School–University Partnerships: One Institution’s Efforts to Integrate and Support Teacher Use of High-Leverage Practices

Abstract

School–university partnerships have served as possible solutions for many contemporary educational challenges. As centers for clinical practice, they are potential vehicles for the development and refinement of candidate use of high-leverage practices (HLPs). This article describes our institution’s efforts to utilize our framework for clinically rich preparation to infuse HLPs into programming for undergraduate, dual-certification majors (i.e., general and special education). With the goal of program revision, general and special education faculty mutually agreed on a draft set of HLPs, which were finalized based on extensive feedback from school partners. To assess the viability of these collaboratively crafted HLPs, a subset of HLPs were identified and integrated into course content and clinical experiences during a pilot project. We highlight these learning experiences; discuss organizational, pedagogical, and empirical challenges; and offer general recommendations for next steps.

Sharing a Vision, Sharing Practices: How Communities of Educators Improve Teaching

“…Teacher education faculty will have opportunities to refine and add to their own teaching repertoires, perhaps using modeling, rehearsals, and the analysis of videos that novices produce. If we know how we want our preservice teachers to plan, work with students, and interact with parents, we can make this known to the CTs who mentor our novices and help shape their supportive practices (see Maheady et al, 2019). The process of mentoring has, as you might imagine, its own set of recurring routines, but these are rarely made explicit to the classroom teachers, upon whom so much of the success of a preparation program depends.…”

Systematic Identification, Implementation, and Evaluation of High-Leverage Practices in Teacher Preparation

“…Given time constraints in most preparation programs these questions and others must be addressed based on local contextual factors (e.g., faculty interests and skill sets). Generally, HLPs should be introduced as early as possible in the preparation program, interwoven through coursework and clinical experiences, include multiple opportunities to practice, and receive performance-based feedback as often as possible (Maheady et al, 2019). The two main components-effort and impact-represent variables that practitioner can weigh in the decision-making process.…”

“…In theory, "low effort" HLPs require less time, money, and support (i.e., professional development) and fewer curricular and pedagogical changes to implement, than "high effort" HLPs which necessitate additional time, money, training, and/or programmatic changes. Some HLPs may also require less effort to implement because they-or their primary componentsalready exist in curriculum; are consistent with faculty and program goals and vision; and/or are delivered collaboratively with school-university partners (Maheady et al, 2019). High impact HLPs would produce noticeable changes in SET practice and/or student learning, while those with low impact would show little or no change(s) in teaching practice and/or student learning.…”

Translating High-leverage Practices to Remote Environments

“…Special and inclusive educator preparation programs are encouraged to use these HLPs as a foundation, focusing on what teachers do in practice versus simply focusing on what they know and can describe about practice (see CEC Initial Preparation Standards, 2020). Indeed, some teacher education programs have integrated HLPs into their training, using them to plan for and assess candidate acquisition and fluency of essential practices (e.g., Maheady et al, 2019).…”

“…We believe that limiting extraneous tools in the early stages of developing teaching practice can help candidates zero in on the most salient and impactful features of HLPs and may assist with generalization across modalities. (Maheady et al, 2019).…”