Appendix 5-4

A Rubric for Assessing the Qualities of Partnerships
Between Schools and Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher Education

 

 

Melissa Price

 

New York Higher Education Support Center for SystemsChange

Syracuse University

 

 

Updated April 22, 2004

 

This document was based on responses from the New York Task Force on Quality Inclusive Schooling at statewide meetings held in Albany, New York on April 11, 2003 and October 3, 2003. New York Higher Education Support Center for SystemsChange is supported by The New York State Education Department’s Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities and Syracuse University. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position or policies of these organizations, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

             With sponsorship from the New York State Education Department Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities and the support of The Higher Education Support Center for Systems Change (HESC) at Syracuse University, the Task Force Quality Inclusive Schooling was established in 1996. The Task Force consists of representatives from New York State schools and professional development organizations who work with higher education professionals from over 65 New York State institutions of higher education. Task Force member institutions commit to the two Task Force goals:

 Members of the New York Task Force on Quality Inclusive Schooling worked together at two statewide meetings (April 11, 2003 and October 3, 2003) to identify critical elements and the varying qualities of these types of partnerships as they have experienced them. As Task Force feedback was considered, a number of quality indicators seemed to emerge. 

1.   The nature or degree of shared vision for, and commitment to, learning and teaching.

2.   Membership of the collaborative teams who enact the partnership.

3.   The nature and degree of collaboration in policy-making and governance regarding teacher preparation and in-service professional development commitments.

4.   The nature, purpose, and extent of communication between partners.

5.   The degree to which the partnership is institutionalized.

6.   The quality and nature of partnership planning.

7.   Quality of partnership implementation in light of the benefits to teacher preparation programs.

8.   Quality of partnership implementation in light of the benefits to schools.

9.   Nature and extent of ongoing partnership assessment and refinement.

The purpose of this document is to assess partnerships between schools and institution of higher education teacher preparation programs. By focusing on specific quality indicators, this rubric may be used to help assess these partnerships for a variety of purposes:  

  1. When used as a self-assessment, it may serve as a pre-program needs assessment from which an action plan can be drawn.
  2. It may serve as an ongoing self-assessment.
  3. It may serve as an observational tool for individuals seeking to learn more about such partnerships.

The value of the matrix form is to identify some likely stages in partnership development. Certainly, as partnerships mature other quality indicators and manifestations of successful partnerships may emerge. Partnership participants, observers and evaluators should consider this document to be an approximation of current best practices.


Scoring matrix directions:

Scoring Grid

Partnership Member Institutions:_______________________________________________________________

Date:_____________________________________________________________________

Person(s) Completing this Assessment:___________________________________________________________

 

Dates this matrix was completed:

 

 

 

 

Quality Indicators

 

 

 

 

#1  Shared vision

 

 

 

 

#2  Membership

 

 

 

 

#3  Collaboration

 

 

 

 

#4  Communication

 

 

 

 

#5  Partnership is institutionalized

 

 

 

 

#6  Partnership planning

 

 

 

 

#7  Benefits to IHE

 

 

 

 

#8  Benefits to school

 

 

 

 

#9  Assessment & refinement

 

 

 

 


A Rubric for Assessing the Qualities of Partnerships
 Between Schools and Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher Education

 

 

Quality Indicator #1:
The nature or degree of shared vision for, and commitment to, learning and teaching

 

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • No vision — or each has a vision, which are disparate and/or immutable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • A common vision exists but it doesn’t inform decisions.
  • Individual members share ownership of the vision and the vision informs decision-making.
  • All members and the institutions/organizations represented share ownership of the vision, which serves as a basis for decision-making and continual assessment, including resource allocation.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Indicator #2:
Membership
of the collaborative teams who enact the partnership

 

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • A non-focused team with limited representation.

 

  • A non-focused team with representatives from some of the following groups: institution of higher education leadership and faculty, school leadership and faculty, community membership and families as well as State Education Department representatives in staff development, school reform and quality assurance.
  • A focused team with wide representation from some of the following groups: institution of higher education leadership and faculty, school leadership and faculty, community membership and families as well as State Education Department representatives in staff development, school reform and quality assurance.
  • A focused team with wide representation from all of the following groups: institution of higher education leadership and faculty, school leadership and faculty, community membership and families as well as State Education Department representatives in staff development, school reform and quality assurance.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Indicator #3:

The nature and degree of collaboration in policy-making and governance regarding teacher preparation and in-service professional development commitments
(Collaboration — Equally valued membership and participation)

 

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • Superficial interaction between the parties with incidental coordination of events.

 

 

  • Planning and coordination of activities chiefly for the benefit of one party or the other.

 

  • Short-term planning and coordination of mutually beneficial activities planned by a few individuals.

 

  • Long-term planning and coordination of mutually beneficial activities with full engagement and commitment of all individuals and the institutions/organizations represented.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Quality Indicator #4:
The nature, purpose, and extent of communication between partners
(Communication — verbal and/or written)

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • Communication is spontaneous and inconsistent.

 

  • Limited, but reliable communication is initiated primarily by one party or individual and/or is typically narrowed to problem solving or negative issues.
  • Mutual communication between consistently responsive parties or individuals typically addresses immediate or short-term needs.
  • Communication is characterized by consistently used and available channels for sharing ideas and information in ways, which contribute to the overall promotion of partnership goals.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Quality Indicator #5:
The degree to which partnership is institutionalized
(Institutionalization of the partnership — Sustainability — Resource allocation)

 

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  •  Interactions are random and limited to contact between individuals.
  • Interactions are limited to a few representatives who act in the name of their institutions without the support of resources.
  • Interactions occur between representatives with some support from their institutions in the form of acknowledgement, release time or compensation in recognition of the mutual benefit.
  • Benefits of the partnership are so integral to the well being of each institution/organization that all employees view themselves as representatives whose engagement in partnership activities is an expected component of employment, fully supported by resources.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Quality Indicator #6:
The quality and nature of partnership planning

 

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • Short-term plans are developed independent of consideration for shared vision and/or collaboration with partners.
  • Short-term plans are developed to address immediate needs of one party or another without full consideration of the shared vision.
  • A collaborative team focused on a shared vision develops plans for mutually beneficial short-term activities.
  • Representatives, who have the full support and the resources of their institutions/organizations, plan mutually beneficial activities within the framework of extensive and ongoing collaboration consistent with the shared vision.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Indicator #7:
Quality of partnership implementation in light of the benefits to teacher preparation programs

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • Individual faculty projects or student field experiences are negotiated independent of institutional (school and/or IHE) involvement.
  • Faculty projects and student field experiences are developed and implemented in collaboration with school personnel with sole respect to the needs of the teacher preparation program.
  • Faculty projects and student field experiences are collaboratively developed and implemented with school personnel in consideration of the needs of the school and the teacher preparation program.
  • Representatives who have the full support & the resources of their institutions/organizations implement mutually beneficial faculty projects and students field experiences within the framework of extensive and ongoing collaboration consistent with the shared vision.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Indicator #8:
Quality of partnership implementation in light of the benefits to schools

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • Professional development and school reform/improvement plans are negotiated with individual faculty members or completely independent of institution of higher education involvement.
  • Professional development and school reform/improvement plans are developed and implemented in collaboration with institutions of higher education representatives based solely on the needs of the school.
  • Professional development and school reform/improvement plans are collaboratively developed and implemented with representatives of higher education in consideration of the needs of the school and the teacher preparation program.
  • Representatives who have the full support & the resources of their institutions/ organizations implement mutually beneficial professional development and school reform/improvement plans within the framework of extensive and ongoing collaboration consistent with the shared vision.

Evidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Indicator #9:
Nature and extent of ongoing partnership assessment and refinement

1
Drawing Board

2
Evolving

3
Established

4
Exemplary

  • No consideration is given to the assessment or refinement of the partnership.
  • The quality of the partnership is informally discussed when difficulties or successes are noted by outside observers and refinements are discussed.
  • The quality of the partnership is assessed periodically in light of documented difficulties and/or successes and refinements are discussed for implementation.
  • Assessment and refinement of the quality of the partnership is designed and systematically conducted to reflect progress toward the collaborative planning and implementation of mutually beneficial activities consistent with the shared vision of the school’s and institution of higher education’s teacher preparation program.

Evidence: