[ Cover ]

Archived Information







National

A w a r d s

P r o g r a m

for

Effective

T e a c h e r

Preparation



Application Package





Applications Due: July 3, 2000





Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education





OMB Approval No. 1850–0762 (Exp. 3/31/03)









1

Paperwork Burden Statement



According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are

required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection

displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for

this information collection is 1850–0762. The time required to complete this

information collection is estimated to average 50 hours per response,

including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources,

gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collec-

tion. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time

estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S.

Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202–4651. If you have com-

ments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this

form, write directly to: Sharon Horn, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW,

Room 506e, Washington, D.C. 20208–5644.









2

April 1, 2000

Dear Applicant:



Few would debate that high quality teachers are critical to the ability of

children in our nation’s schools to achieve high standards. As the student

population becomes more diverse and the emphasis on academic

achievement continues, the need for high quality teachers will only in-

crease in the coming decade. Clearly, the time is right to draw attention to

those teacher preparation programs that are particularly effective in

preparing teachers who, in turn, are effective in helping students improve

their learning.





To highlight the correlation between student learning and the quality of the

programs that prepare teachers, and to continue its efforts to honor excel-

lence in education, the U.S. Department of Education is pleased to an-

nounce this first competition under the National Awards Program for Effec-

tive Teacher Preparation. To support efforts across the country to improve

students’ learning in reading and mathematics, the initial year of these

awards will focus on programs that prepare elementary teachers or

middle and/or high school mathematics teachers.





The goal of this program is to recognize teacher preparation programs

whose graduates are effective in helping all K–12 students improve their

learning in reading and/or mathematics. Demonstrating the link between

teacher preparation programs and graduates’ ability to improve student

learning is not an easy task. This awards program will recognize no more

than five programs that are on the leading edge of demonstrating this link.

These programs will serve as examples that will help others understand

how to establish exemplary programs and gather credible evidence of

effectiveness.





For purposes of these awards, a “teacher preparation program” refers to

a defined set of experiences that, taken as a whole, prepares participants

for initial certification to teach. All programs that prepare elementary

teachers or middle and/or high school mathematics teachers for initial









3

certification, including those that are not university/college-based, are

eligible for this award. (Since the focus is on initial preparation, alternative

certification programs are eligible while inservice programs are not.)

Detailed instructions for applying for this award are provided within this

application package.





To be considered for the award, programs must provide compelling evi-

dence that their graduates positively affect all students’ learning in read-

ing and mathematics at the elementary level, or mathematics at the

middle and/or high school level. Programs also must demonstrate that their

graduates have a depth of content knowledge (mathematics and reading

for elementary programs, mathematics for middle and/or high school

programs), acquire general and content-specific pedagogical knowledge

and skills, and develop skills to examine attitudes and beliefs about learn-

ers and the teaching profession. Applicants should be sure to:





• respond in the suggested order to each section of the Application

Narrative portion of the application;





• consider carefully the guiding questions in each section; and





• comply with formatting instructions.





Applicants should pay particular attention to the Evidence of Effectiveness

section (Section C) of the Application Narrative portion of the application.

This section requires applicants to provide three types of evidence:





• Formative Evidence

This type of evidence demonstrates that the program gathers and uses

data to make adjustments to the various stages of the program.





• Summative Evidence

This type of evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of the overall

program in helping graduates acquire the knowledge and skills

needed to improve all students’ learning.









4

• Confirming Evidence

This type of evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of program

graduates in K–12 settings.





As mentioned previously, the goal of the awards program is to recognize

teacher preparation programs that have compelling evidence of their

effectiveness; consequently, all three types of evidence are required. In

assembling their evidence, applicants may determine that some of the

data collected to comply with Section 207 of Title II of the 1998 Amend-

ments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 may be useful as one of many

sources of evidence for this application. Please see the information about

evidence in Section C of the Application Narrative portion of the applica-

tion package for more details.





For further information about the application or the awards program,

please contact Sharon Horn at the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW,

Room 506e, Washington DC 20208–5644, phone 202–219–2203, FAX 202–

219–2198, or email sharon_horn@ed.gov.





Thank you for your interest in the National Awards Program for Effective

Teacher Preparation. Your willingness to share information about your

program will positively affect the quality of teacher preparation and,

ultimately, the quality of K–12 education in the United States.





Sincerely,









Terry Knecht Dozier

Senior Advisor on Teaching









5

6

Overview



As part of a continuing effort to honor excellence in education, the U.S.

Department of Education announces the National Awards Program for

Effective Teacher Preparation. This program recognizes exemplary

teacher preparation programs that provide evidence that their graduates

are effective in helping all students improve their learning. For purposes of

these awards, “all students” means all students that a teacher might en-

counter in a classroom (including students in regular education, students in

special education, students from diverse backgrounds, and students with

limited English proficiency).





In keeping with the Nation’s and the Department’s priorities on reading

and mathematics, this competition focuses on programs that prepare

elementary teachers (since elementary teachers are typically required to

teach both reading and mathematics) and on programs that prepare

middle and/or high school mathematics teachers for initial certification.

.

Only those programs are eligible to apply.





Recognition under this awards program is based on how well applicants

demonstrate evidence of effectiveness. Three types of evidence must be

provided: formative, summative, and confirming. The evidence must

demonstrate that the program gathers and uses data to make adjust-

ments to respond to participant needs throughout the program, ensures

that participants acquire the knowledge and skills needed to improve all

students’ learning by completion of the program, and gathers and uses

data about its graduates’ effectiveness in K–12 settings after completion of

the program.









7

The Review Process



Applications will be reviewed in five stages.





Stage 1:

During the first stage, applications will be reviewed by U.S. Department of

Education staff to determine whether they are submitted by eligible appli-

cants, contain all necessary information (including the three types of evi-

dence required), and meet formatting requirements. Applications will be

accepted only from programs that prepare elementary teachers or

middle and/or high school mathematics teachers for initial certification.





Stage 2:

The second stage of review, to determine semi-finalists, will be conducted

by non-Departmental teams representing a broad range of teacher edu-

cators, practitioners (i.e., mathematicians, mathematics educators, K–12

teachers, and reading specialists), and policymakers (i.e., superintendents,

school board members, and principals). Each application will have mul-

tiple readers and will be evaluated according to how well the application

demonstrates evidence of effectiveness as described in the application

package.





Stage 3:

In the third stage, site visits will be conducted to verify information pre-

sented in the semi-finalists’ applications and to examine additional data

related to the evidence of effectiveness.





Stage 4:

In stage four, a non-Departmental national awards panel (different

reviewers from those involved in Stage 2) will review semi-finalist applica-

tions and site visit reports, then recommend finalists to the Department.





Stage 5:

In the final stage, the Department will review data collected throughout

the review process and select no more than five programs for national

recognition.





8

Guidelines for Completing the

Application



General Information





The purpose of the National Awards Program for Effective Teacher

Preparation is to promote excellence in teaching and teacher prepara-

tion. Applicants must adequately document three types of evidence

(formative, summative, and confirming) that, taken together, demon-

strate their graduates are able to help all K–12 students (including stu-

dents in regular education, students in special education, students from

diverse backgrounds, and students with limited English proficiency) im-

prove their learning. All three types of evidence are necessary for an

application to proceed beyond the first stage of review. Applications

that advance beyond stage two of the review process (i.e., those of the

highest quality) will be those that provide compelling evidence from

multiple indicators or measures collected for a period of two or more

years.





Applicants who become semi-finalists will be expected to have docu-

mentation that verifies the effectiveness of their program available for

site visit reviewers. Such documentation should enable reviewers to

understand the nature and quality of the program’s elements and how

they contribute to graduates’ abilities to positively affect K–12 student

learning. Documentation may include artifacts such as schedules,

portfolios, student or teacher reflection logs or journals, assessment data,

video and audio-tapes, internal and external communications, and other

documents.





If you have questions about the application or the awards program,

contact Sharon Horn, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

555 New Jersey Avenue NW, Room 506e, Washington, DC 20208–5644.

She may be reached by phone (202–219–2203) or email

(sharon_horn@ed.gov).









9

Components of the Application



The application consists of the following components:





Contact Information: (form provided): List the name, address, phone, fax,

and email (if available) of a person with whom the Department can com-

municate about the application throughout the review process, including

the site visit.* This person should be someone who is knowledgeable about

the application. Also, list the members of the team who prepared the

application and the name and address of the program.





Abstract of Program: Provide a one-page abstract (see Formatting Infor-

mation) that describes the characteristics that make your program exem-

plary, and highlights the evidence that your teacher preparation program

is effective in preparing graduates who are able to help all students im-

prove their learning.





Application Narrative: Provide a narrative and accompanying materials

that focus on the areas described in the Application Narrative section of

the application package.



* If the contact information is not applicable during the summer months, please

provide a phone number where the contact person, or an alternate, can be

reached during July and August.









10

Formatting Information



• Attach the single-sided, one-page abstract and no more than 30 pages

total of application narrative, including accompanying materials, to the

contact information form provided in this packet. Any pages that

exceed the equivalent of the 30-page limit will be discarded.





• Margins must be at least one inch on all sides.





• Type must be double-spaced and in a type size that enhances read-

ability (at least 12 point).





• Submit an original and five (5) copies of your application to Sharon

Horn, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 555 New

Jersey Avenue NW, Room 506e, Washington, DC 20208–5644. Please

do not bind the original.





The completed application must be received no later than close of busi-

ness (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time) on July 3, 2000.









11

Application Narrative



Each of the four sections of the application includes two or more questions

that are designed to help applicants formulate their responses. Sections A,

B, and D provide reviewers with information about the context of the

teacher preparation program and its potential as an example for others.

Reviewers will use the information in the three sections to determine the

extent to which there is a logical connection between the various aspects

of the program and the results achieved. In other words, they will check for

consistency between the information provided in these sections and the

claims of effectiveness.





Section C is the most important section of the application. In this section,

applicants provide formative, summative, and confirming evidence that

their program is effective in preparing graduates who are able to help all

K–12 students improve their learning in reading and mathematics at the

elementary level or mathematics at the middle and/or high school level.





Applicants should respond to each section in the suggested order, making

certain to consider carefully the guiding questions and to follow the format-

ting requirements described previously. Accompanying materials may be

included as part of the application narrative, however, the total number of

pages must not exceed 30.





A. Background and Program Description





In this section, applicants must provide their (1) mission statement, (2) goals

and objectives, and (3) program components. If accompanying materials

are used to provide information, please clearly indicate on the materials

what they are intended to address and refer to the materials in the narra-

tive by providing a list or brief description. (Please note that accompany-

ing materials are included in the 30 page limitation.)









12

In addition to the three elements mentioned above, applicants also may

consider including information about the following:





• Recruitment policies for faculty and candidates

• Selection procedures for faculty and candidates

• Program structure (e.g., course and field experiences, support for

preservice and novice teachers, mechanisms for monitoring partici

pants’ progress)

• State and/or district policies or mandates that affect the components of

the teacher preparation program

• Resources that support the program

• Collaboration between the program and K–12 schools

• Graduation or completion criteria





In responding to this section the applicants should carefully consider the

following questions:





• What are the mission, goals and objectives, and components of the

teacher preparation program?





• How do the mission, goals and objectives, and program components

relate to the effective preparation of elementary teachers or middle

and/or high school mathematics teachers?





B. Program’s Criteria for Effectiveness





In this section, applicants must describe the principles, standards, or other

criteria that the applicant uses to judge the effectiveness of its teacher

preparation program. (Note: Applications are not being evaluated

against a given set of principles for all programs, but are expected to

include relevant criteria for guiding program improvement and modifica-

tions).









13

In responding to this section, applicants should carefully consider the fol-

lowing questions:





• What are the criteria or standards (e.g., NCATE, INTASC, NBPTS, NCTM,

state teacher licensure requirements and other appropriate standards)

the program uses to evaluate its effectiveness?





• How does the program ensure that program components, such as

courses and instructional practices, are linked to the evaluation criteria

or standards?





C. Evidence of Effectiveness





The response to this section must include three types of evidence: forma-

tive, summative, and confirming. Formative evidence refers to the use of

data to make adjustments to the program throughout its various stages.

These data are collected as participants (preservice teachers) move

through the program. Summative evidence demonstrates that the pro-

gram is effective in helping graduates acquire the necessary knowledge

and skills to improve student learning. Such evidence is collected as

preservice teachers complete the program. Confirming evidence links

teacher preparation and K–12 student learning by demonstrating that

program graduates are effective in helping all K–12 students improve their

learning in reading and mathematics at the elementary level or math-

ematics at the middle and/or high school level. This evidence is collected

on graduates who are employed by schools or districts.





Please see the “Application Review Tool” section of the application packet

for information about the rubric that will be used to review applications.

The section also includes information about credibility of sources of evi-

dence.





In responding to this section, applicants must supply a brief description for

each piece of supporting evidence. The description must include informa-

tion about (1) the nature of the data, (2) methods used to collect the data,

and (3) a summary of the data analysis.





14

Applicants must consider carefully the following questions:





• What evidence is there that the program, described in section A,

gathers data about the effectiveness of the various stages of the

program and uses that data to make improvements? (Formative

evidence)





• What evidence is there that the program is effective in helping

graduates acquire the knowledge and skills needed to improve

student learning in reading and mathematics for all elementary school

students or in mathematics for all middle and/or high school students?

(Summative evidence)





(Note: Evidence in this section should address graduates’ content knowl-

edge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, and skills to examine beliefs

about learners and teaching as a profession.)





• What evidence is there that the program’s graduates are effective in

helping all students improve their learning in reading and mathematics

at the elementary school level or mathematics at the middle and/or

high school level? (Confirming evidence)





(Note: If there are obstacles that affect data collection (e.g., local or state

regulations that prohibit the release of student data), applicants may

describe these factors, and explain how they have overcome any ob-

stacles in collecting data for purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of

their program.)





D. Implications for the Field





A primary goal of this awards program is to share with the public, effective

examples that might be adopted or otherwise used by others to improve

teacher preparation programs throughout the country. In this section,

applicants must discuss the challenges they have faced and overcome in

administering their teacher preparation program, as well as the resulting

lessons they have learned.





15

In responding to this section, applicants should consider carefully the

following:





• What is at least one significant challenge that the program encountered

within the last five years and how was it overcome? (Note: Since

demonstrating the link between teacher preparation, and K–12 student

learning is a primary focus of the award program, applicants should

consider describing challenges related to this issue.)





• What lessons have been learned about designing, implementing, or

evaluating a program that prepares graduates who are effective in

helping improve student learning for all K-12 students, and how might

these lessons benefit others?





• What program materials (e.g., videos, Web sites, course outlines,

manuals, strategies, processes) are available that could benefit others?





• How have or could you help others adapt the aspects of your program

that contribute most to graduates’ effectiveness with K–12 students?









16

Application Review Tool



Reviewers will evaluate the information provided in each application

based on three criteria: rigor, sufficiency, and consistency. These criteria,

and the performance levels applicable to each, are identified in the rubric

shown in Figure 1. Reviewers will use this rubric as the review instrument to

judge the quality of each application.





The Evidence of Effectiveness provided by an applicant under section C,

the most critical portion of the application, will be evaluated on the basis of

its rigor and sufficiency. The level of “rigor” applied to the evidence sub-

mitted will be determined by the extent to which the qualitative or quanti-

tative data presented are found to be valid and reliable. The level of

“sufficiency” applied to the evidence submitted will be determined by the

adequacy and the extent of the data provided.





The application as a whole will be evaluated on the basis of its consis-

tency. The level of “consistency” of the application will be based on the

extent to which there is a logical link between various aspects of the pro-

gram as described in Sections A, B, and D of the application and the evi-

dence of effectiveness provided under Section C. For example, if an appli-

cant indicates in sections A, B, or D of its application that field experiences

are important to the preparation of teachers, then the application should

describe the variety of field experiences that are spread over the duration

of the program and also include, for purposes of “consistency,” documen-

tation of the effectiveness of these experiences.





The rubric in Figure 1 identifies a range of performance levels, from 1 to 4,

that reviewers will use to judge the quality of an application with regard to

the three criteria—rigor, sufficiency, and consistency—explained above.

Reviewers will assign a level of the rubric, 1 to 4, for each criteria based on

their judgment of how well the information provided in the application

matches the descriptions in the rubric of the relevant performance levels.

Prior to reviewing applications, reviewers will receive training in using the

rubric to ensure inter-rater reliability.









17

Figure 1. Rubric for Evaluating Evidence of Effectiveness



RIGOR SUFFICIENCY CONSISTENCY

The evidence is highly There are extensive data Components of the pro-

credible. The data are that support claims of gram are consistent with

valid and indicators are effectiveness. The evi- the vision of the program.

free of bias. Reliability is dence includes data from Program components are

supported by multi-year multiple sources with monitored to determine if

data from several sources. multiple indicators. they are being instituted as

4 designed. Evidence

supports an intended,

logical link between

program components and

program success. The

consistencies support the

credibility of the evidence.



The evidence is credible. There are adequate data There are minor inconsisten-

Validity has been to support the claims of cies between the vision of

addressed for most of effectiveness. There are the program and program

the data. There may be multiple sources of components. Some compo-

some questions of bias. evidence and multiple nents of program may not

Reliability is supported indicators for at least one be monitored or there may

3 be some inconsistencies

by two or more years of source.

data from at least one between the evidence

data source. provided and the identified

successful components of

the program. The inconsis-

tencies do not weaken the

credibility of the evidence.



The evidence has limited There are limited data to There are several inconsis-

credibility. The rigor is support the claims of tencies between the vision

compromised by issues of effectiveness. The data of the program and pro-

bias or validity/reliability. are collected from only gram components. There

There are no multi-year one or two sources. There are significant inconsisten-

2 data from any source. are no multiple indicators cies between the evidence

for the data source(s). provided and the identified

successful components of

the program. The inconsis-

tencies raise questions

about the credibility of the

evidence.



The evidence has little or There are not enough There are numerous

no credibility. The rigor is data to support claims of inconsistencies between

significantly compro- effectiveness. There is the vision of the program

mised by issues of bias, only a single source of and its components. The

or there is not enough data. evidence provided is not

1 information to determine linked to the components

rigor. The data lack of the program that have

validity/reliability. There been identified as contrib-

are no multi-year data. uting to the program’s

success. The inconsisten-

cies raise significant

questions about the

credibility of the evidence.









18

A Note about Credibility of Evidence



Applicants are encouraged to provide credible evidence from multiple

sources, both quantitative and qualitative. Applicants also should keep in

mind that even though their evidence might not have been developed

from a research process, they must still consider the same issues that en-

sure confidence in research results in identifying credible evidence to

support claims of effectiveness. For example, anecdotal evidence lacks

credibility unless it is obtained through a systematic process. Threats to

validity include lack of a representative sample and response bias due to

a lack of anonymity.





Figure 2 provides examples of levels of credibility for various data sources.

Reviewers will use Figure 2 to enhance their understanding of the scope of

information that applicants might provide. Applicants may find Figure 2

helpful in making decisions about which evidence to submit with the appli-

cation.









19

Figure 2. Examples of Credibility Across Sources



Teacher Preservice Preservice Supervisory K–12

Preparation Teachers’ Students & or Mentor Student

Faculty Work Program Teacher Results

Graduates

Most Faculty Ratings by an Data collected Results from Performance

Credible systematic external panel, on all partici- valid and assessment

sampling and with no know- pants in all reliable results or results

rating of ledge about stages of the observation from a test

K–12 student the identity of program instrument developed by an

work in the preservice rated by a “expert” (experi-

preservice teacher’s trained ob- enced teacher or

teachers’ institution, of a server commercial test

classes using systematic developer),

a valid and portfolio reflecting student

reliable rating sample gains on a topic

tool reflecting that beginning

learning teacher taught,

evidence of

preparedness for

next or related

courses, increases

in higher-level

course enrollment

Faculty Presentation of Data collected Systematic Beginning

systematic K–12 student on all gradu- ratings on a teacher-created

observation of work organized ates. Data random test, given pre

preservice as evidence of include teacher sample, and post instruc-

teachers’ preservice reflections including tion, reflecting

classroom teachers’ mentor teacher student learning,

instruction influence on assessment of teacher or student

K–12 student K–12 student reflection logs or

learning learning journals indicating

increased student

engagement in

learning

Faculty review Portfolios with Data collected Systematic Beginning teacher

and rating of section speci- on selected ratings on rated samples of

preservice fied to address participants in practicing K–12 student work

teachers’ K–12 student various stages teachers or demonstrating

practice learning of the program beginning learning

teaching teachers,

indicating

whether K–12

students have

learned

Least Narrative Preservice Data collected Informal reports Selected K–12

Credible report of teachers’ from selected indicating that student com-

preservice portfolios-no graduates K–12 students ments about the

teachers’ systematized learned from beginning

learning in a ratings practicing teacher from an

teacher teacher or evaluation page

preparation beginning

class teacher









20

Applicant Contact Information



1. Program Information



Name of Program:



Address:



Phone: FAX:





2. Contact Information (person in the program with whom U.S.

Department of Education staff or site team can communicate

about the application throughout the review process)





Name:



Title/Position:



Address:



Email:



Summer contact information if different from above:





3. Names and positions of the team involved in the completion

of this application:









21