The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality

1. The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality A Title II Funded Project With Offices at Western Kentucky University 1999-2004 Roger Pankratz, Director

2. Eleven Project Sites • CSF California State, Fresno • EMU Eastern Michigan • ESU Emporia State • ISU Idaho State • KSU Kentucky State • LCV Longwood, Virginia • MTS Middle Tennessee State • MUP Millersville, Pennsylvania • SEM Southeast Missouri State • UNI University of Northern Iowa • WKU Western Kentucky

3. Partner Schools • CSF - Central Unified School District • EMU - Ypsilanti Public School • ESU - Olathe School District • ISU - League of Schools / Magic Valley School Partnership • KSU - Franklin County Public School • LVC - Regional 8 Superintendent’s Network • MTS - Metro Nashville-Davidson / Rutherford County • MUP - School District of Lancaster • SEM - Charles R-1 School District • UNI - Waterloo Community Schools • WKU - Bowling Green City / Warren County Schools

4. Eleven Partnerships

5. Project Goals • Become accountable for the impact of teacher candidates on P-12 student learning • Improve teacher performance in key areas and show an increase in teacher’s ability to facilitate learning of all students

6. Project Objectives 1.Accountability Systems 2. Teacher Work Samples 3. Team Mentoring 4. Program Redesign 5. Business Partnerships 6. Networking 7. Research and Dissemination

7. Teacher Work Samples • A process that enables teacher candidates to demonstrate teaching performances directly related to planning, implementing, assessing student learning and evaluating teaching and learning a four-week standards-based instructional unit.

8. Teacher Work Sample Teaching Processes • Use of Context • Learning Goals • Assessment Plan • Design for Instruction • Instructional Decision Making • Analysis of Student Learning • Reflection and Self-Evaluation

9. Teacher Work Sample Components • Teaching process standards • Teaching performance prompt • Scoring rubric • Twenty page narrative plus attachments teaching exhibit <http://fp.uni.edu/itq>

10. History of Renaissance TWS Development • October 1999 - Cedar Falls Orientation • January 2000 - Western Oregon Visit • March 2000 - Renaissance Model Draft • May/June 2000 - Training of Project Site Leaders • Fall 2000 - First Semester Pilot • January 2001 - Revision of Prompt and Rubric • Spring 2001 - Second Semester Pilot • June 2001 - Benchmarking and Scoring; Revision of Prompt and Rubric • Fall 2001 - Third Semester Pilot • January 2002 – Advanced Scoring Training; Benchmarking New Work Samples; Interrater Reliability Check • Spring 2002 – Fourth Semester TWS Implementation

12. Scoring Rubrics • Analytic • Semi-Holistic • Holistic

14. Renaissance PartnershipProgress in 2002 • 700 - 1000 Teacher Work Samples • 135 Courses Revised • 100+ Teacher Educators Trained • 200+ School Practitioners Trained • 50+ Arts & Science Faculty Trained

15. Western Kentucky University • 16,000 Students • 500 New Teachers Each Year • 500+ Advanced Degrees/Certificates Each Year • 80% of New Teachers Get Jobs in Kentucky • Kentucky Requires Accountability for K-12 Student Performance

16. WKU Program Entry Data • Name and social security number • Gender • Ethnicity • GPA • Semester hours completed • Admission test scores • Certification code • Major • Estimated semester of graduation

17. WKU Electronic Portfolio Data • Critical performances aligned with Kentucky’s New Teacher Standards for all courses: • performance scores • performance exhibits • time for completion

18. WKUField Experience Data • Documentation of field experiences • Documentation of diversity experiences • Documentation of special needs student experiences • Documentation of student teaching experiences

19. WKU Program Exit Data • Teacher Work Sample Evaluation • Student Teaching Observation Evaluation • GPA • Praxis II Scores

20. WKU Graduate Follow-up Data • Survey of first year teacher preparation for teaching with respect to New Teacher Standards and ability to facilitate learning in all students • Kentucky Teaching Internship Program Performance Evaluation Scores

21. What is Critical Performance? • Specific descriptions about what teacher candidates must know and be able to do at different levels of growth and development toward one or more teaching standards.

22. Critical Performance Profile

23. Critical Performances

24. Three Types of Data for Level 4 Critical Performances • Teacher Work Sample Exhibits • Student Teaching Observation Record • Candidate Portfolio • Collaboration Exhibit • Professional Development Plan

25. TWS Development at WKU • Fall 2000 7 elementary ed candidates • Spring 2001 17 elementary ed candidates • Fall 2001 42 elementary ed candidates • Spring 2002 115 elementary, 22 middle, 48 secondary ed, 30 other candidates

26. Benefits of TWS • Focus on P-12 Student Learning • Focus on Development of Assessment Tools • Focus on Key Standards • Alignment of Standards, Curriculum and Assessments

27. Some Future Challenges of Expanding the Use of TWS • Obtaining university buy-in for standards-based assessment and accountability • Maintaining high standards while encouraging creativity in teaching performance • Collecting and reporting comparable data across programs and program sites

28. Some Future Challenges of Expanding the Use of TWS • Obtaining adequate resources for data collection management and analysis • Developing valid, reliable and user-friendly measures that show growth in P-12 student performance • Using context to design instruction • Making credible links between candidate teaching behaviors and future ability to impact student learning

29. Web Site Home Page

30. Symposia on Renaissance Model TWS at AACTE in New York

31. Renaissance TWS Training Workshops in 2002 • June 13-15 Improving Performance on Teacher Work Samples (location TBA) • July 12-13 Initial Training & Scoring of Renaissance Model TWS (to be held near Kansas City airport) Check our web site for details http://fp.uni.edu/itq