TLC: Outcomes and Conclusions

Outcomes:

• TLC participants reported that their most successful outcomes were strengthened cross-college collaborations (20/23) and engaged university leadership (16/23).
• Half the participating institutions increased science & mathematics teacher production or enrollment. The average production growth for TLC participants outpaced other APLU/SMTI institutions that were not part of the TLC project.
• Nine (9) institutions accomplished campus-wide change, five of which were the only institutions to identify APLU’s efforts to galvanize institutional leadership as the most important thing the association did.
• All but two institutions with campus-wide change and program-restructuring (6) indicated that their university leadership was involved or supportive of their change efforts. For those institutions that implemented program improvements only, the majority did not make reference to their university leadership being involved.
• Institutions that were less advanced in their reform efforts at the beginning of the project found the participation of disciplinary societies to be more helpful.
• Two other aspects of the project were highly valued by The Leadership Collaborative. Almost all participating institutions (22/23) referenced creating opportunities for institutions to learn from one another as being valuable. Raising the status of teacher preparation locally and/or nationally was also important to many (18/23).
• Seven research reports provide practical approaches to program quality and institutional change.

Conclusions:

We demonstrated that a national association in concert with member universities and disciplinary societies can raise the status of science and math teacher preparation on campuses. APLU analysis supported by WestEd’s evaluation point to two key project components as major contributors to overall success:

1. Institutional Leaders will engage when:

• The work is part of a national effort of similar institutions;
• Provided opportunities to gather together along with their own team leaders, and at other meetings to learn and share; and
• Involved in the process on their campuses.

**About two-thirds of the institutions had active, unprecedented involvement from provosts, which led to more and/or different than usual efforts. A prevalent change was the ability of provosts to leverage broader participation across colleges and departments, particularly crossing the sometimes challenging boundaries between education colleges/departments and those housing the STEM disciplines. The impact of senior leaders was most clearly felt by those institutions that achieved campus-wide change.

2. APLU’s project design created opportunities for collaboration and institutional change by including:

• The APLU project imprimatur of this national issue enhanced campus efforts;
• Institutional Implementation and Assessment Plans for work as part of this project;
• Annual national project gatherings;
• Cross-college teams within institutions fostered collaboration with opportunities for team leaders to generate their own communities of study and action; and
• The Analytic Framework, prompting new ideas about changing STEM teacher preparation, particularly for recruitment.