School Partnership Framework
Undergraduate And Graduate Educator Preparation Programs
Keene State College
Endorsed by Educator Preparation Program, May 20, 2020
Keene State College (KSC) Educator Preparation Programs have a long history of collaboration with schools in the Southwest region of New Hampshire, which provides the cornerstone for the ongoing development of educator talent in the state. The next step is to refine and expand our connections with school districts so that educator preparation is valued as a “shared responsibility” that is mutually beneficial to all involved in the process of preparing educators (Burroughs et al., 2020; CAEP 2020; Darling-Hammond, 2015; NCATE, 2010; Wasielewski, Birch, Bigaj, & Connelly, in press). We value each unique relationship that we build with P-12 schools, and realize that the diversity of school experiences in which our candidates engage is essential for their development. Mutually beneficial school partnerships can have an enormous impact on the development of high quality and effective teachers as well as positively affect P-12 learners.
KSC Educator Preparation Partnerships
In accordance with the CAEP (2020) definition of partnerships, KSC Educator Preparation programs define partnerships as mutually beneficial agreements between various partners that share the common goal of working together to create inclusive education communities for the purpose of preparing education professionals, enhancing a culture of lifelong professional learning, and responding to the needs of P-12 students.
Students (P-16) in our education community are at the center of our partnership efforts. When KSC and schools work closely together, we have the potential to share expertise and resources and improve teaching and learning for all involved.
Guiding Principles
Partnerships are unique to each KSC Educator Preparation Program (EPP) and follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. The most common way partnerships emerge is through supporting clinical experiences for pre-service and in-service educators. The Guiding Principles were developed to allow for program variation, yet hold onto the uniqueness of our EPPs and P-12 schools. The following principles are adapted from the New Hampshire IHE Network Clinical Practice and Partnership Conceptual Framework (2016).
Principle 1: Partnerships are centered on P-12 student learning and development
At the center of our partnership efforts is the P-12 learner while also building capacity for collaborative learning among KSC students and educators. The primary goal of a partnership is to improve teaching, learning and ultimately improve NH schools (Burroughs et al., 2020; Heafner, McIntyre, & Spooner, 2015; Wasielewski, in press). Within a partnership context we connect theory to practice in clinical placements with the intent of developing correlating projects and experiences that use evidence- based instructional practices (AACTE, 2010, 2018; Allsopp, DeMarie, Alvarez-McHatton, & Doone, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2015; Robinson, et al., 2016). Collectively we recognize the importance of supporting the diverse needs of all learners and endeavor to provide opportunities for using technology-enhanced learning opportunities at KSC and in partner schools.
Principle 2: Partnerships foster a culture of professional learning
Partnerships with P-12 schools emphasize teaching as a profession not an occupation and create communities of practice to strengthen the teaching profession and sustain KSC-school partnerships. A focus on fuller, deeper, and broader experiences for P-12 students, educator preparation candidates, and all those involved in clinical preparation is emphasized (CAEP, 2020). This is achieved through collaborative professional learning and research, graduate programs, teacher mentoring, and building teacher and leader capacity (Hunter-Quartz, et al., 2017; NAPDS, 2008; Robinson, et al., 2016; Wasielewski, in press). Educator preparation candidates are not finished ‘learning to teach or lead’ when they graduate from KSC. We desire to improve our profession through specific practices such as educator rounds, communities of practice, co-teaching, utilizing student performance data, educator assessment/accountability, and immersion in a variety of clinical models.
Principle 3: Partnerships are mutually beneficial and bidirectional
The development of educator preparation candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions occurs in an authentic setting supported by two-way and mutually beneficial relationships between schools and KSC (CAEP, 2020, NCATE, 2010). Establishing communication between and among partners is a critical component when developing and sustaining partnerships. Additionally, KSC faculty strive to understand and recognize the P-12 school culture and seek opportunities for EPP candidates to integrate into this culture. Partnerships nurture the development of interconnected structures of support for educators and community stakeholders in education that are proactive and responsive over time.
The responsibility for developing educator talent and supporting P-12 student learning is shared among all partners. To the extent possible, this means that all involved understand the shared vision and values between IHEs and schools (Burroughs et al., 2020; CAEP, 2020; Darling-Hammond, 2015; NAPDS, 2008; Snyder, 2005; Wasielewski, in press ). For example, partners co-select EPP candidates for participating in clinical experiences, co-construct experiences, co-evaluate all learners (P-12 learners and educator preparation candidates), and have mutual respect for one another. They collaborate and share decision-making on curriculum development activities, instructional technology, professional learning, and applied research to solidify partnerships (Boyle-Baise & McIntyre, 2008; Robinson & Darling-Hammond, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2015; Wasielewski & Gahlsdorf-Terrell, 2014).
Design Elements and Evidence
The Design Elements are intended to assist individual KSC Educator Preparation Programs (i.e., elementary, secondary, K-12, and advanced) to develop or enhance partnerships with schools. Within each Design Element and corresponding evidence, there is an opportunity to demonstrate adherence to each of the Guiding Principles. For example, an agreement between partners is an opportunity to articulate how P-12 student learning and development is supported by a partnership (Principle 1).
| Design Element | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Agreements Between Partners | Cooperative agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) |
| Administrative structures | Cooperative agreement or MOU; EPP or program advisory boards, Steering Committees, partnership networks, professional learning communities; Description in program handbooks |
| Shared vision and values for the preparation of future educators | Cooperative agreement or MOU; Minutes of planning meetings, syllabi and handbooks; Mutually developed shared values, beliefs, and goals; KSC – School Partnership Framework |
| Co-development of clinical practice activities (e.g., curriculum, assessment, scheduling, etc.) | Minutes of planning meetings; syllabi and handbooks; capturing infor mal feedback in systematic ways, exit survey of cooperating teachers. |
| Co-selection and co-evaluation of Educator Preparation candidates | Tk20 data and EPP administrative documentation/communications; Inclusion program handbooks |
| Shared resources including technology collaborations | Cooperative agreement or MOU; syllabi and handbooks; Stipend models for Cooperating Professionals and Site Supervisors; Joint grant proposal writing, letters of support; Facility and infrastructure sharing between school and KSC |
| Professional learning and action research | Minutes of planning meetings; capturing informal feedback in systematic ways; plans for professional development opportunities; strategies to encourage professional development; Collaborative action research studies |
| Ongoing evaluation of partnerships including data sharing | Completion of surveys, interviews, focus groups, EPLT meeting minutes; Cooperating Professional/Site Supervisor survey; Data sharing as appropriate to demonstrate effectiveness of partnership |
See Appendix for specific recommended evidence to document partnership elements and principles.
Resources and References
- American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), (2010). The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief. Washington, DC: Author.
- American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, [AACTE], (2018). A pivot toward clinical practice, its lexicon, and renewing the profession of teaching. Washington, DC: AACTE
- Allsopp, D., DeMarie, D., Alvarez-McHatton, P., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice:Connecting courses with field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19-35.
- Boyle-Baise, M. & McIntyre, D.J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS or community settings.
- In Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D.J., & Demers, K. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring questions in changing contexts, (3ed., p. 307-330). New York: Routledge.
- Burroughs, G., Lewis, A., Battey, D., Curran, M., Hyland, N.E., & Ryan, S. (2020). From mediated fieldwork to co- constructed partnerships: A framework for guiding and reflecting on p-12 school university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1) 122–134. DOI: 10.1177/0022487119858992
- Castle, S., Fox, R., & Souder, K. (2006, January). Do professional development schools (pds) make a difference?: A comparative study of PDS and non-PDS teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 65-80.
- Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (2020). Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) consolidated handbook. Washington, DC: Author.
- Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO].(2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming educator