Learning at Many Levels: Teacher Preparation at Professional Development Schools

Purpose

In traditional teacher education programs, prospective teachers study their academic specialization in a university department, are trained in pedagogy in the school of education, and devote a semester or a quarter of their final year to student teaching. Once they begin their first teaching job, opportunities for professional development or research outside their school's in-service programs are limited. This project sought to create professional development schools (PDS) that would prepare future teachers in the most realistic context possible and would integrate the subject- matter, pedagogical, and experiential aspects of their training. And because being a teacher should be synonymous with learning, the project's creators wanted to provide professional development opportunities for experienced teachers and to encourage research related to educational practice on the part of teachers and university faculty. The project was carried out by the University of California, Riverside's Comprehensive Teacher Education Institute (CTEI), a collaborative partnership of the university's School of Education, selected academic departments and local schools.

Innovative Features

The project began as a pilot at a single high school. During this phase, CTEI staff developed strong collaborative relationships with the school's teachers and administrators, designed specific features of the project, experimented with various approaches, built a reputable program, and attracted interest from other schools. Three more professional development schools were added during the years of FIPSE funding, with the assistance of an 11-member team of university and school faculty and administrators. The team reviewed applications from schools for evidence of receptivity to change and collaboration, professional cohesiveness among staff, interest in research, and commitment to teacher-driven staff development. They also evaluated applications for cross-cultural diversity, community support, and involvement in restructuring. This last item, they reasoned, would allow project personnel to complement the school's efforts, make changes quickly, and increase the likelihood of institutionalization.

The preparation of prospective teachers at professional development schools is a year-long process, which students undertake after completing the B.A. degree. During their fifth year, student teachers enroll full-time as graduate students at the university and pay regular tuition. They receive no compensation for their work at the PDS, but are eligible for financial aid and substitute teaching. The program includes 21 quarter units of field experience in the schools and 26 quarter units of courses. Some of the courses are taught at the university and some at the PDS sites, which are also wired for distance learning.

The program by necessity follows the school rather than the university calendar. In order to foster mutual support and solidarity, six to twelve student teachers are placed at each school. They attend teacher work days before classes begin, and their time at the school increases gradually to full-time in the spring. Their early induction and involvement throughout the year helps them to be accepted as faculty by both teachers and students and gives them a realistic perspective on the demands of teaching.

A university resident supervisor is assigned to each cohort of student teachers at a school. This individual, who is especially hired and evaluated by the university, may be a teacher, a faculty member, or a doctoral student. He or she works primarily at the school rather than on campus and is based in a room permanently assigned to professional development purposes. Like the student teachers, the resident supervisor follows the school rather than the university calendar, works with cooperating teachers, and has frequent contact with administrators and students. Cooperating teachers apply to work with prospective teachers. Those selected are trained by the university supervisors and other cooperating teachers at the site. To foster consensus and commitment, the cooperating teachers and the university supervisors jointly develop guidelines about the teachers' specific roles and responsibilities.

Aided by a handbook and daily seminars, student teachers engage in intensive guided observation in a variety of classrooms and subjects for the first three weeks of the year. Then they are assigned their cooperating teachers. Although the final assignments are made by the university supervisor, both cooperating teachers and prospective teachers have a say in the decision. The latter typically work with more than one cooperating teacher. After the initial period of observation, student teachers focus their attention on the classes for which they will eventually take full responsibility. They begin by assisting students in small groups and progress to grading work and teaching weekly lessons. In January they teach a week-long unit, and when the school's second semester begins in February they assume full responsibility for their assigned classes. This gradual transition results in an easier, less anxious experience for everyone involved. Daily seminars-jointly planned and led by the cooperating teachers and the university supervisor-are held at each site. These seminars, some of which are interdisciplinary, vary in method and content. They break down the isolation that prevails among secondary school faculty and develop cooperation, collegiality, and a sense of community. In addition, student teachers meet individually with cooperating teachers and with the university supervisor, thus gaining several mentors. Cooperating teachers meet together to work on issues such as assessing student teachers.

Students also take subject-specific instructional methods courses. These courses-some of which are offered at the schools-are collaboratively developed and taught by School of Education faculty, departmental faculty, and school teachers. Unlike their peers in traditional programs, CTEI student teachers are intensely involved in self assessment. They keep reflective journals, view and evaluate tapes of themselves, develop and distribute student surveys, and compile a teaching portfolio. During the school year, student teachers participate in all in-service programs, and they attend conferences and regional workshops with cooperating teachers. They participate in interdisciplinary team teaching, and they become certified as substitute teachers. When cooperating teachers and the university supervisor determine that they are ready, they have priority at their school for substitute teaching assignments, which they have the option to accept or decline. This arrangement allows prospective teachers to earn money, gain experience, and review their performance with the teacher for whom they substituted. The arrangement in turn benefits the school by making available substitutes who are familiar with its norms and instructional programs.

To enhance the professional development of experienced teachers, the project focuses on activities not typically available to them and strives to complement the schools' staff development programs. Participation in all activities is voluntary and open to any teachers at the partner schools. Teachers are included in the project management team, along with school administrators and university personnel. Membership in the team, which meets bimonthly for a full day to develop and refine project activities, allows teachers to formulate policy. In addition, teachers may develop and co-teach university courses and prepare materials for student teachers, working as equals with university faculty and joining them in conference presentations about the project at local, state and national conferences.

Whereas in-service programs typically address the interests of a school's entire staff, CTEI offers teachers subject-specific seminars on such topics as state standards, methods, and curriculum. Led by a university faculty member, the seminars respond to identified interests and needs of the teachers. University personnel also help teachers to write grant proposals for pedagogical innovations, curriculum development, and summer activities.

Teachers at the partner schools receive user privileges at the University of California, Riverside, Library. In collaboration with the library, project staff train teachers in information technology and support them in its use and assist professional development schools in gaining access to the Internet. The university gives each school a high-end computer and helps it to acquire additional refurbished computers from corporate donors. CTEI offers teachers who engage in classroom research the opportunity to consult with university faculty. In turn, professional development schools serve as research sites for School of Education faculty.

Evaluation and Project Impact

Ongoing formative evaluation assesses student teachers and this leads to program development and revision. CTEI staff use information from videos, journals, portfolios, high school student evaluations of courses and prospective teachers, classroom observations, formal questionnaires, interviews, retreats, and reunions for graduates. During the period of FIPSE funding, external evaluators compared the experiences of CTEI student teachers with those of graduates of other southern California programs. They administered a general survey about student teaching experiences to first- and second-year teachers in 18 school districts and to student teachers in the professional development schools.

The evaluators collected information about CTEI schools through site visits, year-end surveys, and interviews of school administrators, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. They assembled data about completion rates and professional status after graduation and administered Teaching Tasks and Efficiency Ratings questionnaires. CTEI seems to have provided substantial benefits. CTEI students reported significantly more camaraderie and support than the teachers who had undergone traditional student teaching experiences. They felt more a part of the school and of the faculty and rated their preparation program higher than the comparison group.

During the school year, student teachers showed significant gains in their ability to perform teaching tasks as well as the usual substantial decline in commitment to teaching which accompanies the dawning of a more realistic attitude toward their profession. CTEI students felt well prepared for their duties, more involved in self assessment and closer to students than the comparison group. Because they were at the school for an entire year, project participants were able to base their lessons not only on the curriculum but also on their knowledge of the students. Overall, the evaluators concluded that CTEI student teachers had a more authentic experience than students from traditional programs and entered the profession as if they were second year teachers. Ninety-four percent of the students graduated, and 80 percent went into teaching. In the two following years, 92 and 87 percent of CTEI graduates accepted teaching positions, compared with national rates of between 60 and 70 percent.

Preliminary results of research conducted after the end of the FIPSE grant indicate that CTEI graduates feel well prepared for teaching. They attribute their confidence to the full-year teaching experience and to working closely with many teachers. The majority of graduates from traditional programs included in the research, on the other hand, do not feel well prepared, and believe that they would have been most helped by a longer and more realistic teaching experience and more support and collaboration-the very strengths of the CTEI approach.

The evaluators found that the project did enhance the professional development of experienced teachers. Because teachers proposed many of the project's activities and chose which ones to participate in, and because teachers from different schools planned and participated in activities together, they reported a breakdown of isolation, a willingness to try new ideas in the classroom and an appreciation for the collaborative, supportive environment created by CTEI. Teachers' involvement in research further encouraged their professional growth and instructional innovation and signaled to them that research is not limited to university settings. Many teachers felt a sense of renewal in their work.

These outcomes were greatest at the sites where implementation of all components took place. Teachers at one site, which had difficulty adjusting the master schedule for all cooperating teachers, did not exhibit the same level of collegiality as the others. On the other hand, the pilot site, which was in its seventh year at the time of the evaluation, reported the highest level of support and camaraderie among teachers, possibly because these effects increase with time.

Lessons Learned

Because not all program components were implemented to the same extent at all sites, student teachers experienced uneven levels of support. It seems that certain general conditions influence the effectiveness of the CTEI experience: the desirability and location of the on-site meeting room, the extent to which the program becomes a part of the school culture, and the scheduling of the daily seminar. In the traditional model of student teaching, in which a wide pool of candidates for cooperating teacher assignments is available, it is possible to select individuals with considerable expertise. Because programs such as CTEI confine their pool of cooperating teachers to the partner schools, it is important to select professional development school sites with particularly expert teachers and to increase the expertise of cooperating teachers at the existing sites.

Project Continuation

CTEI has become the mainstream student teaching program at the university.

Dissemination and Recognition

The project received the Quality of Education Award from the California Council on the Education of Teachers, the Exemplary Teacher Education Program Award from the National Education Association, and the 1997 Distinguished Program in Teacher Education Award from the Association of Teacher Educators, which honors teacher education programs that exemplify collaboration between local schools and institutions of higher education.

Cooperating teachers participated in grant-writing workshops and submitted proposals, individually or in collaboration with CTEI faculty, to funding agencies. Two teachers obtained grants from the MacArthur Academic Alliance, and another collaborated on a planning grant on mathematics and science teaching from the Eisenhower State Grant Program. A team of teachers and CTEI faculty obtained funding from the University of California Office of the President to research professional development for practicing teachers. CTEI also received funding from the California Department of Education.

Project staff, cooperating teachers and student teachers jointly presented the project at many local, state, and national meetings. CTEI continues to collaborate with the National Center for Innovation's Teacher Education Initiative and to consult with a variety of institutions and educators working to establish professional development schools throughout the country. The program now includes five schools in three districts-three high schools, a middle school, and a newly-added elementary school. Because some of these are feeder schools, it will be possible to institute some innovative practices across sites. The project may expand to additional elementary and secondary schools next year.

Available Information

Further information may be obtained from:

Judith H. Sandholtz
School of Education
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521-0128
Telephone: 909-787-5798

[Teacher Education] [Table of Contents] [Prescott College]

FIPSE Home