CULTIVATING A PDS LANDSCAPE
Designs from
East Stroudsburg University
Elementary Education Dept.
Cover photograph by Andrea Briller
East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
Elementary Professional Development School
Cultivating a PDS Landscape:
Designs from ESU Elementary Education
October, 2006
Cultivating a Professional Development School Landscape:
Designs from ESU Elementary Education
Chapter Title Page
Intro. PDS Schools That Work page 7
Sam Hausfather
1 Labor Pains: Giving Birth to a PDS page 11
Pamela Kramer, Jaci Leonard and Derrick Green
2 Shaping the Growth and Sustainability of PDSs:
Structures, Resources and Roles page 17
Stephanie Romano and Patricia Pinciotti
3 Integrated Teaching in a PDS:
Designing Units for Understanding page 31
Mary Beth Allen
4 Teaching Triads Plus: Joining Forces in a PDS
Learning Community page 47
Alison Rutter and Lyn Krenz
5 Conducting Research through Handheld Technology for
Professional Development Schools page 57
Andrew Whitehead, Linda Rogers and Victoria Connor
6 A View from the Edge: PDS University Faculty Reflective
Decision Making page 63
Patricia Pinciotti
7 About the Authors page 73
Introduction: Professional Development Schools that Work
By Sam Hausfather, Dean, School of Education, Maryville University of St. Louis
It is almost passé to speak of K-12 schools and teacher education programs as under attack. Since A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983), public debate has swirled around purported deficiencies of schools, teachers, and teacher education. The latest report to enter the fray, Educating School Teachers (Levine, 2006), again chastises teacher education for inadequately preparing graduates to meet the realities of today’s classrooms. However, the first recommendation resulting from this thorough study is that teacher preparation programs should incorporate effective use of professional development schools within their practice. Research in teacher education confirms professional development schools (PDSs) benefit both pre-service teachers and K-12 pupils (Clift & Brady, 2005). A growing body of research is showing that PDSs provide an effective model for improving teacher preparation (Hammerness & Darling-Hammond, 2005; Levine & Trachtman, 2005). This monograph tells the story of one very successful model for professional development schools, its growth and sustenance over time.
As the former dean of the School of Professional Studies at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania (ESU), I feel honored to have participated in professional development school work at ESU. But PDSs began there before I joined ESU. As chapter one authors Kramer, Rogers, Allen, Benson, Cavanagh, and Green explain, PDSs at ESU began with relationships between dedicated individuals at the university and at local elementary schools. As the Standards for Professional Development Schools (NCATE, 2001) recognize, PDSs build from a foundation of individuals from K-12 schools and universities working together through shared interest, mutual commitment, and trust. Working closely with elementary school faculty and faculty across three departments, a unique collaborative model was created that truly united the university world of theory with the school world of practice. Since 1998 when the first PDSs were established, the concept and program has moved from one school with a select group of university students and faculty to an extensive network of almost 20 elementary schools involving all elementary education pre-service teachers at ESU. This evolution involved a major culture change at the university.
University faculty are working in new ways with schools and with each other. School faculty are likewise working in new ways with university faculty and students as well as with each other. In chapter two, Romano acknowledges the major structures that have emerged as those involved defined and moved into new roles for collaboration. Faculty worked in ways not usually appreciated in K-12 or higher education. Empowering faculty to venture outside classrooms, both university and elementary, created new realities for faculty that challenged their knowledge and skills. The resulting conversations and growth changed us all as we understood each other and ourselves better. University faculty developed relationships with teachers and schools focused on improving student achievement as the ultimate goal. Rogers, Allen, and Pinciotti in chapter three discuss an integrated curriculum model for differentiating instruction toward improved student achievement. This model pushed pre-service and in-service teachers to truly make a difference in schools. Mediocrity was discouraged as university and school practitioners explored more effective integrated models of instruction.
As we grew in our understanding of PDSs, we developed a value system that helped ESU faculty express the benefits of our partnership work for schools and university. This began with a clear commitment to erasing the line between the worlds of K-12 and higher education. Like many other professional education areas, we needed to immerse ourselves and our students in the realities of practice while bringing theoretical focus to our work. Rutter and Krenz, in chapter four, speak to the unique interactions of our university students working collaboratively as co-teachers in classrooms. Our challenge to our pre-service teachers was to be always involved in promoting learning in the classroom. Never to be the “wallflower,” our pre-service teachers along with the classroom teachers continually focused on student achievement, even while observing and assisting. In chapter five, Rogers, Whitehead, and Connor share an example of ways collaboration promoted learning and discovery while adapting technology to new uses. We valued creating a learning community where we could learn from classroom teachers and from our pre-service teachers as they learned from us. A true learning community does not have a hierarchy of “experts” but instead values the expertise all bring to any situation. Through this process we all grew more than we ever expected.
One way we grew was in our ability to be active participants in shared leadership. Leadership was expressed at many levels, as faculty established decision-making abilities beyond the traditional university environment. Pinciotti talks in chapter six about the transformations ESU faculty experienced through the reflective decision-making they undertook. University faculty became leaders at their respective school sites, responsible for shepherding site councils toward establishing and focusing on clear common goals. As the focus of partnerships shifted toward professional development for all, university faculty became lead collaborators, working closely with school faculty and administrators to support initiatives that could increase student learning and achievement. They also took new leadership roles at the university as collaborative decision-makers with their peers. Department chairs had the opportunity to revive their involvement in curricular decision-making, as their role in leading overall PDS efforts came to have major influence on the department’s curriculum. Chairs also found themselves pushing faculty more to be active participants in collaborative curricular decision-making and involvement with K-12 schools. While this represented particular challenges, it also provided a direction and impetus for real change in how all faculty participated in the teacher education venture.
As dean, I had to encourage and support these efforts while at the same time challenging faculty and chairs to go beyond what was comfortable. Encouraging began with discussions and readings that helped us understand the importance of PDSs in teacher education and the actual effect of our partnership work on our pre-service teachers and K-12 schools. Supporting PDS work involved making sure partnership issues were on the agenda at multiple levels, departmentally, school-wide, and university-wide. It is the dean’s role to ask hard questions that lend support to partnerships as essential to quality teacher education. Our work showed PDS clearly had positive effects on the students choosing it. If it was right for some, then it was right for all, and the dean’s role was to make that possible. Human and fiscal resources needed to follow these decisions. I worked to restructure our student teaching office to become an office of field experiences and partnerships, providing structural support for PDS work. Release time for faculty site coordinators was negotiated through a combination of grant funding and reasoned argumentation. As faculty spent more time in the professional development schools, they needed recognition that these courses and initiatives were worth more than the typical three credit lecture course. Arguing that PDS work was akin to science laboratory classes, we were able to convert courses into laboratory courses that carried additional faculty load. As dean, I continued to push to expand our PDS work in ways that could strengthen our teacher education mission. We expanded into urban sites with the help of startup grant funding. Governance was tightened with the coordination of school sites councils and a PDS Coordinating Council. The partnership message was spread more widely through meetings with superintendents, K-16 Councils, and annual legislative breakfasts that brought greater understanding and support beyond the university. My greatest challenge as dean was to keep upper administration at the university supportive of partnership work. This was hard work indeed within the shifting sands of competing interests and external pressures. It is here that a dean’s abilities are truly challenged. I wish I had been able to do more.
Teacher education at East Stroudsburg University has experienced a profound transformation over the last decade. Professional development schools have energized and revolutionized curriculum and practice. Collaboration has become the basis for thought and action as theory and practice commingle. East Stroudsburg University has become a leader in Pennsylvania and the nation in incorporating PDSs in teacher education. The articles in this monograph highlight these significant changes. These are lessons we can all learn from as we respond to our critics and establish effective teacher education programs that can educate high quality teachers for our nation’s schools.
References
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner, (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hammerness, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy, (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
Levine, M., & Trachtman, R. (Eds.) (2005). Implementing PDS standards: Stories from the field. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001). Standards for Professional Development Schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Chapter 1: Labor Pains: Giving Birth to a PDS
By Pamela Kramer, Linda Rogers, Jaci Leonard and Derrick Green
Conception of an Idea
The educational climate at our institution was ripe for change, with a number of factors contributing to its transformation. The research provided ample evidence of the need for more significant field experiences at the pre-service level (Berliner, 1985; Drummond & Drummond, 1995; Edwards, A.T. & Wilkins-Canter, E.A., 1997; The Holmes Group, 1986; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996.) The development of standards for Professional Development Schools (PDS) by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) provided an additional rationale for the conception of a new delivery system for teacher education. “PDS partners share a common vision of teaching and learning grounded in research and practitioner knowledge. They believe that adults and children learn best in the context of practice” (NCATE, 2001b, p. 11). Also, the students at our institution consistently indicated the desire to spend more time in classrooms. Given all these circumstances, a few brave faculty members initiated the conception of a new idea for our teacher education program – the inception of Professional Development Schools relationships. A Heinz grant allowed us to explore the research on Professional Development Schools. Two of our risk-taking faculty members invited some of our long-term, trusted partners in the field to pilot the beginning of a Professional Development School model for elementary teacher education students on a voluntary basis at our institution.
The program began with a focus on visual arts and literacy. A special schedule was arranged to block the Foundations of Reading methods course with the Art in Childhood Education methods course. The students would spend one day per week in class on campus taking these methods courses, in addition to other courses in their program, and one day per week in an elementary classroom. During their time in the classroom the pre-service teachers had specific assignments to complete related to their methods courses in art and reading. The university faculty would visit the pre-service teachers each week at their field site and provide feedback on their progress, as well as interact with the mentor teachers. The overwhelmingly positive response from the first semester pilot encouraged the faculty to expand the program and the prenatal stage began.
Prenatal Development Stage
The students who opted to participate in the expanded pilot program were enrolled in a block of five courses (18 credits) offered by three departments. Three of the courses were three credit methodology courses from the Early Childhood and Elementary Education Department: Art, Science, and Social Studies. The Foundations of Reading course offered by the Reading department counted for six credits and the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation presented a three-credit course, Inclusionary Practices. The PDS program included course content with a visual and verbal literacy focus. Art and reading provided the literacy base and since it is only natural that students learn to read about science and social studies, these methods courses served as a perfect fit. The program was rounded out by Inclusionary Practices, which prepares pre-service teachers to meet the needs of all students in their classrooms.
Schedule
Each week the pre-service teachers met on campus for two days for instruction in these five university courses. Two additional days each week were spent in the field for the entire school day. Assigned to a specific classroom, each pre-service teacher actively participated in the life of the classroom, teaching required lessons, supporting the classroom teacher and team teaching. Based on the needs of the teacher and students, pre-service teachers worked with individual students, in small groups and whole group settings. The combination of coursework and fieldwork continued throughout the entire semester. Students would later return to their same field site for one of their two student teaching placements the following semester.