Please update your web browser or disable Compatibility View.

Partnership Progress Report: 2000-2005

July 2005

“(Collaboration represents primarily a means by which interested parties can better serve the needs of educating our youth.”(S. Trubowitz & P. Longo, 1997)

RATIONALE

Institutional Mission. The College of Saint Benedict (CSB) and Saint John’s University (SJU) are dedicated to liberal arts education, valued as the center of “disciplined inquiry and a rich preparation for the professions, public life and service to others in many forms of work” (Academic Catalog 2003, p.3). As Benedictine institutions, CSB/SJU strive to prepare students for life-long ethical leadership and service, with the institutions being connected to off-campus communities and programs that work to promote peace, justice, and the common good. Developing and maintaining vital partnerships with communities of learning, and with P-12 schools in particular, is a valuable facet of our connection to community.

It is essential that the college and university are involved in partnerships that endeavor to support P-12, pre-college education. Clearly colleges are indebted to elementary and secondary schools for the quality of the prior education of its entering students. Also, as schools and the global world face increasingly complex challenges and declining resources, it is imperative that institutions of higher education intentionally collaborate with community schools in preparing students academically. Furthermore, collaboration aims to promote ethical and wise leadership, service, and education to improve human and environmental conditions.

Education Department Mission. The Education Department’s conceptual framework describes “a vision of human educational decision-making based on appropriate professional knowledge, grounded in Benedictine values, and focused on the essential goals of meeting the needs and enhancing the lives of all students.” We believe that as a teacher education department we are fundamentally committed to all students. The partnership report that follows demonstrates our attempt to aim the mission of this philosophy and make it real through the guidance of our students and through collaborative efforts with K-12 schools. In fact, we deem it essential that exceptional teacher education programs must function in contact with the real world of the classroom/school. To do otherwise would be to deprive “prospective teachers of necessary contact with reality” (Trubowitz & Longo, p. 34). Furthermore, because teacher education programs are a vital stepping stone in the lifelong development of the teacher, partnerships with schools provide the necessary opportunities for “ongoing efforts of both college faculty and public school staff to provide nurturance, knowledge, and security to ensure continued professional growth” (p. 34). Continued teacher support through various efforts within partnerships is another way of honoring our commitment to the development of all students.

Fundamental to the goal of serving the needs of all students is effective decision making on the part of those who guide and work with students. It is imperative that “teachers should actively participate in the decision-making process” (Conceptual Framework: Theme). To do this meaningfully demands that opportunities be provided for candidates to practice the process of decision making in the real world of the classroom. To do this effectively calls for the collaborative efforts of the Education Department, mentor teachers, school administrators, K-12 students, and additional college/university departments and programs.

It is the aim of the Education Department to work with partner schools toward a shared vision of quality education for all students and to develop mutually beneficial programs in which the enterprise of each institution is “informed by the needs and practices of the other” (Levin, 1997, p. 64). Furthermore, it is the intent of the Education Department to build meaningful partnerships that will ensure that candidates have exposure to diverse student populations and valuable opportunities in quality field experience programs.

Field Experience: We believe that by developing intentional, purposeful partnership programs we address the many considerations of quality field experience programs. McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx (1996) describe many of these considerations. For example, they note that candidate’s “familiarity with the context masks their potential vision of alternative” (p. 173), and that student teachers must participate with the many communities that exist in a school if they are to develop into a reflective practitioner. Our intent has been to examine this and other considerations in order to fully integrate best practice into the field experience programs.

The Education Department recognizes that building and maintaining partnerships is a continual process that demands cooperation, commitment, time, resources and assessment. Building and maintaining partnerships in this particular geographic area necessitates focus on two important considerations. First, because the surrounding area is fairly rural with most schools enrolling predominately white students, we must creatively seek meaningful diversity opportunities for our candidates. Second, the presence of other teacher education programs in our area places significant demands on the same community schools for field experience opportunities.

We realize the necessity to also creatively deal with these considerations. Addressing issues of diversity is an ongoing focus. We regularly seek input of our partner and cooperating schools, responding to their unique knowledge of the constantly changing world of the elementary, middle, and secondary classroom. As the Education Department continues to move forward with partnership building and development, we recognize, as Boyce Williams (1997) suggests, that we need to take a proactive stance as we strive for excellence in regard to planning for and continuing collaborative ventures. Undergirding the proactive stance advocated by Williams are the beliefs that:

  1. Collaboration must be planned.
  2. Collaborative activities must have a shared vision.
  3. Collaborative activities must have a shared language.
  4. Collaboration is built on trust and understanding (p. 91).

We also recognize that a proactive stance must consider that “reciprocity is key and it must be addressed early and reviewed regularly (Trubowitz & Longo, p. 45). These principles serve as our guide to ensure the success of efforts to initiate and sustain meaningful collaborative efforts intended to help prepare students for academic success, wise decision making, leadership and service in a complex and ever-changing world.

References

College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University. Academic Catalog: 2003-2005.

Education Department. (2000) Conceptual Framework.  College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University.  Saint Joseph, MN.

Education Department. (2000) Partnership Plan. College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University.  Saint Joseph, MN.

Levine, M. (1997, Summer). Can Professional Development Schools help us achieve what matters most? Action in Teacher Education, 19 (2), 63-73.

McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.), (pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan.

Trubowitz, S. & Longo, P. (1997). How it works: Inside a school-college collaboration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Williams, B. (1997, summer). Challenges and opportunities for collaboration in teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 19 (2), 89-96.

OVERVIEW

A mutually beneficial partnership that provides a meaningful and reflective field experience enabling candidates to observe teachers and practice decision making in the real world of the classroom while simultaneously serving a purposeful need in the school requires examination and consideration of several principles. Trubowitz & Longo (1997) outline several key indicators that they believe are crucial for success in school-college collaboration. Partnerships might best operate, for example, “on the basis of enlightened self interest” (p. 6) and thus need to be grounded in vision, yet approached with flexibility. Furthermore, a college must avoid mandating what a partnership ought to be. Rather, colleges should recognize the demands placed on principals and teachers, try to support the schools’ articulated needs, and make use of teachers’ practical expertise to guide the development of courses.

The CSB/SJU Education Department endeavors to address particular challenges. For example, we recognize the challenges of a geographic location in a predominately rural, largely white middle-class environment. Teacher candidates need to experience multiple opportunities to practice decision making and be attentively reflective in diverse settings with diverse student populations. Furthermore, training in multiculturalism needs to be connected to the real life setting of the classroom (Powell, Zehm, & Garcia). Another consideration, for example, is that “cooperating teachers greatly inform the student teaching context and also the behavior and beliefs of novice teachers” (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, p. 173). Therefore we must ensure that participants in the collaborative efforts are trained in the collaboration (Williams, 1997) and mentorship process. Furthermore, it is necessary to continually reexamine the field experience program in relation to our courses, the needs of schools, practicing teachers and P-12 students, best practice in relation to field experience, teacher candidate response, and adherence to our conceptual model and NCATE standards for partnership and field experience. And, obviously, each year presents the immediate need to provide approximately 1320 field placements, with as many as 1500 needed for the 2005-2006 academic year. With this complexity of considerations it is evident that a comprehensive partnership plan can only be accomplished and maintained with diligent effort, adequate research, collegial collaboration, institutional support, and time.

This partnership report is a comprehensive document that examines the past five years of activities and development while simultaneously looking ahead to suggest directions for the future. The initial partnership plan written in 2000 presented three phases of implementation. Phase one is reflected in the last five years of activities and development. The Education Department continues phase one work and looks ahead to develop phase two and phase three, which include being responsive to developments that have occurred in phase one. Ongoing feedback and assessment from schools, faculty and students will determine the direction of the next stages of development. Because development is an ongoing process of reflection of and response to ongoing efforts, we will see that some components of the original plan have been implemented, others are in the process, and some are new initiatives.

1. Implementation Phase One was the most comprehensive of the three phases. It intended to address the following goals:

a. Define and describe levels of partnership. The Education Department has defined a flexible guideline for understanding school/college partnerships. There are three levels: formal, cooperative, and networking. A school-college collaborative effort may change level based on the response to the institutions’ needs. The formal partnership level describes intentional and mutually beneficial collaborative efforts designed to further the mission of participating institutions. The cooperative level describes more informal, less intensive relationship with schools that work with the Education Department. The networking level refers to connections and efforts within the college/university institution in order to capitalize on existing resources (Williams, 1997.)

Furthermore, all levels of partnership are describe by the tier in which they function in the overall program (see Attachment B). For example, all Tier One partners are the schools that work with us and provide field experiences for foundation courses. Tier Two schools are those that provide field experience sites in the methods courses. Tier Three schools are all those schools who work with our student teachers.

b. Strengthen and build relationship with schools that will ensure early, continuous, and increasing complex and reflective field experiences in area schools by providing candidates with multiple opportunities to teach and to observe real young people being taught. Such relationships will thus provide experiences and practice teaching from which to promote critical thinking and reflective decision making. The Education Department has continued to build on already existing relationships and furthermore made great effort to foster long term relationships through mutually beneficial field experience programs. In the experience of Trubowitz and Longo (1997), partnership efforts that pursue “mutually beneficial self-interest form the most enduring basis for a collaborative venture.” In this on-going effort, the Education Department continually seeks feedback from our advisory council as well as individually with partnership and cooperative schools to ensure that schools will feel their interests have also been served.

c. Increase field experience opportunities in classrooms with diverse populations. Meaningful multicultural training for pre-teachers must be connected to the real world life setting of the classroom (Powell, Zehm, Garcia, 1996). The Education Department has had an active diversity committee which developed and continues to implement a Diversity Plan to programmatically ensure that all candidates will have the opportunity to work with diverse student populations. (see the Education Department Diversity Plan Progress Report.)

d. Develop unified field experience program that more effectively integrates and connects various courses to the potential field site. Experience in the field has the power to promote critical analysis and reflection on one’s practice as a teacher (Howey, 1996), but it must be coherently connected the content and pedagogical knowledge taught in the college classroom. The Education Department has worked with partner schools to further connect the content of the course work in a more focused manner to the related field experience (e.g., the South Junior High, Holdingford Elementary, St. Boniface Elementary, Literacy Cadre, and Risen Christ K-8 partnerships.)

e. Collect preliminary data for implementation of Phase II. Assessment of partnerships is critical and ongoing. Partnership review occurs in a variety of ways including TEAC meetings, Literacy Cadre meetings, inquiry with key partnership contacts, and K-12 teacher and student evaluations of field experiences.

1. Implementation Phase Two of the plan responds to assessment and feedback of formal partnership schools and cooperating efforts. It may also investigate grant seeking possibilities to further partnership efforts and enhance staff development possibilities. Having established ongoing formal partnerships that have strengthened the field component of the program, the Education Department continues to be open to and examine possibilities to build relationships. Details of this plan will be developed in 2006.

2. Implementation Phase Three is that effort that continues to self-monitor and revisit early agreements or understandings with partner institutions to ensure that pursuits continue to consider the needs and programs of our partners. Furthermore, as programs evolve a new plan must be articulated to reflect changing needs.

References

Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.), (pp. 143-170). New York: Macmillan.

McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.), (pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan.

Powell, R., Zehm, S., & Garcia, J. (1996). Field experience: Strategies for exploring diversity in schools. Englewood cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Trubowitz, S. & Longo, P. (1997). How it works: Inside a school-college collaboration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Williams, B. (1997, summer). Challenges and opportunities for collaboration in teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 19 (2), 89-96.

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ONE

In 2000 the Education Department had been working successfully for several years with many schools, some more intensively than others. Schools have typically responded very positively to having CSB/SJU students involved in their schools, remarking that typically they are well prepared and helpful to have in the classroom. However, at that time we perceived that weakness did exist. One perceived weakness was the requests for placements in the schools came from several individuals within the department, often without shared knowledge of placement requests. Although this problem has since been remedied, it demonstrated the need for a cohesive plan in working with schools. The plan enabled the assurance that teacher candidates would have the opportunity to work with students from culturally, economically, and educationally diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, relationships with schools have developed that have provided these particular experiences for our students. In addition, several faculty worked with school teachers and principals in order to focus the field experience in response to the actual cooperating classroom.

Goal #1: TO DEFINE AND DESCRIBE LEVELS OF PARTNERSHIP

As the plan was originally created it became clear that it would be necessary to lay out a working definition of partnerships that described the distinction of levels in current and potential partnerships. This work came together in part in 2000 and is described in terms of formal, cooperating, and networking partnerships. (See Attachment A for complete description of levels of partnership.) In 2005 we saw a need to also provide a description that will describe how field experiences fit in the CSB/SJU program as a whole. In this regard we set forth a description of the three levels of field experience. Tier One experience are offered through first level (IA) and second level (IB) foundations courses. Tier Two experiences support learning opportunities provided in pedagogy or “methods” courses, while Tier Three “capstone experiences” describe include candidates’ clinical work during student teaching. These descriptions may now be used as a resource for school partners to enhance their understanding of their role in the overall experience of teacher candidates. (Please see Attachment B for the complete tier level description.)

In the 2004-2005 academic year the CSB/SJU Education Department arranged for 1331 student placements in schools at various Tier levels. Of these field experiences, 222 were Tier I 1A placements, 107 were at the Tier I 1B level, 831 were at the Tier II level (methods), and 171 student teaching placements. This large number of field placements at all levels involved working with 149 schools during the past academic year. Attachment G documents these placements. Demographic and diversity information for these schools can be found in our department Web page at Partnerships and Collaborative Schools.

Goal #2: TO STRENGTHEN AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH SCHOOLS THAT WILL ENSURE EARLY, CONTINUOUS, AND INCREASINGLY COMPLEX AND REFLECTIVE FIELD EXPERINCES IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.

The Elementary Education candidate will have up to sixteen course-related field experiences when recommended for licensure. Secondary candidates will have from seven to nine field-related experiences because of a smaller number of methods courses. All students will have had a service learning experience in a school or setting with young people. The capstone clinical experience is the semester long supervised student teaching that occurs when all preparatory course work is completed. Although many area schools had regularly and willingly worked with the Education Department to provide field placements, we now have cohesive and ongoing relationships with several schools that work with our department in particular content areas. This has eliminated the previous semester to semester process of finding placements, which was more haphazard for the department as well as for schools. It has also enabled deeper, more enduring and mutually beneficial relationships to develop between schools and the college/university. Furthermore, formal partnerships help us align the needs of our candidates with those of schools as we work to intentionally connect the content of our courses with the curriculum in classrooms where our candidates practice. Lastly, course-level partnering with schools supports our attentiveness to the needs of those schools. The partnering college faculty person has increased sensitivity to how their partner teacher and school may or may not be experiencing a spirit of reciprocity. Reciprocity is key to ensuring continued success of the teacher education program.

To maximize the possibilities for reciprocity in our collaborative efforts it has been necessary to tap the resources of the college/university. The Education Department specifically, and CSB/SJU in general, have a longstanding presence in area schools. For example, CSB/SJU and the St. Cloud Area Schools have a partnership in The Kennedy Center Performing Arts Centers and Schools: Partners in Education Program. This partnership avails fine arts performances and staff development opportunities to all area schools. Also, Service Learning has a strong presence in the schools, many of them from the Education program. The America Reads program sponsors approximately 33 college students in area schools doing tutoring every year. Fast Forward, a Chicano-Latino-Hispano Outreach Program at CSB/SJU, is a tutor mentor program active in area schools. Upward Bound, a TRIO program funded by U.S. Department of Education on the CSB campus, provides services to low-income potential first generation college students in Willmar, Foley, Apollo, and Tech High Schools who wish to pursue a post-secondary education. The Internship Office also regularly places students in schools for a variety of opportunities. Furthermore, CSB/SJU welcomes all area schools to participate in fine arts programming events, tours of the college and university resources and projects including the Hill Manuscript Museum and Library, The Bible Project, the art galleries, Biology department Greenhouse, Natural Science Museum, and the Prairie Restoration Project and Arboretum.

Because area schools work with pre-teachers in programs from multiple institutions, we view it of particular importance to safeguard schools being overburdened with mentoring and training responsibilities. Therefore, it is critical that our program be sensitive to the demands placed on teachers and ensure that they are appreciated for the vital work they do with candidates. Furthermore, schools must feel the benefit of involvement in partnerships with the colleges/universities.

Objective #1: Mutually develop, strengthen, and maintain formal partnerships with area schools that build and support the pre-teacher field experience program that strive to meet NCATE standards for partnership.

  • NCATE standards were the driving force of the plan
  • CSB/SJU has responded to individual partner school’s needs to determine level of participation and roles with particular schools. See individual school binders.
  • Communication with teachers and administrators is ongoing; partnerships are not static.
  • Faculty from 205, 212, 213, 315, 333, 318, 325, 334, 347, 358, 356, and 355 and Jeanne Cofell act as liaisons with school teachers and leaders. Melissa Dick is liaison for 361; Del Brobst is liaison for all 362 and 363.
  • Teacher Education Advisory Council (TEAC) Representation has consisted of individuals from partner schools. In the spring of 2005 the TEAC advisement was linked to particular partnerships. (See Attachment C for the TEAC advisement groups for 2005.)

Objective #2: Improve existing cooperative efforts.

  • Procedures have been established for requesting placements for methods courses and 205 (now 212). (This already was in place for student teaching.) This includes request letters, information sheets and follow-up letters. (See Diversity Education Partnership Binder for examples.)
  • Examples of collaborative efforts include all field experience projects, culture days, urban immersion , Dr. Art Spring’s 318 culture fairs, Dr. Ed Sass’s consulting work with Rocori School in Cold Spring, Dr. David Leitzman’s and Dr. Spring’s consulting work on differentiated instruction with Holy Family Elementary, Dr. Leitzman’s attendance at 742 community meeting on ESL, Jeanne Cofell’s committee work on middle school considerations with the Saint John’s Preparatory School, Sandy Bot-Miller and curriculum review at the St. Joseph Catholic School, Dr. Leitzman’s review of 205 field at Risen Christ K-8, Dr. Lynn Moore’s Literacy Cadre
  • EDUC 356 Kennedy Elementary School Spanish Club piloted (See Kennedy School Partnership binder.)
  • Cosponsor and host Young Authors Conference: If I Had a Magic Pen; approximately thirty participating schools
  • See Attachments E and F for a more detailed description of collaborative efforts and activities.

Objective #3: Investigate ways to make formal partnerships mutually beneficial.

  • TEAC meetings in which we sought significant feedback from principals and teachers and other ongoing conversations with them.
  • Teacher Education Advisory Council (See attachment C)
  • Education Department faculty development opportunities expanded to be made available to all partnership school faculty and administrators (Valeria Silva, speakers on Somali culture, Winona LaDuke)
  • Culture days
  • Service learning projects in schools
  • Significant and longer term field experiences particularly EDUC 205 and student teaching
  • Networking connections including Fine Arts Programming, America Reads, Upward bound, Fast Forward, Literary Arts Institute, Service Learning and internships
  • Dr. Lynn Moore’s presentation to early childhood teachers on emergent literacy. Dr. Moore also spoke to Central MN Reading Council on literacy coaching.
  • For more details please see 2003-2005 Partnerships in Attachments E and F.

Objective #4: Strengthen liaison with mentor teachers and school administrators.

  • Dr. Moore’s Literacy Cadre
  • 2005 TEAC meetings (See Attachment C.)
  • EDUC 358 Culture Day
  • Acquired complete science (Holdingford Elementary), reading and literature (District 742), art (St. Joseph Catholic School), and math (St. Boniface Elementary) curriculum of partner schools for Education Department Library.
  • Increased communication with principals and teachers regarding field experience expectations including, in some courses, letters sent detailing times, dates, etc.
  • Ongoing meetings with teachers and principals for introductions, clarifications, and review
  • Thank you bread gifts
  • Staff development opportunities (Diversity)
  • Faculty and staff presence on local and state k-12 related organizations, e.g. Dr. David Leitzman: Safe Schools Healthy Students, GRIP, and volunteering as a judge for several middle school speech events. Another example is mentioned under Objective #3 with Dr. Lynn Moore’s work. One more example is Dr. Art Spring’s staff development work with the St. John’s Preparatory School.

Objective #5: Network with college/university to support K-12 partnerships and cooperatives.

  • Faculty representation on America Reads Council Committee
  • Education Department liaison with Fine Arts Programming
  • Institutional Development, 2001 Ad Hoc committee with Jeanne Cofell and more recent inquiry by Ann Marie Biermaier, OSB
  • Fast Forward
  • Food Service
  • Courageous Kids
  • Upward Bound
  • Service Learning
  • Peace Studies Department
  • ESL
  • Arboretum
  • Museums
  • Greenhouse
  • Spanish Department
  • German Department
  • Libraries
  • Events
  • Admissions
  • Literary Arts Institute

GOAL # 3: TO INCREASE CLINICAL EXPERIENCE IN CLASSROOMS WITH DIVERSE POPULATIONS

For a more detailed report on diversity efforts please see the Education Department Diversity Plan Progress Report. Please note that much of the following is repeated in some fashion in that report.

The Education Department Diversity Plan ensures that all candidates have the exposure to diverse student populations that will adequately prepare them for current urban classroom teaching and for classrooms of the future. Implementing this vision has required the collaborative efforts of our institution, area schools, urban schools and area youth organizations. The Education Department Diversity Plan Progress Report indicates that diversity experiences are now structured and thus ensured in the program experience of elementary education candidates. The development of opportunities for secondary candidates also progressed and was piloted in spring of 2005.

Objective #1 Identify diversity opportunities already existing but underutilized in formal partnership and cooperative schools

  • Diversity statistics have been made available
  • School within a school and alternative programs have been investigated
  • ESL response at Avon
  • Service Learning
  • ESL opportunities explored in area middle and high schools, needs follow-up
  • Investigating ways to respond to needs at Lincoln and South for greater support for the diverse learning needs
  • Numbers of education students in America Reads has increased over the years.
  • Partner schools’ input on considering ESL licensure
  • Ruby Payne workshop

Objective #2: Build on existing campus programs and sites and explore options for new local and off-campus opportunities that might involve our candidates in working with minority populations in educational settings.

  • Fast Forward has been systematically part of field experiences through Service Learning
  • Additional Service Learning opportunities structured into EDUC 111
  • Urban Immersion
  • Exploration of ELL opportunities in local schools

Objective #3: Continue to develop formal partnerships with schools that can provide education candidates’ exposure to diverse student populations and also provide education regarding appropriate opportunities for all learners.

  • Urban Immersion partnerships with Risen Christ K-8, St. Bernard Elementary, EXPO Elementary, and San Miguel Middle School for elementary candidates
  • Patrick Henry High
  • De LaSalle High
  • Central High
  • Lincoln Elementary
  • Talahi Community School
  • Madison Elementary School
  • Investigated immersion opportunities for secondary and k-12 in St. Paul schools
  • Talk with Richard Bohr in Asian Studies regarding Asian experience
  • Ann Marie Biermaier, OSB’s visit to Calcutta to explore potential for K-12 involvement with the Loreto Day School
  • Del Brobst exploratory work with German and Austrian schools
  • Conversations with Osseo, Anoka Hennepin, Little Falls. Student teaching only.
  • Conversation with the Principal of Ascension School
  • Domestic study abroad option on hold
  • Faculty development opportunities and reading on diversity issues
  • For more details on recent partnership work with and in schools, please see Partnership Updates in Attachments E and F.

GOAL #4: TO DEVELOP UNIFIED FIELD EXPERIENCE PROGRAM IN COLLABORATION WITH PARTNER SCHOOLS THAT MORE EFFECTIVELY INTEGRATES CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND REFLECTIVE DECISION MAKING.

In the fall of 2001 the State of Minnesota began requiring all elementary and secondary teachers to be licensed at the middle level. Anticipating this shift in licensure, the Education Department clearly needed to respond to the new licensure configuration by readying students for middle level teaching. In 1999 a partnership with South Junior High was initiated with the intent to create a high quality field experience program for middle level pre-teachers. We feel that the partnership with South is one of our most successful ongoing partnerships. In part this is due to the input from South’s faculty and administrators in the design of the field experiences, their participation in college courses, and their valuable and ongoing input in the content of the courses. (See Attachment D for a description of the South Junior High Partnership and the South Partnership Binder for more details.)

The Diversity Education Partnerships involve several schools, all integrating analytical and reflective components on issues of diversity. The Education Department has provided and attended on site staff-development workshops on ELL and racism at Risen Christ School. Furthermore the members of the Department visited the classrooms at that school and met with teachers. In the spring of 2005 the members of the Diversity Committee visited all the elementary urban plunge schools. These experiences have increased communication with participating teachers and unified the Education Department on the elementary urban plunge experience so that faculty may better integrate reflective and analytical components into teacher candidates experience. Furthermore, as part of the Diversity Education Partnership, all school faculty from participating schools have been invited to staff development opportunities on the CSB/SJU campus. Education Department faculty and administrators also attended these workshops. An intensive effort was made to develop field experiences that responded to school teacher requests for longer candidate visits. We are pleased with the Diversity Education Partnerships and find that the school response has been very positive. They are pleased with the more sustained nature of the teacher candidate experience in their classrooms and suggest that their K-8 students benefit from the presence of CSB/SJU students. (See Diversity Education Binder for more details.)

Objective #1: Conduct a departmental analysis of how content, pedagogical, and decision making knowledge are integrated into field experience.

  • Tier structure: Tier One includes all foundation field experiences, Tier Two includes all methods course field experiences, and Tier Three includes student teaching. (See Attachment B and TEC minutes of May 2, 2005).

Objective #2: Work with partner schools in developing and/or implementing their respective plans for effective integration of technology in K-12 teaching.

  • See the technology report for more details on technology and specific courses and field experiences.
  • Art Spring in EDUC 318 inquired with participating teachers at Lincoln Elementary on how EDUC 318 teacher candidates might assist with technology projects in the classroom. The field experience consisted of active work with elementary students on technology projects.

Objective #3: Develop an agreed upon guideline for developing and implementing the field experience component of each course.

  • Partner schools provided valuable information and considerations in implementation of field experience components.
  • Curriculum purchase in consultation with partner teachers and schools in the areas of literacy, math, science and art.
  • Faculty communicate regularly with partner school principals and teachers, e.g. Cultures Fairs, other methods courses, etc.
  • Almost all field experiences have been aligned to school considerations based on communication with school faculty and administrators

GOAL # 5: TO COLLECT PRELIMINARY DATA FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE II.

Data collection is continuous and ongoing. Phase II of the Partnership Plan will be developed in 2006.

ATTACHMENT A

Formal Partnership Level: The partnership report specifies the more formal and intensive relationships with schools as our Formal Partnership Schools. These schools are chosen based on historical relationship, geographic location, and the individual school’s interest in working with our program. Formal Partnership Schools are schools that we enter into formal agreements with to do the following: 1) mutually develop collaboration that can act in the interests of each institution, 2) create a school-university partnership working team which will define goals and determine a vehicle for communication, 3) outline an assessment/reflection process for review, and 4) advise the Education Department via the Teacher Education Advisory Council. The partnership working team discusses and plans development and implementation of projects and programs with a sense of "enlightened self interest" (Trubowitz & Longo, 1997.) that may include commitments to mentoring and training of candidates, staff development, sponsorship of events, training on issues of diversity, site improvement, tutor programs, student enrichment, and a flexible response to needs and considerations as they arise.

An example of a Formal Partnership School as defined in this plan is the collaborative effort with South Junior High School. This partnership was planned and implemented in 1999-2000 with the pilot middle level teacher training program. This program focuses on the middle level student, middle level philosophy, and content and pedagogical training for the middle level teacher. In 2000-2001, in response to program assessment, the partnership with South evolved into a reflective, active observation program that introduces the candidate to all aspects of a middle level program including all content areas, team meetings, teacher preparation, and after school activities. The principal, social worker and teachers have had regular presence in college classrooms. South Junior High and CSB/SJU also have collaborated on site improvement, Fast Forward (a tutor-mentor program for Chicano-Latino-Hispano students), Fine Arts programming, and teacher candidate led Culture Days featuring China, Africa and Australia. (See the South Junior High Partnership binder for further details on this collaborative effort.)

n addition to a formal partnership with South Junior High that focuses on middle level educational considerations, the Education Department has relationships with other schools that are considered on the formal level of partnership. The Education Department has a Diversity Education Partnership with a cluster of schools in inner city Minneapolis and St. Paul that provide an urban immersion experience for all elementary teacher candidates. There are similar partnerships in the developmental process for an equivalent secondary experience. In addition to the “urban plunge” schools, we also have diversity education partnerships with four local schools that consistently provide field experience sites for a sustained local experience. (See Diversity Education Partnership binder for further details.) We have a math education partnership with St. Boniface Elementary School. (Please see the St. Boniface binder for further details.) We have an elementary science education partnership with Holdingford Elementary School. (Please see Holdingford binder) We also have an art education partnership with St. Joseph Catholic School. (Please see the St. Joseph Catholic School binder.) We have developing partnerships with two sites for social studies education. Furthermore this year was the second annual meeting of the Literacy Cadre, a group of teachers from various schools from District 742 who participate with and advise on literacy education issues and teacher education. (Please see the Literacy Cadre Binder.)

Cooperating Level: The partnership plan identifies Cooperating Schools as those that play an important role in the quality of our field experience program, but do so less extensively than our Formal Partnership schools. Cooperative schools host pre-teachers for field experiences, often participate in college/university sponsored opportunities, and may have a presence on the Education Department Advisory Council. In an ongoing process the Education Department continues building relationships with Cooperative Schools by learning more about their programs, sharing knowledge, mission statements, diversity statistics and plans, consulting with school teachers and administrators, and developing cooperative projects as needs arise.

Categorization of a Cooperative School is not static; that school may move into Formal Partnership Status as school and/or college interest and need indicates. For example, Madison Elementary and Talahi Community School had both worked in the past with the Education Department on a less formal, cooperative basis, but now participate every semester in diversity education by providing field sites for teacher candidates.

Networking Level: The networking level describes the working relationships within the college/university. The Education Department recognizes the need to continue networking and building relationships within the college/university in order to better support K-12 formal partnerships and cooperatives. In the partnership report the term Networking refers to relationships and connections within the college/university that are available to build and maximize partnerships. The Education Department has intentionally networked with several departments within the institution including but not limited to Service Learning, ESL, Peace Studies, Fast Forward, Fine Arts Programming, Literary Arts Institute, Admissions, and America Reads.

ATTACHMENT B

TIER THREE: CAPSTONE EXPERIENCES

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a synthesis of professional standards in practice.

Candidates are provided an intensive full-semester experience in at least two licensure appropriate levels that integrates practice across disciplines and addresses all aspects of professional practice; to provide intentional experience applying tier one and tier two experiences and theoretical learning with youth in the classroom; to provide opportunities for student assessment based on holistic application; to support a transition from role of student to that of reflective practitioner with related professional responsibilities including attention to diversity in community and classroom contexts.

Courses with field experience at this tier: EDUC 361, EDUC 362, EDUC 363

Supportive academic course at this tier: EDUC 359, EDUC 390

TIER ONE: FOUNDATIONS EXPERIENCES

OBJECTIVE: For prospective candidates to have immediate practical experiences – some with at-risk students – in a variety of settings to discern their commitment to these professional programs.

This includes reflection on standards based learning outcomes. All experiences provide scaffolding for Tier II practicums.

1B. This level of the tier provides a sustained guided classroom experience including a full week experience in a diverse urban setting with structured reflection on diversity model theories as seen in practice.

Courses with field experience at this level of tier one: EDUC 200, EDUC 203, EDUC 205, EDUC 212, EDUC 213, EDUC 215, EDUC 310.

1A. This level provides experience in two settings, including one with at-risk populations to see if direct service to school age youth might be a fitting choice for prospective candidates.

Courses with field experience at this level of tier one: EDUC 108, EDUC 111

Supporting academic courses at this tier: EDUC 105, 107, 109, 150, 151

TIER TWO: METHODS EXPERIENCES

OBJECTIVE: To provide candidates with immersion in discipline-specific professional practice at appropriate licensure levels.

Candidates are provided with the following opportunities: focused observation and analysis of diverse student needs; collaborative planning, implementation, assessment and reflection guided by instruction, research, and by professional and content standards; application of technology and teaching and assessment opportunities.

Courses with field experience at this tier: EDUC 313, 315, 318, 325, 333, 334, 336, 340, 341, 342, 346, 347, 354, 355 (all), 356, 357, and 358 (all).

Supporting academic course at this tier: EDUC 216

Supportive academic course at this tier: EDUC 216

Samples of Related Activities by Tier:

Tier III:

  • Final check point for writing (EDUC 359)
  • Management plan (EDUC 359)
  • Preparing for the profession: rules and regulations, job hunting,
  • Managements paper that integrates one or more diversity models
  • Introduction to Sleeter and Grant
  • Diversity curriculum project
  • Intensive reflection
  • Teacher conferencing
  • Faculty meetings
  • Team teaching
  • Lesson planning
  • Differentiated instruction
  • Classroom management
  • Parent conferencing
  • Work with paraprofessionals
  • Varied assessments
  • Portfolio development that addresses inclusion, special services, demographic profile, two-week unit addressing diverse groups, post unit reflections, management skills

Tier II:

  • Lesson planning
  • Focused observation
  • Professional content standards
  • Right brain/left brain
  • Gender issues in the classroom
  • Special needs
  • Poverty awareness
  • Rural issues
  • Learning styles
  • Differentiated instruction
  • Application of technology
  • Assessment opportunities
  • Exposure to cultural issues
  • Various and multiple functioning of the middle schools
  • Unique structural component to elementary, middle and secondary schools
  • Authentic assessment
  • Rural, suburban and urban
  • Private and public
  • Technology and teaching
  • Interdisciplinary unit
  • Culture fair
  • Linguistic diversity, Shirley B. Heath
  • Techniques for accommodating diversity
  • Reflection
  • Collaboration with classroom teachers
  • One-on-one work with k-12 students
  • Group work with k-12 students

Tier I:

1.B

  • School demographics
  • Awareness of issues and sensitivity toward working with diverse student populations
  • Reflection on one week sustained experience (thirty hours urban

diversity immersion for all licensure levels)

  • Three week extended experience (thirty hours) in classroom for elementary licensure level
  • Awareness of theories of learning
  • Awareness of diversity models: Banks and McIntosh
  • Recognize use of Motivation techniques
  • Analysis of teacher practice as it relates to theory
  • Classroom techniques
  • Formal teacher interview
  • Standards based awareness
  • Scaffolding for tier II
  • Demands for increased critical thinking
  • Challenging prospective candidates stereotypes about learners
  • Perry?
  • Piaget
  • Vygotsky
  • Checkpoint for writing (EDUC 310)

1A.

  • 30 hours with at-risk youth (service learning) with reflections on SEP based learning outcomes
  • Exposure to Ruby Payne, Banks and McIntosh and linguistic differences
  • One full week teacher shadow experience
  • Checkpoint for writing (EDUC 111)

ATTACHMENT C

Teacher Education Advisory Council: Literacy Cadre: A Community of Practice:

The second annual Literacy Cadre meeting was held on April 5, 2005. All participants were given When Writers Read by Jane Hansen. Following dinner, small groups convened to discuss several topics. These topics included what kinds of writing skills students need to develop, approaching different genres, developing voice in writing, pre-teacher activities in and beyond the classroom, staff development, and making the most of the swinging pendulum of educational trends. In addition, several teachers shared specific strategies to strengthen literacy and simultaneously build community. Furthermore, strategies for interdisciplinary learning and literacy were shared. Lastly, this community is committed to supporting the opportunity for classroom field experience for students in EDUC 347. In this regard there was discussion on the role of the teacher in hosting the CSB/SJU students and inquiry on how to best support the pre-teachers. The participating teachers responded very affirmatively to their experiences in hosting EDUC 347 students. They find the students to be very well prepared, and they enjoy the exchange of ideas that takes place when they host pre-teachers.

Teacher Education Advisory Council: Social Studies Area of Focus:

On May 9th, 2005 a council comprised of Education Department faculty, local 7-12 social studies teachers, CSB/SJU political science and economics faculty, and former Education Department social studies graduates convened to address issues in social studies education. The conversation opened with a discussion on issues and questions that might be addressed to assist potential candidates in discerning if the area of social studies is indeed the field of their vocation. Next there was a significant discussion on how the Education Department might promote and deepen interdisciplinary thinking in the area of social studies. How might, for example, the Department facilitate pre-teachers' examination of issues, for example poverty, from a political, historical, psychological and economic perspective. This was dubbed the Grand Unified Theory of Social Science. Furthermore, there was considerable conversation of the potential for the Education Department to build a social science community of learners as an effort to support more intensive social science conversation and a greater sense of community for social science majors. Lastly, the council focused on the existing need to provide a comprehensive world history background for social studies pre-teachers.

Teacher Education Advisory Council: Natural Science Area of Focus:

On May 11, 2005 the Natural Science branch of the Teacher Education Advisory committee convened for discussion on the Holdingford Elementary School science partnership. The assembly began with a presentation on the Conceptual Framework of the Education Department. This was followed by a discussion on the range of different practicum that CSB/SJU elementary education students have over four years and the role Holdingford Elementary plays in the overall picture. Members of the CSB/SJU faculty then sought specific feedback from the participating teachers on the program. Topics included how CSB/SJU teacher candidates are prepared and how this might continue to build, scheduling, teacher recommendations for improvement and commendations on how well prepared the students are, and what the partnership might do to help Holdingford teachers teach science.

ATTACHMENT D

South Junior High Partnership Description

The College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University (CSB/SJU) Education Department and South Junior High School (South) have cooperated in educating teachers for several years. Previous to participating in a formal partnership, South had hosted CSB/SJU students for pre-admission clinical experiences and for music methods. South has also hosted candidates for the full student teaching experience. In 1999 a more formal and focused partnership emerged.

Two major forces provided the impetus for CSB/SJU Education Department and South to work towards a formal partnership. At that time there were changes in Minnesota teacher licensure that required the Education Department to provide middle level content and pedagogy for all elementary, secondary and K-12 candidates. The department wanted to provide high quality field experience in schools which had intentionally and successfully integrated middle level philosophy into their programs. South has accomplished this very successfully. The national focus on college/university collaboration with partner schools and K-12 learning and performance based assessment gave the Education Department an opportunity to examine partnerships within the context of the middle level program and field experiences already negotiated with South.

In the spring of 1999 the chair of the Education Department approached the principal of South to inquire if there was interest in developing a closer relationship between the two institutions. South already had a longstanding relationship with the Education Department and a strong commitment to middle level philosophy. The principal, Mr. Dave Earp, responded very favorably, and meetings began in the summer of 1999. The partnership proposal was brought to South’s team leaders and department chairs, who, in turn, received feedback and suggestions from the middle level teachers. CSB/SJU faculty attended additional meetings in an effort to establish relationships, increase communication, and seek teacher input on course and field experience requirements.

During this time the Education Department also attended the district superintendent’s cabinet meeting to share the partnership proposal and enlist the support of the district administration. This was achieved and a formal statement was drafted. A copy of the signed agreement as well as a letter of agreement to the expansion of partnership activities is provided in the South Partnership Binder.

A two component field experience program for teacher candidates was piloted in the fall of 1999. Students from the education courses 354 and 357 (now 358) completed a one-week observation and a one-week practice teaching experience. Candidates became members of established teaching teams at South. They were integrated into all content areas for the observation component of the practicum and assigned specific host teachers for the practice teaching component. The teachers provide mentoring and feedback for the candidates.

Following this initial pilot effort the Education Department sought out responses from candidates and the school’s cooperating teachers in order to evaluate the program. Several changes based on this feedback were made for the next semester. The most extensive change was to utilize South Junior High for only one component of the middle level field experiences. South was identified as an ideal school site for the first component of the field experience, that is, a reflective observation practicum experience that would expose the candidate to all aspects of the middle school. Because of South’s rotating flexible schedule and the use of teams, candidates would have the opportunity to experience most content areas as well as music, art and physical education. This experience would give the candidate a realistic picture of how a middle level program functions. In addition to observing and participating in multiple content areas, candidates could participate in team meetings and take part in after-school activities. South was responsive to this change and in the fall of 2000 forty-four candidates went to South for a one-week guided reflective observation experience.

On December 2, 1999, following the initial pilot field experience, the assistant principal and several teachers from South provided an informational workshop on South’s program for all middle-level faculty and staff of the Education Department. This workshop included mission statement, middle level development, the advisor program, the master schedule, teaming, interdisciplinary units, discipline, and school climate. South shared a wealth of resources. Much of the information received from South was integrated in the EDUC 354 and 357 (now 358) curriculum. Each semester some of the information handouts received from this workshop at south are distributed to the candidates in EDUC 358.

Each semester the principal of South, Mr. Dave Earp, comes to campus to teach part of the 358 course. He addresses the issues of middle level philosophy, introduces the Turning Points recommendations, and presents the mission of South Junior High. He describes special programs, explains the team concept, and relays the rewards, challenges and responsibilities of working with middle level students. Also, other faculty and staff from South have come in to teach portions of EDUC 354 and 357 and 358.

The second component of the middle level-field experience, the practice teaching experience, is now embedded in two “Culture Day” events each year. At one of the Culture Day events South Junior High students attend a day of cultural enrichment activities on the CSB campus. Pre-teachers from EDUC 358 involve students in inter-disciplinary lessons and activities reflecting a particular country’s literature, geography, society, contributions to math, and science. In the past few years Culture Days have featured Africa, China and Australia.

Additional collaborative events are ongoing. In 1999 and 2000 Education Department members with expertise in needs assessment, statistical analysis and research survey matters were active on the South Site Improvement Committee.  In addition, South Junior High is part of District 742. District 742 Community Schools in partnership with the College of Satin Benedict was selected as one of 14 schools nationwide to participate in the Kennedy Center Performing Arts Centers and Schools: Partners in Education Program. The purpose of the partnership is to enhance the integration of the arts into the K-12 curriculum by collaboratively providing quality professional development opportunities for educators. All District 742 teachers are able to attend participatory workshops. South, as a participating partner school, is able to participate in the Education Series, which includes fine arts programming and education workshops. Furthermore, all South teachers and administrators are invited to a staff development workshop on diversity issues each year. Also, we are hoping that in the 2005-2006 academic year CSB/SJU teacher candidates may be able to assist in the ELL program at South and provide assistance to students whose first language is not English.

The CSB/SJU Education Department is very pleased to be able to work closely with South Junior High, a school committed to continued growth and attentive response to the changing needs of the middle level students. The partnership established between CSB/SJU and South Junior High helps the candidates be better prepared for their future occupations. The Education Department looks forward to continued collaboration with this dedicated and enthusiastic team of teachers and administrators.

ATTACHMENT E

Partnership Update: 2003-2004

EDUC 315, 318 and 333.

ST. JOSEPH LAB SCHOOL:

I met with Sue Scipioni in June of 2003 to review and clarify the transitional plan. This academic year, 2003-2004, is the last year of the three year transitional plan. In this review Sue confirmed that they would plan to host EDUC 315 and EDUC 318. It was Sue’s best guess that the upcoming change in principalship would not affect the transitional plan. I then met with Ginger Vance, the new principal, in August. The purpose of the meeting was primarily for introductions and to discuss the school–college relationship. At that time I reviewed the transitional plan with her and she indicated that we should go ahead as planned. Art Spring, Sandy Bot-Miller and I then communicated about the upcoming year and both indicated to me later in the semester that they had contacted Ginger and made plans to go ahead with their courses’ practicums at the St. Joseph Lab School. S. Ann Marie and I met with the principal and faculty on June 1, 2004 to thank them and review the year. There was general discussion on the partnership and the transitional plan. In addition to answering several questions we determined that Susan Huls will seek staff response on the possibility of having her spring EDUC 318 students at the Lab School. Also, the music teacher is willing to host S. Christine Manderfeld’s students, but it is more difficult for her to do this in the first semester. Christine will need to work with her on this. Furthermore two questions arose out of this conversation. The first question was whether we will be offering any type of religious education methods course in the future. The other question related to staff development opportunities. The faculty at the Lab School would be very interested in assistance with staff development on the new mental health requirement and the new reading requirements.

EDUC 318.

ROCORI CULTURE FAIR:

In the spring semester Art Spring met with me to inform me that he did not have adequate classroom participation to enable his students to have an ideal experience at the Lab School without great inconvenience and imposition on the participating classrooms. At this time Art proposed that as part of EDUC 318 he would conduct a “Saudi Day Fair’ and invite the Rocori Middle School to participate. This would be in response to an initial inquiry by a Rocori teacher about the possibility of doing some type of fair with his school. Art conducted all negotiations with Jake Zauhar, the teacher who had initially contacted him. I worked behind the scenes communicating with events, food service and Art. I also assisted during the event with evaluations. We had a very successful Saudi Day on April 21 in which we hosted 111 students and 4 teachers form Rocori Middle School. The quality of the teaching experience that I evaluated was exceptional. The middle level students learned the fundamentals of the Arabic language, Saudi customs, food and much more. This effort supports the middle school learners and teachers, our pre-teachers and also our efforts on diversity.

LINCOLN ELEMENTARY:

The transitional plan with the St. Joseph Lab School outlined 2003-2004 to be the last year the EDUC 318 would send students there for the 318 field experience. Dr. Spring’s preference would be to work with Lincoln Elementary to develop a partnership that could provide field experience sites for his students and hopefully concurrently benefit Lincoln students as well. I discussed the possibilities with the principal, Carol Wellen. She graciously took the question to her faculty, but was concerned that because she is retiring, a new principal will be on board in the fall. She was reluctant to go forward too quickly with this not yet knowing who the new principal would be and simply being aware of how a transition such as this may complicate a partnership effort. At the present time we currently have 5 teachers at Lincoln who will work with Art in the fall. I will contact the new principal during late summer or very early fall, and we will move forward as able. Clearly we will need to find another site or simply send out placement requests for the fall. Other possibilities are being discussed with Dr. Spring.

EDUC 354 and 357.

SOUTH JUNIOR HIGH AND ST. JOHN’S PREP MIDDLE SCHOOL: CULTURE DAY

This past year we hosted two additional culture fairs with two other middle schools. On October 14th we hosted 60 students from South Junior High school and on Feb. 24 we hosted 60 students from St. John’s Prep Middle School. The CSB/SJU faculty in EDUC 357 and I met several times throughout the year to plan and carry out these events. I coordinated communication with the contact teacher by phone and email at each site to arrange event details such as geographic topic, dates, bussing, evaluations, etc. I also arranged for facility, food, feedback, etc. The theme of Africa was coordinated with each school to fit into their geography curriculum. All pre-teachers presented an integrated active lesson in their content area surrounding an African theme, be it math, social studies, language arts, or science. At the same time the middle school students were able to participate in an enjoyable experience on a college campus that integrated their middle level curriculum in new and adventuresome ways. We had very successful days and the participating schools have each enthusiastically agreed to participate next year as well. Please see ATTACHMENT E1 for a detailed reflection on Africa Day by Art Spring.

SOUTH JUNIOR HIGH: PRACTICUM

The practicum for EDUC 354 takes place in a one week visit to South Junior High School where all students participate in the classrooms and conduct active focused observations. Because of the high number of students enrolled in EDUC 354 we often have had to request overflow placements in additional area middle schools. Nonetheless, even with other schools’ wiliness to host students we still have very high number at South, which can become cumbersome for the South teachers. The evolution of the partnership with South Junior High included the designing of a field experience that specially responds to South’s middle school philosophy and scheduling. This enables the CSB/ SJU students to get a broad picture of the middle school experience in the week that they are at South. They will join a team and may, for example, see several classrooms in different content areas and meanwhile get a taste for the integrated learning and teacher cooperation that is occurring. They also participate in any before school team and school meetings.

Also, as part of the introduction to the practicum at South, Dave Earp comes to speak to the 354 students. This adds an informed and valuable continuity to the field experience. For these reasons, we prefer students to have their field experience at South. In the spring of 2004, Earp cautiously approved hosting the full number of students in EDUC 354. Following the spring practicum Dave stated his belief that CSB/SJU students would have a more valuable experience if fewer students would be at South at one time. To respond to this concern, the middle level faculty and I met initially to discuss the problem and brainstorm possible solutions. We them met with Dave Earp on April 26. Although other issues were discussed as well, a plan was formulated by which two separate groups will come to South during two separate weeks. Dates were set for Sept. 20-24 and Sept. 27-Oct. 1, 2004. Dave felt this would be better overall and felt it would not be burdensome for South.

District 742

On December 17, Maryjean, Del, Melissa and I met with Mark Mortrude and Chris Wilger from District 742 to learn more about the required criminal background checks, and volunteerism as it relates to our courses. Methods students and student teachers are required to have the background checks. All background checks go to Linda Loso in the district office. These must be redone if they are over 1 year old. The 205 and 108 students and any additional college student volunteers need to fill out the volunteer forms before they start the local field experience. All volunteer forms should go to Chris Wilger. Once they have done this in the district they are good for 2 years. If a 205 or 108 student wants to continue to volunteer in the classroom upon completion of the course requirement, that person would contact the volunteer coordinator, Joyce McDonald.

EDUC 325.

ST. BONIFACE

In late May of 2003 I met with S. Sharon Waldoch, the new principal at St. Boniface, to introduce myself and discuss the partnership with St. Boniface. I followed this up with a phone communication in the early fall. At this point Jake Knaus began communicating with S. Sharon and in his pleasant, congenial way, worked with S. Sharon to coordinate the field experiences at St. Boniface.

EDUC 213

In response to the Diversity Committee’s need to develop secondary and K-12 diversity field experience options, I contacted local ELL school teachers. The intent is to create one week intensive ELL assistant positions or possibly 30 service learning sites in which our secondary and K-12 education minor students could do direct work with ELL high school or middle level students. I talked with Angie Schrose at South, Ellie Josephs at North, Susan Peterka at Apollo and Becky Zabinski at Tech. All teachers indicated the great need for assistance with varying responses on how this might occur with CSB/SJU. In the upcoming year I will need to finalize arrangement with teachers and principals to respond to the teachers’ suggestions and our program needs. Please see ATTACHMENT E2 for details outlining these conversations.

EDUC 356..

KENNEDY ELEMENTARY: SPANISH CLUB

This spring I met two times with Tom Andert, OSB to discuss the unusually high number of students in the 356 course. With unprecedented number of students in the course, we anticipate that there will be difficulty in finding practicum placements for all students if the 356 practicum is structured as it has been in the past. The challenge is to provide a valuable field experience, yet one that works in the students’ schedules and considers local school teachers’ load. Because elementary schools do not typically have language programs, we are necessarily limited to language programs in the middle schools. However, South Junior High and Rocori Middle School, for example, have cut their language programs due to budget cuts. Therefore the number of schools is quite limited, with limited programs. At this time we are pursuing the development of an after- school Spanish Club at Kennedy in which Elementary Education majors would plan and conduct Spanish lessons. (Most K-12 minor students have EDUC 355 World Language at the after-school time period.) I proposed our thoughts to Diane Moeller, principal of Kennedy, and she was very supportive of the idea. On a follow up phone call, Diane and I clarified some of the questions Tom and I had formulated. Diane will plan to write a Targeted Services grant in later August or early September in an attempt to get funding to pay a teacher to supervise the students and for materials and supplies. We may also need to use some partnership funds for supplies as well. Final details are pending.

EDUC 347.

LITERACY CADRE:

In the spring Dr. Lynn Moore approached me in a continuation of the ongoing discussion about the field experience for EDUC 347. It has sometimes been a challenge to find enough teachers to host a 347 student, but this is now more difficult after the closing of McKinley last year. Lynn had nurtured a positive relationship with the school and its teachers for several years.  Those teachers are now scattered throughout the district. Lynn’s goal is to create a cadre of teachers who are literacy leaders in district 742 who would advise Lynn and mentor 347 students. She envisions a group that would meet yearly or semiannually for lively conversation, as Lynn says, “on ways to unite the instruction of college students with that of the learning needs of elementary students.” Hopefully some educational opportunities might arise for the group as well. The initial meeting of the Literacy Cadre was on June 8, 2004. Although some teachers in the initially planned cadre were unable to be there, this was a very successful and uplifting meeting. The teachers were extremely positive about working with Lynn and her students.  They contributed greatly to the discussion. Several issues were clarified on expectations regarding the practicum for Lynn’s course. The discussion included best practice and modeling, emergent literacy, literature circles, guided reading, writing, and many other topics as they relate to teaching and learning. Teachers provided recommendations for videos. The group noted that teachers desperately need to be freed up on occasion from their classroom so they can observe and participate in each others’ classrooms. The consensus was that there is much expertise in the district and much to be learned from their colleagues, but it is unavailable because of the current demands on scheduling and workload.  They wondered if there would be any way that the Education Department might assist with this. The teachers recommended several other teachers to be invited into the Literacy Cadre and indicated that they would look forward to another meeting.

Dress Code Considerations.

As part of my work with partnerships I served on the Dress Code committee. I responded to the issue of CSB/SJU student professional dress as related to partnerships because of comments I had heard by local principals and teachers. Because I heard references of their concerns about how visiting college students (not necessarily CSB/SJU students) occasionally dress themselves, I was aware that school perceptions of college students dress had the potential to become a partnership issue. Working with Ed Sass, Sandy Bot Miller, student Nick Nannen and Dave Leitzman, we made a recommendation in the spring of 2004 for a statement on professional dress to be included in the department’s Teacher Education Handbook and in our student teaching handbooks.

Staff Development.

On May 17, 2004 the Education Department sponsored the workshop ELL Students in the Mainstream Classroom: No Time to teach Language separate from Content. Not only a faculty development workshop, this was also a professional development opportunity offered to our partnership school teachers and administrators. In communication with Ms. Silva, I created a flyer for the event and sent it out to our local partnership schools and several individuals. I also worked with events and food service to arrange the meeting facility and the lunch.

Jeanne Cofell

ATTACHMENT E1: Feb. 24, 2004 reflection by Art Spring following the Feb. 24 Africa Day:

On the whole, I was tremendously pleased with the work that went into the Fair this year, and very proud to be a part of it. I have some reflections below which I want on record so we (I!) do not forget them for the succeeding years. Here they are for my own edification and you can look over my shoulder approvingly or disapprovingly! These are mine and carry no criticism of anyone else. They are my meditations to spur me on to greater Fairs.

  1. This business of having our students master a given content of some depth and then find the means to present it efficiently and effectively in a brief period of time under the eye of an evaluator is a very valuable experience. They DO have to learn to master a content.
  2. For 3 semesters now, I have meant to say that food has to be incorporated more meaningfully into the lessons and some academic preparation for eating it made a part of the lessons. Some ceremony about food ought to be instituted.
  3. The single most frequent flaw I saw was the failure to name the SJP students by name and to praise them by name. This despite the fact that they were wearing name tags. In the entire morning, only 8 students were named in my presence. In two of three classes no students were named. This is a serious though understandable omission. But we would not last a day here if we didn’t name students, so it is not a modeling problem.
  4. We need to insist on more SJP student involvement in questions: 1. by asking more and 2. by listening to the answer and getting a small conversation going from the answer.
  5. We need to reflect on more repetition of key points and in a variety of media/manifestations: blackboard, block printing on a piece of paper, visuals etc.
  6. We need to work more on the visual, tactile and kinesthetic modes and on student action as a means of classroom control (stand up; stretch out your arms etc) Some of our own teachers are already quite good at this, but not enough of us.
  7. We need to work more on models and “realia”  (bottles and beads!).
  8. We need perhaps 3 or 5 posters per room. They should be part of preparation for the class—weeks ahead.
  9. We need to think of how we might use the inhospitable welcoming space more fully. This is the most difficult problem to think about for all the years I have been with the fair.
  10. We need to work on CLOSURE with a visual reference (kids can see the closure in addition to hearing it). This closure is particularly important because we have a number of CLOSURE people as cooperating teachers in the student teaching profession in St Cloud. I know how difficult it is and fail at it regularly myself.
  11. We need more faculty involvement from here. In some way it has to be a department thing.Maybe Dave, S Lois, S. Christine and S. Ann Marie and Del etc could help us. If we get enough, it won’t take much involvement. But it is essential to have students evaluated by a number of visions of what good teaching is.
  12. I saw good use of student involvement sheets and booklets. A good way to get attention off teacher.
  13. When I did Peace Corps Teacher Training, we had a rule 75% of talking, action in a classroom (after introduction of material) had to be students.
  14. We might emphasize again that a key element in problem solving (and teaching) is breaking down into smaller units.
  15. From my wife: a major suggestion of co-operating teachers here is that students learn to balance technique and over-all purpose or aim repeatedly.
  16. We have to continue to hammer at projection and the creation of a persona.
  17. I really enjoyed seeing the students and thought this a valuable apprenticeship for student teaching.
  18. The music worked well, the slides went down the tubes.
  19. The SJP faculty were troopers for doing so much evaluating with us.
  20. AGAIN: We have to solve the vestibule problem. Maybe a folding mechanism that can be folded up and re-used with a different dressing or sauce each year.

I saw a stunningly beautiful class on the mathematics of water—my naming. It was stunning for the following reasons (which might be elements in a good class—my perspective!).

1. The Pacing was discriminating and beautifully managed. There was no time to disrupt or fade away because of the skill and timing with which things were thrown the students’ way. The key to the pacing was a beautifully organized and visually stimulating series of slides (with humor and mystery thrown in—that was how students were involved, solve the mystery!).

2. The lesson was a familiar problem set in an African context: changing quarts to liters was the problem. A quick 4 slides identified Africa and the locus of concentration (Lesotho) The slides were from a Peace Corps site. This business of changing context is important.

3. No one element of the 45 minute class lasted more than 12 minutes. The lesson was clearly broken into smaller parts—great problem solving. Also, You had to move to avoid being left behind. From the students’ faces, the problems were just the right problems for them. Engagement was total!

4. Gallon jugs and liter bottles were there for realia. An involvement packet of some sophistication was quickly distributed, and the teachers moved around the room (3 teachers) as though they were only 1 person.

5.The lesson introduced not only math, but the African setting, the role of Peace Corps volunteers in the setting, and the problem of conservation. It introduced in math: calculation, averaging, conversion, and graphing including the elements of graphing. It concluded with higher order thinking of the kind not done enough here or anywhere.

6. A public record was kept on a white board of major moments in the class. Very helpful for closure.

7.The lesson encouraged higher order thinking:

  • Compare usage in Lesotho and USA
  • Imagine what it would be like to live in Lesotho
  • Give suggestions for solving water issues in Africa—and in our own over-consumption

8. The key to the lesson’s success was the students’ complete absorption from beginning to end—and their refusal to let the lesson end before they had solved their graphing problems. There was NO fidgeting, yawning, whispering throughout

9. The first half of the lesson was multi visual presentation with still to be perfected questioning (some attention to praise and follow up questioning and repeating of answers is necessary in all of us); the second half was group involvement with natural and mature scaffolding and involvement by the student teachers in each group. Each group was a well functioning machine and one forgot the student/ teacher dichotomy as one watched the group.

10. There was an aura of calm self confidence in the teachers. If they had any nervousness at all,it didn’t show.

ATTACHMENT E2:

Notes on conversations with local ELL high school teachers in late fall of 2003.

ELL School Contacts Fall 2003

South

School

Contact

response

30 hour

1 week

#students?

South

Angie Schrose

YES

Yes

?

Possibly 2 per semester

Angie works with Kathy Brobst at South with ELL students. She would be very happy to have students from EDUC 111. She could probably take 1 student in the morning block and 1 in the afternoon. If the students could work a couple of hours at a time, that would be great but she is also flexible. Some of the scheduling would depend on how often a student could come in, etc. It is also possible that a position could be to assist ELL in the mainstream classroom – science labs, math tutoring, etc. Or it could be some combination of time her room and time in the mainstream classes. It could also be just in her classroom. I inquired only about the 30 hours service learning part of the field.

North

School

Contact

response

30 hour

1 week

#students?

North

Ellie Josephs

YES

Yes

 

Ellie is “absolutely” interested in having our students. She could envision them in “tutor/observer” positions. She could also see them doing much tutoring in the areas of math and homework, etc., which is something the ELL teachers do not have time for. She also feels that a certain amount of observation is very important.

She would have students assisting in the ELL classroom. She does not see them assisting in the mainstream classroom with ELL students. Ellie feels that in the mainstream the ELL student needs to concentrate on speaking and listening. Many kids are having trouble keeping up in the mainstream classroom. Many of her kids are from Chicago.

She would like it clearly laid out for her and for the CSB/SJU students what would be expected.’

She could envision taking 2 middle students who need help and putting them back to back time wise for 1/2hour each and the CSB/SJU students would work for 1 hour with the students and then do ½ hour of observation. She could probably take 1-2 per semester depending on the number of ELL students and how it goes.

Apollo

School

Contact

response

30 hour

1 week

#students?

Apollo

Susan Peterka

Unlikely, but there may be an opportunity in the Math classroom with ELL students

Math?

Math?

Apollo is on a 7 day schedule so there are possible scheduling conflicts.

Susan could be flexible but she really wants students here for a minimum of 2-3 weeks, otherwise they get no true picture of what goes on. Sometimes when they have had college students come in for short periods of time, these students have seen only a bit and it can often be an atypical couple of hours, It has happened that these same students have then gone back and badmouthed the program back at SCSU. They are very hesitant to have students come in for this reason. Furthermore it does a disservice to Apollo. People who come in for a longer time see the bigger picture, student teaching, for example, would be the ideal. As Susan said, “this is our life’s work.” So she does not want students to come in for the one-week experience. She does not think this would benefit her program and may actually hurt it.

Susan did, however, mention a tutor possibility. She suggested contacting Eileen Jungbauer, who is a math teacher. One of her math courses meets from 8:30-9:20 and has many ELL students in it. In this class there are a large number of students struggling with math and there is a high need for one-on-one work. She recently had an ELL teacher in her classroom but no longer does. Susan is sure that if students came in for the 30 hour service learning position they would want consistency. In other words, they would want someone every day. For example, everyday during the class from 8:30-9:20, one student could come in T/TH and another M./W. I will need to talk with Eileen Jungbauer about al this.

Message left with Eileen Jungbauer. She has not returned my call.

Tech

School

Contact

response

30 hour

1 week

students?

Tech

Becky Zabinski

YES

Yes

yes

Becky said there is always a great need and she is open to multiple options. Both the 1-week options and the 30-hour service learning option are possibilities.

Becky could see opportunities for CSB/SJU students to be in the mainstream classroom where the ELL students are. Tina Lahr would need to approve this. They would be present to help in any capacity. So, for example, students might spend 30 hours in a math, civics, keyboarding, or science classroom tutoring ELL students. Some of these students need constant help.

She would want them there for the 50 minutes classes everyday OR on a very clear schedule. Two classes in a row would also be possible.

Another possibility is the Boys and Girls Club. Becky and another teacher work there 2 nights a week to help with homework. They always need help in this regard.

I still need to call, or am waiting to hear from,

  • Eileen Jungbauer, math teach at Tech
  • Dave Earp, principal at South
  • Pat Welter, principal at North
  • Tina Lahr, Assistant Principal  at tech
  • Mary Walker, ELL Coordinator for 742

 

ATTACHMENT F

Partnership Update 2004-2005

Professional Development Opportunity: Education from an Indigenous Perspective: Winona LaDuke:

On June 14th, 2005 Winona LaDuke, Native American author and activist presented two workshops to the Education Department and partnership teachers and principals. The workshops addressed such issues as threats of cultural extinction, promoting the self determination of Native American youth, and promoting environmental ethic in the classroom. All partnership teachers and principals were invited to attend free of charge.

Young Authors Conference May 18, 2005:

In the fall of 2004 the Education Department was approached by Resource Training and Solutions, a local organization providing resource and training opportunities to P-12 schools. They inquired if the CSB/SJU Education Department might sponsor a conference for young authors. The response was a resounding yes and the wheels were set in motion to provide space and support for the event. Several departments on campus assisted with support for the event including Events and Conference, Dining Services, Fine Arts Programming, and the Education Department. On May 18th, 2005, If I Had a Magic Pen: Young Authors Conference welcomed 12 published authors to present to 465 students in grades 4-6 and 96 adults from approximately 30 schools.

On May 27th, 2005 two members of the Education Department met with the organizer from Resource Training and Solutions to review the year’s conference and plan ahead for 2006. Based on the outstanding success of this year, the Education Department plans to sponsor this fantastic opportunity for local students in 2006.

Spanish Club (EDUC 356):

In the fall of 2004 EDUC 356 students put a Spanish Club into action at Kennedy Elementary, a school that is not able to provide Spanish courses because of lack of funding. Seven students from EDUC 356 coordinated an after-school club that met two times per week for part of the fall. Essentially there were three clubs: grades one and two club, grades three and four club, and grades five and six club. This allowed the pre-teachers to more effectively plan and implement lessons and activities appropriate to the age range of the participants. The principal of Kennedy and the faculty for EDUC 356 reviewed the club as a definite success with nine pre-teachers working in the after school club with fifty-eight elementary students.

District 742:

On April 14, 2005, three members of the Education Department met with Mark Mortrude, Kris Wilger and Linda Loso from District 742 to facilitate the field placement process and meet the requirements of District 742. All volunteers, CSB/SJU students on every Tier level (Attachment B) will now require background checks before working in the classrooms of 742. Furthermore, the Education Department was informed of the Teacher Candidate Checklist, including the “Right to Know” sheet, the Employee Drug and Alcohol Testing form and the Acceptable Use Guidelines form. The Department will continue working with District representatives to facilitate a cooperative process on field placements.

Culture Days: Australia:

On November 30, 2004, The Education Department welcomed to our campus approximately 75 middle school students from South Junior High for a morning of cultural enrichment activities. Pre-teachers from EDUC 358 had the opportunity to involve students in inter-disciplinary lessons and activities about Australian literature, geography, society and science.

On April 19, 2005 the Education Department hosted an Australian Culture Day for 64 students from St. John’s Preparatory Middle School. This was integrally related to the current geography unit that the middle school’s students were currently studying. In a partnership of space, one half of the event took place on the CSB campus and the other half at the St. John’s Prep Middle School. Again pre-teachers from EDUC 358 had the opportunity to do interdisciplinary lessons and activities relating to literature, geography, social science and math as related to Australia.

South Junior High: a Valued Middle School Partnership:

In addition to the Australian Culture Day  when approximately 75 students from South Junior High came to the CSB campus to participate in interdisciplinary activities (described above), there were 112 placements on site at South. Of the 104 placements that were from methods courses, 88 of these placements were for the middle level methods courses. While this valued partnership has been ongoing for several years, this year the distribution of the CSB/SJU students in the field experience for the middle level methods courses was changed. In the past all students visited South Junior High in one intensive week to see all aspects of the middle school experience. This year the pre-teachers were split into two groups that each went for a separate week. This change was implemented to respond to the suggestion of the principal, who thought that it would supply a better and more formative experience for the pre-teachers while simultaneously reducing the load experienced by the South faculty when too many CSB/SJU students were at the school at one time. In each week students participated in a whole range of the middle level experience including the team approach, interdisciplinary approaches, and area of specialty courses and non-area of specialty courses.

Lincoln Elementary and Social Science:

In 2003-2004 a member of the faculty at Lincoln Elementary brought to the attention of the Education Department that Lincoln currently has a large at-risk population of students including homeless youth, children with refugee background, ELL students, etc. In communication with Lincoln faculty, Art Spring examined how students in his EDUC 358 course might be of assistance to ease the enormous demands placed on the dedicated Lincoln faculty and simultaneously benefit from the tremendous experience of working with the youth in the school. Four Lincoln teachers worked with Dr. Spring in the fall and spring semesters to bring EDUC 318 pre-teachers into Lincoln. Dr. Spring responded that this was a tremendously valuable experience for the pre-teachers. The teachers answered that they are very interested in continuing this partnership endeavor. (See Attachment F1 for an excerpt of Dr. Spring’s letter to Lincoln teachers.) Mr. Jake Knaus will continue working with Lincoln teachers while Dr. Spring is on sabbatical.

Social Science and St. Mary Help of Christians:

St. Mary Help of Christian, a K-6 school in St. Augusta, is working with Dr. Spring to provide field experience opportunities for pre-teachers in the EDUC 358. In addition to experiences at Lincoln Elementary, pre-teachers go into all classrooms at St. Mary Help of Christians. The principal at the school is very supportive of having CSB/SJU students in the classroom. She articulated that it supports the exchange of ideas and methods between teacher and pre-teacher as well as provides role modeling for the k-6 students to begin thinking of themselves as college students.

Staff Development: Differentiated Instruction at Holy Family School:

Three members of the Education Department met with the staff at Holy Family School in Albany for an exploratory gathering to look at the school’s desire to gain knowledge of differentiated instructional strategies. Dr. Leitzman and Dr. Spring met two additional times with the teachers, principal, media specialist and title teacher from the district to provide training on differentiated instruction. Although the past year has been one of readying for the schools’ upcoming accreditation process, one teacher reported back that they have indeed tried various means to practice a more differentiated approach to instruction and hope to further this initiative.

Teacher Education Advisory Council: Literacy Cadre: A Community of Practice:

The second annual Literacy Cadre meeting was held on April 5, 2005. All participants were gifted with the book When Writers Read by Jane Hansen. Following dinner, small groups convened to discuss several topics. These topics included what kinds of writing skills students need to develop, approaching different genres, developing voice in writing, pre-teacher activities in and beyond the classroom, staff development, and making the most of the swinging pendulum of educational trends. In addition, several teachers shared specific strategies to strengthen literacy and simultaneously build community. Furthermore, strategies for interdisciplinary learning and literacy were shared. Lastly, this community is committed to supporting the opportunity for classroom field experience for students in EDUC 347. In this regard there was discussion on the role of the teacher in hosting the CSB/SJU students and inquiry on how to best support the pre-teachers. The participating teachers responded very affirmatively to their experiences in hosting EDUC 347 students. They find the students to be very well prepared, and they enjoy the exchange of ideas that takes place when they host pre-teachers.

Teacher Education Advisory Council: Social Studies Area of Focus:

On May 9th, 2005 a council comprised of Education Department faculty, local 7-12 social studies teachers, CSB/SJU political science and economics faculty, and former Education Department social studies graduates convened to address issues in social studies education. The conversation opened with a discussion on issues and questions that might be addressed to assist potential candidates in discerning if the area of social studies is indeed the field of their vocation. Next there was a significant discussion on how the Education Department might promote and deepen interdisciplinary thinking in the area of social studies. How might, for example, the Department facilitate pre-teachers examination of issues, for example poverty, from a political, historical, psychological and economic perspective. This was dubbed the Grand Unified Theory of Social Science. Furthermore, there was considerable conversation of the potential for the Education Department to build a social science community of learners as an effort to support more intensive social science conversation and a greater sense of community for social science majors. Lastly, the council focused on the existing need to provide a comprehensive world history background for social studies pre-teachers.

Teacher Education Advisory Council: Natural Science Area of Focus:

On May 11, 2005 the Natural Science branch of the Teacher Education Advisory committee convened for discussion on the Holdingford Elementary School science partnership. The assembly began with a presentation on the Conceptual Model of the Education Department. This was followed by a discussion on the range of different practicum that CSB/SJU elementary education students have over four years and the role Holdingford Elementary plays in the overall picture. Members of the CSB/SJU faculty then sought specific feedback from the participating teachers on the program. Topics included how CSB/SJU teacher candidates are prepared and how this might continue to build, scheduling, teacher recommendations for improvement and commendations on how well prepared the students are, and what the partnership might do to help Holdingford teachers teach science.

Math Partnership: St. Boniface:

In 2004-2005 fifty EDUC 325 math pedagogy pre-teachers did field experience work at St. Boniface Elementary. Although the relationship with St. Boniface elementary is solidly a math partnership, the principal of the school recently notified the director of partnerships that they are in need of a faculty development training on current research in teaching science at the elementary level. Because the Education Department endeavors to respond to the real needs of our partnership schools, the elementary science faculty person was notified and he responded with interest. The science faculty person is making arrangements to conduct a faculty development workshop at the St. Boniface School. It is tentatively planned for fall of 2005.

An Art and Music Partnership: St. Joseph Catholic School:

In the spring of 2004 the Education Department Chairperson and Director of Partnerships met with the principal and faculty at St. Joseph Catholic School (SJCS). The preceding year had concluded a three year transitional process that moved the school from a fee for service partnership into the current model of partnerships as reflected in all other partnerships with the Education Department is involved. The meeting convened in an effort to promote feelings of good will, encourage questions and conversation, and be available to provide any clarification that might be needed. During this past year SJCS was involved with the Education Department in providing field experience sites for EDUC 315 Art Education and EDUC 333 Music Education. The school has also decided to be a student teaching site. In addition, several students volunteered at the SJCS, many America Reads student workers provoked tutoring, and 24 EDUC 111 students did service projects working directly with the elementary students.

Saint John’s Preparatory School Partnership:

As an on-campus middle and high school with international students, this rich and diverse partnership provides several opportunities for collaborative activities. For example, Dr. Art Spring presented a staff development workshop at the Prep School on May 23, 2005. He presented on interdisciplinary teaching and learning and Benedictine values. Also, on February 24th and April 26th Jeanne Cofell joined with parents and faculty to discuss two topics including the writing program and Catholic Benedictine values in an academic setting. Additionally, Ann Marie Biermaier, OSB is currently serving on the search committee for the new Head of School at St. John’s Preparatory (SJP). As well as Education Department faculty involvement at SJP, there has been significant collaborative student involvement also. In addition to the Culture Day: Australia, as mentioned above, which involved 39 CSB/SJU pre-teachers and 66 SJP students, there were 23 methods students from eight methods courses and four student teachers involved in many SJP classrooms.

Diversity Immersion for K-12 and secondary candidates (EDUC 213):

The diversity immersion week experience for K-12 and secondary candidates will be required starting in 2005-2006. This year, although the experience was optional, there were six students participating in the experience. The foundation for a partnership with Central High School in St. Paul, Minnesota, was laid with four students going to this site in the spring semester. One student went to Risen Christ Middle School in Minneapolis.

Diversity Immersion for elementary candidates (EDUC 203):

This diversity immersion experience, already in place for several semesters with three urban schools, was expanded to include a fourth school. EXPO Elementary in St. Paul, Minnesota, joined in partnership with the Education Department and welcomed several CSB/SJU candidates to their school. In addition, four members of the Education Department visited EXPO Elementary, Risen Christ, St. Bernard’s, and San Miguel School, all urban schools, on March 1, 2005. They had opportunities to visit with principals and teachers, visit pre-teachers in the classrooms, and tour school sites.

Admissions partnership:

On December 14, 2004, the Education Department Diversity Committee met with the members of the Admissions team to explore ways that we might support diverse students as they consider their career options and college choices. Considering the wonderful diversity in many classrooms and schools, we endeavor to support diverse candidates who might become teachers and role models for all students. The Admissions team and the Diversity Committee explored ways we might offer this support, including partnering with urban middle and high schools and hosting students for exploratory days on the CSB/SJU campus with some Education Department involvement.

Describing Field Experiences:

Although the Education Department has previously described partnerships in terms of formal, cooperating, and networking partnerships, we felt there was a need to also provide a description that will relay how field experiences fit in the CSB/SJU program as a whole. In this regard we set forth a description of the three levels of field experience (foundations methods, and capstone) and the objectives at each level. This description may now be used as a resource for school partners to enhance their understanding of their role in the overall experience of teacher candidates. (Please see Attachment B for the complete tier level description.)

Attachment F1

Review of Lincoln Elementary Experience.

Excerpt from a letter sent to the teachers at Lincoln Elementary by Dr. Art Spring.

Our students had a wonderful learning experience with all three classes, as they had earlier with Bert's class. They were not only enthused about what they had done, but they had the clear sense that they had faced a challenge in getting to know the students to whom they were assigned sufficiently to make connections and motivate and that they had learned from the challenge something valuable about this process. I think more than any other experience in the schools I have been involved with lately, this experience was a bona fide learning experience for our students and one which gave them a flavor of who students are and what kinds of address one must make to them to win their confidence, channel their energy, and motivate them to succeed.

I know from our students, as I saw myself with Bert, that you had done enormous preparation with the students and had given them their tasks. The structure of the class allowed our students just the right opportunity to test their ability to relate in a limited situation to students who had a goal to reach. Everything I see and read tells me that this was a powerful and positive experience for our students.

The fact that the work also involved technology and an electronic presentation was a further plus for our students. For years, we have been telling them that they had to be attentive to the place of technology in instruction and here we had an extraordinary opportunity to see how technology might be used and to test one's mettle in the use. Similarly, their work in Bert's class gave them a chance to move between tangible model and text and supported another major component of our preparation here. It too was a wondrously successful adventure for them.

I am grateful to all four of you for this powerful and enriching experience and hope we can do something similar this second term. Lincoln is an extraordinary laboratory for future teachers and I am thrilled that our students had the opportunity to work with you and your students during this semester. I would consider it a wonderful addition to our efforts to continue this association during the spring semester and thereafter.

Attachment G

School Placements 2004-2005

Comprehensive- Actual

School/Agency

First Year Service Learning

(ED 111)

First Year Teacher Shadowing

(ED 111) ** see note below

Sophomore Year

Elementary Local Field (EDUC 205)

Sophomore Year

Elementary

Diversity Immersion Week

(EDUC 205)

Sophomore

Year

5-12/K-12

Diversity

Immersion

Week (ED 213)

Methods

Practica

Student

Teaching

TIER

Tier IA

Tier IA

Tier IB

Tier IB

Tier IB

Tier II

Tier III

Albany Elementary School

1 (S 361)

Albany High School

2 (S 362)

1 (S 363)

Albany Junior High

1 (F 361)

2 (S 361)

2 (S 362)

Andover High School Andover MN

1 (S 362)

Apollo HS – St. Cloud

1

2 (F 355 M)

1 (F 355 SS)

3 (F 355 E)

2(F 362)

1 (F 363)

3 (S 362)

1 (S 363)

Area Learning Center, District 742

1 (F 355 E)

Avon Elementary School

3 (F)

3 (S)

2 (F 361)

2 ( S 361)

Bendeix Elementary, Annandale

1

Bertha-Hewitt High School

1

Big Lake High School

1 (F 362)

1 S 363)

Big Lake Middle School

1 (F 362)

1 (S 363)

Billings, MO

1

Birch Grove Elem. Brooklyn Park

1 (S 361)

Birchwood High School

1

Bishop Garrigan High School, Algona, Iowa

1

Blaine High School

1 (F 363)

Bluff View Elementary

Brainerd High School

1

Brooklyn Junior High School

1 (S 361)

Cathedral High School – St. Cloud

2 (F 355 WL)

1 (F 355 M)

2 (F 355 SS)

2 (F 355 E)

5 (S 346)

1 (F 362)

Cedar Island Elementary, Maple Grove

1 (S 361)

Central High School, St. Paul

4 (S)

Central Int. School

1

Champlin Park H. S.

1 (F 362)

1 (S 363)

Clearview Elementary School

5 (S342)o

1 (S 363)

Cold Spring Elementary

1 (F)

2 (S 361)

Columbus elementary, Forest Lake

1

Coon Rapids High School

1

Discovery Elementary School – St. Cloud

12 (F 347)

8 (S 347)

4 (S 361)

EastSide Boys and Girls Club

10 (F)

8 (S)

Eden Prairie High School

1

Edina High School

1 (F 362)

Edward Neill Elementary

1

Elk River High School

1

1 (F 355 E)

Expo Elementary

St. Paul

8 (S)

Fast Forward

10 (F)

7 (S)

Farmington High School

1 (F 355 SS)

Foley High School

1 (S 362)

Foley Middle School

1 (F 355 SS)

1 (S 362)

Franklin Elementary School, Mankato

1

Hastings High School

1

Highland Elementary

1

 

Holdingford Elementary

 

 

 

 

 

36 (F 334)

16 (S 334)

 

Holdingford High School

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 SS)

 

Holdingford Junior High

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 361)

Holy Family Elem. Albany

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Holy Family Catholic High

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Howard Lake-Waverly Winsted

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 SS)

 

Jackson Middle School, Champlin, MN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

1 (S 362)

1 (S 363)

Jefferson Elementary, LaCrosse, WI

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Jefferson High School, Alexandria

 

1

 

 

 

1 (F 355 SS)

 

John Metcalf Junior High, Burnsville

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

John XXIII

St. Cloud

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 356)

1 (F 362)

Kaposia Learning Center, S. St. Paul

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Kennedy Elementary

 

3

12 (F)

8 (S)

 

 

9 (F 356)

9 (F 347)

6 (S 347)

3 (F 336)o

34 (F 333)o

25 (S 333)o

3 (S 361)

Kennedy Kidstop, St. Joseph

27 (F)

17 (S)

1

 

 

 

33 (F 313)

17 (S 313)

 

Kimball Junior High

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 362)

Kittson Central Elementary

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Lincoln Elementary, St. Cloud

 

 

 

 

 

12 (F 358)

22 (F 318)

12 (S 318)

1 (S 361)

1 (S 361)

Little Mountain Elem. School Monticello

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Litchfield High School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 362)

Litchfield Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 362)

Little Fall Community High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Maccray East Elementary, Raymond

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Madison Elementary Sch – St. Cloud

 

 

5 (F)

9 (S)

 

 

3 (F 347)

4 (S 347)

3 (F 336)

34 (F 333)

25 (S 333)

7 (S 361)

Madison Kidstop

7 (F)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mahtomedi Middle School, Mahtomedi

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Maple grove High School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

Maple Grove Junior High

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Marshall Senior High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Mary of Lourdes Elem. Little Falls

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Mary of Lourdes Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Melrose Area High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

2 (S 363)

Mississippi Heights Elem. School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Mississippi Heights Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 SS)

5 (S 342)

1 (S 361)

1 (S 361)

1 (S 362)

Monticello Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Moundsview High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Neill Elementary School, Crystal, MN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 361)

New Prague Intermediate School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Noble Elementary School, Golden Valley

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 361)

North Junior High – St. Cloud

 

 

 

 

 

2 (F 356)

5 (S 342)

1 (S 361)

3 (S 361)

1 (F 362)

2 (S 362)

2 ( S 363)

North Saint Paul High School, North St. Paul

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

North View Junior High Brooklyn Park

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ( F 262)

Notre Dame Elementary, Mankato

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Oak Hill Elementary

 

1

 

 

 

3 (F 336)o

2 (F 347)

1 (S 347)

4 (S 361)

1 (S 363)

Oak Ridge Elem. Sartell

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 (S 361)

Ogilvie Elementary

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Palmer Lake Elementary, Brooklyn Park

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Park High School, Cottage Grove

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Parkvalley Catholic School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 361)

Pine Meadow Elementary

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 (S 361)

Pleasantview Elementary School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (s 361)

Plymouth Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 (F 361)

Presott High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Providence Academy, Plymouth

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Ramsey Fine Arts School Mpls

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

Red Wing High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Risen Christ Elementary and Middle

 

 

1

 

14 (F)

10 (S)

1 (S)

 

 

Robbinsdale Technology and Language campus

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

Rocori High School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 SS)

5 (S 346)

 

Rocori Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Rogers High School

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 ( S 362)

Rogers Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 (S 362)

Rosemount Middle School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rush Creek Elementary, Maple Grove

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Salk Middle School, Elk River

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 363)

San Miguel Elementary School

 

 

 

 

5 (F )

4 (S)

 

 

 

Sartell High School

 

1

 

 

 

2 (F 355 SS)

4 (S 362)

6 (S 362)

2 (s 363)

Sartell Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 356)

5 (S 342)

2 (F 361)

6 (S 361)

5 (S 362)

Sauk Rapids/Rice High School

 

 

 

 

 

12  (F 355 M) o

4 (F 355 M)

5 (S 346)

1 (S 362)

1(S 363)

South Junior High – St. Cloud

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 356)

1 (F 355 SS)

9 (F 354)

7 (S 354)

42 (F 358)

39 (S 358)

32 (F 358 CF)

5 (S 342)

3 (S 361)

1 (F 363)

1 (F 362)

3 (S 362)

SouthSide Boys and Girls Club

 

7 (F)

8 (S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southview Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

Spring Break Service Trips (sites not known)

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

Spring Lake Park High School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

St. Bernard’s Elementary, St. Paul

 

 

1

 

5 (F)

1 (S)

 

 

 

St. Boniface Elementary School

 

 

 

 

 

25 (F 325)

25 (S 325)

3 (F 361)

St. Cloud Park and Recreation Dept.

12 (F)

 

 

 

 

 

 

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Primary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

St. John’s Prep High School

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 WL)

1 (F 355 M)

1 (F 355 T)

4 (S 355 NS)

5 (S 346)o

1 (S 362)

1 (S 363)

St. John’s Prep Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 T)

1 (F 356)

1 (F 318) o

8 ( S 318)

39 (S 358 CF)

1 (s 362)

1 (S 363)

St. John’s Univ. Arboretum

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

St. Joseph elem. Waite Park

 

 

1 (S)

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

St. Joseph Catholic School (formerly Lab School)

 

16 (F)

8 (S)

 

 

 

 

22 (F 315)

26 (S 315)

34 (F 333)o

25 (S 333)o

3 (F 336)

1 (S 361)

1 (S 361)

St. Mary Help of Christians

 

 

 

 

 

22 (F 318)

18 (S 318)

1 (S 361)

St. Mary’s Central High School, Bismark, ND

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

St. Mary’s School, Morris, MN

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

St. Odilia School

Shoreview

 

1

 

 

 

 

2 (S 361)

Sts. Peter and Paul Elem. Richmond

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 (S 361)

St. Vincent DePaul School

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 (F 361)

Sauk Centre High School

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Shanley High School, Fargo ND

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Sheridan Hills Elementary, Richfield

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Southwest Elementary

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Sunrise Park Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Talahi Community School

 

 

3 (F)

6 (S)

 

 

10 (F 347)

 

Team Up!

6 (S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical High School – St. Cloud

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 WL)

2 (F 355 M)

1 (F 355 SS)

3 (F 355 E)

5 (S 346)

2 (S 362)

Totino-Grace High School

 

1

 

 

 

1 (F 355 E)

 

Twin Bluff Middle School, Red Wing

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Upsala High School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 363)

Upsala Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 363)

Upward Bound

 

5 (F)

6 (S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valley View Middle School

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 362)

Wayzata East Middle School, Plymouth

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

White Bear Lake South Campus

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

White Bear Lake high School, North Campus

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Willow Lane Elem. White Bear Lake

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (S 361)

Winsted Junior High

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 SS)

 

Woodbury High School

 

 

 

 

 

1 (F 355 E)

 

NOT KNOWN

3 (F)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**The data on the EDUC 111 teacher shadow is incomplete. Due to a change this year in the process by which this experience was reported to the department by the pre-teacher students, there is a gap in information. Of 122 students who were enrolled in EDUC 111, 50 reported the location of the teacher shadow field, 10 reported that they did not do the experience, and 62 did not report. For a more realistic overall picture of the approximate number and diverse locations of schools in which CSB/SJU education students visit, please see the School Placements 2003-2004  Comprehensive-Actual document available in the annual report for 2003-2004.

Legend
F= Fall
S = Spring
Sci = Science
SS = Social Studies
WL = World Language
CF = Culture Fair
NS=  Natural Science
o = observed

Revised July 2005