Table Of ContentCreating an Environment of Educational
Excellence: The University of Mississippi-PDS
Partnership – The Evolution Continues
Susan Kaye Pepper, PhD
University of Mississippi
Kimberly Jeane Hartman, PhD
St. Petersburg College, Florida
Sarah Elizabeth Blackwell, EdD
University of Mississippi
Ann Elizabeth Monroe, EdD
University of Mississippi
ABSTRACT: Research emphasizes the effectiveness of professional development schools in
preparing prospective teachers to successfully meet the needs of students. Effective school-
university partnerships have a positive impact on student learning and on the stakeholders
involved. Recounting the journey of the University of Mississippi PDS partnerships reveals our
evolution from a PDS as defined by the Holmes Group in 1990 to our current status. The
opportunity to reexamine the teacher education program through a Blue Ribbon Redesign
InitiativeforTeacherPreparationhighlighted the needforour relationshipswithschooldistricts
to move back to PDS partnerships as now defined by the NAPDS. During this process, the
revisions to our program and the changes being implemented led to the establishment of the
framework of the ‘‘Six Cs for Effective Partnerships.’’ Recounting this process should be
beneficial to teacher education programs and school partners who are considering program
redesign and the revitalization of partnerships.
Research reveals the one factor that has the component of the curriculum is sustained,
greatest impact on student learning is the begins early, and provides immediate applica-
classroom teacher (Levine, 2006). Teacher tion of theory to real classroom situations. The
preparation programs have a tremendous op- concept of professional development schools
portunity and responsibility to train teachers (PDS)providesavehicletoaccomplishthisgoal.
who positively impact student learning. Accord- The University of Mississippi teacher
ing to Levine, exemplary teacher education education program initiated PDS partnerships
programs are committed to preparing excellent as defined by the Holmes Group in 1990.
teachers and have clearly identified what an However, with the growth in the program since
excellent teacher needs to know and be able to that time, maintaining true PDS partnerships
do. Partnerships between teacher education was difficult and the relationships slowly
programs and P-12 schools have demonstrated moved away from the PDS concept. With close
an essential role in preparing effective teachers. examination of our programs and our partner-
Levine points out that in the most effective ships with area schools came the realization
teacher education programs the field experience thatweneededtoreturntothePDSconceptto
74 School—University Partnerships Vol. 5, No. 1
Creating an Environment of Educational Excellence 75
improve the effectiveness of our teacher great potential for providing pre-service teachers
education program. This article recounts the the opportunity to make these connections
twenty-year evolution of our teacher education while practicing instructional decision-making
program, the review of the effectiveness of our and self-reflection. Levine (2006) contends that
program, and the resulting partnership and a PDS ‘‘offers perhaps the strongest bridge
programmatic changes targeted at strengthen- between teacher education and classroom
ing the training of our graduates. We believe outcomes, academics and clinical education,
that teacher education programs and their theory and practice, and schools and colleges’’
school partners will benefit from reading our (p. 105). Darling-Hammond and Bransford
story. (2005) acknowledge the value of PDS partner-
shipsasexcellentopportunities fornewteachers
The Professional Development School to learn to teach alongside more experienced
Concept teachers. Research suggests that teachers gradu-
ating from a PDS program are better able to
The Holmes Group, also known as the Holmes
make connections between ideas in coursework
Partnership, initiated the professional develop-
and their clinical experiences (Yerian & Gross-
ment school (PDS) concept over twenty years
man, 1997).
ago. In 1990, the Holmes Group developed six
Through the collaborative efforts involved
general guiding principles for creating a PDS.
in forming and maintaining PDS sites, both
According to the Holmes Group guidelines,
teacher education programs and P-12 schools
PDS sites were to include a commitment to:
benefit (Caprano, Caprano & Helfeldt, 2010).
Authentic PDS sites provide extensive experi-
1. teaching for understanding (rather than a
ence within the school for prospective teachers
factual recall) so that students learn for a
along with frequent and sustained supervision
lifetime,
2. organizingclassroomsandschoolsaslearning and feedback by trained classroom teachers and
communities, university supervisors. P-12 teachers and univer-
3. setting ambitious goals for everybody’s chil- sity faculty members benefit from collective
dren, planning and decision making, as well as from
4. establishing an environment that supports participating in research and inquiry about
continuing learning for all adults as well as teaching and teacher education (Abdal-Haqq,
children,
1998; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Darling-Ham-
5. making reflection and inquiry the central
mond, 2005).
feature of the school, and
While teacher preparation programs recog-
6. inventing a new organization (Holmes
nize the value of PDS partnerships and their
Group,1990, p. 7).
role in preparing effective teachers, they agree
Support for the professional development that these partnerships can be difficult to form
school concept continues to be strong. In 2006, and maintain. As noted by the National
Levine stated that PDS sites provide ‘‘a superb Association for Professional Development
laboratory for education schools to experiment Schools (NAPDS, 2008), differing notions have
with the initiatives designed to improve student emerged as to the meaning and purpose of a
achievement’’ (p. 105). PDS. This creates a challenge to the develop-
Traditional teacher preparation programs ment and effective implementation of true PDS
have been characterized as being too theoretical partnerships.Today,manyeducatorsusePDSto
and having little connection to practice (Dar- describe any school-university relationship that
ling-Hammond& Baratz-Snowden,2005). Such engagesinthepreparationofnewteachers.This
criticism has led many teacher preparation idea varies greatly from the concept first
programs to create stronger links between established in the late 1980s and, as a result,
course content and classroom practice. Accord- thetermhaslostitsauthenticity.Thisrealization
ing to Moore (2003), field experiences hold prompted the NAPDS to establish a set of
76 SUSANKAYEPEPPERETAL.
essentials that identifies more clearly what it Ribbon Committee for Redesign (BRC). The
means to be a PDS (National Association of redesign focused faculty’s attention on the
Professional Development Schools, 2008). current status of the program through an in-
These essentials are closely related to the depth review of seven major issues related to
guidelines initially proposed by the Holmes teacher preparation: field experiences, subject
Group but provide more focused attention to area content knowledge, differentiated instruc-
thekeyelementsofaPDS.Thesenineessentials tion, classroom management, recruitment/re-
of a PDS require partnerships to: tention, strong partnerships, and accountability.
Information gathered from research and reflec-
1. craft a comprehensive mission statement, tion related to these issues, as well as feedback
2. commit to the preparation of future educa-
from our school partners, guided faculty as they
tors,
planned innovative ways to enhance and
3. provide professional development for all
improve current practices. While the BRC was
participants,
comprised of faculty at the UM SOE, input
4. committoinnovativeandreflectivepractices,
from our school partners was also an integral
5. engage in widespread dissemination of their
work and its impact on student learning, part of the decision making process. The BRC
6. articulate an agreement of roles and respon- used the results from Likert-type and open-
sibilities, ended items collected from our annual Teacher
7. sustain a forum for ongoing governance, Education Program Evaluation (See Appendix).
reflection, and collaboration, This program evaluation completed by student
8. determine formal roles across institutional
teachers, P-12 cooperating teachers and admin-
settings, and
istrators in the participating schools, and
9. share resources, as well as reward and
university supervisors asked specific questions
recognize participants.
related to program effectiveness and the part-
nership between the university and the school
In a PDS partnership, the teacher prepara-
sites. Resultsfromtheevaluationwerecompiled
tionprogramandthelocalschoolbenefitfroma
over a number of years to determine stakehold-
collaborative relationship as they work closely
ers’ perceptions of strengths and areas for
together to prepare new teachers. Reflection on
improvement within the partnership. The
theeffectivenessofthepartnershipandplanned
themes that emerged were matched with the
revisions to strengthen the teacher preparation
sevenmajorissuesrelatedtoteacherpreparation
program and the partnership should take place
on an on-going basis. This process helps insure identified in the BRC Redesign Initiative. The
that the collaborative partnership prepares well- results provided valuable information that
qualified teachers who are able to facilitate P-12 guided the work of the BRC committee.
student success. The challenge for a more As the redesign process unfolded, we
comprehensive study of the overall teacher realized our partnerships with area schools no
preparation program at the University of longer fit the definition of a PDS as defined by
Mississippi School of Education (UM SOE) the Holmes Group guidelines under which they
was prompted by a collaborative effort of the were initially developed (1990). As a result, the
Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning more focused and better-defined nine essentials
(2009) and the Mississippi Department of designated by the NAPDS became the guide-
Education Blue Ribbon Redesign Initiative for linesforenhancingourpartnershipwithschools
Teacher Preparation. The purpose of this with the goal of reestablishing true PDS sites.
initiative, which encompassed all teacher prep- The seven major issues related to teacher
aration institutions in Mississippi, was to preparation were addressed by the BRC in a
increase the quality of new teachers in Mis- way that would eventually fit the model of PDS.
sissippi’s P-12 schools. The acknowledgement by the NAPDS
Faculty at the UM SOE embraced the (2008) that many partnerships no longer match
charge of this initiative and formed a Blue the PDS guidelines and the understanding that
Creating an Environment of Educational Excellence 77
other universities may be struggling with the districts became interested in participating in
same issues prompted us to share our story. the training. Several teachers from these sur-
Recountingthisprocessprovidesanunderstand- rounding districts participated in summer
ing of where we started and the reasons our workshopsto receive training andbuild support
focus shifted to a modified version of a PDS. networks among the teachers that had been
TheBlueRibbonRedesignInitiativeforTeacher trained (C. Leigh, personal communication,
Preparation facilitated the reexamination of our March 26, 2001).
program and reinforced the need to return to In 1991, initial participants of the Univer-
thetruemeaningofaPDS.Therevisionstoour sity of Mississippi PDS partnership began the
program and the changes currently being formal process of establishing the PDS partner-
implemented to further build and strengthen ship. Faculty members and the principals and
our partnerships are included. Through this teachers from five area school districts began to
processthedevelopmentofamodelforeffective build the partnership based on guidelines
partnerships emerged. established by the Holmes Group (1990). In
creating what the Holmes Group would define
in their guidelines as a new organization, they
Background of the University of
created a long-range plan that established
Mississippi PDS Partnership
criteria for expansion of sites and personnel,
The UM SOE has a long history of working plannedcollaborativeactivities,anddevelopeda
with area P-12 schools in north Mississippi. handbook that defined the underlying assump-
Partnerships between The University of Mis- tions and responsibilities to which each partner
sissippi and area elementary schools began as a committed (Love, Emerson, Shaw & Leigh,
resultof theMississippiReformActof1982.At 1996). The handbook became the written
that time, the UM SOE operated a university document that outlined the roles and responsi-
kindergarten that served as a laboratory in bilities of each participant—the university facul-
which pre-service teachers observed and trained ty, school partners, and pre-service teachers. To
while working with young children. The Mis- further address the guidelines, the mission of
sissippi Reform Act of 1982 provided for the this partnership focused on empowering teach-
establishmentofkindergartensinpublicschools ers to become facilitators of learning; to value
throughout the state. In the years that followed, themselves as reflective, interactive problem
as the kindergartens were included in the solvers; and, to emerge as responsible, active
elementary schools, the university laboratory leaders and autonomous generators of knowl-
school was dissolved and the university faculty edge and ideas. Eachyear, university faculty met
began assisting one local school system by with school faculty to review and revisit the
providing training for kindergarten teachers in mission, the philosophy, and ‘‘TEACHERS as
developmentally appropriate methods for young Facilitators’’ knowledge-base model. This pro-
children. Consequently, as pre-service teachers cess insured the participants of the partnership
observed and worked in field-based experiences were focused and devoted to the same goals
in the kindergarten classrooms in this school, (Chambless, Love & Owens, 1998).
they observed elementary classroom teachers As the partnership continued to emerge, an
implementing the types of early childhood advisory council was organized. Administrators
instruction being advocated in their classes at and teachers from nearby school districts and
the university (C. Leigh, personal communica- universityfacultyfromliberalartsandeducation
tion, March 26, 2001). joined UM SOE faculty on the council. The
By 1986, training in developmentally ap- advisory council developed a timeline for
propriate methods expanded to first grade planning, implementing, and refining the UM-
teachers in this district. Gradually, as assistance PDS Partnership. The group developed selec-
and support for the teachers in this school tion criteria for PDS sites. These criteria
district expanded, teachers from surrounding included the need for diverse programs, diverse
78 SUSANKAYEPEPPERETAL.
populations, excellence in teaching, and imple- had planned based on the constructivist,
mentation of the Interstate Teacher Assessment interdisciplinary approach (Love, et al, 1996).
and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards To ensure elementary pre-service teachers
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992). had experience working in diverse settings, they
With Holmes Group and university support, were required to work in both an upper level
several members of the advisory group attended and lower level classroom in at least two
Holmes Group meetings, made presentations, different PDS sites during the field based
and networked with other professionals on a experiences. Selection of PDS sites where
national level (Love, et al, 1996). diverse populations were located and special
As work continued, personnel from the needs children were taught in inclusive class-
schooldistrictsanduniversitydevelopedavision rooms were additional considerations. Special
education pre-service teachers completed fifteen
for the creation of an environment of educa-
hours of field experience for each of their
tional excellence. Such an environment would:
courses andparticipated in thestudent teaching
(cid:2) nurture the growth and education of diverse experience in the PDS sites in the spring.
student populations, During the student teaching semester, pre-
(cid:2) support the professional development of serviceteachersmetregularlywithschoolfaculty
experienced teachers, administrators, and as a cohort group. A seminar class was held on-
counselors, site with each group. School faculty shared the
(cid:2) support the professional development of responsibility of teaching senior level methods
future professionals, and courses while university faculty were often
(cid:2) allow professionals to explore and generate invited to model instructional practices in PDS
new knowledge about teaching and learning sites (Love, et al, 1996).
(Professional Development School Site
Theuniversity’sresearchandservicerolesin
Guide,1992, p.1).
PDSschoolswereenhancedbytheappointment
of a university site coordinator in each school
A university-supported grant made it possi-
district. These site coordinators played a
ble for a classroom teacher from a participating
leadershiproleinplacingstudents,coordinating
school district to work part-time as a liaison to
university supervisors, and planning seminars
pinpoint staff development needs and gain
for student teachers. They regularly met with
perspectives by assisting in undergraduate
administratorsasaproactivemeasuretoprevent
teacher preparation courses. PDS leaders then
and resolve problems. The site coordinators
conducted summer seminars for cooperating
communicated with cooperating teachers and
teachers, administrators, and counselors. In
pre-service teachers about their needs for
these seminars, supported by Holmes Group
professional development training. Site coordi-
grants,participantsdeveloped an understanding
nators organized efforts in which cooperating
of the PDS concept, discussed philosophical
teachers and administrators served as resource
principles of both the PDS concept and the
persons for student seminars on topics such as
university’s teacher education knowledge base, communicating with parents, addressing child-
and defined elements of individual roles and ren’s learning styles, preparing lessons to meet
benefits to all participants (Love, et al, 1996). children’s interests and needs, the middle
During the field experiences, elementary school concept, and classroom management
education students observed and tutored in the (Love, et al, 1996).
PDS sites throughout their junior year. Senior University supervisors who worked with
education students worked in the PDS sites for students in designated schools regularly visited
two full-time Action Lab blocks totaling seven the pre-service teachers to supplement the
weeks during the fall semester. During the 15- guidance they received from cooperating teach-
week student teaching experience in the spring ers, to participate in action research projects,
semester,pre-serviceteacherstaughtlessonsthey and to support cooperating teachers as they
Creating an Environment of Educational Excellence 79
made changes in their classrooms. Cooperating revealed that the UM-PDS did not meet the
teachers participated in campus classes, serving nine essentials of ‘‘true’’ PDS partnerships
as resource persons and co-teachers. Initially, identified by NAPDS. Based on the partnership
teacher exchanges were facilitated by a small continuum proposed by Teitel (2008), the
grant given to participating schools by the partnership existing between UM and local
university so teachers could visit each others’ school districts prior to the Blue Ribbon
classrooms. The feeling of community in the Initiative for Redesign of Teacher Preparation
PDS was enhanced by offering school district could be classified as a ‘‘transactional relation-
partners privileges such as access to the ship.’’Atransactionalpartnershipacknowledges
university library, parking privileges, and the a commonality of purpose and makes adapta-
opportunity to purchase tickets and member- tions and adjustments in the way the partners
ships to recreational facilities. School district work with one another in order to reach their
faculty also received scholarship credit hours for individual and collective goals. However, the
graduate coursework taken at University of two groups often remain as individual entities
Mississippi toward an advanced degree (Love, anddonottakeadvantageoftherelationshipto
et al, 1996). learn from each other. Our pre-service teachers
Eachyear,avarietyoftechniquestoevaluate continued to complete field placements in the
and make appropriate changes to the UM-PDS area schools but the collaborative nature of the
partnership were implemented. Along with relationship with the schools was no longer
informal discussions with students, cooperating evident.
teachers, administrators, and university faculty, The changes proposed by the School of
the partnership administered a yearly survey to Education Blue Ribbon Committee for Rede-
all participants. The results of the formal and sign (BRC) and approved by faculty have the
informal assessments were analyzed and distrib- goal of moving our partnerships with P-12
uted. The results served as a basis for further schools to a transformational level. In a
discussion, consideration, and change. Changes transformational partnership, Teitel (2008) ex-
and refinements were made to the program plains that the partners retain their identities
based on the outcomes of the evaluation but are willing to learn from and with each
procedures (Love, et al, 1996). other. The success of pre-service teachers
A study conducted by Pepper and Love becomes the joint responsibility of all parties.
(2002) chronicled the evolution of the first Stakeholders work collectively to make deci-
twenty years of the UM SOE partnerships sions, leading to a deeper sense of profession-
(1982–2002) that included the establishment alism enabling them to develop a common
of the PDS partnerships. Based on longitudinal vision of shared outcomes. The process of
patterns revealed in the results of the evalua- making these changes is underway for the
tions of the PDS partnerships over ten years, partnerships and the return to PDS sites in
recommendations for future changes to the selected schools will gradually take place.
partnership to better accomplish the mission The faculty at the UM SOE acknowledges
were outlined and implemented. there are challenges involved in accomplishing
Through the years, the partnerships be- this endeavor, yet a successful program redesign
tween area P-12 school districts and the UM depends on strengthening PDS partnerships.
SOE continued to work together to successfully One obvious challenge to this process is
train pre-service teachers. However, because of managing the growth in the number of school
the growth in numbers of students, school sites, sites, regional campus sites, and pre-service
and the addition of four university-based teachers over the years. The current PDS
regionalcampuses,thepartnershipsmovedaway partnership program has grown substantially
from the initial Holmes Group definition of since 2001, whenthe program consisted of nine
professional development schools. Close exam- schooldistrictswith24schoolsandoneregional
ination of the partnership by the BRC also service center for persons with special needs.
80 SUSANKAYEPEPPERETAL.
Currently, our students complete field experi- ing relationships with one school that will serve
ences within 37 school districts (143 schools) as as a pilot.
well as the regional service center for persons In addition, the formation of a P-16
withspecialneeds.Inaddition,theprogramhas Council within the NPS has enhanced commu-
grown from a program on the main campus to nication and collaboration between the univer-
include four regional sites with full time tenure- sity and partnership school districts. The
line faculty. The SOE faculty acknowledges that purpose of the council is to provide a
consistency of program implementation across collaborative network of university faculty,
school sites and at regional campuses will be a district superintendents, principals, cooperating
teachers, and students focused on teacher
challenge, but measures are being taken to
education program improvements.
ensure the needed consistency. One such
The first programmatic change implement-
measure implemented is the appointment of
ed was a year-long field placement during the
content area coordinators to facilitate consisten-
senior year for elementary, secondary, and
cy in course requirements and content across
special education pre-service teachers. The pilot
sites.Thenumberofelementary,secondary,and
for the year-long placement occurred during the
specialeducationteachereducationstudentshas
2009–2010 school year. Prior to implementa-
also grown substantially. The increased enroll-
tion, discussions were held with principals and
ment is considered a positive for the program
superintendents in the NPS and initial input
and university, yet it presents additional chal-
from stakeholders indicated strong support for
lenges as the redesign of the PDS partnerships
theyear-longfieldplacements.Asaresultofthis
proceeds.
positive feedback and with understanding
gained during the pilot year, year-long place-
Implementation of Program/Partnership mentswereimplementedforallseniors,P-12for
Changes
the 2010–2011 school year.
Research supports the effectiveness of the
Initial planning by the BRC for the redesign
year-long internship. In a report completed by
included numerous meetings to begin the
the Center for the Studyof Teaching and Policy
process of moving school partnerships to a
(2001), prepared for the U.S. Department of
transformative relationship. This initial plan-
Education Office for Educational Research and
ning led to the formation of a Network of
Improvement, research indicated that teachers
Professional Schools (NPS). The NPS is com-
whocompletedayear-longinternshipweremore
prised of all schools currently serving as field
satisfied with their training, had a higher
experience sites for our pre-service teachers,
retention rate, and consistently rated their
including those that were once considered PDS
teaching abilities higher than teachers in a
sites. The change signifies the UM SOE’s
traditional program. The report also pointed
acknowledgement that our partnerships have
out that experienced and newly certified
moved away from being ‘‘true’’ PDS sites. The
teachers alike see clinical experiences as a
goal of the redesign process is to slowly move
powerful element of teacher preparation. Coop-
partnershipswithselectedschoolsintheNPSto erating teachers have a powerful influence on
PDS sites as defined by NAPDS. Programmatic the nature of the student teaching experience.
changes implemented as a result of the BRC Researchdocumentssignificantshiftsinattitude
took place in all school settings to ensure the among pre-service teachers who work under
consistency of training our teacher education close supervision in real classrooms with
students received. Because these changes are a children. Allowing pre-service teachers to re-
major undertaking within all the NPS schools, main in one classroom for the entire year
the BRC realizes that the move to build true provides a complete overview of classroom
PDS relationships will be slow and deliberate. management and organization, student growth,
The first step has been initiated by strengthen- andtheday-to-daychallengesinherentinbeinga
Creating an Environment of Educational Excellence 81
teacher. This year-long experience also provides practice in the field serves as one measure of
the opportunity for pre-service teachers to program effectiveness. Scores received on the
thoroughly conceptualize applications of theo- Praxis II test at the end of their program will be
retical models. In 2010, the National Council another measure. Comparison of results collect-
for Accreditation of Teacher Education ed from pre-service teachers in PDS sites and
(NCATE) (2010) strongly encouraged the move non-PDS sites may reveal differences in their
to year-long placements. performance. An additional measure of the
The second major programmatic change strength of pre-service teachers placed in PDS
impacting prospective teachers involved in- sites will be revealed through follow-up surveys
creased training related to the diverse needs administered to new teachers and the principal
of P-12 students. Additional coursework fo- after their first year of teaching. In addition,
cused on teaching students with special needs assessment of the renewed partnerships contin-
has been added to all teacher education ues to be gathered through the revised Teacher
programs. The IDEA (2004) mandate for Education Program Evaluation (see Appendix),
inclusion of special needs students in general as well as through focus group interviews with
education classrooms supports the need for all stakeholders and the P-16 Council. Analysis
teachers to be prepared to work with students’ ofthedatawillbesubmittedtotheP-16Council
diverse needs. Kilanowski-Press, Foote, and for review. Recommendations for improvement
Rinaldo (2010) indicate that teachers generally will be submitted to the Dean and the
believe they do not have adequate training in Department of Curriculum and Instruction for
theirteacherpreparationprogramsoraspartof implementation.
their in-service professional development to Through the redesign process involving
work with students with special needs. Input year-longplacementsandtheadditionalcourse-
provided by our professional partners and our work in special education, the BRC began to
teacher education graduates in their first year realize a pattern emerging in discussions and
of teaching support these findings and has implementation that helped to frame a rede-
resulted in changes to strengthen and better sign model for effective partnerships. Six
prepare pre-service teachers in our programs to important ‘‘Cs’’ were identified as essential to
meet these challenges. Beginning in fall 2011, the success of the redesign: collaboration,
incoming sophomore elementary teacher edu- communication, choice, continuity, consider-
cation students enrolled in a program that will ation, and community. These six ‘‘Cs’’ seemed
lead to dual certification in elementary educa- to resonate throughout the discussions as
tion (K-6) with a special education add-on important areas of focus for strengthening
endorsement for mild/moderate disabilities and maintaining the partnerships with schools
upon graduation. Secondary education stu- in the NPS and future PDS sites.
dents will be eligible for an add-on endorse-
ment in mild/moderate special education with
Six ‘‘Cs’’ of Effective Partnerships
an additional six hours of coursework upon
graduation. The six Cs model guided our work through the
Another result of the redesign process was redesign planning and implementation. The
development of an assessment plan to evaluate model (See Figure 1) has been beneficial in
program effectiveness and renewed partnership strengthening our relationship with current
relationships. Feedback gathered from pre- partners in the NPS and is integrally connected
service teachers, NPS teachers and administra- to the NAPDS nine essentials. As a result, the
tors, as well as university faculty and other six Cs provided guidance as we began the move
stakeholders, served as the impetus for contin- to development of the initial PDS sites.
uous improvement of teacher training. Contin- Collaboration is the shared negotiation of
ued data collection and analysis of pre-service purpose and task (Grimmett,1993) and ensures
teacher coursework and observations of their that relationships among partnership schools
82 SUSANKAYEPEPPERETAL.
year-longseniorfieldplacementimplementedby
our teacher education program has enhanced
the learning experience for all stakeholders and
strengthened our collaborative partnerships.
Probably the most critical aspect of a
successful university and school partnership is
communication. In order for the professional
learning communities to improve the teaching
and learning process, a partnership must
establishastrongframeworkforcommunication
(Doolittle, Sudeck & Rattugan, 2008). This
framework may be initially established through
written and oral communication between uni-
versity and partnership sites. This process is
usually followed by a formal agreement estab-
lished by all parties and signed by a university
Figure1.SixCsofEffectivePartnerships and school representative. Communication
works best when there is a contact person at
and the university are mutually beneficial. The
theuniversityandtheschoolsite,forexample,a
voices from university personnel, principals,
university coordinator and a partnership coor-
academic coordinators, teachers, teacher educa-
dinator whokeeplinesofcommunicationopen.
tion students, parents, and P-12 students must
The establishment of a P-16 Council within
be included and open lines of communication
the NPS facilitates both communication and
maintained. This collaborative relationship
collaboration between the university and part-
creates an ethos of care and trust among
nership school districts. The specific purpose of
constituents. According to Marlow, Kyed, and
the council is to collaboratively (1) ensure the
Connors (2005), collaborative negotiation of
quality of field placements and supervision of
purpose and task results in a commitment of all
the university’s teachers, (2) provide input for
to the partnership and leads to the achievement
new training modules for cooperating teachers,
of common goals. All stakeholders share
and (3) identify criteria for selection of
responsibility, authority, and accountability for
cooperating teachers. The P-16 Council is
achieving results (Chrislip & Larson, 1994).
Successful collaboration is sustained, viewed by composed of university faculty, district superin-
allpartnersasusefulandproductive,andfulfills tendents, principals, cooperating teachers, and
common purposes (Russell & Flynn, 2000). students. Meeting the changing needs of the P-
Research conducted by Carrol, Feather- 12 partners and teacher preparation program
stone, Featherstone, Feiman-Nemser, and Roo- implementation is the major focus of the
sevelt (2007) found that when a collaborative council. Responsibilities of council members
approach to the experience is used, all stake- include participation in meetings and other
holders work to improve the field experience. activities designed to strengthen teacher train-
The goal in their research was to construct a ing.
collaborative learning community among the Initial collaboration and communication
cooperating teacher, pre-service teacher, and with the NPSs occurred during the summer of
school liaison where all parties learned from 2010whenthestafffromtheUMSOEOfficeof
each other. In this learning community, the Field Experience met with district superinten-
traditional way of thinking about student dents and school principals to discuss the
teachingischangedfromviewingtheexperience program changes proposed by the BRC. The
as a culminating experience to a beginning of purposewastogatherinputonhowtoeffectively
learning for the novice teacher. Collaboration implement the changes in their schools and
during the planning and implementation of the districts. Discussions centered on dual certifica-
Creating an Environment of Educational Excellence 83
tionwithspecialeducation,year-longinternships, improveover time.Allowingthesameprincipal,
and a P-16 Council. Dialogue with the superin- university coordinator, and school partnership
tendents, school principals, and cooperating coordinator to work together for multiple years
teachers was very helpful in planning implemen- builds trust and strengthens the partnership. In
tation strategies for the program changes. The addition,theuniversityandtheschoolswillview
schoolpartnersanduniversitydiscussedtheroles each other as partners, not as separate entities.
each would take as the BRC recommendations This continuity should lead to reflection that
were implemented. These discussions strength- will encourage a systematic approach to under-
enedourpartnershipsbyarticulatingformalroles standing teacher practice and provide profes-
and responsibilities, a NAPDS essential. The sional renewal through this mutually beneficial
formation of the P-16 Council also created a relationship (Lunemberg & Willemse, 2006).
‘‘forum for ongoing governance, reflection, and Establishing this continuity will lead to a
collaboration,’’ an important element of a PDS commonality of expectations within the NPS.
according to NAPDS (2008). Consideration of the attributes defined by
Successful partnership relationships must NCATE (2001) must be made during the
allowforchoicebyallconstituents.Insuccessful transformative process. The attributes critical
relationships, the partnership sites and the to successful partnerships include the following
university have choice in the schools in which elements: establishing learning communities,
students are placed (grade levels, content areas, engaging in collaboration, assuring accountabil-
and cooperating teachers). This process within ity and quality, defining organized roles and
the NPS is best facilitated when the field- structures, and assuring equity. Principals and
experience coordinator and the school principal school districts must be willing to share in the
work together to choose cooperating teachers responsibilities by embracing and considering
and pre-service teachers who will complement the implications of these attributes. While
one another. Working with partners to deter- schools with high rankings may be ideal sites,
mine placements assured what Fullan (1999) consideration should also be given to partner-
referred to as the decentralization of decision- ship schools that represent diversity in the
making. In addition, to strengthen the NPS student and teacher population. Another im-
partnerships and meet the academic needs of P- portant consideration is the experience and
12 students, choices through a collaborative qualifications of cooperating teachers. P-12
process are made for professional development teachers who meet the qualification require-
activities. In the past, partnership schools have ments and utilize research-based practices as
identified topics in which they would like more models will be considered strong candidates for
training. The university faculty provided train- cooperating teachers. Within the NPSs, changes
inginareassuchasearlyinterventioninliteracy inclassroompracticesareexpectedaspre-service
and mathematics. Future choices will build on teachers and cooperating teachers consider
these past collaborative relationships as we themselves as agents within the partnership
model developmentally appropriate strategies (Parkison, 2009). One of the NAPDS nine
for pre-service teachers in the NPSs. These essentials is a commitment to ‘‘innovative and
professional development activities meet anoth- effective practice.’’ The careful selection of
er NAPDS essential by providing professional cooperating teachers who model these effective
development for all participants. and innovative practices is an important step in
According to Goodlad (1994), ‘‘There must building true PDS partnerships.
be a continuous process of educational renewal Establishing learning communities within
in which colleges and universities, the tradition- the partnerships are of paramount importance.
al producers of teachers, join the recipients of Putnam and Burke (2006) identified seven
the products as equal partners in the simulta- properties of learning communities: a sense of
neous renewal of schooling and educators’’ (p. common purpose, viewing peers as colleagues,
1–2). This continuity allows partnerships to seeking self/group actualizations, perceiving
