Centering community and collaboration in a multi-year literacy professional development initiative between a university and school district

Introduction

In December 2014, the University’s College of Education and School District (all names are pseudonyms) partnered to develop an initiative to prepare cohorts of teachers to gain their literacy certification. In this unique “job-embedded” partnership, school administrators from professional development schools (PDS) and university faculty from higher education institutions (IHEs) worked together to build a program that provided a pathway for K-12 teachers to obtain their Reading Certification from the state’s Department of Education. Rebecca, Martille and LaTisha have been the cross-institutional leaders of this initiative from the beginning. As of 2020, over 80 teachers (four cohorts) participated in this cohort program [1]. The multi-year collaboration across institutions is guided by several, overlapping theories about preparing literacy specialists and professional development in a cohort model. This district-university partnership model aligns directly with the tenets of a Professional Development School, as identified by the Nine Essential Elements summarized by the National Association of Professional Development Schools (NAPDS). First, embedding professional development, graduate coursework and literacy clinics within the school district supports transfer to practice in deep and lasting ways (e.g. Desimone, 2009; International Literacy Association, 2017; National Association for Professional Development Schools; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005; Stephens & Mills, 2014). Second, sustained, longitudinal professional development efforts support teachers’ deepening of content and pedagogical knowledge through ongoing inquiry and collaboration (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; National Association for Professional Development Schools). Third, the presence of a community of learners supports educators across institutions to extend their learning and leadership in ways that are responsive to the realities of schools, teachers and students (Dozier & Rutten, 2005; Gutiérrez, 2011; Lee, 2010; Stephens & Mills, 2014). Through the cohort, educational professionals develop knowledge and practice to lead school systems to reach their established academic, social and emotional outcomes-most of which are girded in some form of sustained literacy practice that is targeted, comprehensive, job-embedded and sustained. Fourth, a context and culture for continual professional learning guided by inquiry and reflection alongside continual investment in teacher leadership reinvigorates educators and sustains enthusiasm for the profession (National Association for Professional Development Schools). Fifth, literacy teachers must be prepared to teach diverse students in ways that are evidence-based and culturally relevant, place-conscious and sustaining and it is important to experience this kind of community themselves (e.g. International Literacy Association & National Council of Teachers of English, 2017; Paris & Alim, 2017; Skerrett et al., 2018; Winn & Johnson, 2011). While there are many points of overlap between this initiative and the NAPDS Essentials, the aforementioned principles are aligned with Essentials 3 and 4. Essentials 3 refers to Professional Learning and Leading (A PDS is a context for continuous professional learning and leading for all participants, guided by need and a spirit and practice of inquiry). Essential 4 refers to Reflection and Innovation (A PDS makes a shared commitment to reflective practice, responsive innovation and generative knowledge).

In an earlier study, we examined the forms of literacy leadership that developed from this collaborative cohort initiative (Rogers et al., 2021). Here, we return to the data set to focus on how the cohort partnership fosters community and collaboration within and across educational institutions. We imagine the cohorts as learning ecologies (Gutiérrez, 2011; Lee, 2010). Both the university and the school district are distinct, yet nested, learning ecologies. We define a learning ecology as the physical, social, cultural and historical contexts in which learning occurs. These domains are nested at the local, institutional and societal levels. The university, for example, is made up of discipline-specific colleges and programs which, in turn, are designed by faculty who curate book lists, course assignments and clinical experiences. These courses and programs are informed by research conducted by the faculty and members of professional organizations at the state, national and international levels. Likewise, school districts consist of nested learning ecologies with discipline-specific expertise and knowledge. Faculty within school districts are also members of professional organizations. Literacy educators in school districts may primarily work in one classroom or may work across schools or in the district office. Educators have a certain degree of agency to interpret policies, curricula and testing mandates in ways that are responsive to the needs of their students. Both school districts and universities are held accountable for state funding which is often connected to changing waves of educational reform. Similarly, both university and school district learning ecologies offer a range of cultural, educational and social resources that extend educator learning such as conferences, networking, awards, self-directed professional development, etc.

When the school district and University came together for this multi-year partnership, we created a hybrid learning ecology that crossed local, institutional and societal domains. Comber (2010) refers to this as a “meeting place” which includes physical dimensions and cultural, temporal and social practices associated with literacy teacher education. In the “meeting place” of the Cohort, we develop pedagogical and content knowledge of/in literacy practices that are answerable to changing educational reforms. Drawing on programmatic data, interviews and artifacts of teacher learning, we asked: In what ways did the Cohort initiative create conditions for community and collaboration in the service of meaningful literacy reforms? To foreshadow our findings, we showcase descriptive findings in three sections: designing diverse learning ecologies, building relationships, collaborations and a network and rooting literacy reforms in teacher leadership. In each section, we highlight the voices of educators and the multiple, reciprocal and nested layers of learning that emerge from, inform and expand the Cohort initiative.

Research design and methodology

Our approach to this programmatic case study was rooted in social design methodology which is guided by principles in learning sciences and a cultural, historical approach to inquiry (e.g. Engeström, 2007; Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2010; Stake, 2005). Gutiérrez describes this design as an approach “that seeks to transform social institutions and their practices through mutual relations of exchange with constituent people as valued stakeholders and partners” (p. 192). That is, social design methodology seeks to generate and examine educational change.

The Cohort designers (Rebecca, Martille and LaTisha) have for many years, worked within this urban district in various roles (e.g. Director of Curriculum & Development, Director of Professional Development, partner University educator, practicum liaison, literacy coach, leader of teacher inquiry groups and manager of District Certification Programs). We are familiar with the geo-political realities of a large, urban school district that primarily serves African American students. Public schools have been impacted by a history of disinvestment and racial segregation which results in continued systemic inequities (e.g. Furtado et al., 2020; Johnson, 2020). Rebecca is a university teacher educator and identifies as a white, anti-racist scholar who has, for many years, contributed to the school district (e.g. professional development, starting a literacy clinic at an elementary school, facilitating a teacher inquiry group). Martille is also a university teacher educator and identifies as a White scholar committed to diversity and equity in school communities. She has spent many years fostering school-university partnerships with local school districts. LaTisha is a school district leader, teacher educator and a graduate of the literacy Cohort program. She identifies as African American. We consider ourselves to be “boundary-spanners” who work together, across institutions and “understand the dynamics and cultures of both worlds and are vital in linking schools and universities in viable collaboration” (National Association for Professional Development Schools, p. 10). Our leadership has stayed consistent across the duration of this multi-year initiative and, together, we bring distributed knowledge of the school district, University and profession of literacy teacher education. Melinda is a consultant researcher, teacher educator and literacy leader. She identifies as White and works toward creating equitable and inclusive educational systems so that educators can serve all students well.

This is a public-public collaboration. The partnering university is a land grant university recognized as a Carnegie Engaged University. It is one of four University campuses in the University state-wide system; recognized as research-intensive and one of the largest preparers of educators in the metro-region. Specifically, Rebecca and Martille work in a College of Education accredited by the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) with undergraduate and graduate programs endorsed by the state’s Department of Education. LaTisha works in a school district accredited by the State Department of Education and operates approximately 62 public elementary, middle and high schools in the city. The city’s racial division is categorized by North/South geo-political boundaries whereas the North indexes primarily African American communities and the South indexes White and/or multi-ethnic communities. As of 2019, the district served approximately 23,000 students; 79% African American, 13% White, three percent Latinx and five percent other racial identifiers. The university and the school district are about ten miles apart and both reside within a region struggling with the enduring legacies of systemic racism and inequitable educational access and outcomes.

Description of the literacy cohort partnership

At the core of this initiative is the preparation of cohorts of educators to become experts in literacy teaching and leadership. Coursework and clinical experiences associated with this program lead participants to an accredited state K-12 special reading certificate. Participants’ experiences in the program are guided by broad standards put forth by national organizations well recognized in the field of literacy (International Literacy Association, National Council of Teachers of English and Literacy Research Association, 2017). Common themes across standards promote candidate’s knowledge of theoretical and historical-based foundations of literacy and language, ability to teach literacy to a diverse group of students, assess students’ literacy achievement to inform instruction and evaluate interventions and various print and digital materials to engage and motivate all learners; integrate digital technologies in appropriate, safe and effective ways. Furthermore, the coursework is part of our state Department of Education’s certificated Masters of Elementary and Secondary Education, Reading Emphasis program, accredited by AAQEP. The K-12 special reading certification courses can stand alone, or they can be applied to the university’s Master’s in Reading degree.

During this multi-year collaboration, we initiated one new cohort each year (2014–2019) with a cycle of collaborative practices. For example, LaTisha initiates a recruitment message in the form of an email embedded in the district’s newsletter inviting principals to share the information with teachers in their building. Teachers have six weeks to submit an online application, as well as to complete the process of applying to the university’s master’s program. Next, we host an informational meeting in the school district outlining the program, what to expect in terms of coursework and next steps to complete the admission process. University program advisors take extensive time to review applicants’ prior coursework and recommend a course of study that will lead to the Reading Specialist endorsement. Once admitted, students are advised into courses that follow a somewhat predictable schedule. Although there is some variation in coursework based on prior experience, participants take three core literacy courses together. All students begin with a common literacy assessment course to further orient them to the program, and likewise, orient the University faculty to curricular and assessment realities of literacy education in schools across the district. Following the assessment course, students go on to take two practicum courses that include a site-based clinic to foster teachers’ deep knowledge of teaching pedagogies to promote children’s reading and writing proficiency in literacy and across content areas. Beyond this, there is some variation in pathways, however, on average, teachers take six courses together as a cohort. Typically, it takes teachers two years to complete coursework. Multiple cohorts are active each year. Many of the courses are taught by Rebecca, Martille and Melinda. Across the cycle of a Cohort, we have multi-cohort “check-in” meetings to address items related to the teachers, the program, the University, or district. We work together to create conceptual and pedagogical coherence for educators using professional knowledge to navigate an ever-changing literacy reform landscape. As teachers advance through the program, we encourage community building, collaboration and transfer of learning to practice.

Appendix 1 illustrates a typical cycle of courses in the program for teachers who participate in this initiative. We offer four-week, eight-week and 16-week courses. The courses and clinical experiences are offered in multiple modalities: online and Face-to-Face in the school district. The teachers stay with their cohorts unless they need to retake the course at a different time. The initiative is guided by many of the principles outlined in the National Association for Professional Development Schools’ (NAPDS) including Essential 1 which describes “a learning community guided by a comprehensive, articulated mission that is broader than the goals of any single partner, and that aims to advance equity, antiracism, and social justice within and among schools, colleges/universities, and their respective community and professional partners” (p. 4) [2].

Data sources

Data sources for this study include program materials for all the participants from Cohorts 1–4 (2014–2019) (e.g. spreadsheets created for advising teachers through coursework, retention and graduation rates) and more in-depth data for a sub-sample (n = 30) of teachers (all names are pseudonyms). The sub-sample was identified through email recruitment whereas teachers who were participants in the program were invited to interview, complete a survey and submit artifacts of their learning. In addition, Rebecca interviewed Martille and LaTisha as part of the data collection phase, recognizing our roles as participants in the Cohort initiative. All individuals signed a consent form explaining the purpose of the study and their rights and responsibilities as participants. In total, we collected from a sub-sample of teachers: a survey, interviews/focus groups with teachers, teaching/learning documents (e.g. examples of course assignments, lesson plans, artifacts of literacy leadership), observations of current cohort meetings or classes and publicly available literacy achievement data from school district. Participation in the study provided an opportunity for everyone to deepen reflection and analysis of the cross-institutional collaboration.

Data analysis

All interviews were transcribed to capture the content verbatim with time stamps. We segmented the interviews into narrative excerpts that included thematic foci on context, collaborations and networks. All but two of the participants included several examples of the community of the Cohort. We created a table that included each participant and the narrative excerpts that related to community. On average, each participant shared five narratives related to community, collaboration and networks. Each narrative excerpt was given an in vivo sub-code (e.g. “meeting with community of peers online” and “nonstop collaboration” and “working with teachers for different parts of the district,” “building a culture of literacy”). We noted at this stage of analysis that some of the excerpts were reflections about community or collaborations. For example, “Today, I feel like I have the knowledge, the development of the skills, and also the people I can reach out to because I have this collegial group of people that I’ve worked with to do as much as I want with this.” Other excerpts were descriptions of collaborative practices. For example, “We took a hard look at the middle school achievement data around reading and ELA [English Language Arts]. Kids were not reading. We are starting to build a literacy culture from the ground up.” We noticed that in many cases, the collaborations described were linked to Cohort practices such as readings and discussions, assignments, clinics and other course work. We collapsed similar codes into three categories of findings that were answerable to our research question “In what ways did the Cohort initiative create conditions for community and collaboration in the service of meaningful literacy reforms?”

Findings

Encouraging educators to stay: Retention in a network

“Simultaneous renewal is the continuous process of getting better together” (National Association for Professional Development Schools, p. 14). The Cohort initiative has created a network of literacy educators and leaders who, together, reflect and create their partnership between the school district and the University. It is this “simultaneous renewal” of our university programs and K-12 settings through teacher leadership and agency that is at the heart of encouraging educators to stay in the profession. Indeed, while the school district does not require any formal commitment to the district after receiving their literacy certification endorsement, many of the teachers expressed that participating in the cohort increased their commitment and gratitude to the district. Kennedy explained, “One of the reasons I stayed was I felt like the district had put all of this professional development into me….I feel a strong sense of loyalty to the district that put that into me … it was a thing for [district] teachers to be this pipeline for best practice…I did not want to take that gift and turn around and use that to teach students in the county” (Interview) Beverly also expressed the gratitude expressed by many of the teachers when she said, “it is one of the only districts that offers tuition reimbursement at the level they do” (Interview) Moreover, we return to Drew’s point, presented at the beginning of the paper, which is that many educators felt a renewed sense of professionalism and community. He stated, “I feel a part of, more so than ever, a strong group of colleagues that worked together and I feel more connected to a broader educational community” (Interview). Likewise, this renewal fuels the continual improvement of both the school district and University program.

These sentiments are reinforced by the retention data. Eighty-three percent of the teachers across Cohorts 1–4 were still in the district in 2020. Seventeen percent of the teachers are no longer in the district. When we dug a little deeper into the attrition data by grade level, we noticed higher levels of attrition at the Middle School level than at other levels. The attrition rate for Middle School is 57.4% (however; only five percent of all participants). At the High School level, the attrition rate is five and six-tenths percent (only one percent of all participants) and the rate of attrition of Elementary educators is 12% (seven percent of all participants). Eighteen percent of Administrators who have participated in the initiative have left the district (two percent of all participants).

Discussion

In this paper, we have shared a programmatic case study of a unique, multi-year cross-institutional partnership that prepares educators to become literacy specialists. We have described a multi-year partnership that cultivated collaboration between our authorship team, the Cohort participants, the University and the School District. In the “meeting space” of a Cohort, university and district leaders celebrate, invite and extend the knowledge, beliefs and experiences that educators bring with them. Reflecting on the design of the University-district partnership, a participating educator described how we (Rebecca, Martille and LaTisha) have a “realistic read on the schools…You’re looking at how we can do better for kids acknowledging the context in which we are working” (Interview). The program became recognized and credible within the district because we “understand” the district which makes it in Shelly’s words “more meaningful and embedded for our people” (Interview). Returning to the logic of our inquiry design, we draw from Gutiérrez (2011) who states, “[s]ocial transformation shifts the focus on “fixing” people and their communities to a focus on the reorganization of systems of activity in which participants can become designers of their own futures'' (p. 192).

We return to summarize and discuss key findings from each of the sections. First, we turn to the concept of “diversity by design” which provides the architecture for building collective expertise in literacy education (e.g. Dali & Caidi, 2017). The programmatic data highlight the multiplicity of contexts (e.g. teacher experience, racial demographics of teachers, placement of teachers) that give meaning to diversity. Intentionally seeking out this diversity has a positive impact on professional learning as was reported in the interviews. Likewise, a central tenet is recognizing the placed-based realities of diverse learning ecologies. Teachers are best positioned to build local school cultures of literacy achievement that contribute to educational equity.

Participating educators have engaged in additional research, committee work and curriculum writing/participation as a result of the skills built through this collaboration. This partnership is developing the next literacy leaders to support student literacy engagement and mastery.

Second, across the teachers’ interviews and artifacts of their teaching and learning, we see how relationships forged in their Cohorts were sustained and expanded through collaborative literacy efforts carried out in classrooms, schools and the district. In an era of market-based reforms, networks are increasingly conceptualized as private-public partnerships financed by the very funders who support school vouchers and privatization. This scholarship showcases an initiative chartered by two public institutions of education and highlights the potential of educators working together within the public-school network to strengthen literacy education. Thus, we think of this growing network of literacy leaders as an example of an emergent network cultivated by a cross-institutional partnership.

Collaborations occurred within schools, across schools and across institutions. The cases of literacy reform that developed from these partnerships cyclically created a network of literacy educators. A teacher from Cohort 1 may reach out to a teacher from Cohort 4 for resources, professional guidance, or coaching. This distributed knowledge strengthens the Cohort initiative and our work at our respective institutions. Educators in the cohorts have taken on leadership positions inside both institutions – the University and school district. For example, some have co-taught or taught literacy courses. Others have become literacy coaches in the school district. Our sustained and consistent leadership cannot be underestimated. We often reached across university and school district lines to ask for professional feedback, to share literacy resources, or to collaborate on a literacy related initiative. Likewise, educators from the cohorts frequently reach out to us for mentorship or guidance when creating a literacy initiative, writing a grant, or designing a program. For example, during the Summer of 2020, a participant from one of the Cohorts reached out to Rebecca to help design a virtual literacy tutoring program for their summer school. Despite the constraints of a global pandemic, we collaboratively designed – with a team that included several literacy specialists from across the Cohorts -- a hybrid summer program that included small group literacy tutoring and centering family knowledge in bookmaking.

Third, this is an example of social change that is deeply situated and attends to the complexities of teacher learning and teacher-led literacy reforms. The knowledge that Cohort participants develop can inform systemic change in the district and beyond. Many of the educators who completed the Cohort initiative made an argument for creating literacy leadership positions. Due to the level of trust in this partnership, the district believed in the high value this training would bring in building and sustaining literacy practices in the district. As a result, K-12 Reading Specialist Positions were created, filled and now supported districtwide. These literacy specialists are cultivated through monthly [or more as applicable] professional learning opportunities. They comprise their own Professional Development Cohort, where they learn together as a collaborative of learning leaders during each districtwide professional development day.

This initiative has been characterized by “reciprocity” and “simultaneous renewal” (National Association for Professional Development Schools, pp. 13–14). Both the school district and the University accept joint responsibility for the ongoing professional learning of literacy educators. This requires learning, growth and change for all partners. As we reflected together on this initiative, we noted that learning has been a two-way street and we have strengthened our program, courses and professional development offerings as a result of this partnership. Because of our reciprocal learning about literacy resources, curriculum and assessment demands at schools in the district, we (University faculty) could integrate meaningful examples and realistic challenges to the teachers in our university classes. If we were teaching about differentiated reading instruction, we could support teachers to think across the book room, school library and classroom library to choose texts that are an appropriate level of complexity for students. We have changed course texts and programmatic requirements to be more responsive to the learning trajectories and curricular realities of teachers in this partnership. Likewise, the work of this partnership is highlighted in the school district’s Comprehensive Literacy Plan. The findings from this research have been used to make an argument for and validation of, the support and resources provided to these literacy efforts. Further, findings from this partnership have been used to develop other literacy teacher education initiatives in our university.

There are implications for other IHE/PDS teams interested in beginning cohort initiatives. First, cultivating a partnership team that can commit to continuity of the initiative is essential. Indeed, as we made clear in this article, our “boundary-spanning” leadership offered a level of stability and strength to the initiative (National Association for Professional Development Schools, p. 10). Continuity in leadership ensures the initiatives grow and expand within the vision of the original intent. Maintaining an archive of program documents, recruitment and advising and logistical information about clinic locations helps to build institutional memory if members of the team do move on. We have found it important to continue to educate ourselves about the ever-changing socio-political realities of the IHE/PDS. Another important aspect of developing a cohort initiative is committing to the place-based nature of coursework and clinics. In this cohort model, University courses were held on-site, in the district, encouraging teachers to connect their studies to their teaching pedagogy and the educational literacies in their students’ lives. Clinic courses were designed to be enacted in educators’ school settings with both university faculty and peer coaching and feedback central to the experience. In this way, we leveraged all participants as experts in the field. Thus, each cohort learned from a variety of teaching placements and voices and, at the same time, built a common knowledge base together about literacy acquisition, learning, teaching and leading. Finding ways to intentionally leverage and share this expanding teacher knowledge is another key takeaway for others interested in initiating a collaboration between IHE and PDS. Teachers develop as leaders within this model and finding opportunities for them to share their knowledge and practice is important. Similarly, we found it important in our orientation meetings of each new cohort to remind participants that they were entering a multi-year professional development initiative that included other cohorts of teachers within the same district. Knowing they were part of a bigger literacy reform initiative helped to deepen commitment and expand the professional development network. As noted above, it is important to recruit and establish cohorts that are diverse by design (e.g. number of years teaching, grade level placement, race, language, location of school within the district). Intentionally diverse learning communities stimulated fresh insights into the complexities of literacy teaching practices across time, space and context. Finally, we see great potential in translating this cohort model beyond literacy to other academic contents and interdisciplinary initiatives (e.g. English Language Arts/Literacy and Social Studies).