renewal. Collaborative improvement is resource intensive and requires a great deal of time and attention. In addition, the focus of the improvement efforts must meet the education needs of K-12 students. It is natural that teacher educators place their primary focus on their own teacher- education programs and the learning of their college students. Teacher educators often assume that improvements in K-12 teaching and learning will be an indirect consequence of improvements in teacher education. Consequently, teacher educators do not perceive themselves as directly responsible for K-12 students.

Our simultaneous improvement efforts allowed us to reconsider the assumption reported in the preceding paragraph. Our greatest successes emerged from teacher-education initiatives that centered on K-12 student learning. If the ultimate vision for teacher education is to enhance K-12 student learning, then teacher educators in K-12 schools and colleges of education and arts and sciences must perceive themselves as directly responsible for the teaching and learning of K-12 students as well as that of future and practicing teachers. That is the potential of simultaneous renewal- to jointly create a collective capacity to improve K-16 teaching and learning.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061 : Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Council on Education. (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington DC: Author.

Bernstein, D. J. (1996). A departmental system for balancing the development and evaluation of college teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20, 241-248.

Bolick, M. E. (1996). Socialization influences of the elementary environment on a beginning teacher prepared as a construcn’vist educator: An interpretive case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Burry-Stock, J. (1993). The expert science teaching educational evaluation model (ESTEEM) Manual. Kalamazoo, Ml: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, Western Michigan University.

Clinton, B. (1997). President Clinton’s call to action for American education in the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED468585)

Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cooper, C. K. (1995). Qualitative analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ scientific ways of thinking, attitudes, and perceptions during collaborative earth science field-based experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education. (1999). Ideas that work: Mathematics professional development. Columbus, OH: Author

Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Govindarajan, G. (1993). Analysis of preservice elementary school teachers’ collaborative problem solving in a constructivist-based interdisciplinary science course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorroui’s schools of education. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Kansas State Board of Education. (2002). Certification and teacher education regulations and teaching standards for Kansas certification and teacher education. Topeka, KS: Author.

The Mathematical Association of America. (1991). A call for change: Recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of mathematics. Washington, DC: Author

Merrian, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1999). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Center for Improving Science Education. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Andover, WA: The Network.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do. New York: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1998). NCSS standards for social studies teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE: NCTE.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council. (1988). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers’ Association. (1988). Science education initiatives for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Author.

Ramey-Gassert, L, Shroyer, G., & Staver, J. (1996). A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80, 283-315.

Shroyer, M. G., Ramey-Gassert, L., Hancock, M., Moore, P., & Walker, M. (1995). Math, science, technology after-school clubs and summer magnet school: Collaborative professional development opportunities for science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 112-119.

Shroyer, M. G., &. Wright, E. L. (1995, April). Expertise in preservice elementary teaching in science, mathematics, and technology : Evaluation of an innovative model. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.

Shroyer, M. G., & Wright, E. L. (1998, April). A longitudinal case study of organisational change. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Diego, CA.

Shroyer, M. G., Wright, E. L., &. Ramey-Gassert, L (1996). An innovative model for collaborative reform in elementary school science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 151-168.

Stalheim-Smith, A., & Scharmann, L. C. (1994). General biology: Creating a positive learning environment for elementary education majors. The American Biology Teacher, 56, 216-220.

Teitel, L. (2001). How professional development schools make a difference: A review of research. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Promising practices: New ways to improve teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education.(1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation jVom The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Education Publications Center.

WestEd. (2000). Teachers who learn, kids who achieve: A look at schools with model pro/essional development. San Francisco: Author.

Willhite, K. T. (1995). Changes in elementary science teachers during their participation in a science, mathematics and technology teacher preparation project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Wilson, J. (1996). An evaluation of the field experiences of the innovative model for the preparation of elementary school teachers for science, mathematics, and technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 53-59.

Zollman, D. (1994). Preparing future science teachers. Physics Education, 29, 271-275.

GAIL SHROYER

SALLY YAHNKE

ANDREW BENNETT

CINDI DUNN

Kansas State University

Address correspondence to Gail Shroyer, 254 Biuemont Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. (E-mail: gshroyer@ksu.edu)

Copyright 2007 Heldref Publications

GAIL SHROYER is professor of elementary education and director of the PDS Partnership in the College of Education, Kansas State University. She is a co-director of Equity and Access: Enhancing Teacher Quality through Multi-institutional Partnerships, a Teacher Quality Enhancement Project supported by the U.S. Department of Education. SALLY YAHNKE is an associate professor of secondary education and family and consumer sciences, College of Education, Kansas State University. She coordinates the secondary PDS Partnership and is a co-director of the Equity and Access Teacher Quality enhancement Project. ANDREW BENNETT received his doctorate in mathematics from Princeton University, and has been at Kansas State University since 1988, where he is director of the Center for Quantitative Education, professor, Department of Mathematics, and codirector of the Equity and Access Teacher Quality Enhancement Project. CINDI DUNN is a principal evaluator, Office of Educational Innovation and Evaluation, College of Education, Kansas State University. She develops and implements program evaluations for externally funded projects. She is the principal evaluator for the Equity and Access: Teacher Quality Enhancement Project.

APPENDIX

School Improvement Action Plan Template

Kansas State University-Professional Development School Partnership School

Improvement Action Plans

School: District

Identified improvement area:

Rationale for selecting this area:

Targeted partnership goal:

Evidence of partnership impact: How will you know when you have achieved your goal? What are your indicators of student achievement? Who will be responsible for monitoring your progress?

Strategies: How do you plan to use KSU students and faculty resources to help achieve your goal?

Teacher involvement: How will the teachers in your building be involved in the process?

Resources: What resources do you plan to use to accomplish your goal?

Timeline: What is the timeline for activities and results?

Wish list: What resource needs will you have to accomplish your plans?

Copyright Heldref Publications Mar/Apr 2007

(c) 2007 Journal of Educational Research, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.