Community Plans
were conceived as a
means to support
local K-16
partnership efforts
for the improvement
of urban teacher
recruitment,
preparation,
induction, and
retention.
To date, three
rounds of community
plans have been
funded:
 |
Sixteen
university
teams met in
New Orleans
in November
2001 to
create the
initial
round of
plans. Each
university
was awarded
$22,000.
|
|
|
Fifteen
university
teams
developed
plans in
April 2003,
with grant
awards in
the amount
of $19,000.
|
|
|
Five awards
were made to
five sites
in June 2004
for
continuation
of work
begun in the
second round
of community
plans.
|
Click the
links in the left
column of this page
to see the
individual plans.
Below is a
summary of the first
round of plans in
terms of team
membership, focus
areas, rationale,
and use of
technology.
Team Composition
Team composition
changed since 2000
in nearly every
case. Several teams
had new team leaders
as a result of
administrative
turnover. Three
teams specifically
mentioned that their
Colleges of
Education had a new
dean. Several teams
added technology
experts at the
request of PT3
consultants; teams
added new members
from their urban
school districts,
and three teams
added new faculty
members from outside
the College of
Education. As shown
in the following
figure, teams
consist largely of
College of Education
faculty, but about
one in three members
is a representative
of the urban school
district.
Representation of
faculty outside the
Colleges/Schools of
Education is less
than 9%, with only
half the teams
having a
non-education
faculty member at
the November
meeting. This is an
area that will need
improvement to meet
the 3rd and 5th of
Howey’s (2001)
strategies for
improvement of urban
teacher education.
Plan Rationale
Teams justified
their community
plans in terms of
both district and
university needs.
Eleven of 16 teams
specifically
mentioned teacher
turnover and high
percentages of
non-certified
teachers as the
impetus for their
plans. Areas of
critical shortage
included ESL
programs, math,
science, and special
education. In
Detroit Public
Schools, for
example, 600 of the
1000 vacancies were
in the areas of
science and math.
The Chicago Public
School System
prioritized math,
science, bilingual,
and special
education as their
greatest needs for
new teachers.
A related need is
in the area of weak
student achievement.
The Kansas City
School District lost
its accreditation
based on poor
student performance.
Reading, writing,
and mathematics
achievement were
identified as
priorities of the
Milwaukee Public
School System.
Dissatisfaction
with the current
status of teacher
education programs
was the impetus for
four of the
community plans. The
University of New
Orleans saw a
“disconnect” between
the district and
university concepts
of professional
development.
Portland State
University and the
University of
Cincinnati chose to
systematically
examine field
experiences as a
primary component of
their teacher
education program.
The University of
Houston plan was
driven by changes in
certification
requirements to
include grades four
through eight as a
new concentration.
IUPUI, Virginia
Commonwealth
University,
Cincinnati, New
Orleans, and the
University of
Massachusetts-Boston
all lamented that
too few of their
graduates went on to
teach in the local
public school
systems.
Technology
While all plans
contained a
technology
component,
technology was not
the primary focus of
any plan. Rather, it
was viewed as a
resource to enable
1) communication
between students and
faculty, and between
the University and
school district; 2)
professional
development; 3)
student tracking;
and 4) recruitment
into teaching. The
University of
Illinois at Chicago
and Cleveland State
University plan to
create libraries of
videotapes on urban
classrooms. Three
campuses will create
virtual courses for
urban teacher
education. The
University of
Missouri at Kansas
City plans to
develop a
recruitment CD
featuring the campus
in what it calls a
“virtual field
trip.”
Common Themes
Several common
themes were
identified that
could serve as
discussion points
across sites. Using
Howey’s (2001) 11th
strategy, critical
friends might visit
the sites of teams
with similar
interests.
Recruitment was
identified by
Cincinnati,
Richmond, Detroit,
Indianapolis, and
Boston. Mentoring
and induction were
key features in the
plans presented by
Milwaukee,
Indianapolis, and
Memphis. Redesign of
teacher education
programs to more
specifically address
the needs of urban
teachers were
features of the New
Orleans, Houston,
Chicago, Portland,
Memphis, and Atlanta
plans. Diversity was
a feature in several
plans, most
specifically in
Cincinnati,
Birmingham and
Kansas City.
Many of the plans
also contained a
content focus.
Reading improvement
through a balanced
literacy approach
was a primary
component for UMSL,
UWM, and Cincinnati.
Science education
was central to the
plans of Cleveland,
Chicago, and Wayne
State. Houston,
Cleveland, and
Kansas City targeted
content at the
middle school level.
The following
chart summarizes the
focus areas of the
sixteen plans. The
first bar includes
all areas targeted
by all plans; the
second highlights
what appears to be
the primary focus
area of each of the
sixteen plans. As
can be seen,
recruitment,
pre-service teacher
preparation,
in-service
professional
development,
induction, and
retention of
teachers for urban
schools all are
evident in these
plans.
Further, the 12 strategies identified by Kenneth Howey in the October
2001 Conceptual
Framework all are
addressed by the
community plans as
well as the
database, research,
and virtual
curriculum
sub-grants awarded
by GCU-UEC through
its FIE and PT3
awards. (See Table
page).
Use of Funds
The budget
summary of the
community plans
reveal the range of
activities
anticipated by the
university-district
teams. Approximately
1/5 of the
expenditures will
support university
faculty working to
improve urban
teacher education
and an equal amount
will support K-12
teachers engaged in
professional
development and
teacher education
redesign. A host of
meetings to promote
cross-organizational
dialog and
development will be
supported.
Professional service
contracts will be
used to support
technology use,
content experts, web
design, and course
development. Only
10% of funds are
budgeted for travel,
equipment, and
indirect costs.
|
Community Plans