1. 1 A Vision and A Plan

2. 2

3. Central Connecticut State University will be a premier teacher preparation institution in Connecticut. Our programs will be known for their focus on candidate outcomes that document superb preparation for teaching children in Connecticut’s classrooms. Our work will be evidence-based and reflective of strong faculty expertise across the university. Our commitments to social justice and advocacy for children, collaboration with educators in our communities, and research about educational practices are the foundations of our work. 3

4. Teacher preparation programs everywhere are challenged to prepare candidates who are ready to improve student learning in the classrooms. New curriculum standards (e.g., The Common Core), new teacher evaluation standards, and new public expectations for teachers all demand our attention, especially in Connecticut where the achievement gap is unacceptably large. In the past our responses to policy challenges and problems of practice were piecemeal: we added courses, content, and programs, or we reconfigured the courses and programs we had. This time, grafting the new onto the old will not work. Our task requires us to reform the structure of teacher preparation and rethink our roles within that structure. 4

5. To lead teacher preparation programs within the school and across the university. To assure that programs meet – and even exceed – state and national standards. To be the linchpin connecting policy makers, educators in the field, and CCSU faculty. To optimize our resources – people, dollars, structures – in pursuit of the vision. 5

6. I am a teacher educator with nearly two decades of experience with and on behalf of children and educators. I have led teacher preparation program redesign processes. I have experience in most certification areas and have held complex leadership roles related to teacher preparation. I have published, and presented nationally and internationally, in the areas of reading, special education, teacher preparation, institutional assessment, and social justice. I currently participate in EPAC, CEEDAR State Steering Committee, the Early College Taskforce, and AACTE-CT, four groups whose work significantly informs ours. I believe in our collective ability to respond to our challenges. 6

7. Met with CCSU teaching faculty, administrative faculty, and senior administrators (both current and former). Met with area superintendents, district leaders, and principals. Met with alumni, students, parents of students, and donors. Met with state public education leaders and policy makers. Reviewed historical data and used our data to write our response to the National Council on Teacher Quality. Reviewed curriculum and assessment reports. Benchmarked CCSU against comparable institutions and the recommendations and standards of professional groups. 7

8. 8

9. An historical and on-going dedication to teacher preparation as a core mission of the university. Multiple examples of excellence in teaching, research, and grant-supported activities in the university and community. A teacher preparation model that is based on strong participation by faculty within the School of Education and Professional Studies and across the university. Substantial general education requirements and strong content majors. Multiple examples of thoughtfully constructed and carefully implemented clinical experiences for pre-service teachers. 9

10. Current CCSU teacher preparation models were designed around standards and regulations that are rapidly changing or are no longer in place. Thus, our existing models limit our ability to meet challenges posed by the many new standards, new regulations, and new policies re-shaping today’s teacher preparation programs. CCSS- Common Core State Standards SBAC- Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium NGSS- Next Generation Science Standards SEED- System for Educator Evaluation and Development EPAC- Educator Preparation Advisory Council CEEDAR-Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform NTEP-Network for Transforming Educator Preparation 10

11. Our BSED model typically requires five years (or more) to completion; competitors offer a baccalaureate and master’s in the same amount of time. Our post-baccalaureate model makes little sense today because the vast majority of baccalaureate-prepared students seek master’s level preparation Our MAT model is not consistent with new regulations that require advanced preparation in content and content pedagogy. Our enrollments have been trending down over the last 10 years. 11

12. Our cross-university structure (3 academic schools and multiple departments) results in different, and sometimes confusing and conflicting, advising messages from academic schools, departments, and faculty. This discourages students from our programs and can delay graduation. Because of our structure, we have segregated – rather than integrated – content knowledge, pedagogy, and pedagogical content knowledge. We do not have strong and inclusive governance for teacher preparation programs. 12

13. Our students lack an institutional identity. We have not agreed on the hallmarks that define a teacher prepared by CCSU. Although individual programs have identified specific core outcomes, we have not specific outcomes at the unit level. Discipline-specific outcomes for pre-service teachers are not sufficiently articulated and understood across the teacher preparation curriculum. Clinical outcomes for pre-service teachers are imprecise and variable. We have not defined sufficiently coherent and systematic field experiences across preparation programs, schools, and departments. 13

14. Conclusion CCSU education faculty and teacher-preparing faculty working in the other academic schools must work collaboratively, and in new ways, through new structures, to redesign and reform teacher preparation programs. This work must be done in order to assure all constituencies that CCSU comprehensively and cohesively prepares educators. We need to start with a unifying vision and a common philosophical core. 14

15. 15

16. National Network for Education Renewal (NNER) The National Network for Education Renewal (NNER), founded by esteemed educator John Goodlad, shares our values and beliefs. Aspiring to membership in the Network will focus our activities and give us a common philosophical core. The Network is committed to the simultaneous renewal of schools and of the institutions that prepare our teachers. The Network works through partnerships among P-12 schools, institutions of higher education, and communities. For more information, link to About Us | NNERAbout Us | NNER 16

17. Equity and access: Provide equal access to quality learning and knowledge for all students. Enculturation: Educate the young with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become fully engaged participants in our social and political democracy. Nurturing pedagogy: Base teaching on knowledge of the subjects taught, established principles of learning, and sensitivity to the unique potential of each learner. Stewardship: Take responsibility for improving the conditions for learning in P-12 schools, institutions of higher education, and communities. Adapted from Mission Statement | NNERMission Statement | NNER 17

18. Engaging arts and sciences, education, public schools, and community members as equal partners collectively responsible for the Agenda for Education in a Democracy (see Agenda);Agenda Supporting and including diverse partnership settings (urban, suburban, and rural communities; ethnically, racially, and socioeconomically diverse public schools); Conducting research pertinent to educational practices, the renewal of public schools, and the education of educators; Providing professional and leadership development for participants; and Proposing and monitoring federal, state, and local policy that supports implementation of the Agenda. Adapted from Mission Statement | NNERMission Statement | NNER 18

19. Conclusion Aspiring to join the National Network for Educational Renewal will give teacher-preparing educators at CCSU, our clinical partners, and our communities a unifying vision and a common philosophical foundation for collaboration and focused action. But in order to act, we also need to reform and renew the structure and governance of teacher preparation at CCSU. 19

20. 20

21. Action 1.Reorganize teacher-preparing departments within SEPS. 2.Create an inclusive faculty governance model for teacher preparation. 3.Consolidate responsibility for defining outcomes, curriculum, and partnerships in the new faculty governance structure. Justification Teacher education is a broad CCSU responsibility and not the work of of a single department. Teacher-preparing faculty across the university need to address collaboratively our problems of practice. The new governance structure should design and oversee our programs in collaboration with our partners. 21

22. Discussions are underway with SEPS faculty regarding the reorganization of several SEPS teacher preparing departments Multiple models are being considered 22

23. The C-TEC is a formal governance structure in which faculty from arts and sciences, engineering and technology, education, and the public schools (what the National Network for Educational Renewal calls the “Tripartite”) are equally involved in the on-going work of teacher education across the university and in the community. The C-TEC provides faculty governance and coordination for all aspects of teacher education. The C-TEC is faculty-led and reports directly to the Dean of Education and Professional Studies. 23

24. C-TEC Public School Partners Arts & Science Faculty Engineering & Technology Faculty Education Faculty 24

25. Responsibilities Related to Outcomes Define the conceptual and philosophical footprint of CCSU’s teacher preparation programs, consistent with the aspiration to join the National Network for Educational Renewal. What will be the hallmarks of a CCSU-prepared teacher? Define and map curricular outcomes – core, discipline-specific, and clinical – for all teacher preparation programs. Use outcome data to inform on-going program development. Monitor student progress. 25

26. Responsibilities Related to Curriculum Collaboratively redesign teacher education pathways with high appeal for students, strong curricular and clinical outcomes, and diverse partnerships with public schools. Consider redesigning both “early decider” and “late decider” options as replacements for CCSU’s current teacher preparation models. Devise advising models for curricular pathways and assure consistent student support across the university. 26

27. Responsibilities Related to Partnerships Define a partnership model for CSSU teacher preparation pathways that draws on practitioner expertise and supports achievement of clinical outcomes. Establish and coordinate partnerships under the new partnership model, and involve partners in the continuous redesign and renewal of our programs. Develop professional and leadership development for teacher- preparing faculty and our school and community partners. 27

28. Re-form the structure of education departments to maximize our most important resource- our faculty, Renew our commitment to collaborative faculty governance of teacher preparation by establishing the Central Teacher Education Committee (C-TEC), and Assign to the C-TEC the responsibility for defining the curricular and clinical outcomes that will be the hallmarks of our teachers, and mapping curricular and clinical pathways to attaining these outcomes. 28

29. Agenda for Education in a Democracy. Retrieved from http://www.ieiseattle.org/AED.htmhttp://www.ieiseattle.org/AED.htm American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (2010a). The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/pdf/Government_Relations/Clinical%20Prep%20Paper_03-11-2010.pdfhttp://aacte.org/pdf/Government_Relations/Clinical%20Prep%20Paper_03-11-2010.pdf American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2010b). Reforming teacher preparation: The critical clinical component. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/pdf/Government_Relations/Reforming%20Teacher%20Preparation%20The%20Critical%20Clinical%2 0Component%20(DOH%202010).pdf http://aacte.org/pdf/Government_Relations/Reforming%20Teacher%20Preparation%20The%20Critical%20Clinical%2 0Component%20(DOH%202010).pdf Grossman., P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273-289. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378-386. National Academy of Education. Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: Purposes, methods and policy option. Retrieved from http://www.naeducation.org/xpedio/groups/naedsite/documents/webpage/naed_085581.pdfhttp://www.naeducation.org/xpedio/groups/naedsite/documents/webpage/naed_085581.pdf National Network for Educational Renewal. Retrieved from www.nnerpartnerships.org/www.nnerpartnerships.org/ 29