New Teacher Workshops: Partnering to Support First Year Teachers

 The Teacher Preparation Initiative and its six Partner Districts continue to collaborate to support teachers in their first three years of instruction. An ongoing effort is the offering of new teacher workshops for all first year teachers in the Partner Districts and recent SCSU Graduates. Currently these new teachers and graduates are invited to four workshops starting in early August.

The August Workshop has a goal of getting new teachers’ first teaching experiences off to a successful start and providing networking opportunities. Participants were welcomed with music and networking. Presentations and follow-up sessions for every level of teaching had a focus on building relationships, classroom management, and professional communication. Teachers were invited to join a Schoology site to network and receive ongoing resources. The day concluded with the creation of implementation plans and a drawing for baskets filled with teaching supplies.

The half day October Workshop offered a targeted focus on classroom management. New Teachers were split into four groups to participate with a classroom management panel of master teachers at their level of teaching. Following the panel, teachers rotated through three stations with the themes of student interaction/engagement, transitions, and dealing with unforeseen circumstances. It was a fast paced afternoon that also included networking, gifts, and treats.

By December, many of our New Teachers are experiencing great stress as they moved into the third stage of teaching-“disillusionment” (California Department of Education, 1990). Taking that into consideration, the new teachers received an interactive stress management presentation by Dr. Steve Hoover. The rest of the day brought break-out sessions in the areas of technology, working with at-risk learners, special education topics, differentiating for learning, and networking in specific areas of instruction. It was wonderful to see the collaborative effort of so many SCSU Faculty and P-12 Veteran Teachers throughout the day. They worked together to facilitate groups and present content and the new teachers were very appreciative of the various perspectives offered.

The final workshop, in the evening on February 26, will feature a very exciting presentation by Willow Sweeney. Willow Sweeney is co-founder of Top 20 Training that provides training and materials to empower leaders, teachers, parents and students to develop their potential. Willow’s career has included high school teaching, coaching and she has been a national speaker and trainer since 2002 (Top 20 Training). It is our hope that Teacher Education Faculty will attend this event alongside new teachers and SCSU Graduates.

How do you think SCSU Faculty and P-12 Educators could be involved in new teacher workshops?

TPI Support Working Group Fall Meeting Summary

TPI Support Working Group Fall Meeting Summary

The Support Working Group is comprised of eight P-12 teachers and instructional coaches and five SCSU Faculty. This group met each month through fall semester, 2013. A brief summary of their work is provided below.

Faculty Involvement in P-12 Induction Programs

The Support Working Group completed work on the proposal: “Faculty Involvement in P-12 Induction Programs” during fall semester. The proposal’s primary consideration is the development of a clearly identifiable mechanism by which Saint Cloud State University’s faculty can be actively involved in new teacher induction in the TPI Partner Districts. Each Partner District has implemented an induction program that specifically fits their needs while maintaining a similar foundation rooted in the data identified by the Support Working Group in its preliminary stages of research for new teacher induction. The goal of this proposal is to identify areas in which SCSU faculty can take on active roles in supporting new teachers in induction programs.

Support for all SCSU Graduates

The group’s current work has a focus on supporting SCSU Graduates whether they are teaching in our TPI Partner Districts or elsewhere around the globe. This support will take place in an online format. We are consulting with SCSU and other entities regarding potential platforms. We are focusing the content on current initiatives in our P-12 Partner District Induction Programs that have been assessed and are making a positive impact on new teachers and the students they teach.

How do you think SCSU Faculty and P-12 Educators could be involved in an online system of support for new teachers in our Partner Districts and SCSU Graduates around the globe?

Assessment Working Group Meeting Summary

Below is a summary of the last Assessment Working Group meeting from John Hoover, the facilitator of the group.

Members of the Assessment Working Group met on November 22 to organize their efforts for the year.  A brief list of activities and topics is provided below.

Teacher Development and Evaluation in Minnesota

The meeting included rousing discussions of the Teacher Development and Evaluation Plan as described in Minnesota Statutes 122A.40 and 122.41.  We agreed to explore the local plans on which partner district representatives have worked. We believe that these plans will affect our ability to document our  candidates’ performance once they are hired.

Revisiting Charges and Milestones & Development of a Short-Term Work Plan

Members of the committee reviewed committee charges and the milestones documented for the Bush Foundation.  Based on these working documents, members of the committee plan to accomplish the following four activities on the short run: (a) undertake a review of teacher evaluation systems in partner districts, (b) provide chapter-by-chapter reports on a highly-regarded text (Danielson, 2013), (c) perform fact-finding on the status of the common metrics instruments, and (d) explore assessment and evaluation needs with the Support Working Group facilitator.

Guiding Principles

Members of the working group developed and approved a list of guiding principles for the work of the committee. 

What other ideas do you have regarding assessment needs at SCSU and in P-12?

Prepare Working Group Meeting Summary - Achievement Gap and Alternative Licensure Pathways

Summary from Nov 19th TPI Prepare Working Group Meeting
Jim Robinson, Facilitator

           We focused our attention on two future activities.  First, an Achievement Gap Summit in Summer 2014 to begin a process to address and to reduce the achievement gap for minority students from African-American, Latino/Latina populations, and Native Americans populations as well as ELLs and Special Education students.  The goal is to bring in local and national leaders who are specialists in reducing the Achievement Gap.  Initial suggestions were for specialists in Response to Intervention or FTI and Generation Next. 

Second, we discussed possible charges for an Alternative Pathways proposal for teaching licenses in ESL, SPED and STEM.  The proposal would focus on who would be recruited, who should be added to prepare for this specific proposal preparation, and what models would be reviewed for the proposal.  The students to be recruited could include non-trad students with two or four year degrees, Paras in our partner districts, veterans, or traditional students who want to be teachers but had not thought about ESL or SPED or STEM students who have not thought about teaching as a career. Possible models could include the following aspects:  online courses, cohort models, fast track models, apprenticeships, and collaborative models with our P-12 partners.  The proposal would also focus on our P-12 partner needs, on mentorship within these alternative pathways, and on financial models to support these pathways.

Who do you think should be invited to speak at an Achievement Gap Summit at SCSU?

WE are the Teacher Preparation Initiative

The work of the Teacher Preparation Initiative (TPI) started in earnest in January 2011 when our Working Groups first began meeting.  Since then, we have brought forth 16 proposals to improve how we recruit, prepare, employ and support our teacher candidates.  These recommendations are grounded in data, represent best practice, and reflect the best thinking of our colleagues.  We anticipate possibly 10 more proposals to come forth over the next year. 

These proposals have come from our Working Groups, Task Force, and Focused Teams and are brought to the TPI Coordinating Team.  So, who is engaged in these groups? 

·        *   Since January 2011, TPI has been led by the work of 177 participants in the development of TPI proposals. 

·       *   133 participants are currently actively involved

·        *  65 of those participants are from P-12

·       *   68% of faculty in Teacher Education have been or are currently involved

·      *    Participants include staff from the Admissions Office, Career Services, Information Technology,     

       Multicultural Student Services, Office of Clinical Experiences, and SOE Student Services

TPI has also been working diligently to provide mini-grants to districts and programs at SCSU to implement TPI recommendations.

·        *  All 6 districts have received funding to implement Future Educator’s Clubs

·       *   5 of the 6 districts have received funding to implement induction components and to support the   

       participation of their new teachers in workshops

·        * 12 licensure areas have been funded to implement new field experiences, admission requirements,         

        co-teaching, and radically reform their programs. 

In addition, we have engaged close to 150 new teachers in workshops that address first year teacher needs, 50 instructional coaches in cohorts that addressed content and skills, 30 co-teaching specialists in all 6 districts and at SCSU that were trained to lead at their institutions, and 20 administrators through high level meetings and trainings to support new teachers.

All of these participants ARE TPI.  The work moves forward because of you!

If you are not already engaged, how would you like to be involved in TPI?

Prepare Working Group - Proposing a Teachers on Special Assignment Approach to Field Placement and Candidate Supervision

Below is a summary from Jim Robinson (Prepare Working Group Facilitator) of an idea that was generated at the last Prepare Working Group Meeting.  This idea is in the brainstorming stages, and so any all feedback is encouraged.  

                

At the last TPI Prepare Working Group we revised the University Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher proposal with one major new piece:  how to use Teachers on Special Assignment for both Field Experience placements and University Supervision.  The Coordinating Team asked this TOSA inclusion as part of the revision.  Here is what we came up with:

As an alternative to the current field placement and supervision model, we could implement a collaborative model through Teachers on Special Assignment.  The TOSA would make placements in their home P-12 district and then act as university supervisors for the students teachers in their building or their district.  This could be a triad model that includes a content specialist, cooperating teacher and a Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA).

Within the Triad Model each member of the triad would have the following profile:

1)       Content Specialist:

University faculty

They teach in their area of certification

Supervise, observe, and provide regular & timely feedback for teacher candidates in all content areas

Strong communication/collaboration between the triad partners (TOSA & CT).

2)       Cooperative Teacher

Tenured, highly effective P-12 classroom teacher

They teach in their area of certification

Supervise, observe, and provide regular & timely feedback for teacher candidates

Strong communication/collaboration between the triad partners (TOSA & Content Specialist).

3)       Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) or similar position depending on the district

Tenured, highly effective P-12 classroom teacher.

They have established relationships, trust and knowledge of the quality of teachers they serve.

Assist in teacher candidate placement within their district/buildings.

Supervise, observe, and provide regular & timely feedback for teacher candidates.

Strong communication/collaboration between the triad partners (Cooperating Teacher & Content Specialist).

The Strengths of this triad model would be:

●       PD opportunities for the TOSA, the CT, and the CS.

●       Selection and deselection process of the CT can be handled by the TOSA.

○       They’re in district and know the master teachers.

○       Relationships built between the TOSA and CT could translate into higher quality placements.

●       The triad could collaboratively support, problem solve, and make decisions surrounding the teacher candidate.

●       Long term partnerships are nurtured (i.e. high quality CTs can be retained)

●       The TOSA has more knowledge of CT strengths for proper placement.

●       The TOSA has district knowledge and resources that are not available a University Supervisor.

●       Supports the TPI/Member District commitment to hiring SCSU candidates.

●       Creates a more meaningful experience for the teacher candidate.

●       Strengthens the partnership between the University & P-12 schools.

It is implicit that student teaching credit allocation needs to be revised.

For sustainability, the TOSA model could provide more level of collaboration without spending more money.  Essentially, where implemented the funds that SCSU has paid for university supervisors could go to the district TOSA who both makes student teaching placements and also supervises the teacher candidate as a university supervisor.  For the same amount that the University pays a university supervisor, the following by products would result in more collaboration between SCSU and the school district:

1)      Helps district hire more SCSU graduates as the TOSA will know more about SCSU teacher candidates than any application can reveal;

2)      Helps the district hire better teachers as the TOSA would be able select the from the best teachers who are student teaching;

3)      Lowers OCE inputs as placement are no longer made by OCE;

4)      Moves quality control of Cooperating teachers from OCE to the school district;

5)      Embeds professional development  through collaboration between the TOSA, the cooperating teaching and content faculty supervisors;

6)      Improves school orientation for teacher candidates;

7)      Improves relationship between content faculty and school districts;

8)      Gains connectivity and coherence in the program with more collaboration..

At the same time, this TOSA model may lose some of the objectivity that University supervisors who are neither from the University nor from the school district provide as outside evaluators of teacher candidates.

Implementing this model may also not be suitable for every placement, every licensure, every school or every district.  And so, the implementation of such a program should be in stages.