Transcript Professional Development Schools: A Study to Explore the

Overlapping Goals
Preservice
/Student
Teachers
Teacher
Education
Professional
Learning
Communities
PK-12 Field
based
Experiences
PK-12 Student Success
M entoring Teachers
Emerging Teachers
Administrative Support and Guidance
Professional Development
Schools of Partnership
21st Century
Professional Learning
Communities
Reshaping Schools & Teacher
Preparation
School
of
Education
focused
goals
P-12
partnership
/residencies
Aligned
P-16
Student
Needs
P-16 Professional Learning Communities
Reshaping
Children Can’t Wait
Turn Around
Children Can’t Wait
Turn Around
• http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=xSxGE83FaXQ&feat
ure=PlayList&p=48502A7B
AA6B5E37&playnext_from
=PL&playnext=1&index=2
RTT 8:20sec
Partnership
HY Livesay~LMU Partnership
Professional Development Schools
Best Teaching Practices
FREE TOOLS FOR
TEACHERS
NCATE’s
Five PDS Standards
1. Learning
Community
2. Collaboration
3. Accountability &
Quality Assurance
4.Organization,
Roles, Structure
5. Diversity
and Equity
P-16 Collaboration
New leadership roles
Diversity
On site courses
Shared Professional
Development
Collaborative Teams:
MTs, PST’s, PCT’s,
and MATs
Professional
Development
School & Student
successes
School Improvement
Plans
Standards aligned
Structure-cyclical
Governance
Curriculum
Resources
Wide range of
feedback
Shared
Technology
Diversity
training
Long term
Relationships
Seminars
Mentoring teacher
input
MAT, PCT,
Differentiation
Mentoring Teachers,
& Administrators
Feedback
Admissions & Exit
Interviews
Feedback-test scores, New roles-Co
evaluations
teaching
Reflection
Many stakeholders
Contractual
Self study
Community
Celebrations
Austin & Davies
business model
Field Experiences without
NCATE’s PDS Standards
• Similar to one-shot professional development, no
focused student improvement
• Few collaboration efforts
• No alignment to school improvement
• No planning or implementation process
• Infrequent opportunities for rich dialogue
• Fewer opportunities for P-16 relationship building
1. Awareness
8. Monitoring &
Evaluation of P-12
students & teacher
education students
2. Needs
Assessment
1
8
2
7.Implement
Program
Professional
Development
School
Collaborative
Process
7
6
6.Partnership
Management
3
3.Potential
Resources
4
5
5.Program
Design
4. Goals and
Objectives
The Pros of PDS
• Improving K-16
student learning
• P-16 collaborative
partnerships with
higher education
institutions
• Shared goals:
School improvement
plans used for school
improvement and
partnership design
• Shared responsibilityblended expertise and
resources
• On going professional
development to meet
needs of diverse
groups
• Accountability to the
university & school
communities they
serve
The Cons of PDS
• Lack of evidence of K-16
student achievement
• PDS roles, structure and
resources not recognized
as a true collaborative
process between
university and K-12
schools (to change
policies and practices at
the district, state, and
national level)
• Little to no common
teacher preparation goal
alignment with PDS
• Separate accountability
systems
• Lack of shared problemsolving and decisionmaking
Building New Models of Student
Success & Preparation
•
Race to the Top is providing incentives to states to
develop longitudinal data systems to track P-12 student
performance from early childhood into their careers.
Our nation faces a magnitude of challenges to
reshape an education system that must respond
to a new global order
Teacher Preparation
• Support clinical strategies for educator
preparation that appear to be the most
effective in helping to increase P-12 student
achievement.
• Institutions should be able to collect data on
teacher candidate performance in relation to
P-12 student learning.
Existing Research:
Summary of the Literature
• How PDSs make a difference,
Teitel (2004)
• Education reform in teacher
preparation, Cibulka (2008)
• Modify instruction for real
world application,
Rubenstein (2008)
• Advocate for school
improvement, parent advocacy
and restructuring of teacher
training programs,
Sexton (2004 & 2008)
 Quality counts, report card for
assessment, slow reform by
colleges & universities Prichard
Committee (2007-2008)
 Ravitch (2003)
 Verbeke & Richards (2001)
• NCATE (2007-2008)