Transforming Education Through Powerful Partnerships

1. Powerful Partnerships Working Together to Prepare Learner Ready Teachers

2. Dr. Arlinda Eaton, Dean, Kennesaw State University • Mrs. Laura Hicks, Mathematics Teacher, Osborne High School • Ms. Penney McRoy, Educator Preparation, GA Professional Standards Commission • Ms. Mariah Simmons, Recent Graduate of KSU and Teacher, Kell High School • Ms. Lynne Wheeler, Clinical Supervisor, Kennesaw State University Presenters

3. Topics • State Context and Policy Imperatives • Kennesaw State University Context and P-12 Partnerships • A Student Teacher’s Perspective • A Collaborating Teacher’s Perspective • An Innovative Model of Clinical Supervision • Q & A

4. State Context and Policy Imperatives Penney McRoy

5. Georgia Context • Separate standards board - PSC • Alliance of Education Agency Heads – exceptional collaboration among agencies • Over 1.8 million students enrolled in GA public schools in AY 13/14 • 108,000+ teachers employed in GA public schools • 80 educator preparation program providers (62 prepare teachers) • Race To The Top • Network for Transforming Educator Preparation (NTEP) • CEEDAR Intensive State

6. Policy Imperatives Transforming Educator Certification • 4-Tiered structure • Performance-based assessments pre-service and in-service • Alignment w/ P-12 statewide educator effectiveness system

7. Policy Imperatives Transforming Educator Preparation • Learner Ready Teachers & School Ready Leaders • Alignment of standards and assessments • Clinical preparation • Year-long residencies • Co-teaching • Site-based preparation and PDS • Mentor training and support

8. Policy Imperatives Transforming Preparation Program Evaluation Preparation Program Effectiveness Measures (PPEMs)

9. Policy Imperatives Transforming P-20 Partnerships • Regional P-20 Collaboratives • Nine regions • Two+ meetings each • All EPPs, to include alternate route • P-12 partners • Regional Strategic Planning Teams • Self-sustaining • Describing Powerful Partnerships • Developing a Framework for Evaluating Partnerships

10. Kennesaw State University Context and P-12 Partnerships Arlinda Eaton

11. Kennesaw State University

12. Bagwell College of Education

13. Institutional Context • Leading producer of teachers in Georgia • Enrollment = 32,000+ • 13 colleges • 5 colleges and 13 departments prepare educators • 29 initial teacher education programs • 19 undergraduate • 10 MAT • 3,212 students completed 427,889 field experience hours in 2013-14

14. Institutional Context 8 major school district partners – including: • 24th largest district in the US – Cobb County SD • GA’s 1st charter district – Marietta City SD • Race to the Top district – Cherokee County SD Placements made in 2013-14: • 249 public schools (including charter schools) • 12 independent schools • 64 early learning centers • 15 community-based organizations • 9 accredited international schools in 5 countries Brazil – China – Costa Rica – Ecuador -- Uganda

15. Institutional Context Preparation for five levels of certification • Birth through Kindergarten • Montessori • Traditional • Early Childhood (P-5) • Urban Education Option at 5 PDSs • Themed cohorts (e.g., STEM, EL, global) • 2 off-campus 2+2 sites • International student teaching • Middle Grades (4-8) • Urban Education Option at a PDS • International student teaching • Secondary (6-12) • Urban Education Option at a PDS • International student teaching • P-12 • International student teaching

16. Grant Funded Partnerships Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) -- $8.9 million Transform undergraduate teacher education programs in partnership with Cobb County School District to improve the learning of P-12 students • Cluster of 7 PDSs – 5 ES, 1 MS, 1 HS • Yearlong clinical practice • Co-teaching (student teacher & collaborating teacher • Co-teaching (KSU faculty & CCSD faculty) • Instructional coaching • Coaching to developmental supervision • Culturally and linguistically relevant pedagogy • Engagement of parents and the community

17. Grant Funded Partnerships Woodrow Wilson GeorgiaSTEM Teaching Fellowship Program -- $400,000 • KSU among 5 IHEs in Georgia selected by Woodrow Wilson Foundation (WWF) • Increase the supply of outstanding teachers in the STEM fields and change how they are prepared to teach through a master’s level program • 3 partnering school districts • Cobb County SD • Marietta City SD • Paulding County SD

18. Grant Funded Partnerships Georgia Network for Transforming Educator Preparation (GaNTEP) -- $10,000 KSU in partnership with 4 school districts – Cherokee County, Cobb County, Marietta City, Paulding County 2 CCSSO Goals • edTPA implementation • Develop edTPA signature assignments • Pilot edTPA signature assignments • Conduct focus groups regarding signature assignments • Conduct inter-rater reliability studies on signature assignments

19. Grant Funded Partnerships • Quality of clinical practice • Pilot Candidate Assessment on Performance Standards (CAPS) that most closely aligns with Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (TAPS) in Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) • Conduct inter-rater reliability studies on CAPS • Investigate correlations among edTPA performance, performance on signature assignments, and CAPS performance • Pilot developmental supervision • Conduct focus groups regarding developmental supervision • Identify strategies and support for teacher candidates as they transition from yearlong into induction • Design a template for the Professional Growth Plan that teacher candidates will take with them to their first teaching position

20. Impact of Our Work TQP Findings • Student teachers • Held a developing sense of self-efficacy closely aligned with their K-12 collaborating teachers • Found value in yearlong to build relationships with students, engage with parents, hone their classroom management skills, and hold high expectations for student achievement • Collaborating teachers • Felt free to try new strategies and take more risks • P-12 students • Increased ability to meet the needs of all students

21. Impact Student Teaching Abroad Findings • Student teachers • Increased development of professional and personal knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as an in-depth understanding of instructional pedagogy and self awareness, and a deeper appreciation for different cultures • Positive emotional preparedness when encountering professional and cultural challenges • Helps IHEs develop teachers who embrace and embody culturally responsive values

22. Impact Changes in KSU’s redesigned TE programs • Clinically-based programs • Additional field experiences added in junior year • Methods classes spread across junior and senior years • Yearlong design • EL course added • Technology course added • Special education enhanced • Assessment enhanced • Learning environment coursework enhanced • Scaffolding of coursework – 3 credit hour classes split • Co-teaching • Developmental supervision Recognized by NAPDS and ATE

23. A Student Teacher’s Perceptions of Co-Teaching Mariah Simmons

24. My Role • Student Teacher co-teaching in a 10th grade Geometry class • Urban Education Program: Concentration on culturally relevant pedagogy • KSU Teacher Education Graduate, Spring 2015

25. What is Co-Teaching? • Two teachers plan lessons and deliver instruction together • 5 Co-teaching Models: • One Teach, One Support • Parallel Teaching • Alternative Teaching • Station Teaching • Team Teaching

26. The Models Laura & I Used Most Often One Teach, One Support: In the beginning of the school year (Fall 14), this was the first method we used. Laura taught and made the lesson plans while I observed, monitored the students, walked around and helped individuals and/or small groups while working on activities. As I took the lead, Laura took the support role. This happened during the Spring Semester. • Advantages: I got a chance to see an experienced teacher before having to make my own plans in beginning, students were able to get more individualized attention, both teachers are active and participating in the lesson, which makes it easier for students to stay engaged. • Disadvantage: Students sometimes depended heavily on one-on-one attention.

27. The Models Laura & I Used Most Often Alternative Teaching: We implemented this method as a remediation tool for students that were absent or struggling with certain topics during review usually. One of us would take a small group of up to 10 students to a room across the hall to work on a concept, while the other would remain with the large group, leading instruction. • Advantages: Working with small groups makes it easier to meet the individual needs of the students (responsive pedagogy). • Disadvantage: Timing could be tricky since everyone needs to finish up at the same time and everyone is responsible for the same amount of course material. One way to manage this would be to use a timer.

28. The Models Laura & I Used Most Often Team Teaching: We implemented this method throughout the year. We would both teach the class together, engaging the students in discussions about different math topics, such as extending the number system. We both were involved in the lesson and in management. • Advantages: Both teachers are active and seen as equals to the students (2 is better than 1), errors are avoided or corrected, students can be more involved. • Disadvantages: Both teachers need to be able to work together seamlessly and it takes a good amount of planning .

29. Reflection The co-teaching model was beneficial for me as a student teacher and our students because I was able to take a leadership role, while having support from my CT. The students saw both of us as teachers and were able to reap the benefits of two teachers as opposed to one.

30. A Collaborating Teacher’s Perspective Laura Hicks

31. My TRADITIONAL Student Teaching Experience • Did not know my placement until days before I was supposed to report • Was placed in the middle of a year-long course… • Placed with Teacher of the YEAR. Kids =  • Could not easily build relationships. Me =  • Set/Enforce classroom rules • Struggled with classroom management/discipline

32. My TRADITIONAL Student Teaching Experience In a co-taught, inclusion math classroom • Did not understand the role of the co-teacher • Co-Teacher vs. Special Ed. Teacher ??

33. My First Year of Teaching On My Own • Math Teacher at Osborne High School - An Urban, Title 1, Professional Development School • Assigned a co-teacher for my first year. Still did not understand their role

34. My First Year of Teaching On My Own • Had to figure out my own rules and procedures at that time. (First year teacher = Treading Water) • Focused mostly on lesson planning and will figure everything else out, later

35. Osborne’s Partnership with Kennesaw State University • I have been at Osborne for 6 years now • Have worked with KSU and the Teacher Quality Partnership for 5 years • Met with KSU Professors monthly, to discuss course/program development

36. Osborne’s Partnership with Kennesaw State University • Helped build evaluation instruments • Had KSU interns observe my classes in the beginning of their program • Began hosting year-long student interns and have done so for the past 3 years

37. The difference between THEN and NOW • Interns are more comfortable in their placements and have much more support • Collaborating Teachers have strong relationships with KSU professors

38. The difference between THEN and NOW • Interns are with Collaborating Teacher all year long • Feel like a REAL TEACHER/Equal partner • Build Relationships with students from day ONE • Establish/Enforce classroom rules and procedures • GREAT Co-Teaching Experience • Two Content Teachers vs. Spec. Ed • Assigned a KSU Co-Teaching Coach • Practice the different Co-Teaching Models

39. FUN FACT My first year with a KSU year-long intern, I had my very first, 100% pass rate on our EOCT (End-Of-Course-Test)!!

40. Clinical Supervision Lynne Wheeler

41. Developmental Supervision Developmental Supervision is a specific approach to supervising teaching candidates in which the supervisor adjusts his/her communication and style of interaction based upon the developmental needs of the teacher.

42. Developmental Supervision Developmental Supervision is defined as leadership for the improvement of instruction as a process rather than as a role or position.

43. Three Underlying Propositions: Developmental Supervision • Teachers operate at different levels of professional development (personal experiences, background, abilities, etc.) • Because teachers bring differences into their teaching experience, they must be supervised in different ways to maximize effectiveness of that supervision • Because teachers operate at differing levels of thought, ability, and effectiveness, they need to be supervised in different ways

44. Developmental Supervision Four Approaches Used in Developmental Supervision: • Directive Control • Directive Informational • Collaborative • Non-Directive

46. Developmental Supervision Characteristics: • Developmental Levels of Professional Competence • Mentor/Modeling Approach • Collegial Supervision • Supervisory Techniques: GROW

47. Developmental Supervision Research on the effectiveness of Developmental Supervision indicated that supervisors who used this approach were more flexible and able to shift their approaches with different teachers and groups (Zellermayer & Margolin, 2005).  Similarly, Siene & Ebmeier (1996) found that Developmental Supervisors were more reflective than the supervisors in control groups because their critical reflection increased their understanding of teaching and learning.

48. Developmental Supervision Benefits: • Increasing Independence of the Candidate • Increased Communication • Three-Way Conferencing • Struggling Candidates Quickly Defined • Reflective Learning Enhanced • Joint Observations/Student Feedback

49. GROW A Goal-setting Framework: • Goal: Establish the candidate’s overarching goal for the final semester of the yearlong clinical. State the goal and describe the desired outcome. • Reality: Facilitate a discussion to determine if the goal is realistic in the current context; determine the process for measuring, observing or collecting evidence of mastery. • Opportunities and Alternatives: Create a plan of how to develop, refine or revise current practices to reach the goal as well as possible alternative approaches and/or strategies. • Whodoes what, when and why? With the candidate, complete a brief plan of action that specifically determines the roles and responsibilities of the collegial supervisor, the CT, and the candidate.

50. Developmental Supervision Candidate’s Growth Statement: Once the action plan is complete, ask the candidate to provide a statement of their understanding of how implementing this plan will result in their growth, as well as the growth of their students.