The following two documents came from the table discussions on September 21st. The Poster Discussions document is a typed version of the posters that were presented by the discussion groups. The Outcomes document is the same information organized by common themes.
The TERI Governance Map can be downloaded and viewed by clicking here: TERI Governance Map
LSP Meeting: Bush Initiative Discussion – summary of group responses
February 2, 2009
Please designate a note-taker who will write as clearly as possible since we will be collecting these at the end of the discussion.
1. Spend 5 minutes sharing what you think an effective teacher look like in practice.
Words in bold italics were emphasized most heavily by the largest number of people:
• Able to relate to and connect with and engage students, communities and families (this was probably said most frequently)
• Content area knowledge plus ability to integrate with many others (also described as “multidisciplinary and contextual interactive teaching and learning”), making content transparent and understandable esp. for struggling students
• Pedagogical knowledge
• Knowledge of working with various student developmental levels
• Use of assessment data, including formative assessments, to improve student achievement
• Ability to differentiate instruction
• Reflective thinking and practice
• Recognize, honor, feel comfortable working with diversity/culturally responsive
• Effective use of technology in instruction
• Ethic of caring
• Dispositions and beliefs, attitudes about pupils’ ability to learn
• Adaptable, open to new ideas, trying something else, creative, flexible, problem-solvers
• Good role model, professional
• Content pedagogy
• Joy in learning
• Observation skills
• Close the achievement gap
• Preparing students for success as critical thinkers and adults
Note: Ben J., Susan R., and Barb M. had such a great answer (one that sums most of the ideas above) for this question that I am going to try to depict it separately here. With columns and arrows they pointed out the difference between innate and taught/developed qualities in effective teachers and how those interact with teacher candidates (particularly in their first years of teaching). This group determined innate characteristics to be: passion, enthusiasm, caring, management, creativity, courage, open to new things, cooperative, community-minded, resourceful, and collaborative. Developed/learned qualities include: patience, knowledge (content, pedagogy), respect, good communication, good observation, ability to differentiate instruction, reflection and self-awareness, flexibility, cultural sensitivity. These “born and bred” qualities are then expected to “get results” meaning students demonstrate that they have learned. All of these are expected to intertwine with more time for preparation, continued professional development through induction, and experience).
2. Spend 15 minutes discussing what teacher candidates would need from their preparation experience to begin their teaching careers as an effective teacher if you could start with a clean slate and the needed resources for preparing teachers.
This question had the most number of “same answers”:
• A wider variety and larger number of classroom/clinical experiences (this was said most often)
• Mentoring/role models + feedback; relationships with effective teachers, preparing those mentor teachers
• Create dynamic, collaborative interchanges between students, schools, and university
• Create charter or lab/professional development schools that model effective teaching
• Site-based teachers become clinical university faculty
• Flexible, changing, adaptable (particularly able to adapt to different learners’ needs)
• Reflection: individual, with coordinator/instructors, and with other students
• More interdisciplinary approaches to preparation/stronger connections to families and communities
• Coursework addressing content and pedagogy
• Cultural competence curriculum
• Enroll fewer students for more intense training
• Infuse greater physical activity into pupils’ experiences
• “Team Up” initiative – collaboration with university mentorship, but with teacher-driven professional development over an extensive period of time; teachers are given time and resources to explore their ideas
• Emphasis on teaching diverse students
• “Tech Links” – remote but intimate interactions between school and university for teachers
• University must listen be responsive to schools’ needs
• Make values/dispositions of preparation program explicit in all recruiting materials
• Understanding of development and learning
• Opportunities to think critically
3. Spend 5 minutes discussing recommendations for next steps in carrying the Bush initiative forward.
This question had the least number of “same answers”:
• Determine most frequently-cited key ideas, make a plan, move forward
• Openness across licensure areas (related to this point was this question: “how do we bring individual programs to a consensus? Could some programs opt out?”)
• Infusing parent education through all K-12 preparation (multiple reasons offered)
• Question bureaucracy, remove unnecessary red tape (makes us “more nimble”)
• Real partnerships with schools, interactive sharing between practitioners and faculty
• Better understanding and accountability across the system
• Stronger role for the university re: teacher induction
• Faculty time model: research/clinical/shared time
• Foundations: Human relations < -- special needs -- > cultural competence, Learning & Cognition, Reading/Literacy, Relationships in Schools, Technology, School & Society (school as a contributor to the public good), Basic School Law (student rights, teacher ethics)
• Assessment of teacher candidates, better and more innovative screening
• Collect data/research
• Bring together available expertise
4. Please list the names of anyone in your group who would like to join in these regular LSP sub-committee conversations about this initiative.
• Brad Greiman
• Heather Cline
• Tom Stertz
• Richard Rodgerson
• Peggy DeLapp
• Lisa Dembouski is happy to continue lending GA support for this sub-committee
Click to download and view the TERI Partnership Model.
Heather Cline, Parent and Family Education
Peter Demerath, Education Foundations
Brad Greiman, Agricultural Education
Carole Gupton, Preparation to Practice Group
Lori Helman, Literacy and Elementary Education
Ben Jacobs, Social Studies
Jennifer McComas, Special Education, EBD
Kristin McMaster, Special Education, LD
Kent Pekel, College Readiness Consortium
Susan Ranney, Second Languages and Cultures, ELL
Gillian Roehrig, Science and STEM
Susan Rose, Special Education, D/HH
Misty Sato, Culture and Teaching
Tom Stertz, Work and Human Resource Education
Richard Wassen, Policy and Research
From: Mary Bents, Associate Dean
Date: February 3, 2009
RE: Bush Foundation Planning
CC: Dean Quam, Associate Deans Johnson, Barajas
Department Chairs: Thomas, Hendel, Hupp, Kane, Crick, Bartlett, Reinhardy, McCulloch, Lee
I am contacting you to appoint you to a Task Group of the Licensed School Professional Workgroup to develop the CEHD response to the Bush Foundation partnership. It is apparent from what has already been completed that this is an important step in the development of our teacher preparation and professional development programs and our partnerships with schools. Thanks to those of you who have done some preliminary work and to those who have volunteered to continue to work on this important planning project.
I am requesting that Misty Sato and Carole Gupton provide leadership in this activity and to be the individuals who meet, along with me, the Bush Foundation leadership and other partners to convey the messages between the College and the other partners. Recognizing that others in the college will need to be involved in this work one of your tasks will be to keep the full LSP (both initial license and advanced programs) as well as the department chairs and the dean’s office informed about your progress.
The focus of the Bush Foundation is on initial teacher preparation and early induction and mentoring, thus, you may wish to engage others in specialized tasks dealing with partnerships, recruitment and retention, assessments of effectiveness, other higher education partners or other areas that you identify. The work already completed is a great start to identifying the areas for development of our programs. While the Bush Foundation goals are a catalyst, the work that you will be doing will impact our teacher education programs into the future.
Jill Lane will be contacting you to set up meetings for the next few months. Again, thanks for your work on behalf of the college and the programs preparing and developing teachers.