executive summary: november 2014 building...

Building Effective Teacher Residencies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NOVEMBER 2014

UTRU: BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEACHER RESIDENCIES

Acknowledgments

Urban Teacher Residency United (UTRU) would like to thank the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their support of this important work, especially Greg Sommers and Dr. Michael Copland. A very special thank you to UTRU Network partners Aspire Teacher Residency and Denver Teacher Residency, who drive innovation in their residencies, and in the nation, with their work to provide the best possible teachers for kids. We also thank the Memphis Teacher Residency for providing UTRU with additional photographs for this report. Jill Pitner, Chief Program Officer of UTRU, acted as project manager. This report was written by Linda Perlstein, with support from Craig Jerald and Elizabeth Duffrin. Design provided by Jeff Hall Design.

1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Message from the Executive Director

Since the first teacher residency program launched in 2001, dozens of districts, nonprofits, and

universities across the country have established similar programs to improve the effectiveness and

retention of new teachers in hard-to-staff urban and rural districts. Today there is strong evidence to

support that teacher residencies are improving student achievement and teacher retention. Leaders

from a variety of sectors—state and national government, school districts, universities, nonprofits,

and teacher education program accreditation —are pointing to teacher residencies as a model for

strengthening the preparation of all teachers.

Teacher residencies are the most comprehensive model of teacher preparation in the nation. They

play an increasingly important role in human capital strategies and reform efforts by responding

directly to the hiring needs of school districts. Effective residency programs blend a rigorous full-

year classroom apprenticeship for emerging teachers with a carefully aligned sequence of academic

coursework, offered by a local university. Programs also provide career advancement for experienced

teachers to act as mentors, all while developing highly effective new educators who are capable of

impacting student achievement from the moment they enter the classroom as a teacher of record.

The benefits of these rich clinical experiences, the integrated coursework, and the work of Urban

Teacher Residency United (UTRU) were recently highlighted in a White House announcement

detailing plans to strengthen America’s teacher preparation programs.

UTRU was established in 2007 to develop, support, and sustain highly effective residency programs

in rural and urban districts nationwide. With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UTRU

recently conducted a study of two outstanding residency programs in our network, Aspire Teacher

Residency, operated by the Aspire Public Schools charter network, and Denver Teacher Residency,

which is part of the Denver Public Schools. The results of that study, presented here, explore how

these districts prepare their novice teachers to be effective educators from their first day on the job.

UTRU is utilizing the findings in this study to innovate and inform its strategic consulting and network

programming.

UTRU believes that the exemplary practices found in these two teacher residency programs can help

to transform teacher preparation across the nation and lead a movement toward preparing excellent

new teachers from inside the classroom.

Sincerely,

Anissa Listak

Founder & Executive Director

Urban Teacher Residency United

UTRU: BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEACHER RESIDENCIES2

Programs are committed to recruiting and hiring candidates whose diversity mirrors that of the students they’ll serve. 1/3 of Denver residents and 1/2 of Aspire residents are people of color.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

Urban Teacher Residency UnitedWhat We Do

Established in 2007, Urban Teacher Residency United (UTRU) works with districts, non-profits, universities, and states to build and launch teacher residency programs that serve individual districts or charter networks in high-needs areas, both urban and rural.

UTRU recognizes that one of the most important

indicators of a successful residency program is

the degree to which it meets the needs of a local

school district1 and its students. School districts must be

the ultimate “client” of teacher preparation providers,

whose human capital challenges must be met in order

to have an impact in high-need schools.

During a planning year, UTRU assists districts and their

university and/or non-profit partners in designing a residen-

cy program grounded in the best practices from across the

UTRU network that also address district challenges, such as

a shortage of qualified math or special education teachers.

UTRU also guides districts in recruiting staff and residents

and then, during the second year, in launching and fine-

tuning their program to meet ambitious goals for improving

student achievement.

Residencies that meet UTRU’s standards for quality are

invited to join its network of programs serving nearly 30

districts across the country. Partners may participate in

professional development at an annual symposium and

also learn about model innovations at partner site visits

throughout the year aimed at improving program quality.

UTRU also commissions research on residency-based

teacher preparation and promotes the model to policy

makers in state and federal government.

Evidence from residencies co-developed by UTRU

suggest that their graduates, more than 2,000 to date,

are having a major impact on their schools and districts:

LOWERING TEACHER TURNOVER. Nationally, roughly

50 percent of new teachers remain in the profession for

five years. By contrast, UTRU partner residencies boast a

five-year retention rate of 82 percent.

FILLING SHORTAGES IN KEY SUBJECT AREAS. Over 50

percent of graduates teach in secondary math, science,

linguistically diverse or special education classrooms.

INCREASING DIVERSITY. More than a third of residents in

2013-14 were people of color.

IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY. Of 54 surveyed principals

whose schools hosted residents from the UTRU network in

2012-13, every one said that residents and residency grad-

uates are more effective than the typical new teacher in

five areas predictive of teacher effectiveness: classroom

instruction and pedagogy, data use, establishing the class-

room learning environment, culturally responsive teaching,

and professionalism and leadership. Eighty-two percent

(82%) of mentors said that their residents helped to improve

student learning and achievement. And in the best residency

programs, graduates consistently outperform other first-year

teachers on evaluations.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TEACHER RESIDENCY PROGRAMS AND THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE, PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT UTRUNITED.ORG

1 For the purpose of this report, school districts are inclusive of public charter schools and charter management organizations.

utrunited.org


1. Aspire Teacher Residency, Oakland, CA A partnership between Aspire Public Schools and University of the Pacific

2. Atlanta Urban Teacher Residency, Atlanta, GAA partnership between Atlanta Public Schools andGeorgia State University

3. Boston Teacher Residency, Boston, MAA partnership between the Boston Plan forExcellence, University of Massachusetts-Boston,and Boston Public Schools

4. Chicago Teacher Residency, Chicago, ILA partnership between Academy for Urban SchoolLeadership, National-Louis University, andChicago Public Schools

5. Citizen Schools Expanded DayEducator Residency, Boston, MAA partnership between multiple school districtsand teacher preparation providers

6. Cleveland Urban Teacher Residency,Cleveland, OHA partnership between Breakthrough PublicSchools and Ursuline College

7. Colorado Boettcher Teacher Residency,Denver, COA partnership between the Boettcher Foundation,Public Education & Business Coalition, AdamsState University, Regis University, and multipleschool districts serving the Denver region andSan Luis Valley

8. Denver Teacher Residency,Denver, COA partnership between Denver PublicSchools and the Morgridge College ofEducation at the University of Denver

9. I-START: Internationals School-BasedTeacher Apprenticeship, Recruitment,and Training Program, New York, NYA partnership between Internationals Network forPublic Schools, Long Island University, and theNew York City Department of Education

10. Jacksonville Teacher Residency,Jacksonville, FLA partnership between the Jacksonville PublicEducation Fund, Duval County Public Schools,and the University of North Florida

11. Memphis Teacher Residency, Memphis, TNA partnership between Memphis Teacher Residency,Union University, and Shelby County Schools

12. New York City Teaching Collaborative,New York, NYA partnership between the New York City Department ofEducation and St. John’s Graduate School of Education

13. New Visions for Public Schools-Hunter CollegeUrban Teacher Residency, New York, NYA partnership between New Visions for Public Schools,Hunter College, and the New York City Department ofEducation

14. Oakland Teacher Residency, Oakland, CAA partnership between Oakland Unified School Districtand Mills College School of Education

Urban Teacher Residency United Network and Supporting Partners

1

78

14

18

19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

15. Philadelphia Teacher Residency, Philadelphia, PA A partnership between the Philadelphia Education Fund, University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University School of Education, and the Academy of Natural Sciences at Drexel University

16. Project METRO, Milwaukee, WI A partnership between the Milwaukee Partnership Academy, Cardinal Stritch University, and Milwaukee Public Schools

17. Richmond Teacher Residency, Richmond, VA A partnership between the Center for Teacher Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond Public Schools

18. San Francisco Teacher Residency, San Francisco, CA A partnership between San Francisco Unified School District, Stanford Graduate School of Education, University of San Francisco School of Education, and the United Educators of San Francisco

19. Seattle Teacher Residency, Seattle, WA A partnership between the Alliance for Education, University of Washington School of Education, Seattle Public Schools, and the Seattle Education Association

20. TEACH/Here and Project Inspire, Chattanooga and Knoxville, TN A partnership between Public Education Foundation, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Tennessee Tech University, Hamilton County Department of Education, and Knox County Department of Education

21. Texas Teacher Residency Program: An Apprenticeship Model for Texas (TRes), Commerce, TX A partnership between the Texas A&M University- Commerce, Mesquite Independent School District and Tyler Independent School District

22. Twin Cities Teacher Collaborative STEM Teacher Residency, Minneapolis/St.Paul, MN A partnership between Augsburg College, Bethel University, Concordia University Saint Paul, Hamline University, St. Catherine University, the University of St. Thomas, and Minneapolis and St. Paul Public Schools

23. University of Chicago’s Urban Teacher Education Program, Chicago, IL A partnership between University of Chicago’s Urban Education Institute and Chicago Public Schools

FIGURE 1

2013-2014 UTRU Network Program Impact

UTR Graduates

Residency program graduates to date 2,078

Percent of graduates teaching in STEM 31%

Percent of graduates teaching in ELL 9%

3-Year retention rate 87%

5-Year retention rate 82%

Rate of attrition during residency year 14%

UTR Residents

Number of completed resident applications 5,428

Total number of residents 627

Selection rate 11%

Percent residents of color 34%

Percent residents who are career changers 47%

Number of training sites 178

Total number of mentors 4392

3

4

5

6

9

10

11

1213

1516

17

20

20

21

22

23


Research suggests that teacher residency programs not only reduce teacher attrition but result in first-year teachers who lead students to higher levels of performance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

Few would argue that traditional teacher preparation is sufficient for the challenges of today’s classroom. In April, the White House directed the U.S. Department of Education to lay out a plan for strengthening teacher preparation, noting that two-thirds of new teachers report that they began their careers inadequately prepared.

Precisely how teacher preparation should be

redesigned will be debated in the coming months,

and teacher residencies must emerge as an important

part of the solution. Teacher residencies are modeled after

medical residencies that prepare aspiring doctors through

intense clinical practice and expert instruction and supervi-

sion. Unlike a traditionally prepared teacher, who typically

undergoes only ten weeks of student teaching, a resident

teacher works alongside a master teacher for a full year

before entering the profession.

Research suggests that teacher residency programs

not only reduce teacher attrition, thereby saving districts

money on hiring and professional development, but result

in first-year teachers who lead students to higher levels

of performance.

Urban Teacher Residency United (UTRU) is the only

organization in the nation working to launch and support a

network of residency programs dedicated to preparing

highly-effective teachers for urban and rural public schools.

UTRU believes that outstanding teacher residency programs

can do more than prepare individual teachers, they have the

potential to transform the way that districts and universities

approach teacher preparation and to catalyze improvements

in teacher training nationwide. Since 2007, UTRU has guided

school districts, non-profits, universities, and states in

launching residency programs in nearly 30 high-needs

rural and urban districts.

While teacher residency programs are now operating in

dozens of major school systems, not every program is

equally as effective at producing high-performing graduates.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided funding for

UTRU to commission a report identifying the most important

practices of a successful teacher residency, and the findings

are presented here.

The Report Sought to Answer Key Questions

on Residency Teacher Preparation:

• Which of the elements of a residency model are

the most important?

• How, precisely, do the most effective programs

translate good ideas into good implementation?

• What conditions—in a school and in a district—

foster a residency program’s success?

• What effective consulting practices did UTRU

employ that impacted the quality of a program?

A Case for Teacher Residencies


UTRU selected two network partners with successful

residency programs, Aspire Teacher Residency, founded

by Aspire Public Schools in California in 2010, and Denver

Teacher Residency, founded by the Denver Public Schools

in 2009. After more than a year of extensive observations

of these two programs as well as interviews with residents,

mentors, training site principals, and other stakeholders, the

following characteristics were identified as the most critical

for each program’s success:

• A selection process for residents and mentors

that assesses them not only on characteristics known

to produce strong outcomes for students, such as

perseverance, but also on their ability to accept

constructive criticism.

• Coursework for residents and mentors that is aligned

with district standards and can be immediately applied

in the classroom.

• A structure for providing residents with effective coaching

and feedback as they learn to teach.

• An evaluation system that focuses on continual improve-

ment—for residents, mentors, and the residency program

itself.

• Host school systems with the same values and practices as

the residency programs: a collaborative culture, clear teach-

er effectiveness rubrics, alignment between destination

and learning, and a commitment to professional growth.

At each of the two sites, these broad characteristics are

reflected in very specific approaches, ones that yield great

results. This report describes what those approaches look like

and how the local context enables them to be implemented

successfully. Even in systems quite different from Aspire Public

Schools and Denver Public Schools, the lessons learned here

can fuel improvement, for residencies, other teacher prepara-

tion programs, and, ultimately, for students.

Denver Teacher Residency

MEMBER: Denver Public Schools joined

UTRU in 2009 and trained its first

cohort of residents in 2009-10.

DISTRICT: Denver Public Schools is a tradition-

al urban district that enrolls 88,000

students in 162 schools.

PARTNER: Morgridge College of Education

at the University of Denver

RESULTS: In 2012-13, Denver residency

graduates significantly outscored

first-year teachers in each of the

system’s 12 indicators of effective

teaching.

Aspire Teacher Residency

MEMBER: Aspire Public Schools joined UTRU

in 2010 and launched its residency

program the same year.

DISTRICT: Aspire Public Schools, which enrolls

13,500 students, is a network of

37 charter schools in large and

small California cities and Memphis,

Tennessee, run by a nonprofit

charter management organization

based in Oakland, California.

PARTNER: University of the Pacific

RESULTS: In Aspire schools, 44 percent of

residency graduates scored “highly

effective” in 2012, compared to 6

percent of other first-year teachers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

Recruitment & Selection

The selection process for both residents and mentors

is rigorous in assessing candidates for the character-

istics known to produce strong outcomes.

Like traditional preparation programs, Aspire Teacher Res-

idency and Denver Teacher Residency consider a candidate’s

GPA and transcript, but building on research and the best

practices of other certification programs, they also consider a

candidate’s disposition as reflected in an essay and interview.

Is she persistent and resourceful in the face of challenges?

Does he believe his instruction impacts students’ academic

success? Is she understanding of cultural differences?

But the most important characteristic that distinguishes

the resident selection process at Aspire and Denver is their

intense focus on whether a candidate is “coachable.” The

candidate with potential to be an effective teacher must

be an effective learner as well—someone who can act on

constructive feedback to improve performance over time.

In the first year of the Denver Teacher Residency, “coach-

ability” was not a criteria for candidate selection. That year’s

cohort struggled with receiving continuous feedback, so

the selection process was refined. Now, after giving a short

demonstration lesson, residents are given feedback and

must reflect on it in an essay. A candidate who gives a great

sample lesson won’t be selected if he or she demonstrates

reluctance to take constructive criticism.

Aspire has a similar process. Candidates are given feedback

on their demonstration lessons and then asked to redo them a

half-hour later to assess how they respond to coaching.

The candidate selection process for both programs is

more rigorous than those found at some other teacher res-

idency sites. Aspire and Denver each grade the demonstra-

tion lesson on a rubric. Denver, for instance, rates candidates

on whether they communicate well, use strategies to engage

students, are well-organized, and focus more on students’

understanding than their own delivery.

Candidates for the Denver residency are also asked to

analyze and discuss school student achievement data, while

raters look for certain thought patterns and dispositions. Can

a candidate interpret tables of data and reflect critically on

them? Does she communicate clearly and try to engage her

colleagues? Does he express belief in the learning potential

of students and teachers’ responsibility to maximize it?

Only 22 percent of candidates made the cut in Denver

last year, as did only 10 percent in Aspire. The ones that did,

however, have a high chance of succeeding.

RECRUITMENT

Strong residency programs have organized, data-driven

recruitment plans. They track where their best residents

have come from—which colleges, which previous jobs—

and recruit there.

The Denver Teacher Residency mounts an aggressive

marketing campaign in citywide, neighborhood, and

Spanish-language media; recruits at job fairs; seeks referrals

from current and former residents; reaches out to past can-

didates who were qualified but barely missed the cut; and

Our Findings

90% of principals who have hired a

residency program graduate,

agree or strongly agree that:

• They would hire a program graduate next year

• They would recommend hiring program graduates

to their principal colleagues

• The program graduates in their building positively

impact their school cultures


works with Denver Public Schools to identify strong

candidates already employed in the district, such as para-

professionals who are likely to understand the community

and want to make a difference there.

Strong incentives also help attract high-quality candidates.

Aspire residents receive a $13,500 stipend and pay only one-

third of the cost of a master’s degree from University of the

Pacific. Tuition is fully reimbursed if they remain employed

with Aspire over the next six years. Denver residents earn a

similar stipend, priority hiring, and a master’s degree from

University of Denver with tuition reimbursed over four years.

The two programs are committed to recruiting and hiring

candidates whose diversity mirrors that of the students

they’ll serve; one-third of Denver residents and half of

Aspire residents are people of color.

SELECTING MENTORS

Mentors in the UTRU network programs are expected to

perform in the top 30 percent of their school or district

teacher evaluations and to achieve at least a year’s worth

of growth for students on standardized exams.

Identifying top teachers is only a start. Mentors also

need to be able to effectively coach adult learners. Clear

communication, motivation to collaborate, openness to

feedback and enthusiasm for teaching are all essential.

Prospective mentors are recommended by their principals,

asked to write a statement of interest, and are interviewed by

residency program staff. Aspire also interviews each candi-

date’s colleagues about his or her ability to collaborate and

accept criticism, while Denver observes candidates teaching a

lesson and interviews them afterwards about their approach.

Residency leaders and UTRU are currently considering

how to make the process more thorough. One idea is to

observe mentor candidates not just in the classroom but

also in a team meeting, to judge how reflective and

collaborative they are.

Attracting a large pool of qualified mentors is challenging

as the monetary incentives are limited and the time commit-

ment considerable. Mentors receive a $2,000 annual stipend

in Denver, and $3,000 plus $500 for professional develop-

ment in Aspire.

One selling point for becoming a mentor emphasized

at both sites is that it improves one’s own teaching. Men-

tors receive coaching and professional development from

residency staff and become part of a learning community of

other mentors. Many report that discussing pedagogy with

their residents leads them to reassess their own practice.

Among UTRU network mentors participating in 2012-2013,

92 percent agreed that being a mentor made them a more

effective teacher.

“Mentoring has helped me become a better teacher. [It] made me really think about my teaching, because I had to explain why I’m doing certain things. I came across things that I’ve done for years, and I’m like, ‘This doesn’t even make sense and now I have to explain it to my resident.’ It really makes you question your own teaching, and I feel like I’ve grown a ton this year.” —Lindsay Fena, a 2nd grade teacher, Aspire

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11

Coursework & Seminars

Relevant and rigorous coursework for residents and

mentors is immediately applied in the classroom

and aligned with district priorities.

University coursework for the Aspire Teacher Residen-

cy and Denver Teacher Residency varies significantly from

traditional masters’ education content. The programs began

by examining their partner universities’ curriculum and then

moved to develop new focused and more rigorous content

delivered through a clinical-based approach.

For one, assignments typically require residents to try

new teaching strategies immediately in their classrooms.

Repeatedly, residents at the two sites talked about the

advantage of having an immediate connection between

their coursework and classroom teaching.

Residency courses also directly address priorities of the

school district. In Denver, each resident identifies an indicator on

the district’s teacher effectiveness rubric that he or she struggles

with most, researches possible strategies, tries them out, and

assesses whether they worked based on student outcome data.

And rather than being taught mainly by university pro-

fessors, the masters courses are primarily taught by Aspire

or Denver Public School employees with recent teaching

experience. Leaders at each site say the practice is essential

for their success because courses are delivered with practical

application in mind. Residents agree; surveys in Aspire, for

instance, show a clear preference for courses taught by

Aspire teachers.

LEARNING TO MENTOR

In a typical teacher preparation program, the educators who

host student teachers may learn their role by attending a

workshop or two, if they receive any support at all. Mentors

at Aspire and Denver, by contrast, receive intensive instruc-

tion during a series of seminars on how to coach residents.

For example, they watch videos of residents teaching and

discuss where improvements are needed and the coaching

strategies they would use.

Beyond the seminar, mentors at the two sites are regularly

observed while they coach, and later provided with feedback

from residency program staff. Aspire even sends mentors

across school sites to visit each other’s classrooms. In

addition, pairs of mentors observe each other’s residents

and meet monthly to discuss coaching strategies.

“Last night I left [my graduate class] and I was like, ‘I want to go see my kids tomorrow and try out some of these things that we’re learning.’” —Resident, Denver Teacher Residency

Coaching & Feedback

A system for providing regular, high-quality coaching

drives residents to continually reflect on how well

their teaching improves student learning.

The foundation of the mentor-resident relationship is a

cycle of observation, feedback, and action steps. Coaching

and collaboration are core practices of residency programs.

Further, Aspire and Denver focus the process with laser-like

precision on student learning—Were students engaged? Did

they learn what they needed to? What can we change to

ensure that they do? To prepare residents for expectations

on the job, feedback is directed to elements on the district’s

teacher evaluation.

Feedback can come in spontaneous, brief conversations

or daily check-ins regarding what went well, what did not,

and next steps to take. The two sites also require at least

two hours each week of “sacred meeting time” for mentors

and residents to evaluate instructional practices and plan

future lessons.

90% of residents and graduates

feel adequately to very well

prepared to communicate the learning objectives

of a lesson.


Mentors at each site are provided with explicit guid-

ance on how to coach. Aspire, for instance, has a six-step

script for providing feedback that includes specific praise,

open-ended questions about a problem area, and a role-play

for how to handle the problem better next time.

Residents begin teaching immediately but gradually

acquire more responsibility for leading instruction through-

out the school year. An initial assignment might be to explain

the class rules. Soon they might co-teach a lesson and as

their skills improve, teach the full lesson themselves. By the

semester break, they are leading instruction independently

for a full week or more, with additional lead teaching weeks

at the end of the year. While originally holding the two-week

lead teach until spring, Aspire recently introduced the mid-

year lead teaching week to provide mentors and residents

a deeper experience on which to base the remainder of the

training. A traditional preparation program, by contrast, has

the student observe their mentor at the start and practice

teaching at the end, leaving little or no time to process feed-

back and improve.

Lesson planning is a key focus of the mentorship. Mentors

explicitly lay out the thinking that goes into them, including

any student misconceptions they anticipate, the questions

they will ask, and how they will know that students are

learning. Residents revise their own lesson plans with

guidance from the mentor.

Classroom management is another key focus, as it’s

a skill that new teachers often struggle with. Mentors

help residents identify when poor classroom behavior

during their lessons are due to problems such as pacing

instruction too quickly or slowly or failing to engage

students’ interest. Mentors are trained with strategies

to address a range of classroom challenges, such as

ways to engage and motivate students.

Assessment & Evaluation

In effective residencies, continuous improvement is

a constant focus—for residents, mentors, and the

residency program itself.

The system for evaluating residents in the Aspire Teacher

Residency and Denver Teacher Residency is unusual in its

rigor. Evaluations include not only a review of teaching

and student work, based on the same district standards

that experienced teachers must meet, but also a series of

performance assessments.

Denver’s assessment has residents write lesson plans that

illustrate a particular competency, video record their delivery

in the classroom, then prepare a revised lesson plan and

write a reflection on what they learned.

Residents at both sites are evaluated throughout the year

“It really was nice to go through the process of writing a lesson multiple times with somebody there to hold your hand. I think that was the most important skill that I learned.” —Carolina Bacallao Chessman, Resident, Denver Teacher Residency


by a number of observers. At Aspire, the mentor conducts

a formal observation weekly, as does the director of the

residency every three weeks. Principals are asked to observe

monthly. The further residents progress on their evaluations,

the more responsibility they assume in the classroom.

Both Aspire and Denver collect data from multiple

stakeholders to evaluate the indicators predictive of teacher

and student success across the residency year. Those who

underperform are given a plan for improvement. If they do

not improve, they are terminated from the program. Effort

alone is not enough—candidates must demonstrate that they

can positively impact student learning and achievement.

Each year, between 10 percent and 17 percent of residents

at each site fail to complete the program. That graduation is

not guaranteed helps to sustain hiring principals’ high regard

for its graduates and bolsters residents’ drive to improve.

Mentors are guided to improve through observation and

feedback of their coaching from program staff. The sites have

been reluctant to add a formal layer of accountability for men-

tors, however, given the demands already placed on them.

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

Program staff at each site continually gather data to pinpoint

weaknesses in the program and work to address them. Resi-

dent performance is the main focus. To judge how residents

are performing on district teacher effectiveness indicators,

staff rely on surveys of residents and mentors, informal

conversations, and formal evaluations.

When many residents fall short on an indicator, the

instructional strategy is retaught in their seminar. Data also

guides revisions of coursework content and the selection

process for residents and mentors. When Aspire leaders

found that candidates’ ratings on a task during the initial se-

lection were not aligned later to their teaching performance,

they eliminated and replaced it with a more meaningful task.

The School & School System

Host schools and school systems possess a

collaborative culture, clear teacher effectiveness

rubrics, and a commitment to professional growth.

It is no coincidence that Aspire Public Schools and Denver

Public Schools are both designers of excellent residency

programs and leaders in improving teacher quality overall.

Where residency programs succeed, key elements of that

success—collaboration, clear and strong teacher effectiveness

rubrics, and a growth mindset—tend to already be core char-

acteristics of their school systems and individual school sites.

In Aspire Public Schools and Denver Public Schools,

teachers are expected to work in teams to plan lessons and

evaluate student progress. Residents not only teach and

learn alongside their mentors, but learn from collaborating

with teachers throughout their schools.

Continually assessing one’s own teaching practice and

working to improve it is also part of the culture at each site.

When mentors work in a school or school system where it is

natural to constantly reflect, to challenge each other, and to

hold each other accountable, they can pass that mindset on

to their residents.

“If you identify any weak spot for yourself, there’s a way to follow up [and resources are] so readily available.… That’s one thing our district does really well.”—a site coordinator,

Denver Teacher Residency

Aspire and Denver are each rich in resources to help

teachers improve. Aspire has an extensive store of on-line

professional development modules that include videos of

master teachers illustrating different competencies on the

district’s teacher effectiveness framework.

The quality of the teacher effectiveness frameworks in

each district is also a critical component of each residency

program’s success. Aspiring educators need to understand

what effective teaching looks like and how they will know

whether or not they are achieving it.

The sites take care to place residents in schools, de-

partments, and grade-level teams where they are likely to

succeed. They search for principals who share the program’s

vision, recommend high quality mentors, and see the resi-

dency as a way to develop a pipeline of effective teachers for

their own schools and improve the quality of teaching overall.

Because the two residency programs are run by the

districts themselves, residents are well prepared to teach

in district classrooms and have built relationships in the

communities in which they will work. This preparation with

the district’s students makes the residents high priority hires

for the district. To date, all graduates of the two programs

have been offered positions.


Learning to TeachSherri Winger initially strug-

gled during her residency in

a Denver middle school math

class. Reviewing her first evalu-

ation in October, she discovered

that she had posted low marks

on a number of indicators. At

the time it came as a devastat-

ing surprise. Looking back, she understands where

she fell short, especially on classroom management

and instruction for English language learners.

Residency staff drew up a plan: Winger stopped

teaching and spent a week visiting the classrooms

of master teachers throughout her school. Every

day she met with the school’s site coordinator to

discuss the teaching strategies she had observed,

what she thought worked well and didn’t, and

which ones she would try herself. She also came to

see that she needed to be firmer in guiding students’

attention and work harder to make a personal connec-

tion with them.

When Winger returned to her mentor’s classroom,

program staff had her focus on one strategy at a

time, and they observed and videotaped every

lesson. They made it clear that she would be let

go if she couldn’t improve.

As they did with all residents, program staff held

high expectations. An “effective” rating wasn’t good

enough, Winger said. “They wanted us to reach for

‘distinguished’ all the time.”

With support, Winger rose to the challenge,

graduated from the program, and now, as a teacher

at the same school, she has been selected to become

a mentor herself.


Looking Ahead

The Aspire Teacher Residency and Denver Teacher Residency are just two examples of inno-vative residency programs that prepare teachers to be effective educators from their first day on the job. Strategies for selecting residents, designing coursework, and structuring classroom practice, feedback, and evaluation are grounded in research and continually revised, always with the goal of improved student performance.

The Aspire and Denver programs are a model

not only for creating teacher residencies, but for

improving the preparation of teachers prepared

in a traditional university program. Using the residency

model, these programs should explore how to innovate the

typical 10-week student teaching experience, lengthening

the time, and being more intentional about host school and

mentor selection. University coursework should be more

aligned to competencies needed in today’s classrooms and

student teachers should receive more skilled coaching with

ongoing evaluation.

As educators, policy-makers, and philanthropists

continue to explore how best to improve both traditional

and alternative teacher preparation, they must closely

examine the practices of outstanding teacher residency pro-

grams. Research clearly indicates that graduates of the best

residency programs outperform their peers on both district

evaluations and objective measures of student achievement.

More districts and universities should consider launch-

ing teacher residency programs modeled after those in the

UTRU network. When districts and universities take respon-

sibility for growing their own teaching candidates, the result

can be a more diverse, more qualified teacher corps better

prepared to meet the challenges of specific schools and stu-

dents. UTRU can support interested districts and universities

in not only launching residency programs but in continually

improving them to better educate their students both now

and in the years to come.


Appendix AAspire Teacher Residency Impact: 2012, 2013 Evaluation Data

Promising early data show that Aspire Teacher Resi-

dency (ATR) graduates performed better than other

first year teachers on the Aspire Teacher Effective-

ness Framework. Overall, in 2013, 90% of ATR graduates in

their first and second year of teaching as teacher of record

were rated at the Master (14%), Highly Effective (21%), and

Effective (55%) levels.

The Aspire Teacher Residency is a member of the 2010

UTRU Residency for Residencies Program (RRP) cohort and

part of the UTRU Network. Started in 1999, Aspire Public

Schools operates 37 schools in California and Tennessee.

In partnership with University of the Pacific, ATR trains and

places residents in three California regions, and recently

expanded the program to Memphis, TN.

To date, ATR has graduated 63 residents, and 100% of

graduates from the first two cohorts (2010 and 2011) were

hired to work in an Aspire school. The residency prepared

teachers are staying in the classroom; Aspire reports an 82%

retention rate after 3 years.

Overview of the Aspire Teacher Effectiveness Framework The Aspire Instructional Rubric is used to collect data on

effective teaching through multiple vehicles, including

classroom observations, student growth data, student

feedback, parent and family feedback, and peer feedback.

The effectiveness rubric includes five domains:

(1) Data-Driven Planning and Assessment;

(2) Classroom Learning Environment;

(3) Instruction;

(4) Professional Responsibilities; and,

(5) Partnerships, Community and Family.

ATR Graduate Performance Graduates from ATR show a tendency to perform at the

Highly Effective and Effective levels on the Aspire Teacher

Effectiveness Framework at a higher rate than other first year

teachers. Ninety-four (94) percent of Aspire’s first cohort of

graduates were rated Highly Effective or Effective in 2012,

and 86% of the second cohort received that rating in 2013.

In 2012, ATR graduates performed better than other first

year teachers, and were rated Highly Effective at the same

rate as all other Aspire teachers (44%). Additionally, 50% of

graduates were rated Effective—a rate that also matched the

district-wide performance of teachers.

Compared to other first year teachers, ATR graduates

were rated Highly Effective at a much higher rate: 44% of

ATR graduates earned the rating, versus 6% of other first

year teachers earning the same rating.

In 2013, ATR’s second cohort of graduates experienced

similarly noteworthy results, with 86% of graduates achieving

Highly Effective or Effective ratings. Across the two cohorts,

no residency program graduates were rated in the lowest or

highest categories, Entering and Master, respectively in their

first year of teaching. Of ATR’s Cohort 1 graduates 6% earned

the Emerging rating (versus 39% of other first year teachers)

in 2012, and 14% of Cohort 2 graduates in 2013, as compared

to 23% of other first year teachers.

The 2013 cumulative results of ATR graduates teaching

in their second and first year (cohort 1 and 2, respectively)

showed growth in the number of graduates being rated as

Master, with 14% of ATR graduates earning the designation.


TABLE A1

Aspire Teacher Effectiveness Framework Performance of ATR Graduates, Other First Year, and All Aspire Teachers, 2012 and 2013

Cohort 1 (2012) Cohort 2 (2013)

Performance Rating

Residency Graduates

Other 1st Year Teachers

Aspire-Wide Residency Graduates

Other 1st Year Teachers

Aspire-Wide

Master 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% 13%

Highly Effective 44% 6% 44% 14% 13% 3%

Effective 50% 53% 49% 71% 58% 46%

Emerging 6% 39% 5% 14% 23% 11%

Entering 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1%

Per

cen

t o

f R

esid

ents

30%

20%

10%

0%

60%

40%

80%

50%

70%

FIGURE A1

Aspire Teacher E�ectiveness Framework Performance, 2013

Master

0 0 0 0

HighlyE�ective

2 2

E�ective

44 4450

5349

39

Emerging Entering

6 6 5

Performance Rating

Per

cen

t o

f R

esid

ents

30%

20%

10%

0%

60%

40%

80%

50%

70%

Master

0 3 3 0 1

HighlyE�ective

13 13

2

E�ective

14 14

71

58

45

23

Emerging Entering

11

Performance Rating

ATR Graduates Cohort 1 Other First-Year Teachers Aspire-Wide

ATR Graduates Cohort 2 Other First-Year Teachers Aspire-Wide

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Aspire Teacher Residency:

http://aspirepublicschools.org/join/atr/

Aspire Public Schools:

http://aspirepublicschools.org

Aspire’s Teacher Effectiveness Framework:

http://aspirepublicschools.org/approach/effective-teachers/

http://aspirepublicschools.org/join/atr

http://aspirepublicschools.org

http://aspirepublicschools.org/approach/effective-teachers/


Appendix BDenver Teacher Residency Impact: Framework for Effective Teaching Scores

Denver Teacher Residency (DTR) graduates, on

average, performed better than other novice

teachers on the observation component of the

Denver Public Schools’ (DPS) Framework for Effective

Teaching. DTR graduates outperformed all novice teachers

across all 12 indicators of the Framework.

The Denver Teacher Residency is a member of the 2009

UTRU Residency for Residencies Program (RRP) cohort

and part of the UTRU Network. DTR is the first district-led

residency program in the nation, and “supports Denver Public

School’s mission by selecting and preparing aspiring teachers

to effectively meet the diverse needs of each student, improve

academic achievement, and serve as leaders in Denver’s

schools, district and community.” DTR has prepared more

than 200 graduates for DPS to date, with a retention rate of

nearly 90% after 3 years.

DPS Evaluation Framework OverviewAs part of DPS’ Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP)

evaluation system, data on teacher practice is collected

over the course of the school year and provides feedback

to teachers that is “designed to help teachers reflect on

their progress and identify where they want to grow to

continue ensuring their students succeed.” 1 Teachers

receive ratings on Professional Practice at the end of the

school year, and receive a rating for Student Outcomes

and an overall LEAP performance rating once the data

become available in the fall of the following year.

As part of Professional Practice, teacher observations

look at the first two domains of the Framework, Learning

Environment and Instruction. In Learning Environment,

teachers are evaluated on their ability to build a positive

classroom culture and manage the classroom. This

includes demonstrating knowledge and respect for

diverse communities and cultures (LE1), fostering a

motivational and respectful classroom environment

(LE2), implementing high expectations for behavior and

routines (LE3), and providing classroom resources and

a physical environment that support student learning

(LE4). Indicators of masterful content delivery and using

high impact instructional moves make up the Instruction

component of the Framework.

Masterful Content Delivery High Impact Instructional Moves

Communicates standards-based content/language objectives (I.1)

Checks for understanding of objectives (I.5)

Provides rigorous tasks requiring critical thinking (I.2) Provides differentiations addressing students’ instructional needs (I.6)

Uses instructional methods and pacing to teach objectives (I.3)

Provides academically-focused descriptive feedback (I.7)

Ensures all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language (I.4)

Promotes student communication and collaboration (I.8)

Note: Adapted from the DPS Framework for Effective Teaching Evidence Guide Overview, 2012-2013

TABLE B1

Framework Learning Environment and Instruction

1 DPS website, http://leap.dpsk12.org.

http://leap.dpsk12.org


DTR Graduate PerformanceIn 2012-13, Denver Teacher Residency graduates performed,

on average, better than all other novice teachers across all

domains of the Framework. This means that DTR is produc-

ing teachers who are very well equipped to ensure student

success.

DTR graduates performed most effectively on the Learn-

ing Environment indicators, especially fostering a motiva-

tional and respectful classroom environment (LE2), imple-

menting high expectations for behavior and routines (LE3),

and providing classroom resources and a physical environ-

ment that support student learning (LE4).

On 10 out of 12 indicators of Learning Environment and

Instruction, DTR graduates received above a 4.0 rating, as

compared to all novice teachers who, on average, achieved

the rating on 5 of 12 indicators.

All other DPS educators (those who are not novice

teachers) scored above a 4.0 on all indicators, and

achieved an average rating above a 5.0 on 3 out of 12

indicators. The highest average rating achieved across all

domains was a 5.28.

Moving ForwardDTR Graduate performance has led Denver Public Schools

to recognize the importance and value of extended clinical

experience for all novice teachers. In Fall 2013, DPS began

the process to expand DTRs model to develop a residency

program for students preparing in traditional pathways.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Denver Teacher Residency:

http://www.denverteacherresidency.org

DPS Framework for Effective Teaching

Evidence Guide, Overview:

http://leap.dpsk12.org/Professional-Practice/FWET

Learning Environment Indicator DTR Graduates All Novices Other DPS

LE1: Student Communities and Culture 4.58 4.24 4.79

LE2: Motivational and Respectful Environment

5.05 4.69 5.27

LE3: High, Clear Expectations 4.94 4.50 5.28

LE4: Resources and Physical Environment 4.84 4.67 5.15

Note: The Framework score ranges are: Not Meeting, 1-2; Approaching Effective, 3-4; Effective 5-6; Distinguished, 7. The highest average score attained across all domains was a 5.28 for Other DPS teachers.2

TABLE B2

Framework Learning Environment Indicators

2 The average observation rating data shown in all tables represent 33 DTR graduates, 307 novice teachers, and 3,876 other DPS teachers.

http://www.denverteacherresidency.org

http://leap.dpsk12.org/Professional-Practice/FWET


1332 N. HALSTED STREET, SUITE 304

CHICAGO IL 60642

312.397.8878

WWW.UTRUNITED.ORG

UTRU MISSIONLaunch and support a network of high-performing residency programs

dedicated to preparing highly effective urban public school teachers

that will transform educational practices nationwide.

11.2014/pdf/[email protected]

www.utrunited.org

mailto:jh.design%40rcn.com?subject=

executive summary: november 2014 building...

Documents