AACTE Relationships Roundtable-4.docx - Lehman College

MATH-UP: Teacher Quality Project
Lehman College
City University of New York
Harriet R. Fayne, Principal Investigator
Arlene Demy Weinstein, Project Director
The Impact of Relationships on School/College
Partnership Success
AACTE Roundtable
Orlando, Florida
March 1, 2013
MATH-UP Faculty Investigators
Laura Roberts
Anne Marie Marshall
Harriet Fayne
Cecilia Espinosa
Maria Victoria Rodriguez

Introduction
The overarching goal of Mathematics Achievement with Teachers of High-need Urban
Populations (MATH-UP), a federally and state funded Teacher Quality Project, is to effect
simultaneous reform of an urban teacher preparation graduate program and low-performing urban
schools. To achieve that end, an elementary teacher education program at Lehman College (City
University of New York), a public, Hispanic-Serving Institution, forged a partnership with five
South Bronx elementary schools, Educational Testing Service, Research for Better Schools, and a
local cable network. MATH-UP involves both a course of study leading to a masters degree
offered by the School of Education and a clinical residency in which candidates work in tandem
with cooperating teachers who are active participants in school-based professional learning
communities and engage in ongoing professional development in the areas of mathematics
content and pedagogy, formative assessment, and mentoring.
Our roundtable will offer some tentative, contextualized answers to questions about whether
preparing teachers for high needs urban elementary schools requires unique kinds of preparation
and support structures across the teacher development continuum. Embedded throughout MATH-
UP activities is the theme of collaboration: co-developed orientation and in-service sessions for
program participants, “critical friend” review of program evaluation data to enhance effectiveness,
and co-teaching in college and K-6 classrooms.
Mentoring
Laura Roberts, Investigator
Since the late seventies mentoring has been researched extensively in a variety of professional
venues (Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennent, 2004). Subsequently, researchers have linked mentoring
to a variety of positive outcomes. Among the various benefits associated with mentoring are
increases in career satisfaction and skills related to the profession and improvements in areas of
psychosocial functioning (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, E., & Lima, 2004; Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1993). In studies of novice teachers, researchers have found that mentoring was an effective tool
for alleviating feelings of isolation and lack of support, two problems commonly reported by first
year teachers (Andrews & Quinn, 2005). Furthermore, mentoring has been associated with
professional learning and overall retention of both veteran and first year teachers (Gardiner,
2012; Watkins & Scott 2007).
Traditionally, mentoring entails the process of pairing together an individual with limited
experience (mentee) with another who is believed to possess a particular area of expertise and

skill set (mentor). According to Ambrosetti and Dekkers (2010) “mentoring is a non-hierarchical,
reciprocal relationship between mentors and mentees who work towards specific professional
and personal outcomes for the mentee.” Through guidance, advisement and modeling, the
mentor assists the mentee in developing his/her set of professional skills and expertise (Chao,
1997; Kram, 1985). Mentoring, recognized as essential to the learning and preparation of
individuals new to the teaching profession, has become common practice in many teacher
induction and education programs across the country (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Carver &
Feiman- Nemser, 2009).
A number of factors have been found to be linked to the positive outcomes associated with
mentoring programs; among those factors is the mentor/mentee relationship. As with most
relationships, that between pre-service teaching candidates and mentor teachers is often complex
(Leshem, 2012). Differences in perception about roles, responsibilities and expectations of the
mentoring process can leave both the mentor and mentee feeling dissatisfied with the mentoring
experience. In examining mentoring relationships, researchers have found that when the mentors
and mentees possess similar values, goals and perceptions they are more likely to experience
satisfaction in the mentoring process. Furthermore, emotional supports provided by mentors have
been found to contribute to feelings of competence and effectiveness in mentees (Greiman,
Torres, Burris & Kitchel, 2007). Emotional supports in the mentoring relationships are referred
to as psychosocial functions. Kitchel (2006) identified specific psychosocial functions as being
essential to building a successful mentoring relationship. Among these functions are: modeling,
counseling, and connecting on a personal/social level (Kitchel, Greiman, Torres & Burris, 2008;
Kitchel, 2006).
Perhaps one of the most critical components of the MATH-UP program is the mentoring aspect.
The formal pairing process took place over the 12 months prior to the first year of
implementation, during which time program staff and faculty gathered data on program
participants and the different school sites. Members of the MATH-UP team visited each of the
five participating schools on a regular basis, conducting classroom observations and meeting
with potential mentor teachers and building staff. The purpose of these visitations was to gain a
better understanding of the climate in each of the schools, to establish rapport with the teachers,
and to learn about different aspects of prospective mentors’ personalities. During the spring
semester prior to implementation, pre-service teaching candidates (mentees) were observed in a
graduate level class taught by the MATH-UP program’s clinical coordinator. By mid-semester,
the mentees traveled as a group to each of the participating schools and had the opportunity to
give feedback on their preferences for placement. Prior to the end of the spring semester (Year
Two), MATH-UP staff reviewed all of the data and paired the 18 interns with mentors (Cohort
One).
Research Questions:

This study aimed to answer the following questions pertaining to the mentoring relationship:
●
●
●
To what degree did mentees feel that their mentors provided them with psychosocial
supports (e.g. acceptance, friendship and role-modeling)? To what degree did mentors
perceive that they provided such supports?
To what extent did mentees need assistance in areas related to teacher responsibilities?
Were mentors able to provide it?
What did mentors and mentees perceive to be the benefits of participating in the
mentoring relationship? Did they identify barriers to success?
Instrumentation:
Mentoring Relationship Questionnaire: Data were gathered using a modified version of the
Mentoring Relationship Questionnaire (MRQ, Greiman, 2003). This particular questionnaire
examines the perspectives of mentors and mentees on the following aspects of the mentoring
relationship: psychosocial functions, perceived levels of support required and the extent to
which support was provided. The MRQ also examines mentor/mentee perceptions of similarities
to one another, overall satisfaction with the relationship and barriers to success.
Findings:
The initial analysis of the data gathered through the MRQ revealed that mentors and mentees
shared similar perceptions of the types of support required for mentees to be successful. Specific
areas, in which mentees needed the most assistance, were: assisting students with special needs,
navigating school politics, conducting parent conferences, evaluating student work,
implementing school policies, managing time and daily tasks, managing classroom and student
behavior, motivating students, lesson planning, self-reflection and differentiated instruction.
Responses related to mentor teachers’ ability to provide support in these areas indicated that
disparities existed between perceptions of mentors and mentees.
Mentor/mentee responses to items pertaining to the psychosocial functions of the mentoring
relationship showed similarities. Responses show that mentees believed that mentors thought
highly of them as both interns and colleagues, served as role models, conveyed feelings of
respect, and provided them with support and encouragement. Disparities existed between
mentors and mentees in terms of the extent to which mentors shared personal experiences, were
individuals that the mentee could trust and made themselves available as confidantes.
Responses indicate that mentors believed they had provided these supports; interns were not
entirely convinced that they had done so.

The findings in this study are consistent with other research that has identified the difficulties
experienced by teachers new to the teaching profession (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010; Fantilli,
& McDougall, 2009). While all of the mentees had received training related to the teaching
profession prior to and during the internship, they still had learning gaps associated with
transitioning from teacher preparation programs into the teaching profession. Mentees rated
mentors as adequately prepared to provide support. However, mentors perceived themselves as
more capable than did the mentees. Concerns around mentor competence have emerged in other
studies, particularly when mentees indicated that they were dissatisfied with the mentoring
relationship (Fantilli, & McDougall, 2009). However, in general, mentees’ responses overall on
the MRQ indicated high levels of satisfaction with the mentoring process.
It appeared that mentors were not as skillful at mentoring as they perceived themselves to be. An
individual’s belief about his or her ability to complete a particular task, known as self-efficacy, is
typically based on what he or she understands is required in order to successfully complete the
task (Bandura, 1997). Higher teacher self-efficacy is linked to positive student outcomes in
terms of behaviors, attitude and achievements; it tends to foster virtues such as perseverance and
resiliency, which are two necessities for dealing with challenging situations (Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). So, our mentors, selected because of their reputation as teachers,
may have incorrectly assumed that they were as successful with fledgling teachers as they were
with their students.
Works Cited
Allen, T. D., by, . T., Poteet, . ., ent , ., ima, . (200 ). areer benefits associated
with mentoring for prot g s A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127-136.
Ambrosetti, A. & Dekkers, J. (2010). The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and
mentees in pre-service teacher education mentoring relationships. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 35(6), 42-55.
Andrews, B., & Quinn, R. J. (2005). The effects of mentoring on first-year teachers' perceptions
of support received. Clearing House, 78(3), 110-116.
Bandura, A. ~1995!. Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bickmore, D.L., & Bickmore, S.T. (2010). A multifaceted approach to teacher induction.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 1006-1014
Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher education: Critical
elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2), 295-328.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.
Ehrich, L. C., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and
other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 518-
540.
Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports
in the first years. Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(6), 814-825.
Gardiner, W. (2012). Coaches' and new urban teachers' perceptions of induction coaching: Time,
trust, and accelerated learning curves. The Teacher Educator, 47(3), 195-215.
Greiman, B.C. (2003). Providing professional and psychosocial assistance for beginning
agriculture teachers: The perceptions of formal mentors and novice teachers. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Greiman, B. ., Torres, R. ., Burris, S., Kitchel, T. (2007). Beginning teachers’ perceptions
of in -school and in-profession mentoring relationships. Career and Technical Education
Research, 32(1), 23-44
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Kitchel, T., Greiman, B. C., Torres, R. M., & Burris, S. (2008). The influence of gender on
relationship aspects of beginning teachers and their mentors. Career & Technical Education
Research, 33(2), 73-91.
Kitchel, T. (2006). Perceived differences, by gender, in student teacher-cooperating teacher
interactions. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 56(1),62-75.
Leshem, S. (2012). The many faces of mentor-mentee relationships in a pre-service teacher
education programme. Creative Education, 3(4), 413-421.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering
processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 42, 170-183.

Russell, M. I., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’
perspectives on mentoring student interns. The Professional Educator, 35.
Tauer, S. M. (1998). The mentor-protégé relationship and its impact on the experienced teacher.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 14 (2), 205-218
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research 68, 202-248.
Watkins, L., & Scott, D. G. (2008). Retention of early career teachers engaged in Missouri 50
career education mentoring program: A longitudinal study. Retrieved from
http://missouricareer-education.org/pd/mentoring/tNotebook/2008-mentor-study.pdf
Co-Teaching
Anne Marie Marshall & Harriet Fayne, Co-Investigators
For over thirty years, co-teaching has been employed to support inclusive practices in P-12
classrooms (Pugach & Winn, 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). There are both
quantitative as well as qualitative data linking positive student outcomes (Gerber & Popp, 2000;
Rea, McLaughlin, & Walter-Thomas, 2002) and enhanced professional growth in teachers
(Scruggs et al., 2007) to co-teaching. While less attention has been paid to co-teaching in higher
education than in P-12, there is a body of case literature that describes successful pedagogical
partnerships forged between regular and special teacher educators, faculty within and across
disciplines (Lester & Evans, 2009), college/university faculty and practicing teachers (Buczynski
& Sisserson, 2008), student teachers and mentors (Bacharach, Heck& Dahlberg, 2010), and
teams of pre-service candidates (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009).
Co-teaching is first and foremost a relationship that develops between or among individuals who
share responsibility for an instructional “space.” ussanti and Pence (2010), in their qualitative
study of a collaborative professional development model designed to enhance teachers’ ability to
work with nglish anguage earners, concluded “ ven though the project was aimed at
increasing teachers’ S pedagogical content knowledge, o-Facilitators talked more about their
emotional engagement and intersubjectivity with their partners and Guest Teachers. Relationship
trumped knowledge, and in doing so, highlights the need for studying the interactional
dimensions of teacher change” (p. 87). Successful co-teaching relationships are built upon shared
knowledge and interdependence. Autonomy and individualism, cherished by teachers who are
used to working independently, are de-emphasized in a collaborative culture.

If teacher education programs incorporate co-teaching models in courses and clinical practice
settings, is it possible to whittle away at the notion that teaching is a solitary activity, a
preconception that can lead to a sense of alienation and isolation in novice urban teachers? Will
partnerships at the micro-level (classroom) lead to enhanced understanding and a narrowing of
the theory-practice gap at the meso- (program) and macro- (institutional) levels?
In the MATH-UP program, co-teaching relationships exist between teacher interns and their
mentor teachers. In addition, co-teaching relationships exist at the college level between the two
instructors of MATH-UP courses. The college level co-teaching model allows instructors to
teach in ways that are not possible with just one instructor. Consequently, interns are afforded
richer experiences and are provided with more help due to the strengths of having two qualified
instructors. Experiencing multiple co-teaching strategies as learners helps interns to understand
the various co-teaching practices.
Teacher candidates in the MATH-UP program take 14 core courses, 12 of which are co-taught.
These courses pair a Lehman College Faculty member with P-6 teachers, coaches, or
administrators from the host schools participating in the program. Of these 12 co-taught courses,
seven are co-taught by one university instructor and one classroom teacher, three are co-taught
by one adjunct instructor and one classroom teacher, one is co-taught by the School of Education
Dean and the MATH-UP project director, and one is co-taught be two classroom teachers. It was
the goal of the co-teaching component that MATH-UP interns would learn to co-teach through
explicit instruction about co-teaching models as well as through various opportunities to
experience co-teaching as learners. In essence, co-taught courses were designed to model what
we wanted interns to practice. By doing this, we were aiming to narrow the theory to practice
gap. Research by Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) urges teacher programs to find
stronger connections between theory and practice, calling for opportunities to find connections
between coursework and fieldwork in efforts to support teacher candidates.
Our research aims to understand how co-taught courses affected preservice interns
understandings and application of co-teaching models.
●
●
●
What elements of co-teaching are necessary for successful pedagogical partnerships?
What can we learn from the experiences of co-teaching partnerships between university
faculty and practicing teachers that will help us understand co-teaching opportunities for
our interns?
Using ‘relationship trumps knowledge’ ( ussanti and Pence, 2010), as a starting
assumption, what aspects of relationships are most important in co-teaching
relationships?

Initial Findings: While informal communication indicated that everything was going smoothly in
the co-taught courses, analysis of the data has revealed that some co-teaching relationships were
functioning at a higher level than others. Initial data analysis is revealing aspects of co-teaching
that may illuminate elements of co-teaching necessary for successful pedagogical partnerships.
Several themes have emerged from the university/instructor data on co-teaching. For example,
both groups voiced concerns about preparedness to co-teach and lack of sufficient time to coplan.
In this paper, we will focus on the relational aspects of co-teaching in Lehman courses.
Here, we present three preliminary themes that have emerged. Below is an excerpt from the
theme analysis from three co-teaching relationships (two of which use one university instructor
as the common instructor).
Trust
+”Few conflicts, rely on one another, rewarding, I feel comfortable with joint-decision making,
learning from each other, sharing responsibilities- I trust that the other is doing the work”
-“Gave him the easiest to grade, feels guarded, communicate infrequently and superficially,
afraid to assign meaningful or important tasks, feels the need to ‘assign’ rather than co-plan”
Partnership and Mutual Respect
+ “Using “we” is easy, established norms for working together, acknowledging strengths in
partner, feelings of inclusion, clicked, have each other back (picked up slack when one partner
needed it and this was reciprocated”
-“Using ‘we’ is not natural, ommunication is broken (not showing up- me not being clear about
expectations, roles, speaking up), one partner having to constantly ‘pick up the slack’”
Presence
+ “Regular communication in person, online, over the phone, ongoing individual and paired
reflection of roles, being proactive in trying multiple strategies, understanding and reflection on
how co-teaching roles impact student learning”
- “Doesn’t show up- for some of these I was notified via text the day of or the day before. This
lack of physical presence exacerbates his lack of presence as a co-teacher, and lack of time with
students- creates an unbalanced relationship with students, even when he was ‘there’, he just sat
there”
Typically, college professors are prepared for teaching their classes alone and have worked to
improve them over time. Co-teaching can be a vulnerable activity. Co-teaching can expose
strengths as well as weaknesses. There may be a power differential, with one member of the
team having more authority than another. In addition, accountability is likely to play a role in
how the co-teaching relationship evolves (i.e., The teacher of record is ultimately responsible for
student success and may be evaluated negatively if the course does not go well). One of the
research goals of MATH-UP is to develop a nuanced understanding of how co-teaching is

enacted within and across settings. Our initial findings, based on self-study of teaching practices,
survey data, and semi-structured interviews, indicate that co-teaching at the collegiate level
stretches teacher educators and brings them closer to the lived experience of candidates and
cooperating teachers.
Works Cited
Bacharach, N., Heck, T.W. & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching
through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32 (1), 3-14.
Bacharach, N., Heck, T.W. & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of
College Teaching and Learning, 5(3), 9-16.
Buczynski, S. & Sisserson, K. (2008). School district and university co-teaching: Toward
instructional synergy in an induction/M.Ed. program. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(1), 47-73.
Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford, J., Eds. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing
World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gardiner, W. & Robinson, K.S. (2009). Paired field placements: A means for collaboration. The
New Educator, 5, 81-94.
Gerber, P. J., & Popp, P. A. (2000). Making collaborative teaching more effective for
academically able students: Recommendations for implementation and training. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 23(3), 229-236.
ester J.N. vans, K.R. (2009). Instructors’ experiences of collaboratively teaching: Building
something bigger. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3),
373-382.
Musanti, S.I. & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 37 (1), 73-89.
Pugach, M.C. & Winn, J.A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: An untapped resource
for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24 (1), 36-46.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walter-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 203-222.
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co- teaching in inclusive classrooms: A
metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73 (4), 392-416.
Vermette, P.J., Jones, K.A., & Jones, J.L. (2010). Co-teaching in the university setting: Promise
and practice in teacher education. National Teacher Education Journal, 3 (3), 50-57.
Teacher Learning Communities
Cecilia Espinosa and Maria Victoria Rodriguez, Co-Investigators
For school reform to have a long lasting effect on teacher practice, it must include professional
development that reduces teacher isolation, emphasizes teacher expertise, and promotes
collaboration (Saxe, Gearheart, and Nasir, 2001; Wei, 2009). What matters is that trusting
relationships (Elster, 2009) are built over time and that teachers have opportunities to engage in
high quality, student-focused conversations (Reich and Bally, 2011). Changing practice is a
complex process. It requires learning and unlearning (Shen, 2002). Wood (2007) argues that,
“ earning communities offer opportunities not only to tap teachers’ knowledge, but to make it
public, so it can be both shared and the teacher can engage with others in critical dialogue” (p.
282). In these learning communities teachers develop an identity as professionals who raise
issues about their practice, inquire into possible solutions, and build knowledge together from
their daily work, as well as from the professional literature (Wood, 2007; Whitford & Wood,
2010).
Teacher Learning Communities (TLC) offer participants opportunities to deepen their
pedagogical understandings by engaging in collective inquiry in order to examine their daily
practice, improve student learning, and construct new knowledge about teaching and learning. In
these communities participants develop identities as professionals who raise issues about their
practice, inquire into possible solutions, and build knowledge from their daily work.
The Teacher Learning Communities meetings in the MATH UP program are one of the
professional development opportunities that cooperating teachers and prospective teachers had
together during the 2011-2012 school year. During these monthly TLC meetings participants
engaged in learning about the Keeping Learning on Track (KLT) strategies
(http://www.nwea.org/KLT), reflecting on their application in the classroom, and planning for
the continuous and effective implementation of strategies.

This presentation focuses on the preliminary data analysis of data collected during the year 2011-
2012 (second year of a two-year study). For the purpose of this presentation we began to analyze
audiotapes of monthly TLC sessions at two of the partner schools. A research assistant listened
to all of the audiotapes and prepared summaries. We are in the process of having audiotapes
transcribed; consequently, we want to emphasize that these are emerging results.
Our investigation centers on what happens when teachers, teacher candidates and college faculty
in two urban schools with children with special needs and a large population of second language
learners come together through a clinically rich TQP project to establish a dialogue about
improving student learning through the use of formative assessments (KLT Strategies). The
purpose of this study is to continue investigating what happens during the second year of
participation in the TLC communities.
This presentation focuses on the following questions:
● What are the salient themes that emerge as we analyze 2011-2012 TLC data?
● What is missing in the conversations? What are areas of concern?
● How can the data inform decisions about how to improve TLC sessions?
Initial Findings: We found evidence that the TLC sessions provided a space for teachers to raise
issues about their practice and hear one another’s struggles as they attempted to learn new ways
of addressing the needs of the children they teach. In addition, these meetings provided an
opportunity for interns to think about their professional identity while they participated in critical
conversations about practice with seasoned teachers. The conversations were richer when
teachers brought student work from their own classrooms and thought about specific strategies to
meet the needs of particular children.
While KLT printed materials contain a large number of activities, they are not necessarily
focused on the elementary school curriculum, specifically the early elementary school
curriculum. For example, when learning about rubrics, the participants were asked to design
jeans using rubrics at various levels of development. We noticed that the TLC groups had
difficulty transferring the learning intentions of this activity to their daily work with elementary
children. The activity with the jeans became an activity by itself rather than a vehicle for
thinking about the use of appropriate rubrics and their impact on student learning.
In addition, the last two activities on the agenda (Action Planning and Summary of Learning) are
scheduled to take place during the last 20 minutes of each meeting. Often by this time the
meeting was over. Participants were eager to leave. Consequently, little or no time was dedicated
to these two important activities. The KLT manual recommends that the three most important

activities to complete are activities two [How is it going?], four [Action Planning], and five
[Summary of Learning].
We think that the Summary of Learning and Action Planning activities are excellent ways of
helping teachers to make connections between KLT activities and their practice. Therefore, if the
group does not give full attention to these two important components of the agenda, the potential
impact on practice is not realized. Although participants may be thinking about how to employ
KLT strategies on their own, we are arguing that more time should be allocated during TLC
meetings to making explicit connections between the techniques discussed and how they are
enacted in the classroom.
An open and thoughtful discussion about the implications and challenges as well as successes
and new wonderings can only benefit everyone in the group. The place in the agenda where the
participants could not only discuss but also bring evidence of how their Action Plan was
implemented is in the section, “How is it Going?” If participants had brought stronger evidence
of their action plans to TLC meetings, they could have taken more of an inquiry stance and
engaged in action research. The TLC meetings have the potential to be a safe place where
teachers and prospective teachers discuss how to address the challenges in making the KLT
strategies an integral part of their daily practice. With limited sharing of action plans, the group
missed the opportunity to engage in deep discussions.
Finally, there is no doubt that the TLC sessions and having the prospective teachers as interns in
their classrooms on a daily basis are valued by the participants. Several of the teachers are
thinking about how to maintain both aspects once the MATH-UP project is officially over. At a
TLC session a teacher asked:
“Teacher 1: [Interrupting previous speaker]: Before we move on, I have one quick one. I see
that there is a lot of success with this program, with having the preservice teachers. I just
wonder what is going to happen after?”
Works Cited
lster, D. (2009). Biology in ontext Teachers’ professional development in learning
communities. Journal of Biological Education, 43 (2), 53-61.
Reich, G.A. & Bally, D. (2010). Get smart: Facing high-stakes Testing together. Social Studies.
June, 2010.

Saxe, G., Gearhart, ., Nasir, N. S. (2001). nhancing students’ understanding of
Mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55-79.
Shen (2002). Student teaching in the context of school-university partnership: A case study of a
student teacher. Education, 122 (3): 564-580.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the
United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Withford, B. L. & Wood D. R. (2010). Teachers Learning in Community: Realities and
Possibilities. NY: Sunny Press.
Wood, D. R. (2007). Professional learning communities: Teachers, knowledge, and knowing.
Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 281–290.
Conclusion
While there is growing consensus around the claim that collaboration is an essential ingredient in
both school and teacher education reform, there are obstacles that reduce the likelihood that a
collaborative culture will develop or sustain itself within schools or the academy, let alone
between schools and higher education institutions. The MATH-UP project, with its emphasis on
partnerships and community building, challenges the assumption that, in the present climate,
teachers (and teacher educators) can or should operate autonomously and independently if we
expect to achieve the ambitious goal of getting all children to realize their potential.
Time comes up either implicitly or explicitly as a variable that can facilitate or impede progress.
How can we find the time to form the relationships that lead to honest, productive
communication among mentors and mentees, college faculty and practitioners, and teachers
within a school? Dr. Roberts shared the following astute observation in a recent email:
“ Interesting that time is a common thread. I wonder if there is a connection between time and
perceived benefits of collaboration (personal and/or collective). In other words, most of us,
miraculously, find time to participate in things if we feel that the pros of doing so outweigh the
cons.” We will interrogate the notion of perceived cost/benefit ratios of various aspects of the
MATH UP model as the project enters its final stage.