View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Community-Based Collaboration for Early Childhood Teacher Education: Partner Experiences and Perspectives as Co-Teacher Educators

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Community-Based Collaboration for Early Childhood Teacher Education: Partner Experiences and Perspectives as Co-Teacher Educators
Language: English
Authors: Lees, Anna, Kennedy, Adam S.
Source: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. 2017 38(1):52-78.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2017
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS)
Contract Number: H325K120172
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Education Programs, Program Effectiveness, Partnerships in Education, Early Childhood Education, Preservice Teacher Education, Interviews, Focus Groups, School Community Relationship, Indigenous Populations, Urban American Indians, Early Intervention, Ethnic Diversity
Geographic Terms: Illinois (Chicago)
DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2016.1274692
ISSN: 1090-1027
Abstract: The relevance and effectiveness of traditional, course- and clinical-experience-based models of teacher preparation have been called into question, and institutions of teacher education must respond to the changing landscape of educational policy, which increasingly emphasizes that candidates must be prepared for challenges faced in complex, increasingly diverse classroom and community contexts through extended field experiences (Rust, 2010). In this article, we present a case for the development of mutually beneficial community partnerships as the foundation of all early childhood teacher education. First, key policies and research findings are presented that point to partnership as a key theme that must be addressed by preparation programs; next, a framework for the development of mutually beneficial partnerships between preparation programs and schools/community agencies is introduced; interview and focus group data are presented from the development and implementation of a field-based undergraduate early childhood teacher preparation program. These include examples of strategies that assist in leveraging resources toward mutual benefit, as well as vignettes illustrating field-based teacher education in action. Finally, partnership practices that address the shared goals of early childhood educators and those who prepare them are presented.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1133228
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFZeI-4gN33In0LDUBZZ50SAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGh7nNSIyi5LL8p31gIBEICBm9BLYXtMDEaKQhbQqoHJsUSRzlXxam9gLtmiGV4cQi2sphj1-iWZh3ENEuaR_UDAbUlAxHcB5VeLsSDFEMw-W_y6GPWFM7Z63lHzRt4mH2Qe2uaZ4-qjs3t5jlPpzLrLJc351yW3ppTX3yx-6OY48V7JWigjAzAje31ND--6rq-hQM1_OLswG8Kg6WOnBPdEUNmq2EcGCKGFTsrf
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0121745862;[15u7]01jan.17;2019Feb08.15:38;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0121745862-1">Community-based collaboration for early childhood teacher education: Partner experiences and perspectives as co–teacher educators. </title> <sbt id="AN0121745862-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>The relevance and effectiveness of traditional, course- and clinical-experience-based models of teacher preparation have been called into question, and institutions of teacher education must respond to the changing landscape of educational policy, which increasingly emphasizes that candidates must be prepared for challenges faced in complex, increasingly diverse classroom and community contexts through extended field experiences (Rust, 2010). In this article, we present a case for the development of mutually beneficial community partnerships as the foundation of all early childhood teacher education. First, key policies and research findings are presented that point to partnership as a key theme that must be addressed by preparation programs; next, a framework for the development of mutually beneficial partnerships between preparation programs and schools/community agencies is introduced; interview and focus group data are presented from the development and implementation of a field-based undergraduate early childhood teacher preparation program. These include examples of strategies that assist in leveraging resources toward mutual benefit, as well as vignettes illustrating field-based teacher education in action. Finally, partnership practices that address the shared goals of early childhood educators and those who prepare them are presented.</p> <p>The relevance of traditional, university-based models of early childhood teacher education, as well as their success at preparing effective educators, have been called into question in recent years (Cochran-Smith & Fries, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]). Scholars, policy makers, and professional organizations are sending consistent, universal messages about the need for teacher education to emphasize collaborative problem solving and program redesign that deeply involve community stakeholders (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Rust, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref4">34</reflink>]). Responding to these messages presents a persistent challenge for early childhood teacher educators (Burant & Kirby, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]). Increasing the number of hours spent in the field by preservice teachers represents an initial step; however, building intensified, purposeful, and collaborative field-based preparation experiences requires a great deal more (Lim, Maxwell, Able-Boone, & Zimmer, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]; McDonald et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref8">22</reflink>]; Rust, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]). Models grounded in field-based learning experiences must include opportunities for preservice teachers to serve alongside practicing teachers throughout their preparation, building teaching skills under the dual supervision of classroom teachers and preparation program faculty (Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). The aim of such programs is to reenvision teacher education as supported clinical practice (often characterized as apprenticeship) embedded in mutually beneficial partnerships, thus aligning the missions, purposes, and practices of preparation programs and community early childhood education settings (Kennedy & Heineke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]). Rather than benefitting such settings only through the potential hiring of well-prepared teachers, partnership models present opportunities for these settings to share and address priorities and goals during collaborative design, redesign, implementation, and evaluation. Still, the principle of mutual benefit (for teacher preparation programs <emph>and</emph> the sites that support field-based experiences) is challenging to conceptualize given the diversity of stakeholders involved in preparing the next generation of early childhood educators. What are the essential elements of mutually beneficial partnership? What benefits should partnership models emphasize, and how are these achieved? Challenges such as these are exacerbated by a lack of research on teacher education activities that both define and support community and family involvement in locally meaningful (i.e., authentic) ways.</p> <p>In this article, we present a case of community–university partnerships as a direct response to these calls for change in early childhood teacher education, sharing principles, features, and challenges associated with engaging multiple stakeholders in the development and implementation of a field-based undergraduate early childhood teacher education program. We first integrate pertinent research findings and recommended practices pointing to partnership as a key theme that must be addressed as preparation programs strive to deepen their immersion in the practice of teaching, as well as their ultimate effectiveness, and sustainability. We then introduce a field-based teacher education program designed around partnerships between schools/community agencies and an early childhood preparation program. Next, we share partnership-based vignettes from our field-based program to illustrate school and community partner perspectives of their experiences as co–teacher educators in collaboration with university faculty. Data from interviews and focus groups conducted with partners from five early childhood community agencies (including those serving culturally and linguistically diverse children, young children with special needs, and families in urban settings) is presented in order to describe partners' experiences and perceptions of this field-based teacher education model. We link these findings to previously published research focusing on teacher candidate outcomes and perceptions. Each case involves unique preparation experiences, stakeholders, and roles, but also serves as an illustration of the ways in which design and implementation of partnership-based practices aimed at achieving mutual benefit must be iterative in nature. We prioritize the perceptions and experiences of school and community partners as essential to the aim of mutual benefit in field-based teacher education (and therefore its effectiveness), particularly since prior research has historically focused on the needs of teacher candidates and university faculty. Implications for early childhood teacher educators are then discussed. Throughout this article, we define <emph>partnerships</emph> as "a social practice achieved through and characterized by trust, mutuality and reciprocity among preservice and practicing teachers, other school colleagues, and teacher educators" (Kruger, Davies, Eckersley, Newell, & Cherednichenko, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>], p. 8), as well as community members; <emph>mutually beneficial</emph> partnerships are defined as those which address the set of key principles depicted in Figure 1 further on in this article and informed by the work of Kruger and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>]). We use the term <emph>stakeholders</emph> in reference to the individuals and organizations with a role in teacher education; this includes institutions of higher education, schools, parents/caregivers, and community-based organizations. Where the term <emph>partners</emph> is used, we are referring to the key agencies and individuals involved in developing and sustaining each mutually beneficial partnership in our teacher preparation program.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Principles and strategies of mutually beneficial partnership in early childhood teacher education.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-3">Partnerships grounded in mutual benefit</hd> <p>A shifting policy landscape and professional recommendations highlight the need for teacher education to prepare early childhood professionals to move beyond navigating local and national expectations in preparing young children for school. Current initiatives require candidates to begin addressing the individual developmental and educational needs of all children through collaborations with caregivers, schools, and communities. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]) has called directly for an overhaul of teacher education in order to emphasize teacher candidates' development of effective practice through mentorship and supervised teaching (rather than primarily through university-based methods courses) with opportunities to study, practice, and improve as teachers throughout their preparation programs. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Professional Preparation Standards (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]) not only emphasize that teacher candidates must <emph>demonstrate</emph> key competencies (e.g., creating healthy, respectful, supportive, and challenging learning environments for each child) with children and families, but woven throughout these standards is language clearly stating that candidates best <emph>develop</emph> key competencies (e.g., cultural responsiveness, family engagement, and professional collaboration) through supervised field experiences (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>The call for greater collaboration between teacher education programs and early childhood educators extends beyond an emphasis on field experiences. For instance, the Division of Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children states in its Recommended Practices (Division of Early Childhood [DEC], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]) that ECSE programs and early intervention system leaders should collaborate directly with institutions of higher education in order to develop and revise universal competencies for practitioners who work with young children with special needs. The Recommended Practices also include a challenging parallel goal of developing evidence-based professional development and supports for practitioners, pointing to an opportunity to align resources and practices across professional preparation and development and a need to meaningfully include a wide variety of stakeholders, including specialized service providers (e.g., Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Mutually beneficial partnership is a persistent theme throughout this literature. NCATE ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]), for example, identifies deep, strategic, partnerships between preparation programs and community partner schools (who share a sense of equal responsibility for the preparation of future teachers) as the essential foundation for dramatically different preparation models required by current policy. Other voices emphasize that such partnerships represent the key to expanding the aim of teacher education beyond placement and retention of teachers in schools to a goal of community engagement and impact through more authentic preparation practices (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]; Freedman & Appleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]). Regardless, for teacher education programs to reflect authentic practice, they must align themselves with the aims and practices of other stakeholders and participate in substantive dialogue about shared priorities (Kruger et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]). Such shifts and inclusion of community knowledges in teacher education can only occur within partnerships, requiring role changes and a commitment to preservice experiences that represent the reality and complexity of teaching.</p> <p>The consistent message across policy makers and scholars is that rather than focusing on the authentic experiences of candidates once they reach classroom-based field sites, early childhood teacher education programs must design preparation activities that are viewed as both acceptable to each site and authentic in relation to their existing priorities and practices; achieving such goals requires the consideration of mutually beneficial partnership at every stage. Teacher preparation programs must then look beyond learning standards and address the specific and holistic needs of children, families, and communities within varying contexts. Thus, through engagement with university faculty, practicing professionals, community leaders, and families as collaborative and committed members of early childhood education communities, candidates may master and demonstrate more effective practices in responding to the educational needs of young children.</p> <p>While agreement about the need for partnerships to drive innovation in early childhood teacher education is evident, additional research is needed to better understand how these partnerships are formed, sustained, and used to deliver practices that achieve the aim of mutual benefit. In the following section, we outline how one urban university reconceptualized and redesigned its early childhood teacher education program as a collaborative, field-based model where preparation activities take place primarily in schools and community agencies. Then, we introduce the present study, which was designed to bring to light the experiences and perspectives of community partners as field-based co–teacher educators.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-4">A field-based approach to undergraduate early childhood teacher education</hd> <p>The partnership strategies and field-based learning activities examined in this study were leveraged during the design and implementation phases of Teaching, Learning, and Leading with Schools and Communities (TLLSC) (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]), an innovative approach to teacher education at Loyola University Chicago, a private, urban, Jesuit university in Chicago, Illinois. With 58 community and school partners, 24 full-time faculty members, and about 270 undergraduate candidates, TLLSC is an example of a teacher education program anchored in collaboration among university, schools, and community organizations (Kennedy & Heineke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]), where school and community partners engage with university faculty as co–teacher educators in a field-based teacher education program. Based upon a shared recognition of the need to rethink and rebuild a formerly traditional foundations-methods-clinicals model of teacher education (NCATE, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]), TLLSC was developed to prepare teachers to support the development, learning, and special needs of diverse children and families within urban schools and communities (Heineke, Kennedy, & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]; Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref28">15</reflink>]; Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]). Thus, TLLSC rests upon four programmatic cornerstones: (a) partnerships with schools and communities, (b) teacher preparation for diverse classrooms, (c) a developmental trajectory of field-based experiences, and (d) stakeholders engaged in communities of practice (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]). TLLSC was planned in collaboration with school and community partners using a backward design process that began with the development of knowledge and skill indicators that align with mutually developed understandings and indicators of effective teaching (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>For early childhood teacher candidates, the resulting program involves learning increasingly sophisticated teaching practices in authentic contexts: namely, partner schools and community agencies. This learning takes place during eight semesters of field-based preparation (referred to as <emph>sequences</emph> and consisting of shorter modules of 3 to 12 weeks in length). Some sequences also contain university-based courses specifically designed to support the field-based learning, as opposed to clinical experiences serving as a supplement to coursework. In order to depict the features and structure of TLLSC, Table 1 portrays some of the typical aspects of teacher education, contrasting the ways in which these dimensions are expressed in TLLSC and in the more traditional university-based teacher education model it replaced. These features are addressed in detail in previous publications (Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref32">15</reflink>]; Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Comparison of TLLSC and the traditional university-based teacher education program.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Former university-based program</td><td>Aspects of teacher education</td><td>TLLSC</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Courses took place at the university, with associated clinical experiences in the field</td><td>Format and location of preparation</td><td>Preparation activities take place primarily or exclusively in the field. Learning modules ordered in a universal continuum, with selected supporting courses</td></tr><tr><td>Foundational coursework with later methods courses and clinical experiences</td><td>Roles of field and university-based experiences</td><td>Field experiences address multiple interrelated themes and competencies in authentic settings; field-based learning begins first semester of freshman year</td></tr><tr><td>Courses operated largely independently, with assignments and field experiences linked to individual courses</td><td>Collaboration and management of preparation activities</td><td>University and field-based instructors collaborate daily and share linked activities and assignments with students via a single shared calendar each semester</td></tr><tr><td>Full-time faculty taught university courses; clinical supervisors managed field experiences; candidates completed observation and field hours</td><td>Faculty supervision</td><td>Full-time faculty travel with candidates to each site every day, comoderating field-based modules alongside practicing teachers; no field experiences occur without daily direct supervision</td></tr><tr><td>Teachers hosted preservice teachers, who completed observation and practicum hours</td><td>Role of practicing teachers</td><td>Teachers meet with faculty throughout modules, with scaffolded supports and daily feedback enabling candidates to take on increasing responsibility</td></tr><tr><td>School and center administrators approved and placed preservice teachers</td><td>Role of school-based administrators</td><td>Administrators collaborate throughout design and redesign processes to ensure mutual benefit</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Field-based sequences begin immediately as candidates enter the university as freshmen; early childhood candidates spend full sequences on each part of the birth to eight developmental continuum (infancy/toddlerhood, preschool, early elementary). These candidates travel, teach, and learn together as a single cohort (of typically between five and nine students), while embedded in settings representing the diversity of such programs in the state of Illinois. Table 2 depicts TLLSC's continuum of sequences, including their position in the continuum, key topics, typical enrollment, and field/credit hours. Shaded sequences are the focus of the present study.</p> <p>Table 2. Continuum of field-based teacher preparation sequences and modules.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Program Phase and ages/grades addressed</td><td>Sequence</td><td>Modules and coursework (Sequences in the present study are shaded, with modules and participants italicized)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Exploration</bold> (Birth to grade 12, including candidates from all majors)</td><td><bold>1</bold></td><td><bold>Introductory Sequence</bold> Modules: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The Profession and Our Program</p></list-item><list-item><p>Language, Learning and Developmental Theory into Practice</p></list-item><list-item><p><italic>Community Immersion <bold>(Partner 1: ICO)</bold></italic></p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>2/3</bold></td><td><bold>Schools as Learning Communities and Policy/Practice in Urban Classrooms</bold></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Concentration</bold> (Birth to age 8)</td><td><bold>4</bold></td><td><bold>Specialization Sequence in Early Childhood</bold> Modules: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Roles, Settings, and Standards of EC Education</p></list-item><list-item><p><italic>DAP with Diverse Infants/Toddlers and Families <bold>(Partner 2: EHS, Partner 3: Community organization)</bold></italic></p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessment and Intervention in EI</p></list-item></list> Courses: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Language and Literacy Development in EC</p></list-item><list-item><p>Introduction to EI and ECSE</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>5</bold></td><td><bold>Literacy and Data Use <italic>(Partner 4: Public preschool)</italic></bold> Activities supporting teacher candidates include: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p><italic>Literacy Instruction, Assessment, and Data Use</italic></p></list-item><list-item><p><italic>Teaching English Language Learners</italic></p></list-item><list-item><p><italic>Transdisciplinary Unit Planning and Instruction</italic></p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>6</bold></td><td><bold>Integrating Content, Culture, and Communities</bold></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Specialization</bold> (primarily ages 3 to 5)</td><td><bold>7/8</bold></td><td><bold>One-Year Internship</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>During the development process, faculty worked alongside partners to operationalize principles of partnerships put forth by Kruger and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]). Partners thus played active roles, which have evolved and deepened during implementation. At the beginning of each semester, university faculty and school/community organization administrators met with early childhood community partners to develop a plan for facilitating the modules within the context of each field site. These meetings were designed to develop and capitalize on a commitment and trust in shared expertise (Kruger et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]) and discuss the roles of school/community partners as co–teacher educators. Because the context of each partnership varied significantly, no standardized professional development around the roles of co–teacher educators occurred within TLLSC. Instead, faculty, administrators, teachers, and community agency staff determined roles and responsibilities of each partner to address the needs of children, families, and candidates in specific contexts with a goal of reciprocity in partnership roles in mind (Kruger et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>]); they also identified resources available at the school/community sites during the module sessions such as meeting space, curriculum materials, and internet access. Additionally, TLLSC stakeholders discussed ways in which each partnership might address needs of school/community organizations by leveraging university resources to provide professional development and secure curriculum and assessment materials. Partners also engaged in conversations with faculty and candidates about ways that module assignments could align with their classroom needs. In this way, for example, teachers play a continued role in the adjustment of assignments and module objectives to align with their classroom goals, curriculum, assets, and demographics. These meetings took place before, during, and after TLLSC sequences were held. Faculty facilitated the initiation and sustainment of each partnership and managed all logistical considerations of field-based sequences outside of their regular teaching, research, and service responsibilities.</p> <p>The purpose of the present study was to examine these experiences (and the resulting program) from the point of view of community partners: specifically, to capture the perceptions of teachers and other community partners in order to address the following questions: What have been the collaborative experiences of partners in a field-based model? To what degree do the preparation activities in which they are directly involved reflect and impact their practice? Does the model, in their view, hold any significance for teachers, young children, and families? Finally, what benefits (if any) do these partners derive from their participation in the planning and delivery of preparation activities for preservice early childhood educators?</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-5">Methods</hd> <p>Interviews and focus groups were conducted by the researchers with a total of 12 representatives from five partner agencies involved in key sequences in the TLLSC ECSE program; two partner agencies were paired in the outcomes of this study as they participated in the same TLLSC sequence in consecutive years of implementation (Sequence Five, 2013 and 2014). The selection of interviews vs. focus groups was made based upon the context and preference of each partner agency; interviews were conducted in schools and community sites with one or two key representatives from the partner agency who were directly involved in field-based modules (which make up the semester-long sequences). Focus groups were conducted with an Indigenous Community Organization, where focus groups align with cultural ways of sharing knowledge and experiences (Sobeck, Chapleski, & Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]). At each of the five partner agencies, the community and school partners who were most involved in the development and implementation of TLLSC were invited via e-mail or in person to participate in an interview or focus group. This research was conducted with approval from the university's Institutional Review Board and each partner provided consent prior to participation. Partners were not compensated for these interviews, but had been previously compensated through a federal personnel preparation grant for their participation in TLLSC. Partner agencies were selected in order to represent the Exploration and Concentration phases of TLLSC (during which field-based modules rely upon the greatest degree of collaborative effort among faculty and partners) and illustrate the range of field-based preparation experiences that occur early in the program. Candidates engage with faculty, teachers, community leaders, and students and contribute directly to schools and communities during these early phases, with the role of faculty described in greater deal in the partner vignettes that follow. Descriptive information about each agency and participant is presented in Table 3, which is organized to align with the content in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 3. Participant information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Program Phase</td><td>Sequence</td><td>Partner Site and Collaborative Partnership Activities</td><td>Study Participants</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Exploration</bold></td><td><bold>1</bold></td><td><bold>Partner 1: Indigenous Community Organization (ICO)</bold></td><td>2 ICO Administrators 5 ICO Members</td></tr><tr><td>Activities supporting teacher candidates include: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Community Asset Mapping</p></list-item><list-item><p>Community–School Partnerships</p></list-item><list-item><p>Cultural Immersion</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Concentration</bold></td><td><bold>4</bold></td><td><bold>Partner 2: Early Head Start (EHS) Program</bold></td><td>EHS Administrator</td></tr><tr><td>Activities supporting teacher candidates include: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>DAP with diverse infants/toddlers and families</p></list-item><list-item><p>Developmental assessment</p></list-item><list-item><p>Multitiered systems of support</p></list-item><list-item><p>Curriculum planning and instruction</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Partner 3: Catholic community-based organization for individuals with developmental disabilities</bold></td><td>Outreach Coordinator</td></tr><tr><td>Activities supporting teacher candidates include: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Community-based playgroup supporting children with diverse special needs</p></list-item><list-item><p>Engaging with families and communities</p></list-item><list-item><p>Curriculum planning and instruction</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>5</bold></td><td><bold>Partners 4 and 5: Middletown and Sunnyside Elementary Schools—Public preschool programs</bold></td><td>1 Administrator 2 Teachers</td></tr><tr><td>Activities supporting teacher candidates include: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Literacy instruction, assessment, and data use</p></list-item><list-item><p>Teaching English language learners</p></list-item><list-item><p>Transdisciplinary unit planning and instruction</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Interviews and focus groups lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and were carried out at each partner's home agency or school. Aligned with the research questions, the researchers developed an interview/focus group protocol that allowed each participant to relate the story of their involvement in TLLSC and to share their perceptions of the partnership with the ECSE program. Questions regarding benefits or advantages of the partnership were only used as follow-ups when partners introduced benefits or advantages into their narrative. All interviews/focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis, with the accuracy of transcription checked with participating partners and against the audio-recordings. Analysis of transcript data was based on the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]). Both researchers read each transcript in order to independently first identify initial codes, then construct major themes. The authors met to share, revise, and in some cases combine these themes; a theme was retained as long as it was present in each of the transcripts.</p> <p>In order to present the findings from this research, the sections to follow are organized by partner organization. Each organization is presented, including information about the role it serves in its own community and in TLLSC (including prior empirical research on teacher candidate experiences and outcomes). Then, the participants are presented, followed by major points they stressed during their interviews. Following these four partner vignettes, common partnership principles and next steps are identified in order to share some of the ways teacher educators may aim to improve and deepen relationships with community partners.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-6">Results from partner interviews</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0121745862-7">Partner 1: An Indigenous community organization</hd> <p>The first participating partner agency featured in this study is an urban Indigenous community organization (ICO) serving the distinct needs of a tribally diverse community residing off reservation lands. During Sequence One, a group of approximately 15 candidates complete community asset maps as part of a community immersion module; this serves as a culminating experience of candidates' first semester in the Exploration phase of TLLSC (see Table 2). Under the guidance of faculty and direction of community partners, candidates work in pairs to explore the neighborhood surrounding the agency while learning about and identifying community assets and needs (Beaulieu, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]). Under faculty supervision, candidates compile and discuss the results of their community exploration, then use their extensive field notes to develop an asset map and proposals for the use of new resources to serve the goals of the ICO. At the conclusion of Sequence One, they gather back at the ICO to present these findings and resources to other candidates, faculty, and community partners.</p> <p>The ICO was a community partner prior to the TLLSC redesign and thus had an established relationship with faculty and hosted field experiences before the development and implementation of the field-based model. As an established community partner, ICO leadership was involved throughout the redesign process, voicing that increased collaboration may support candidate and community needs. Prior to the Community Immersion module, ICO leadership and TLLSC faculty met to adapt the module content to match the ICO context. During these meetings, ICO leadership and TLLSC faculty shared their respective needs and goals of the partnership, and developed experiences for the candidates that would address the objectives of both parties—thus advancing the goal of mutual benefit. Faculty gained access to a tribally diverse Indigenous community organization for supporting candidates' understandings of school–community collaboration, while the ICO gained information about the resources identified through candidates' asset maps and a voice in preparing teachers for the distinct needs of urban Indigenous children.</p> <p>Research focusing on candidates during this beginning phase of TLLSC has thus far focused on outcomes; specifically, it has served to identify some of the key knowledge benefits they gain, as well as challenges they face as they enter schools and community organizations so early in their preparation. TLLSC researchers (Heineke & Davin, 2015), for example, performed iterative thematic analysis of candidate assignments and reflective writing during this phase. Their findings suggest that candidates develop complex broad and applied understandings of educational policy during this phase, through a combination of independent assignments, field-based educator panel discussions, and observations and interactions in diverse classrooms and community sites. Candidates identified connections between federal and state policy and the daily educational decision-making of teachers with whom they were placed for field-based modules. Candidates also demonstrated a recognition of the ways in which teachers interpret and appropriate policy in their work with diverse students (including English learners).</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-8">Partner focus groups</hd> <p>Seven community partners participated in the focus groups for this study; these groups were held before and after their involvement in the Community Immersion module. All participants were Anishinaabek (Odawa, Ojibway, and Chippewa) tribal members who have lived in the urban community for most of their lives. Similar to talking circles, which are common Anishinaabek ways of sharing ideas and experiences, we used focus groups to gain community perspectives of their experiences with TLLSC (Chilisa, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]; Sobeck, Chapleski, & Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>]). The partners shared their lived experiences and expertise around urban Indigenous cultures and the available resources and needs of urban Indigenous children and their families.</p> <p>Community partners were committed to teachers holding responsibility for understanding the cultural needs of Indigenous children and were willing to support their efforts, but they also understood the complexity of such an endeavor. One participant signified this by declaring, "We're fighting for language and culture all those things you can't put a price tag on and if our teachers aren't educated in it, how can they even wrap their brains around the topic?" Other participants elaborated on the types of knowledge teachers must possess in order to serve urban Indigenous children. For example:</p> <p>I think the one thing they need to know is not in great detail, but they need to at least know a little bit of our history and culture.... Because again there's so many of us in the city and we come from different tribes and nations and what have you, so it's going to be hard to really get a concise history for everybody, but I think a brief history (is important).</p> <p>Or as another participant discussed,</p> <p>I want (the teachers) to know that my children are Native and they have a special way of learning, I believe. For me I believed my children had a special way of learning. They need to see it and feel it you know?</p> <p>They also shared their interest in having a voice in what teachers know and understand about Indigenous peoples. One partner declared that Indigenous communities must engage in teacher education because as it stands, non-Indigenous teachers are not prepared to support Indigenous needs:</p> <p>We have to have an active role. As it is now we're putting 110% trust in these non-Native instructors without really knowing anything about them. I'm sure some of them come with prejudices, and if they do that's being, not necessarily consciously, but subconsciously it's being taught to our students who are picking up on that.</p> <p>During the Community Immersion, approximately 15 candidates (supervised by a single faculty member) are paired and matched with urban Indigenous community partners to learn about their lived experiences, urban Indigenous educational issues, pertinent community resources, and community identified needs. Candidates spend time with community partners discussing the topic of their asset map (e.g., education, health, cultural services) and the community partners act as resources to candidates—sharing their expertise around urban Indigeneity and their educational experiences. Candidates complete their asset maps (with the support of faculty) to represent the information gained from partners and include new resources to address community identified needs. Throughout, faculty met with candidates to build links between these experiences, module readings, and the goals of Sequence One through a variety of activities and discussion.</p> <p>Following the Community Immersion module, community partners identified actual and potential benefits from their collaboration with TLLSC. During the focus groups, the partners expressed that the new resources presented in the asset maps made a positive contribution to their ICO, with one partner stating, "I didn't know there were that many things in the neighborhood" and another partner commenting, "I know when I was on the board for (other urban Indigenous organizations) to hear these presentations, I think it would be very, very eye opening to [them]."</p> <p>The participants also shared their perceptions of the Community Immersion module, expressing universally that the time spent face to face with individual candidates was not prolonged enough to have a meaningful impact. They believed that in order for candidates to gain an understanding of urban Indigenous communities (including families and children's educational needs), they must have extended cyclical engagements with Indigenous peoples. As the following participant's quote relays:</p> <p>I think the time needs to be spread out. It's too much for them.... We expect them to take everything they think and know about Indians, change that (after an initial) presentation, then meet us, then talk about having our interview questions... it's almost a disservice to the [candidates].... It's like Indian 101 in 2 days.</p> <p>The experiences of these participants served as examples of how simply ensuring that partner sites benefit in some way is insufficient. That benefit must be meaningful in view of community partners' understandings of effective teaching and priorities for future teachers' experiences, knowledge, and skills. In a broader sense, benefit is also perceived through the shared experiences of the partnership, which must in turn adapt in response to those experiences through collaborative and iterative cycles of redesign. For example, faculty have restructured the Community Immersion module so that it provides a full semester of immersion with opportunities for candidates to develop deeper relationships with ICO partners. The individual and shared experiences of faculty, partners, and candidates will then fuel another cycle of module adjustment and implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-9">Partner 2: An Early Head Start (EHS) center</hd> <p>The second partner featured in this study is an EHS center serving culturally and linguistically diverse families on the south side of Chicago. As a response to the call for increased focus on high-quality infant-toddler preparation (Horm, Hyson, Winton, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>]), one outcome of the TLLSC redesign was a significant expansion of field-based infant-toddler experiences. An existing partnership with this EHS center was revisited and discussions focused on providing candidates with increased exposure to a community-based agency, which provides child and family supports within an inclusive and family-centered program philosophy.</p> <p>During the second half of candidates' sophomore year, Sequence Four includes a full semester of field-based infant-toddler preparation; the second module of this sequence, DAP with Diverse Infants/Toddlers and Their Families (see Table 2) takes place in an EHS center serving primarily African American, Chinese American, and Latino children from families considered low income. EHS teachers are fluent in Mandarin, Cantonese, and Spanish in order to reflect community needs. This in turn supports candidates' development of culturally and linguistically responsive practices. Collaboration within this partnership involves semiannual team meetings with faculty and all involved teachers and support staff, at which teachers discuss everyone's role in the partnership and responsibilities for supporting the development of teacher candidates.</p> <p>In this sequence, groups of 6–12 candidates are paired in EHS classrooms to learn and practice developmentally appropriate adult–child interaction, activity planning, and daily routines, under the direct supervision of EHS teachers and two TLLSC faculty. EHS teachers provide a mentoring role, modeling of effective teaching, support in planning activities, and in-class coaching. Faculty visit each classroom daily, providing individualized feedback and a system of tiered supports (Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]), as well as daily seminar sessions and weekly progress monitoring. Candidates video-record themselves facilitating planned activities in EHS classrooms and gain explicit feedback from peers and faculty using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (LaParo, Hamre, & Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]) as a framework for fostering high-quality adult–child interactions (Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>]). All sessions take place on-site, where faculty and classroom teachers have developed a working relationship; faculty arrange classroom visits according to teachers' schedules and preferences and meet to share observational data and review candidate progress.</p> <p>Prior published research on the Specialization phase of TLLSC has focused on ECSE candidate outcomes and experiences in this EHS module. The support and coaching in ECSE Sequence Four have been found to develop candidates' observed developmentally appropriate adult–child interactions to levels comparable to or exceeding national averages for practicing teachers (Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). These include teacher sensitivity, support for positive behavior, language modeling, and the facilitation of learning and development as measured by the CLASS. Kennedy and Lees ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]) have also shared results from candidate interviews focusing on this sequence. Candidates described the opportunity to put instructor, teacher, and peer feedback into practice as essential to their growth. Consistent collaboration and intensive classroom experiences provided them with an opportunity to deepen their understanding and practice of intentional teaching. Furthermore, they reported completing Sequence Four with a new recognition of individual strengths and weaknesses as educators.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-10">Partner interview</hd> <p>The EHS program manager was interviewed for the present study (Table 3) because she was directly and deeply involved in developing the partnership with the teacher education program, including the years prior to the TLLSC redesign. The EHS program manager participated in the redesign process by attending meetings with TLLSC faculty and planning preparation activities that address the needs of the EHS program curriculum, teachers, families, and children. She also assisted in matching candidates to teachers, provides an orientation, and manages communication and consent processes with families.</p> <p>Her interview transcript depicted teachers' involvement with TLLSC as different from their involvement with traditional teacher education programs; with TLLSC offering prolonged experiences in EHS classrooms with faculty support rather than brief instances of classroom observations separated from university coursework. She stated,</p> <p>To have the instructor actually on site all of the days that the students are here, that is definitely different. After they all came out of their individual classrooms, they all met as a group with their instructor and so to me it felt more like an advanced practice seminar rather than an early level class.</p> <p>She also viewed the increased classroom experiences offered in TLLSC as beneficial to candidates' development and readiness when entering the profession. She shared,</p> <p>I think for the students definitely having a lot of experiences, starting early in their teacher preparation with different populations of students, I think is really valuable so that they're able to really start getting comfortable with children of different ages, abilities with and without special needs, different cultural backgrounds because I think then by the time they're actually entering the profession, they will feel some greater sense of competence and confidence going into it.</p> <p>She illustrated her impression of the partnership as impactful for participating EHS teachers. In this partnership, EHS teachers (in most cases for the first time) took on a role of co–teacher educator in their modeling and explanation of DAP in classroom teaching, as well as their approaches to meeting individual child and family needs. The EHS administrator believed that this role was one the teachers enjoyed, and also a useful form of professional development as teachers were asked to explain their practices in detail to novice candidates. She described the ways in which this is particularly beneficial to infant-toddler educators, who had not previously been looked to as "experts":</p> <p>For our teachers here, I think it is really valuable to them to be able—I think they really like passing on some of their knowledge and their experience to new teachers. And I also think it's good for their professional development because the students are asking them questions that at this point they might be taking for granted but that it's really good for them to actually think about specifically again and really think about their answers and think about their own practice.</p> <p>She also shared that through the partnership, teachers gained information about current research and evidence-based practices, specifically in understanding the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse children and families. Discussing how EHS teachers develop their understandings though partnership experiences she said that they receive "training on the current best research, best knowledge of practice in the area of linguistic development, I think is really important so that they know the differences between a child learning just one language, learning two or more languages." Finally, we asked her to assess whether the partnership impacts EHS children and families. She expressed that families understood that candidates were more prepared to support the needs of their children with increased experiences in EHS classrooms prior to entering the profession. Referencing the confidence and experience gained by candidates, she said that their "parents pick up on that, [and] children pick up on that". In this way, the EHS partnership benefitted candidates and teachers, with a potential to benefit parents and children, who both recognize and respond to the skills and confidence candidates gain from this extended field-based module.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-11">Partner 3: Community-based organization for individuals with developmental disabilities</hd> <p>Beginning in Sequence Four, candidates participate in a community engagement experience with a playgroup for children from birth to age 8 with special needs (Table 3). This playgroup is offered monthly, on Saturday mornings, at a Catholic community organization serving individuals with mild to profound disabilities across the life span and through a spectrum of residential options, family and community supports, education, and advocacy activities. This partnership began after the TLLSC redesign, when ECSE faculty contacted the organization's outreach coordinator to explore the possibility of candidates and faculty visiting the playgroup as part of their Sequence Four infant/toddler experiences. Through initial discussions and meetings, however, the partners discussed their respective goals and the potential for increased roles for candidates to learn about serving diverse young children by designing facilitated, exploratory activities for the playgroups. Since that time, university faculty have collaborated monthly with the program's coordinator and families to identify playgroup goals and themes prior to candidates' involvement. Faculty then prepare teams of candidates to develop a variety of learning centers, each hosting a unique, semistructured activity aligned to relevant learning standards and the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Hall, Meyer, & Rose, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]). Two university faculty support the groups of candidates by modeling developmentally appropriate interaction, supervising the learning centers, and facilitating conversations between candidates and families as they learn about their needs, resources, and expectations for the playgroup. New candidates rotate into these playgroups as they reach Sequence Four and are mentored by both faculty and more experienced teacher candidates.</p> <p>As described above, this field-based experience takes place during the entirety of Sequence Four and continues through the remainder of candidates' undergraduate experience. To date, this is the first examination of this Sequence Four experience. Research on candidate experiences and outcomes in Sequence Five is underway with recently secured funding supporting this forthcoming study. This study will examine candidates' experiences during their first year of the community-based playgroup and how these experiences impact their development as ECSE professionals.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-12">Partner interview</hd> <p>During this interview, the outreach coordinator (Table 3) who, prior to the partnership, had personally planned and facilitated all of the playgroups, described the structure of the partnership, the role of the candidates in supporting children with special needs, and the experiences of participating parents and caregivers. Initially, she stated that the candidates were a good match with the aims of the playgroups. Discussing her perception of the candidates' involvement with families as developing ECSE and EI professionals, she shared a confidence in them as emerging professionals, stating:</p> <p>This is better than you could imagine because the girls...are outstanding. You know they have a commitment, they have an understanding, they're very comfortable with the kids, they're very comfortable with the parents and that's mature, I think. That [shows] a nice maturity level ...because we do have a variety of disabilities and the girls are comfortable with any of the kids that come in.</p> <p>The playgroup leader discussed the role of TLLSC as unique in comparison to other organizations that have supported the playgroup goals. She described TLLSC as more dependable and consistent, which results in families attending regularly because they know what to expect:</p> <p>We've never had a solid group that comes through like this. We've maybe had a music therapist come one day and so she you know then that was she kind of ran a little music thing for an hour... so that was nice for the kids and the parents... but it still doesn't cover the same as a consistent group whose got things organized and planned before the families even arrive.</p> <p>With this level of consistent involvement, the playgroup leader noted that parents feel comfortable leaving their children under the supervision of candidates and therefore step away from the activities to take time to converse amongst each other (and with periodically visiting therapists) around their children's goals:</p> <p>Not only are there good programs or good activities that they're running, it also frees up the parents to be able to sit and talk to each other or, when the occupational [therapist is present] she kind of can go around and talk to them one on one. The parents then can pay attention to each other...and know that the kids are fine because the girls are keeping everyone engaged. Which is really so nice, it's nice for the kids and for the parents.</p> <p>For TLLSC, this partnership offers opportunities to facilitate candidates' awareness and competencies around family engagement and supporting children with mild to profound disabilities in community settings. This participant felt that children and families benefit from the partnership in multiple ways, as well. Children benefit from the increased developmental expectations of semistructured activities with the added incentive of varied materials and activities to inspire their participation. She described that families are more engaged in the playgroup than in the past, and eager to attend when the candidates plan activities. In the quote below, she relates her belief that the increase in organized, intentional planning significantly impacts the quality of the program and responds to the wishes of parents:</p> <p>The parents have been saying, you know, it's nice when it's more organized. They're looking for more, you know like the girls have done, setting up stations, having a craft, come and do a craft over here, come and do a game over there. So that organization piece we didn't have and it was something that the parents wanted. And without a doubt you brought that to the playgroup. And not only organized, but great activities that you guys have come up with... really fun engaging things.</p> <p>This experience provided candidates with an opportunity to play a leadership role while developing their planning and teaching skills. Children with special needs gained access to faculty-supervised learning centers planned to address their interests and individualized needs. The groups, in turn, responded to parents' requests for more structured learning activities and provided them with opportunities to engage with each other and take advantage of other services provided at the agency.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-13">Partner 4: Public preschools</hd> <p>Two public school preschools, Middleton Elementary School and Sunnyside Elementary School, have acted as TLLSC partners for Sequence Five. The need to use multiple partners for this sequence arose when TLLSC enrollment exceeded the capacity of the first partner school. In Sequence Five (fall of junior year; see Table 2), groups of 6–9 candidates are paired and placed in preschool classrooms at either Middletown Elementary School or Sunnyside Elementary School. Middletown Elementary School, a neighborhood public school, serves 480 children with 98.5% qualifying for free and reduced lunch and approximately 20% identified as homeless, 20% having an IEP, and 32% identified as limited-English-proficient. During the first Sequence Five held at Middletown, 42 languages were spoken by students, with over 11 different languages represented in the preschool classrooms. Sunnyside Elementary School, also a neighborhood public school, serves 870 children, with 31.5% qualifying for free and reduced lunch. Approximately 3% of students identified as homeless, 5% having and IEP, and 6% identified as limited-English-proficient. During the first Sequence Five held at Sunnyside, preschool students spoke more than 10 different languages.</p> <p>Sequence Five modules focus on literacy instruction, assessment and data use, and teaching English language learners. During this sequence, in addition to developing and leading activities and a transdisciplinary unit, candidates complete a portfolio assessment with an English Learner (EL) over the course of a full semester. The university faculty, classroom teachers, and candidates discuss ELs who may benefit from additional attention and supports through the completion of the project and assist each candidate as they explore the assessment tool and consider assessment methods to determine the child's developmental level. Candidates then work with the child throughout the semester, completing a preassessment, midterm assessment, and postassessment. Candidates identify opportunities to offer individual instructional supports for individuals and groups of children during the semester, developing both informal plans for addressing children's needs during everyday routines and activities <emph>and</emph> a brief intervention to address an individual or group need in their preschool classroom. Faculty, co–teacher educators, and candidates collaborate to determine/develop sources of data to identify the need, choose evidence-based interventions, and plan to ensure they are delivered with fidelity. Both candidates and classroom teachers receive support from faculty on the elements with which they are least familiar or skilled. Faculty deliver instruction before and after site visits, with supervision, evaluation, and supports provided inside and outside of each classroom in accordance with the daily schedule, candidate roles, and the preferences of each classroom teacher.</p> <p>Both Middletown and Sunnyside were new partners resulting from the TLLSC redesign process. The Middletown principal attended planning meetings prior to implementation and thus provided feedback around the design of module content as it related to Middletown's context and needs. Sunnyside administration contacted faculty after year one of the redesigned program and discussed how they might support the goals and structure of Sunnyside's early childhood department. Faculty met with principals and teachers prior to module implementation at both schools, discussing the needs and resources of the schools and the structure and content of the sequence. Adaptations to sequence content were made in response to the needs of each school site. Additionally, based on teacher feedback, changes such as the number of activities candidates led each week and number of candidates placed in each classroom were adjusted during subsequent partnership experiences in an effort to uphold the principle of addressing mutual goals and including partner voice throughout the collaboration.</p> <p>As stated previously, research on candidate experiences and outcomes in Sequence Five is underway with the support of recently secured funding. An initial analysis of candidate performance indicates that candidates sustain midlevel scores from Sequence Four at pretest in Sequence Five in such critical areas as language modeling, positive climate, and teacher sensitivity. Candidates then continue to make progress in these areas during the preschool-focused modules. Preliminary coding of candidate interviews about Sequence Five experiences have highlighted the importance of an instructor with extensive knowledge and expertise in preschool, as well as the ability to support activity and unit planning and provide consistent coaching; in addition, the instructors' collaboration with school administration and teachers was viewed as essential to candidates' success.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-14">Partner interviews</hd> <p>Interviews with two participating preschool teachers and one school administrator highlighted their experiences with TLLSC (Table 3). All three participants shared a belief that candidates gain valuable preparation during their time in classrooms that they would not be afforded in traditional teacher education programs. The teachers both expressed the wish that their own preparation programs had been field-based as well, believing that in-depth experiences in classrooms throughout the 4 years of preparation offer authentic opportunities to develop understandings of the complexity of early childhood education. Describing her views around candidates' involvement in her classroom, a teacher from Sunnyside said, "(These experiences were) something I wish I had had. Like I said, your teachers will be so much more prepared to go into a classroom than how it's normally done". She went on to describe the collaborative, field-based model as supporting authenticity in school–university partnerships that does not occur with traditional models of teacher preparation:</p> <p>I felt like with your (candidates) from Loyola it was more of collaboration because they met with you here on site, so it was fantastic. They could debrief about their day and lessons and then... after a while we started meeting weekly too, or even on the spot at that time to go over some things we saw that maybe could have changed, or positives like "Great job doing whatever (strategy or activity)."</p> <p>The school administrator also depicted her preference for collaborative, field-based preparation as a model for authentic partnerships between schools and universities. When asked if her relationship with TLLSC has impacted her ideas around school–university partnerships she shared, "Absolutely. I quite frankly prefer just to have a partnership with (Loyola) or I would like to see other schools partner or provide as much support and collaboration..."</p> <p>Beyond their support of collaborative, field-based teacher education, Sequence Five partners also viewed the candidates as competent in their use of DAP with culturally and linguistically diverse children. The Middletown preschool teacher believed that candidates gain specific skills around serving diverse children from their time spent in highly diverse settings; she explained,</p> <p>I think that the teacher candidates benefit from being in our classroom because they are exposed at once to a very large and diverse population of students. This may be the main factor that will influence their future planning, arranging age-appropriate activities and the importance of inclusive teaching practices.</p> <p>The Sunnyside teacher and administrator also viewed the field-based experiences as essential in the candidates' preparation for urban education. Discussing her observations of candidates and their readiness for early childhood education in a complex urban district, the administrator declared,</p> <p>I can tell that the teacher candidates are getting a well-rounded education and preparation for (our district). They get (Loyola faculty) here all the time supporting them, collaborating. The candidates have been very enthusiastic, bringing in really great ideas, are helpful, show initiative. They show all of those characteristics that are important for becoming a teacher. If I had the opportunity to go through an intensive program like that it would have been so much better.</p> <p>Specific to the candidates' preparation regarding language and literacy development, the Sunnyside preschool teacher stated,</p> <p>I was very impressed, when I was in school you went to class you had practicum and things like that, but to actually hear these younger girls come in and using the appropriate language, the appropriate questioning was really fantastic.</p> <p>Beyond their general competencies, Sequence Five partners depicted the candidates as positive contributors to the classroom community. They shared that the candidates brought new ideas and instructional methods to the preschool curriculum, particularly addressing the needs of ELs. Teachers discussed the portfolio project as an opportunity for candidates to engage with and support ELs over a prolonged period of time while considering the role of assessment in serving diverse children with guidance from teachers and faculty before entering the field of teaching. The Sunnyside preschool teacher discussed the benefit of candidates using technology to support ELs as an approach that challenged her to do more in her own teaching to support language needs:</p> <p>I liked the use of technology. They pulled that out with some of my ELL kids, so it's more like a one on one activity and finding great apps for them. That's a new thing currently and it forced me to use the iPad more in the classroom and for somebody like (an English Learner) who is very quiet, that really brought him out of his shell, you know, working with the iPad.</p> <p>Sequence Five partners viewed the candidates' development and implementation of activities each week as a positive contribution to the classroom, beneficial to both the children's experiences and their own continued development. The Middletown preschool teacher depicted her own learning during her involvement in the TLLSC partnership,</p> <p>For me as a teacher this partnership has given me an opportunity to gain knowledge as well. The teacher candidates bring in a lot of new, fresh and effective ideas for my students. This might include useful strategies and appropriate learning that supports the development and interests of my pre-k students. In my opinion we all benefit from this partnership.</p> <p>The Sunnyside preschool teacher agreed that candidates positively contributed to the classroom curriculum, with an emphasis on their contribution around integrated units, science, and sensory experiences. She declared,</p> <p>We were working on pumpkins and harvest so they changed the house area to more like a farm bringing pumpkins in, pumpkin pie and we did some messy sensory things like mixing colors, creating orange with shaving cream. So that was fun you know, and... the fact that we had more bodies and they did some research on some really cool science activities... (they were) really supporting the kids.</p> <p>In addition to the teachers' beliefs around candidates' contributions to classroom teaching, the school administrator offered feedback regarding the impact she noticed regarding the teachers' continued development and use of new practices. In discussing challenges of the TLLSC partnership, she stated,</p> <p>What I heard from the preschool teachers is they feel like they're behind now because they had to let go of control and I had reminded them numerous times that you're not behind, it just wasn't what you were planning. And that is ok because your kids have gotten another type of experience with other people with new ideas and new ways of thinking, so you're not behind.</p> <p>Data from candidates' portfolio projects revealed developmental gains for each focal child by the end of the semester; candidates also showed significant progress on measures of language modeling, instruction, and concept development. The Sunnyside preschool teacher concluded her discussion with an emphasis on the authenticity of the relationships between candidates and students as a meaningful aspect of field-based teacher preparation for all stakeholders,</p> <p>They were eager, they were excited, they were happy to be here... This just seemed like a natural situation, and the kids loved them. Because kids can pick up on that and they really really liked the candidates, the days they didn't come the kids were like where's Miss Lynette? (Where's) Miss Alexa? They were wonderful.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-15">Themes from partner interviews</hd> <p>Three interrelated themes were identified through analysis of the interview transcripts. Each theme is directly linked to partners' perceptions and experiences of benefit from participation in TLLSC. The first of these, <emph>Extended Engagement in Field Sites</emph>, reflects the universal perception on the part of these participants that candidates must be involved in community sites for an extended period of time, even in modules taking place at the beginning of the 4-year continuum. One example of this theme from the data was clearly declared by an ICO partner critiquing the brevity of the <emph>Community Immersion</emph> module, she stated: "I think the time needs to be spread out. It's too much for them... It's like Indian 101 in 2 days". Without extended engagement, candidates cannot develop relationships that are critical both for their development and for the benefit of partner sites. The length of each field-based module varies based upon content (including objectives for candidate knowledge and skills); however, length is also directly related to perceived benefit, as partners expressed that they more effectively shared their knowledge and skills with candidates only when the length of the module provided them with sufficient opportunities to do so.</p> <p>This is closely related to the next theme, <emph>Valuing Partner Perspectives and Knowledges</emph>. In every interview, partners cited examples supporting the critical need for field-based teacher educators to value practitioners' knowledge and skills. In one case, the Community Immersion module failed to achieve this aim (again, due to length and depth) and underwent redesign in order to better fit a partner site. In the other cases, teachers developed a new awareness of their professional skills through their experiences with candidates, thus reaping the benefit of their skills having recognized value in the partnership. The EHS program manager made this clear, she shared, "For our teachers here... I think they really like passing on some of their knowledge and their experience to new teachers". She expanded on this statement and explained that EHS teachers also benefit from continued professional development while serving as co–teacher educators because they are required to model and explain their practice. In this site in particular, this represented a new role for teachers who had not previously either contributed meaningfully or benefitted from the presence of clinical observers in their classrooms. Partners' level of comfort with active facilitation of candidate learning initially varied significantly across settings, and in all cases, the perspectives, knowledges, and skills of partners were critical to the success of modules and required support from faculty.</p> <p>This, in turn, leads to the third theme present in the interviews: <emph>Continual Redesign in Response to Partner Needs</emph>. These partners' interviews provided evidence of one of the most critical features of field-based teacher education: despite the need to maintain alignment to teacher education and accreditation standards, field-based models must be continually adaptable to the changing contexts in which young children and families are served. For example, faculty redesigned the Community Immersion module to span the length of an entire semester based on the ICO community partners' feedback that the accelerated module lacked depth for candidates. Another example of this theme came from the community-based playgroup where the facilitator explained how parents desired greater organization for the monthly playgroup and were pleased when candidates adapted the open play format to semistructured activities; she stated:</p> <p>The parents have been saying, you know, it's nice when it's more organized. They're looking for more, you know like the girls have done, setting up stations, having a craft, come and do a craft over here, come and do a game over there. So that organization piece we didn't have and it was something that the parents wanted. And without a doubt you brought that to the playgroup.</p> <p>As previously stated, redesign often occurs in response to the needs and values of partners, but it just as often resulted from a variety of logistical considerations—for example, the number of candidates, days, and hours of each site's programming, changes in school staff or structure, and even weather-related and transportation issues impact the structure of field-based modules each semester. This theme points to one of the critical roles of university faculty, who must ensure this responsiveness through their work on-site.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-16">Challenges</hd> <p>While partners were uniformly positive in sharing their perspectives around experiences as co–teacher educators in TLLSC, we recognize ongoing challenges present in the aforementioned themes. The need for <emph>Extended Engagement in Field Sites</emph> requires that school and community partners work beyond their regular responsibilities to prepare for candidates experiences in their schools and agencies. They also must collaborate extensively with university faculty to coordinate sequence experiences that will address the unique needs of the children and families they serve. In our experiences, school and community partners have not been compensated by the university or school/community agencies for their involvement in TLLSC apart from a small stipend made possible by a federal grant, which is a temporary funding source.</p> <p>We found that <emph>Valuing Partner Perspectives and Knowledges</emph> was critical when including multiple stakeholders in teacher education. With each school and community partner possessing varying strengths and needs in in their work with TLLSC, faculty and partners took time to discuss each individuals' comfort level in their work with candidates. Partners recognized that they have knowledge, skills, and resources to share with candidates as they develop as teachers of young children, but they required support from administrators to collaborate with faculty as co–teacher educators while still meeting the needs of their classrooms and communities. Again, this requires increased time and additional responsibility on the part of practitioners without additional compensation; in the end, however, this investment paid off.</p> <p>Finally, perhaps the greatest challenge for partners and TLLSC faculty alike resides in the <emph>Continual Redesign in Response to Partner Needs</emph>. Community partners must recognize what aspects of each sequence require adaptation in order to work well within their setting. Unlike traditional teacher education courses, TLLSC sequence content must be adapted each semester in response to the needs and resources of each classroom and community setting. As a result, each partner holds a significant amount of responsibility of guiding faculty and candidates in how to best design and complete TLLSC requirements in a way that benefits schools, communities, children, and/or families. This ongoing adaptation and responsiveness requires all stakeholders to maintain a high level of flexibility and open communication to ensure that TLLSC candidates gain the experiences necessary to accomplish program goals, while maintaining high-quality programming for children, families, and communities.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-17">Next steps</hd> <p>The themes presented above express partner perspectives around their experiences in field-based teacher education as a result of the TLLSC redesign. In this section, we share strategies we plan to employ in continued implementation and iterative redesign. We have organized these strategies according to five principles of mutually beneficial partnerships developed by Kennedy and Lees ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]) and Kruger and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref50">19</reflink>]). Depicted in Figure 1 (principles are identified within each circle with selected strategies forming links between them), they embed TLLSC partners' views into tenets of university–community partnerships. Each principle holds strong implications for the future success of the community partnerships on which our program rests.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Meaningful mutual benefit </bold> . Future partner benefits rest on our university faculty's commitment to explore deepening partner involvement through iterative redesign. In order to ensure that partner schools and agencies have a voice in aligning TLLSC with new policies, learning standards, and assessments, we must ensure that these partners have continuous opportunities to engage with faculty. Partners' perceived benefits (e.g., mentorship) presented <emph>opportunities</emph> for benefit rather than producing static or continuous benefit. In this way, mentorship opportunities may have provided an initial benefit to EHS teachers, but in order for that benefit to retain its value, teachers must be provided with support as developing mentors. Likewise, the benefits associated with structured play groups are directly associated with the needs and interests of the children and family who attend; ensuring continued meaningful benefit requires continued collaboration with that partner agency. In contrast, ICO staff identified broad concerns about schools meeting the needs of urban Indigenous students; while TLLSC candidates' community asset maps revealed useful resources, the continued success of the partnership will rest on faculty's willingness to support the ICO in exploring and addressing its broader priority. As a result, faculty have invited partners from both sites to attend planning sessions to advance program development and provide feedback on how to align and adapt field-based preparation experiences to align with local priorities. Such meetings will allow us to identify resources to support not only the teacher candidates, but locally useful resources for teachers and community agency staff as well. These strategies require a commitment to aligning preparation practices with the goal of positive impact on children and families, rather than an assumption that "additional help in the classroom" outweighs any potential inconvenience or disruption associated with the presence of preservice teachers (and the demands of their assignments) in classrooms and community agencies.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Reciprocity in partner roles </bold> . Field-based teacher education has required new roles of faculty and practitioners. In order to forge relationships in which teachers and faculty work alongside each other as co–teacher educators, our faculty must continue to strive to learn from and demonstrate respect for each partner's perspective and knowledges. As an example, teachers and administrators engaged in field-based teacher education report that they become more cognizant of their teaching practices as they explain to candidates how their teaching and classroom environments relate to theory (Petti, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]). This type of self-reflection may lead to improved practice and school-wide benefit; however, in reality these interactions between early childhood educators and candidates are often assumed rather than directly facilitated. TLLSC faculty will work next to more systematically identify and develop the particular knowledge and skills required to work with diverse practitioners (including their philosophies, teaching styles, and personalities), and maintain a healthy system of regular collaboration to support ongoing planning. Adequate preparation and coplanning time is essential here as in any collaborative or coteaching relationship where mutual understanding and reciprocity of roles is a goal. These strategies also have critical implications beyond classroom instruction in partner sites such as the ICO, where the relationship between university and partner agency holds the potential to either draw attention to or diminish the voice of an already underserved community.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Mentorship as a professional responsibility </bold> . Related to the notion of reciprocity of roles are the nested systems of formal and informal mentorship that operate within TLLSC sequences. Teachers and community partners support candidates' development through explicit modeling, descriptions of effective practice, and sharing the community's ways of teaching, while also focusing candidates' attention to specific children and assisting them in completing field-based assignments. These roles require a significant investment on the part of teachers and had varying implications for each partner. In the preschool partner sites, faculty now offer flexible assignment descriptions and deadlines allowing teachers to address candidate needs in ways that work within each classroom structure. This has enabled teachers to recognize mentorship itself as beneficial to them. However, in the EHS-based sequence, additional supports have been required in order to uphold mutuality and respect teachers as valuable stakeholders in teacher education. For most of the EHS infant-toddler educators, mentorship is a new role; their prior experiences with professional preparation programs had largely consisted of preservice professionals visiting to observe the children in their classrooms rather than to benefit from teachers' knowledge of child development and expertise in teaching. As a result, their willingness to provide feedback to faculty, their recognition of the importance of mentorship, and its relationship to their professional identities developed (and continues to develop) over time. We plan to continue to develop our own ability to provide that support for associate- and bachelor-level infant-toddler teachers who had not, in the past, appreciated their value to the field of teacher education.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Ensure the value of experiences for both professional preparation and development </bold> . We will continue to work with partners to identify how TLLSC faculty may work to advance professional development needs and to provide further resources that are viewed as locally useful. Targeted professional development around partner-identified needs offers one opportunity to address this need (Kennedy & Lees, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]). While faculty have provided on-site training, facilitated professional learning communities, hosted conferences, and offered online professional development, a more organized and sustainable plan for partner professional development is still needed. Follow-up support can then be provided (e.g., in classrooms, where faculty work alongside teachers and candidates). Sharing the results of outcomes research on our candidates presents one opportunity to share with teachers that their collaboration with TLLSC has made an impact; however, we must also continue to investigate ways for participating school and community partners to gain appropriate compensation for their responsibilities and continued development as co–teacher educators.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Commitment and trust in shared expertise </bold> . Finally, in school and center-based sequences, children may benefit from improved student-to-staff ratio as they ideally would in more traditional models. They may also benefit from more varied and innovative teaching practices (Petti, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). English language supports, intervention plans, individual assessment and instructional plans, and asset mapping serve as examples of strategies that may be included to advance the services offered to children and families. But while sharing current best practices with practitioners serves mutual benefit, field-based modules must be flexible enough to respond to the strengths and expertise of early childhood professionals in varying classroom settings as they adapt assignments and program content to take into account the needs of children, schools, and communities. For example assignments should be tailored to fit individual schools' curricula, or units of study. Alternatively, candidates may plan activities that are selected by parents, in order to incorporate their input and also demonstrate how children's needs and interests can be addressed educationally. At the same time, endorsing and implementing new recommended practices requires partners' trust that these practices are developmentally and culturally appropriate, and that they have an evidence base and a high potential for positive impact on children and families. We must continue to devote effort to exploring, identifying, sharing these practices (and then integrating them meaningfully into TLLSC) in order to fulfill our obligations as a responsive and trusting partner.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0121745862-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>Early childhood teacher education has been charged with the same task that faces all teacher educators; namely, a fundamental transformation with clinical practice at the core of preparation (AACTE, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]; AACTE, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>]). Field-based teacher education programs hold the potential to not only address the recommendations of policy makers, professional organizations, and researchers and bridge the preparation-to-practice gap, but they allow for radically different relationships among all of the stakeholders in early childhood education. Creating space for school and community partners as co–teacher educators strengthened and diversified TLLSC's communities of practice (Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]). In this effort, all stakeholders' were valued as equal contributors supporting candidates' understanding of the needs of children and families in varying community contexts. In addition to the specific increases in teacher candidate skills, placing candidates in school and community settings with both university faculty and practitioners guiding their practice resulted in more intentional candidate contributions to early childhood programs, and a gradual dismantling of some of the traditional barriers between candidates, practicing teachers, and families.</p> <p>While this examination of school and community partner perspectives in one teacher education program highlights initial successes in addressing mutuality in partnerships for early childhood teacher education, much work is left to do around assessing the outcomes and sustainability of such programs. To maintain a high level of mutuality, teacher education programs must be responsive to the ever-changing needs of schools, communities, and families—in other words, sequence structure, experiences, and assignments must respond to partner contexts. These efforts must occur continuously—not just during the planning stages of field-based experiences; furthermore, they are supported and sustained by the early childhood expertise and collaboration skills of on-site teacher educators. Future research must include more input from school and community partners to examine how field-based teacher education may continue serving candidates, schools, communities, and families.</p> <p>Bridging university, school, and community contexts with the intent to harmonize these voices through collaborative teacher education has required us to rethink who holds the knowledges necessary to prepare early childhood candidates for a career in teaching (Brayboy & Maughan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]; Moll et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]). When universities examine existing power structures that traditionally place academic knowledges and resources above community knowledges and resources (Brayboy & Maughan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref59">4</reflink>]), and value community assets, they position themselves to design and offer richer, more authentic preparation activities. To sustain the mutuality of collaborative teacher education, such activities must be deeply integrated into community settings and respond to a shared priority of equipping teacher candidates to serve effectively as members of a professional community.</p> <hd id="AN0121745862-19">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) under a grant in Personnel Preparation in EI/ECSE (#H325K120172).</p> <ref id="AN0121745862-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at <ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/UJEC">www.tandfonline.com/UJEC</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0121745862-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2004). The early childhood challenge: Preparing high-quality teachers for a changing society. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.aacte.org">http://www.aacte.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref55" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.aacte.org">http://www.aacte.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref39" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beaulieu, L. J., & Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State. (2002). Mapping the assets of your community: A key component for building local capacity. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/227/227%5fasset%5fmapping.pdf">http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/227/227%5fasset%5fmapping.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref57" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brayboy, B. M. J., & Maughan, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledges and the story of the bean. Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 1–21. doi:10.17763/haer.79.1.l0u6435086352229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burant, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2002). Beyond classroom-based early field experiences: Understanding an "educative practicum" in an urban school and community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(5), 561–575. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00016-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref40" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, 69–109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds.). (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davin, K. J. (2014). Situating practice in schools and communities: Case studies of teacher candidates in diverse field experiences with English language learners. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 5(1). Retrieved from https://www2.nau.edu/nabej-p/ojs/index.php/njrp/article/view/31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Division of Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices">http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freedman, S. W., & Appleman, D. (2009). "In it for the long haul": How teacher education can contribute to teacher retention in high-poverty, urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 323–337. doi:10.1177/0022487109336181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heineke, A., Kennedy, A. S., & Lees, A. (2013). Preparing early childhood professionals for the culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms and communities of Illinois. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 15(2). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v15n2/heineke.html">http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v15n2/heineke.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horm, D. M., Hyson, M., & Winton, P. J. (2013). Research on early childhood teacher education: Evidence from three domains and recommendations for moving forward. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34(1), 95–112. doi:10.1080/10901027.2013.758541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, A., & Heineke, A. (2014). Re-envisioning the role of universities in early childhood teacher preparation: Partnerships for 21st century learning. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35, 226–243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, A. & Lees, A. (2014). Merging professional preparation and development through blended practices and a tiered approach in Early Head Start. In Pretti-Frontczak, K., Grisham-Brown, J., & Sullivan, L. (Eds.), Young Exceptional Children Monograph 16 - Blending Practices to Strengthen Quality Early Learning Programs for ALL Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, A., & Lees, A. (2015a). Outcomes of a community-based birth-to-three preparation sequence for undergraduate early childhood teacher candidates. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(6), 770–782.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, A., & Lees, A. (2015b). Preparing undergraduate pre-service teachers through direct and video-based performance feedback and tiered supports in Early Head Start. Early Childhood Education Journal (June 2015). doi: 10.1007/s10643-015-0725-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and sustainable university-school partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra, Australia: Teaching Australia - Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaParo, K., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2012). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Manual, Toddler. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, C. I., Maxwell, K. L., Able-Boone, H., & Zimmer, C. R. (2009). Cultural and linguistic diversity in early childhood teacher preparation: The impact of contextual characteristics on coursework and practica. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 64–76. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, M., Tyson, K., Brayko, K., Bowman, M., Delport, J., & Shimomura, F. (2011). Innovation and impact in teacher education: Community-based organizations as field placements for preservice teachers. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1668–1700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms, 71–87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Where we stand on professional preparation standards: A position statement. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org">http://www.naeyc.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2010). 2010 NAEYC standards for initial & advanced early childhood professional preparation programs. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org">www.naeyc.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective educators. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.ncate.org">www.ncate.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petti, A. D. (2013). Seeking mutual benefit: University and districts as partners in preparation. School-University Partnerships, 6(2), 32–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 209–229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rust, F. (2010). Shaping new models for teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(2), 5–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, A. M., Ensminger, D., Heineke, A. J., Kennedy, A., Prasse, D., & Smetana, L. (2014). Teaching, Learning, and Leading with Schools and Communities: One urban university re- envisions teacher preparation for the next generation. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(2), 139–154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobeck, J. L., Chapleski, E. E., & Fisher, C. (2008). Conducting research with American Indians: A case study of motives, methods, and results. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12(1), 69–84. doi:10.1300/J051v12n01_04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anna Lees and Adam S. Kennedy</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1133228
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Community-Based Collaboration for Early Childhood Teacher Education: Partner Experiences and Perspectives as Co-Teacher Educators
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lees%2C+Anna%22">Lees, Anna</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kennedy%2C+Adam+S%2E%22">Kennedy, Adam S.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Early+Childhood+Teacher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education</i></searchLink>. 2017 38(1):52-78.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Office of Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: H325K120172
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Focus+Groups%22">Focus Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Community+Relationship%22">School Community Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indigenous+Populations%22">Indigenous Populations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+American+Indians%22">Urban American Indians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Intervention%22">Early Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnic+Diversity%22">Ethnic Diversity</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Illinois+%28Chicago%29%22">Illinois (Chicago)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10901027.2016.1274692
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1090-1027
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The relevance and effectiveness of traditional, course- and clinical-experience-based models of teacher preparation have been called into question, and institutions of teacher education must respond to the changing landscape of educational policy, which increasingly emphasizes that candidates must be prepared for challenges faced in complex, increasingly diverse classroom and community contexts through extended field experiences (Rust, 2010). In this article, we present a case for the development of mutually beneficial community partnerships as the foundation of all early childhood teacher education. First, key policies and research findings are presented that point to partnership as a key theme that must be addressed by preparation programs; next, a framework for the development of mutually beneficial partnerships between preparation programs and schools/community agencies is introduced; interview and focus group data are presented from the development and implementation of a field-based undergraduate early childhood teacher preparation program. These include examples of strategies that assist in leveraging resources toward mutual benefit, as well as vignettes illustrating field-based teacher education in action. Finally, partnership practices that address the shared goals of early childhood educators and those who prepare them are presented.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1133228
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1133228
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10901027.2016.1274692
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 52
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Focus Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Community Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indigenous Populations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban American Indians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnic Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Illinois (Chicago)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Community-Based Collaboration for Early Childhood Teacher Education: Partner Experiences and Perspectives as Co-Teacher Educators
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lees, Anna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kennedy, Adam S.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1090-1027
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1