The Coaching Gap: Moving From Chance to Design Implementing Coaching Systems Every Candidate Can Count On Why Coaching Forecasts Readiness Clinical and internship teaching are often cited as the most impactful portions of teacher preparation for two reasons: they allow candidates to enact instructional practices with P-12 students, and they provide iterative coaching from faculty, clinical supervisors, mentors, and peers. Yet across both coursework and clinical experiences, feedback remains inconsistent and often falls short . A recent study analyzing more than 11,000 supervisor evaluations and candidate reflections found that fewer than half of evaluations included a clear area for improvement or an actionable next step. Supervisors most often flagged classroom management as the area for growth, while candidates themselves highlighted lesson planning. The quality and focus of feedback matters, and the gaps are visible in how our field is currently leveraging coaching across preparation. Meta analyses reinforce what we already know: coaching and mentoring improve candidates’ instructional skills, but not all feedback is equal. The most powerful driver of growth is when teacher educators-whether faculty in coursework or supervisors and mentors in clinical settings-model practices, make their thinking visible, and then give candidates the chance to rehearse those methods, instructional and content pedagogies, or strategies with criteria driven feedback. In programs that do this, preservice teachers show much clearer improvement in their teaching and in their ability to make lessons clear for students. Feedback alone is not enough. Feedback plus modeling and rehearsal is what moves practice. We have a system design problem, and it has become painfully clear: too often, feedback depends on an individual faculty member, supervisor, or mentor and their own experience and skill in coaching rather than on a consistent structure every candidate can count on. What is missing is a common coaching cycle: beginning with pre observation planning aligned to candidate developmental needs, narrowing to one or two refinement areas during observation, and following with evidence based debriefs that link teacher moves to student learning. High quality coaching closes by modeling the expected practice with clear criteria, giving candidates space to rehearse it, providing feedback during the rehearsal, and setting clear action steps with additional follow up. Without this structure, feedback risks being occasional advice or scattered tips rather than a deliberate system for growth. This is the kind of challenge the field can solve together. By building on a shared approach, programs can move from good intentions to a reliable system that ensures every candidate, across coursework and clinical experiences, receives the coaching they need, and deserve, to be truly prepared for P-12 students. Barriers That Prevent Quality Feedback The inconsistent quality and timeliness of feedback to candidates is not simply a matter of individual effort. It reflects predictable barriers in program structures and processes that most preparation programs face when coaching is not designed with intentionality. Coaching usually depends on the individual teacher educator. Too often, the quality of feedback rests on the interests and expertise of a faculty member, clinical supervisor, or mentor, shaped by their own experience and level of skill in coaching. Without a shared structure, candidates end up with very different developmental opportunities depending on who they are assigned. We wait until clinical supervision for quality, criteria driven, instructional framework based feedback. Programs often treat coursework as the place for feedback on theory, leaving the more structured, criteria based coaching tied to the instructional framework for clinical experiences. This delay means candidates miss opportunities to build their understanding of quality instruction as defined by their campus and district, to develop habits earlier and more consistently, and it reinforces the idea that coaching is an event in supervision rather than a throughline across preparation. Time and scheduling work against consistency. Candidates are often grouped or assigned without a clear purpose for maximizing observation and coaching, defaulting instead to logistical convenience. Clinical supervisors then juggle multiple campuses and candidates, while faculty balance coursework and other responsibilities. Without program level norms that protect and prioritize time for coaching, feedback becomes irregular or rushed. If a program intentionally partners on placements and reduces the number of campuses it serves, supervisors can spend more time observing, debriefing, and strengthening the quality of onsite supports. Feedback is delayed or diluted. Candidates sometimes wait days for written notes or receive general comments instead of specific, actionable guidance they can use in their very next lesson. Delayed or vague feedback loses its power to shape immediate growth and leaves candidates uncertain about what to do next. Coaching debriefs lack success criteria and rehearsals. Too often, post observation conversations stop at pointing out what was seen or offering general advice. Without clear criteria for what “good” looks like and without structured opportunities to rehearse the move, candidates leave with feedback they cannot immediately translate into action. Roles are not calibrated. Faculty, supervisors, and mentors often work from different playbooks and hold different understandings of the standard, emphasizing varied priorities or using inconsistent language. Candidates then hear mixed messages about what matters most, and their development depends more on who is coaching them than on a shared vision of quality teaching. Limited ongoing development for teacher educators. Faculty, supervisors, and mentors are often expected to coach without consistent training, practice, or feedback on their own coaching. Opportunities for ongoing development, including train the trainer models and observation of teacher educators themselves, are rare. Without this support, even well intentioned teacher educators struggle to provide the high quality feedback candidates need, and deserve. These barriers are real, but they are not permanent. Each can be addressed by treating coaching as a system that ensures every candidate, in both coursework and clinical experiences, participates in the same cycle of focused observation, timely feedback, modeling, and rehearsal. The opportunity is to move from coaching by chance to coaching by design. Designing a Shared Coaching Cycle

From Data Collection to Daily Practice: How Strong Data Routines Improve Teacher Preparation Improving Candidate Development and Strengthening Let’s Start Using Data to Improve Preparation Educator preparation programs are not short on data. Programs collect everything from candidates’ instructional performance to certification exam attempts to stakeholder surveys. But when that data gets pulled out for a faculty meeting once a year or tucked away in a compliance folder, it rarely changes what matters most: how candidates are being prepared, supported, and developed in real time. The challenge is not necessarily a lack of data. It is a lack of data routines. Too often, data becomes a performance-something reviewed to meet compliance or displayed on a dashboard rather than used to drive change. The issue is not too much information. It is that the right people are not looking at the right data at the right time, with the intention to act. What preparation programs need is not more data, rather better (and often simpler) infrastructure and processes for using the data they already have. Programs across the country must move from passive collection to active improvement. When implemented with intention and consistency, data routines become the mechanisms that surface patterns, prompt timely action, and distribute decision-making across the people closest to candidate development. Strong programs and teacher educators do not use data just to understand what happened. They use it to decide what will happen next, and then they act on it. Data Routines are used to: Monitor candidate development across coursework and clinical experiences Strengthen faculty and clinical supervisor practice Identify and address misalignment between candidate expectations and performance Inform improvements in coursework, coaching, and support structures Data routines are not something that happens once a semester. They are built with intention, follow a consistent cadence, and bring everyone to the table. What Is a Data Routine? A data routine is not a dashboard. It’s not a spreadsheet review. And it’s not a one-time meeting. Data routines are the structured, recurring processes that help educator preparation programs monitor performance, identify trends, and take meaningful action. They are improvement mechanisms, embedded into the core work of faculty & clinical supervisors’ teaching, coaching, and candidate support. High-quality routines follow a predictable pattern:  A Simple, Powerful Cycle:

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update Summer 2025 | Invest in Preparation. Deliver What Works The Readiness Imperative: Building & Doing What Matters Over the last two decades, I’ve worked alongside preparation leaders and faculty who have poured extraordinary amounts of energy into building plans, frameworks, and bold visions for improvement in educator preparation. I’ve learned so much—and have been continually humbled by the innovative, purposeful leaders alongside me driving improvements in our field. That groundwork matters. But despite this progress, too much of what’s needed still lives on paper rather than in practice. It’s not that the work hasn’t started—it’s that lasting, high-impact implementation remains uneven, most especially for teacher candidates and P-12 students. Now, more than ever, is the moment to shift from planning for quality preparation to practicing it. At EdPrep Partners, we believe the next chapter isn’t about chasing trends—it’s about delivering on what we as a field already know works. That doesn’t mean the work is simple. Preparing excellent teachers requires intention, precision, and sustained support. We recognize there are new and promising ways to organize staffing and reimagine pathways—and we’re incredibly excited about those shifts. But the fundamentals of great teaching and teacher preparation remain under-implemented in far too many places. The drivers of teacher candidate readiness aren’t a mystery—and they shouldn’t be. We need to democratize what works so that every program, every pathway, and every candidate has access to the preparation practices that most quickly build readiness to teach. Quality teaching at every level is the engine of readiness. When faculty, supervisors, and mentor teachers explicitly model high-leverage practices, label the criteria behind them, and develop rigorous, high-impact practices, candidates internalize what excellent teaching looks like—and how to facilitate it. Structured practice leads to stronger instruction. Teacher candidates improve when they rehearse and enact teaching moves in authentic classroom settings—whether through representations or enactments with P-12 students—where candidates are both challenged and supported. High-frequency, high-quality feedback drives growth. Candidates need routine, specific, and timely feedback aligned to a clear developmental trajectory—not just reflection prompts, but feedback anchored in criteria, informed by modeling, and focused on instructional pedagogy and decision-making proven to improve P-12 outcomes. When paired with structured practice, these feedback opportunities build the habits and precision needed for day-one readiness. Not all efforts lead to impact. Some strategies feel comfortable or manageable for programs—not because they’re high-leverage, but because they’re low-resistance. At its core, this is about preparation—real, rigorous preparation that equips candidates to teach effectively both during their program and well beyond it. To make meaningful progress, we must get sharper about what truly builds readiness—and commit to doing it. That means adopting a mindset of discipline, intentionality, and purposefulness in how candidates spend their time in preparation—applied not only to candidates themselves, but to the people and systems responsible for preparing them. Let’s make teacher preparation better—together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners EdPrep Perspective: A Systems Response to the Learning Crisis Our EdPrep Perspective series provides guidance on urgent challenges in educator preparation—grounded in research and focused on actionable solutions. Refocusing on What Works In the wake of national learning setbacks and increased urgency around teacher readiness, Refocusing on What Works offers a candid response. Drawing from a recent New York Times article and EdPrep Partner’s experience, this brief calls for a systems-level shift—away from slogans and toward preparation practices that drive candidate preparation and, ultimately, student learning. Let’s implement blueprints that move from intention, to impact. Read the EdPrep Perspective What’s Ahead: Strengthening Preparation Through State-Led Commitments EdPrep Partners was founded with a clear purpose: to dramatically improve the quality of teacher preparation nationwide. Across the field, we see educator preparation programs, faculty, funders, and state agencies working hard to strengthen both where and how future teachers are developed. Yet even with this momentum, too many candidates still enter classrooms without the instructional skills or developmental support needed to succeed on day one. The opportunity now is to move with greater precision and urgency—to build on existing strengths, align preparation to what works, and reimagine pathways in ways that expand access without compromising quality. That doesn’t require starting over; it requires support that is targeted, practical, and sustainable. This year, we’re supporting a new wave of multi-year efforts across several states, each grounded in that commitment. Formal announcements will come directly from our partners, but we’re excited to share that this work reflects exactly what we exist to do: support programs and systems ready to deepen their efforts and take the next step toward rigorous, practice-based preparation that equips teachers to improve outcomes for P–12 students. Across our engagements, we focus on five high-leverage drivers of change: Deep program diagnostics to identify what is—and isn’t—effectively preparing candidates for high-quality instruction with P–12 students. Prioritized recommendations that drive purposeful, timely shifts in the areas that most impact instructional quality and student outcomes. Technical assistance that builds the capacity of EPP leaders and teacher educators through strategic, high-frequency support—designed to drive lasting, scalable improvement. Pathway diversification that meets candidates and the educator preparation market where they are—while scaling sustainable models that deliver on quality. Streamlined data routines that increase the consistency and utility of data use—enabling programs to plan, communicate, and improve more effectively. We help programs democratize data so it becomes a tool for improvement, not just compliance. We don’t just name what matters—we help programs do it. Whether through state systems work, cross-institutional technical assistance, or focused program support, we partner with those ready to raise the bar for preparation—and stay there. From the Field: What’s Working and Why It Matters Across the field, bold and grounded work is pushing preparation forward. These recent contributions—from national leaders and institutions—spotlight the practical shifts, leadership priorities, and instructional models that most urgently deserve attention. Each underscores a shared commitment: deepen candidate development, raise expectations for educator learning, and design systems that deliver real results for teacher candidate preparation and P–12 students. From TeachingWorks at the University of Michigan In A Brief Exploration of Mathematical Literacy, Nicole Garcia, Deborah Loewenberg Ball, and the TeachingWorks team emphasize that mathematical literacy isn’t a given—it must be intentionally built. Students need to engage in meaningful problem-solving, communicate their mathematical thinking, and develop positive math identities. To meet that charge, TeachingWorks and the New York State Education Department collaborated to distill decades of research into eight concise, accessible briefs. The briefs outline essential practices for building mathematical proficiency and offer practical guidance on instruction, assessment, curriculum use, leadership, and more. Read the Post Read the Briefs From TeachingWorks at the University of Michigan Francesca Forzani from TeachingWorks offers the field a timely reminder: teacher preparation isn’t just complex—it’s public work. Her call to make our teaching visible through thoughtful syllabi, course plans, and public materials challenges us to represent preparation clearly and professionally. “Just because it’s tough doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it,” she writes. “As the preparers of our nation’s public school teachers, we shouldn’t be affronted by requests to make clear what we do and how we do it.” Read Francesca’s Post Read EdPrep Partner’s Response From Dean’s for Impact In Rethinking Leadership in Educator Preparation, Deans for Impact shares findings from a national study examining the evolving role of leadership in educator preparation. The report outlines a new vision for program leadership—one grounded in instructional focus, system-level strategy, and proactive coalition-building. At its core, the report calls on EPP leaders to: Reclaim instructional improvement as the central purpose of preparation, focusing leadership energy on strengthening candidate learning experiences. Lead discerning strategic change by aligning people, systems, and decision-making to long-term priorities—not short-term fixes. Engage in proactive advocacy to advance a shared vision of quality educator preparation at the local, state, and national levels. Each priority is brought to life through powerful case studies of leaders who are threading the needle between innovation and accountability. Read the Publication From Dean’s for Impact In From Preparation to Prosperity: Federal Actions to Support Future Teachers, Deans for Impact outlines a bold federal agenda to address the national teacher shortage and strengthen educator preparation. The brief calls on federal leaders to (1) invest in teacher preparation through sustained and streamlined funding for accessible, practice-based pathways; (2) reset the national conversation on teaching and learning , including recognizing aspiring teachers and elevating evidence-based workforce strategies; and (3) advance policy to scale affordable, high-quality preparation , including stronger PK–12 and EPP partnerships, paid clinical experiences, and aligned accountability. Read the Brief From Arizona State University’s Next Education Workforce From the team at Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, The Next Education Workforce offers a compelling call to rethink how we organize educators and learning in schools. Brent Maddin and his team raise up the long-standing one-teacher, one-classroom model and propose a team-based approach that distributes expertise, deepens student learning, and improves outcomes for all P-12 students. These models include new roles, advancement pathways, and more sustainable working conditions for educators. With practical guidance for school leaders, preparation providers, and policymakers, the book outlines how to launch and sustain these models—calling for a system-wide shift in leadership, human capital strategy, and educator development to meet today’s learning demands. Explore the Book Read the Preliminary Research EdPrep Insights: What You May Have Missed Our EdPrep Insights series surfaces urgent challenges in educator preparation and lifts up research-aligned, actionable strategies for improvement. Each brief is grounded in EdPrep’s technical assistance approach and directly reflects the EdPrep Performance Framework and our 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. If you haven’t yet explored the most recent editions, here’s what you missed: Delaware’s Playbook: A Signal for What’s Possible in Teacher Preparation and Literacy This EdPrep Insight highlights how Delaware’s statewide approach—blending residency, strategic staffing, a focus on literacy, and a clear set of standards, and aligned program supports—offers a model for what’s possible when policy, preparation, and practice work in sync. Read the EdPrep Insight The Faculty Factor: Elevating the Teacher Educators Who Equip Future Teachers We can’t raise the bar for candidates without raising the bar for those who prepare them. This EdPrep Insight outlines the urgent need—and concrete actions—for supporting faculty, supervisors, and mentors to ensure quality teaching at every level. Read the EdPrep Insight When Preparation Is the Priority: How UH Is Redefining Quality ACP at Scale This EdPrep Insight profiles the University of Houston’s ACP as a bold example of what happens when preparation—not just compliance—drives program design. It’s a roadmap for building high-quality alternative pathways without lowering the bar. Read the EdPrep Insight Gatekeepers of Readiness: Reclaiming Quality in Teacher Preparation Too many teacher candidates advance without ever demonstrating they’re ready to teach. Performance gateways offer preparation programs a clear, evidence-based way to ensure every candidate is truly instructional day one ready. Read the EdPrep Insight Our Growing Team: Leaders Advancing a Shared Mission We’re thrilled to welcome three exceptional leaders to the EdPrep Partners team —each bringing deep expertise and a clear charge to help strengthen the systems, supports, and partnerships that enable educator preparation programs and state agencies in making high-quality preparation possible. Stephanie Howard joins as Senior Director of Programs & Partnerships , where she will lead diagnostic review teams, support technical assistance implementation, and help shape EdPrep Partner’s national strategy for dramatically improving teacher preparation. With deep experience in educator development, program diagnostics, systems design, and partnership building, Stephanie is already deepening our work to define quality, elevate preparation practices that work, and expand the tools programs use to drive candidate growth. Dr. Stephanie Lund serves as our new Director of Technical Assistance , focused on codifying and scaling EdPrep Partner’s on-the-ground support to educator preparation programs and P–12 partners. Drawing from her experience strengthening clinical models and instructional leadership, along with supporting large-scale redesign in coursework, she is already feverishly supporting EdPrep Partners and our stakeholders in refining technical assistance structures, building faculty capacity, and leading cross-organizational initiatives to improve teacher candidate readiness and P-12 student outcomes. Liz Lindsey is our Director of Operations & Administration , leading the systems and infrastructure that power EdPrep Partners’ day-to-day operations and long-term growth. She focuses on strategically leveraging resources to drive efficiency and support our mission to dramatically improve the quality of teacher preparation nationwide. Liz ensures our teams deliver with excellence—aligning financial, compliance, and operational practices to the same high standards we uphold in our technical assistance and expect of the programs we serve.

But Who Develops the Mentors? Why Faculty Development Is the Foundation of Teacher Preparation-And How Great Teacher Educators Make Great Mentors Possible The Missing Link in Mentor Development We’ve spent a lot of time lately talking about the people mentoring apprentices and residents in the field—and rightly so. This latest New America report has sparked renewed attention to a long-overlooked truth: in K–12 apprenticeship, pre-service, and sometimes in-service models, mentor teachers are the backbone of teacher preparation. They model instruction, guide day-to-day practice, and offer the kind of real-time feedback that, in the best-case scenario, accelerates candidate growth. But we can’t “hope” candidates learn how to teach. And we can’t keep overlooking a key group in the process: the faculty and staff inside educator preparation programs. And that raises a question the field doesn’t ask often enough, though one that actually matters most to the developmental outcomes of a teacher candidate: Who’s developing the mentors? In educator preparation, we’ve come to expect that in-service teachers can take on an ever-growing set of responsibilities—coaching, modeling, and providing developmental feedback—often without access to deep, structured, and resourced support. Because they spend the most time with candidates, operate closest to the realities of P–12 classrooms, and often form the most meaningful relationships, mentors are seen as “high-leverage.” As a result, we’ve too often placed the bulk of candidate development on mentors and P–12 schools’ shoulders. At the same time, we’ve accepted a pair of quiet assumptions: First: That the people responsible for supporting mentors—EPP directors, faculty, and supervisors—already know how to effectively model instruction, coach mentors, and deliver high-quality feedback. That they don’t need structured development themselves. Second: That the EPP teacher educators have already equipped mentors with the tools, training, and support needed to develop teacher candidates well. Faculty and supervisors within educator preparation programs are the developers of mentors. And they need tools, routines, and ongoing development just as much as anyone else in the system. In fact, they need it most . Their role isn’t just to support candidates, but to develop the teacher educators who do. When faculty aren’t equipped to design developmental experiences, lead effective coaching and rehearsal cycles, or provide feedback aligned to shared expectations, research-backed methods, and defined instructional criteria, mentoring breaks down—even with the best intentions in place. Faculty development isn’t optional or periodic, it’s the foundation of scalable, high-quality teacher preparation. As Francesca Forzani of TeachingWorks reminds us, “As teacher educators, no one should take instruction more seriously than we do.” The Conditions That Shape Mentoring In too many educator preparation programs, mentoring is treated as a standalone function—isolated from the faculty, coursework, and routines that define a candidates’ preparation experiences more broadly and deeply (meaning, where the time and resources in preparation are spent (coursework, clinical experiences and observation cycles, etc.). Mentors are expected to model high-quality instruction, guide novice practice, and give actionable feedback. But what do we imagine happens when the people designing those experiences haven’t been supported to do that work themselves? Mentorship doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It reflects what faculty and field supervisors prioritize, plan for, and model. Strong mentoring depends on strong teacher educators, including those who can translate instructional frameworks into rehearsal and feedback routines, scaffold development across time, and consistently model what high-quality teaching looks like. To do that well, they must be equipped with clear performance criteria and the capacity to offer focused, developmental feedback. And yet, in too many places: There’s often no shared definition of high-quality teacher educator practice. No clear criteria, performance expectations, or consistent observation and feedback structures like the ones we expect for candidates. Frameworks and practices, like those from TeachingWorks , offer strong starting points to embed within faculty development. Observation and feedback tools vary widely, or don’t exist at all. This gap extends beyond coaching protocols and includes uneven or missing use of instructional frameworks, which serve as the shared foundation for candidate development and performance expectations. Faculty often receive little to no structured development on how to label, model, teach, or coach toward proficiency in key methods, instructional pedagogies, content pedagogies, or instructional strategies. These gaps aren’t incidental, they’re structural. And they directly impact the candidate experience. When faculty aren’t prepared to develop mentors, mentors can’t fully develop candidates. And the entire system suffers from a lack of clarity, consistency, and support. How Strong Programs Develop Better Mentors Strong mentoring doesn’t start in the P–12 classroom. It begins with the people and practices that develop effective mentors. The strategies that make mentoring effective—modeling instruction, defining clear expectations, using structured coaching routines, and providing actionable feedback—aren’t just for mentors. They’re core responsibilities of the faculty, supervisors, and program leaders who design, support, and sustain high-quality teacher preparation. When teacher educators are equipped to model, label, and coach instructional practice themselves, they’re better positioned to develop mentors who can do the same. And when expectations are aligned across coursework and clinical experiences, candidates experience more consistent and connected support. Strong programs invest in the people and structures that make effective mentoring possible. Mentoring systems don’t improve by chance. They improve through clear expectations, shared language, and deliberate, supported practice—starting with the people who lead them. Five things strong programs do to ensure faculty, supervisors, and mentors are all set up to succeed: Establish Clear Criteria for Instructional Practices Strong programs don’t leave quality teaching to interpretation. They ensure teacher educators can articulate, teach, and apply clear criteria for what proficient performance looks like, grounded in the instructional methods and pedagogies the program prioritizes. Candidates know what’s expected. Mentors and faculty know how to support it. Label & Model High-Quality Instructional Practices Faculty, supervisors, and mentors consistently label & model prioritized instructional methods and pedagogies—not just in coursework, but across rehearsals, field-based debriefs, and candidate coaching. They explicitly label the criteria of effective teaching and connect them to the program’s instructional framework, reinforcing shared language and clear expectations. Use Structured Coaching and Feedback Routines Strong programs don’t leave coaching to chance, they rely on repeatable, structured routines when engaging with candidates in their development. These include clear observation protocols, intentional debrief planning that prioritizes the highest-leverage growth area(s), and focused feedback conversations that incorporate labeling, modeling, and rehearsal. Next steps are actionable, aligned to each candidate’s developmental trajectory, and anchored in the instructional performance criteria defined by the program and P–12 partners. Deliver Feedback That Builds Proficiency Over Time Effective feedback is specific, timely, actionable, developmentally appropriate, and aligned to shared expectations. It meets candidates where they are—and builds toward where they need to be—by supporting the knowledge, skills, and practices required for more advanced methods, pedagogies, and the needs of P–12 students. Faculty and supervisors provide both oral and written feedback that reinforces common instructional language, supports growth over time, and builds toward instructional proficiency. Crucially, feedback is calibrated across raters—ensuring it is fair, focused, and consistent. Align Expectations Between Faculty and Mentors Strong programs ensure that faculty, supervisors, and mentor teachers operate from a shared understanding of instructional expectations and feedback language. This alignment doesn’t happen by chance—it requires intentional faculty development, structured calibration routines, and shared tools that anchor conversations in the program’s instructional framework. When expectations are aligned, candidates receive clearer, more consistent support across coursework and clinical practice. These five practices aren’t just features of building strong mentoring programs, they’re the habits of strong programs. When faculty and supervisors do these things consistently, mentoring becomes a system, not a guess. Expectations are clearer. Support is more focused. And candidates are better prepared to teach. Programs don’t need to overhaul everything to improve faculty practices—and, in turn, mentor practices. Strong programs start small. They choose and consistently apply a common instructional framework. They identify core instructional methods, along with the definitions and criteria that guide candidate development within them. They select one or two high-leverage teacher educator practices that all faculty, supervisors, and mentors will use to support candidates. They adopt a focused coaching structure and process—such as Jim Knight’s Impact Cycle, Elena Aguilar’s Transformational Coaching Cycle, or Paul Bambrick-Santoyo’s “See It, Name It, Do It” model—and align all feedback to the instructional framework and method criteria. From there, they progress monitor and ensure teacher educators are prepared to support mentors with the same clarity, consistency, and intentionality we expect mentors to show candidates. Where Quality Mentoring Begins Strong mentoring doesn’t happen by accident, and neither does strong teacher preparation. It happens by design. Programs that cultivate strong mentors understand that quality mentoring stems from strong modeling, clear expectations, and consistent support upstream. And that means attending to the development of the people who make it all possible: the faculty, supervisors, and staff inside educator preparation programs. If mentors deserve support, modeling, and clarity, then the same must be true for those preparing them. These teacher educators do not just contribute to the preparation system—they shape the conditions, habits, and practices that drive it. They influence how mentors understand quality, how feedback is delivered, and how candidates make meaning of what it means to teach well. At EdPrep Partners , we work alongside programs to build that foundation, helping faculty and supervisors define what high quality practice looks like, model it with intention, and build the tools and routines to help others do the same. Our work supports not just individual development, but system level clarity and alignment, so that every candidate benefits from all teacher educators. Because when all teacher educators grow, candidates grow. And when candidates grow, so do P–12 students. Let’s make teacher preparation better—together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

Gatekeepers of Readiness: Reclaiming Quality in Teacher Preparation The Challenge: Candidate Program Progress ≠ Proficiency No gateway, no guarantee. If we truly want readiness, we have to require it. Every year, thousands of teacher candidates advance through preparation programs without clear, evidence-based confirmation that they’re ready for what’s next. Coursework and clinical experiences are completed. Clinical hours and documentation is logged. Evaluations are submitted. But critical questions remain: Can this candidate plan and deliver effective instruction? Has the candidate demonstrated proficiency in essential pedagogical methods? Is the candidate prepared to lead a classroom on day one? Too often, the answer isn’t yes or no—it’s maybe, probably, or simply unclear. And when progression is based more on time or task completion than demonstrated readiness, even well-intentioned systems can fall short. The result? Districts are left unsure of what a candidate can do. And ultimately, P–12 students experience the consequences in real time. The Solution: Performance Gateways At EdPrep Partners, we believe advancement in teacher preparation should be earned —not assumed. That’s where performance gateways come in. Performance gateways are structured checkpoints built into a preparation program where candidates must demonstrate clear, observable proficiency in core instructional competencies before moving forward. They aren’t hurdles—they’re commitments to readiness. They reflect what many on the field have long recognized: that advancing through preparation requires defined opportunities to demonstrate performance, not just passive participation. When done well, performance gateways give everyone a shared bar for what “ready” actually looks like. They align expectations across coursework and clinical experiences, helping programs feel confident that candidates aren’t just progressing—they’re prepared. What Gateways Look Like in Practice Strong programs don’t treat performance gateways as one-time checks. They build them into the architecture of preparation—across three critical domains: 1. Coursework Progression Gateway assignments—whether performance tasks, planning artifacts, or modeled pedagogical practices—aren’t just graded activities. They’re structured demonstrations of instructional skill. Candidates must show proficiency against pre-developed criteria, using shared instructional frameworks, aligned to core methods and content pedagogy before advancing to later coursework or entering clinical placements. 2. Clinical Transition Points Before taking on any level of teaching responsibility—whether through co-teaching or as a full-time teacher of record—candidates engage in structured opportunities to demonstrate proficiency in core instructional methods and pedagogies. These gateways may include rehearsals, lesson enactments, or other representations of teaching, supported by observation of practice, planning artifacts, and content-pedagogy evidence assessed against shared instructional frameworks. When expectations aren’t yet met, candidates receive targeted coaching—clear, high-quality oral and written feedback—alongside additional practice and a reassessment opportunity. The goal is not punishment, but support and growth. 3. Licensure Readiness and Program Completion Some performance gateways—whether tied to licensure, graduation, or overall program completion—draw on aggregated evidence of candidate performance. This may include portfolios, demonstration lessons, observation data, feedback cycles, and ratings on core instructional methods, pedagogical practices, and professional dispositions. These gateways offer a more comprehensive view of readiness—not just a checklist of completed tasks. When candidates don’t yet meet expectations, strong programs respond with support—not exclusion. That support includes targeted coaching, individualized growth plans, and multiple structured opportunities to demonstrate progress—ensuring that any high-stakes decision to advance or withhold a candidate is grounded in evidence. What Strong Programs Do Differently Programs that implement effective performance gateways don’t leave readiness to chance. They build it into the structure of preparation—and they’re willing to make hard decisions in service of quality. Here’s what they prioritize: Shared Criteria and Expectations Gateways are aligned to a shared instructional framework, with consistent criteria & look-fors, proficiency benchmarks, and frameworks used across faculty, supervisors, mentors, and candidates. Calibration Across Roles Faculty and field supervisors alike are trained and calibrated on what quality looks like—and how to assess it reliably. Transparent Candidate Support Plans Candidates know what’s expected and what happens if they don’t meet the bar. Growth plans are not reactive—they’re proactive. Data-Driven Progression Decisions Advancement is grounded in multiple data sources: performance assessments, observation feedback, candidate coursework, and candidate and faculty/staff reflections—not gut instinct or seat time. Willingness to Hold the Line Strong programs are willing to hold a candidate in a ‘phase of support’ when readiness isn’t yet demonstrated—because advancing without proficiency serves no one. They pair high expectations with high support, ensuring every candidate has the opportunity to meet the bar before moving forward. Candidate Readiness as a Shared Responsibility Performance decisions aren’t the job of one teacher educator. They require aligned systems, clear structures, and shared ownership across faculty, supervisors, and district partners. When the entire preparation ecosystem supports a common bar for readiness, gateways become reliable—not random. This work requires intention, structure, and investment. But the payoff—better-prepared candidates who are ready on day one—is worth it. Why This Matters When performance gateways are clearly defined and well-executed, everyone benefits: For Candidates: They receive timely, actionable feedback and know exactly what’s expected at each stage. ‘Readiness to Teach’ isn’t a guessing game—it’s something they can see and achieve. For Programs: They gain confidence that their completers are truly ready—and have the data to prove it.. Gateways strengthen program credibility, build trust with P-12 partners, and elevate outcomes. For Districts: They hire new teachers who are instructionally ready—not just licensed. These candidates have already demonstrated they can plan, teach, and adapt in real P-12 classrooms. For P–12 Students: They’re taught by educators who are truly prepared to lead learning from day one. And as research shows, the quality of the teacher makes all the difference. At EdPrep Partners, performance gateways are a core lever of our EdPrep Performance Framework. We support educator preparation programs to: Design developmental trajectories that build toward clear, proficiency-based benchmarks Establish structured performance gateways across coursework and clinical experiences Develop and calibrate observation frameworks, criteria, and look-fors aligned to core instructional practices Implement targeted support plans for candidates who need additional time or coaching to meet expectations Make progression decisions that are consistent, equitable, and grounded in multiple sources of evidence We help programs shift from informal checkpoints to intentional, performance-based systems of candidate development—ensuring every candidate advances based on one overarching thing: demonstrated readiness to teach. Let’s Stop Guessing at Readiness Teacher preparation isn’t about getting candidates through the program. It’s about getting them ready—deliberately, thoroughly, and with high expectations—for the P-12 classrooms they will lead. It means candidates demonstrating skills. It means meeting a clear, shared bar. It means performance—and readiness. Let’s stop implying readiness. Let’s measure it. Let’s make teacher preparation better—together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

Refocusing on What Works A Call for a Systems Response to the Learning Crisis, Teacher Readiness, Instructional Quality, and What We Collectively Need to Do Next A National Challenge That Demands Local Action Every Child Deserves an Excellent Educator. Let’s Give Them One. In a recent New York Times article, “Has America Given Up on Children’s Learning?” journalist Dana Goldstein describes a stark picture: academic learning has drifted from the center of our national education agenda. While political debates over curriculum, culture, and governance continue, instructional quality and student learning outcomes—once considered the foundation of our education system—are no longer prioritized. Is this true? That depends on the lens you're using, the data you're referencing, and the people you're asking. This is clear though: Far too many students—and the teachers who serve them—remain underprepared. Across the country, teacher candidates are entering classrooms without the depth of preparation required to help students thrive (or reach proficiency). In many states, first-year novice teachers now make up more than 10% of the total P-12 teaching workforce —a figure that continues to grow. We’ve long known that novice teachers—those just entering the profession—are the least likely to accelerate student learning, often struggling to navigate the steep learning curve of effective instruction. That’s why preparation matters. That’s why preparation matters. As the share of inexperienced educators continues to rise, the consequences of weak preparation grow more urgent—not just for P–12 students, but for families, communities, and the nation. The stakes are not abstract: student achievement, instructional quality, and teacher retention are all directly tied to how well teachers are prepared before stepping into their own classrooms. At EdPrep Partners, we do not view this moment with despair—but with clarity and urgency. This is not a call to return to antiquated systems, models, or slogans. It’s a call to refocus on what we know works : high-quality teaching at every level—including the instruction provided by teacher educators at educator preparation programs—grounded in evidence-based preparation, driven by meaningful practice, and centered on candidate development and P-12 student learning. For us and many of my colleagues across the nation, this is about dramatically improving the quality of teacher preparation . Dramatic doesn’t always mean changing everything . Sometimes it’s small, intentional shifts—if and how faculty label & model instructional practices, if and how feedback is delivered, if and how coursework aligns with clinical experiences—that create lasting impact. Sometimes it’s major shifts. We use the word dramatically deliberately: because we know the stakes, and because we’ve seen what’s possible. Across the country, some educator preparation programs are already pushing toward these shifts—what’s needed now is the support to help them go further, faster, and sustain what works. When the profession of teaching is separated from the science of how people learn, and change, we all lose. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric and toward action that strengthens the systems that produce excellent educators—because nothing matters more for P-12 students than the teacher in the classroom. What We’re Doing Differently We agree: the national conversation has drifted away from what matters most—the quality of preparation and its impact on student learning. Even within teacher preparation, the focus too often centers on staffing models, licensure flexibilities and/or needs, and placement practices. But these conversations frequently skip the most urgent question: Are teacher candidates prepared to lead learning with P–12 students? At EdPrep Partners, we believe the answer must be yes—and we exist to help make that true everywhere. We know that access and scale do not have to come at the expense of readiness (no matter the pathway). We work alongside educator preparation programs, districts, and state agencies to ensure their efforts are anchored in what research shows works: structured, practice-based preparation led by skilled teacher educators and grounded in the instructional needs of P–12 students. We don’t debate whether preparation matters. We build the systems that ensure it does —through research-backed preparation models, practice-based development, and a relentless focus on candidate readiness and student outcomes. Our Approach: Turning Barriers Into Breakthroughs Across the field, the challenges facing educator preparation are well known—and increasingly urgent. But they are not insurmountable. The issues highlighted in the New York Times article cited above—drifting national priorities, inconsistent instructional quality, and underdeveloped preparation systems—mirror what we see daily on the ground. With the right structures and support, programs can overcome these barriers and build the conditions that lead to stronger preparation and better outcomes for teacher candidates and P–12 students. We must not respond with surface-level fixes, general advocacy, or staffing re-structuring alone, but with systems and educator preparation program-level solutions designed to ensure every teacher candidate enters the classroom ready to lead learning on day one. Our work is grounded in three foundational components: EdPrep Performance Framework – Defines the essential structures, practices, and indicators of quality across four performance areas: Program Leadership & Continuous Improvement, Candidate Preparation & Development, Teacher Educator Practices, and District & Program Partnerships. 14 Levers of Quality Teacher Preparation – Clear, actionable strategies that programs implement to strengthen coursework, clinical experiences, feedback systems, and data practices. Embedded Technical Assistance – On-the-ground, sustained support that moves programs from planning to implementation—focused on what’s within their control. Some of the most salient challenges in educator preparation are our collective responsibility:

The Faculty Factor: Elevating the Teacher Educators Who Equip Future Teachers We can’t raise the bar for teachers without raising the bar for those who prepare them. In the national conversation on teacher readiness, the spotlight often lands on curriculum, high-quality instructional materials, clinical models, or candidate recruitment. But behind every well-prepared teacher is a teacher educator—a faculty member, field supervisor, or mentor whose impact can either sharpen or stall a candidate’s development. As educator preparation evolves to meet a long-recognized need—practice-based instruction supported by real-time coaching and high-quality feedback—we must extend the same level of development and accountability to the people preparing teacher candidates. Quality preparation doesn’t stop at program design; it lives and dies in the instructional practice of teacher educators. Why Teacher Educator Practices Matter Research confirms what many EPP leaders already know: the quality of support candidates receive from faculty and field-based educators is one of the strongest predictors of instructional readiness. Yet in many programs, the individuals preparing teachers—particularly clinical supervisors, adjunct faculty, and mentor teachers—receive little structured training, limited feedback, and no ongoing development in how to support candidate growth. Studies show that teacher educators and program design structures significantly influence the quality of clinical experiences and the integration of theory and practice (Burns et al., 2015; Zeichner, 2010). Additionally, candidates are more instructionally effective when placed in settings where clinical educators provide targeted, high-quality feedback—emphasizing the direct link between educator practice and candidate readiness (Ronfeldt, 2014). The EdPrep Partners Performance Framework makes this clear: high-quality teacher educators are not just content experts or course designers—they are instructors of teaching practice. Their role extends beyond delivering content, to modeling, coaching, and guiding candidates toward instructional proficiency. Strong preparation programs recognize that quality teaching at every level —from the P–12 classroom to the coursework and field supervision for candidate development—depends on the knowledge and skill of those doing the preparation of teacher candidates. To support candidate growth, teacher educators must be able to: Model effective instructional practices in their own teaching and the pedagogies they are developing in candidates—clearly labeled and intentionally scaffolded to ensure candidates understand not just the what, but the why and how of strong instruction. Observe candidate practice with precision and consistency , using shared criteria and developmental trajectories to prioritize both the what and the how of effective teaching. Deliver timely, high-quality oral and written feedback that is actionable, aligned to defined criteria, and anchored in candidate developmental progressions. Use shared tools, rubrics, and performance benchmarks to support instructional growth—clearing the path for candidates, identifying when intervention is needed, and clearly communicating where a candidate is, what’s missing, and what’s next. Facilitate structured coaching and support cycles that promote candidate reflection, guide next steps, and move candidates from analysis to rehearsal to enactment—while adjusting teacher educator practice in response to candidate needs. This isn’t evaluative work—it’s instructional. It demands intentional practice, ongoing calibration, and a shared vision of what high-quality preparation looks like. Yet while we invest heavily in developing teacher candidates, the development of those preparing them is too often overlooked. Without strong systems to support teacher educator practice, program improvement remains surface-level—and real instructional change stalls. Persistent Gaps in Teacher Educator Development & Practices Despite the clarity of what teacher educators must be able to do, most programs lack the infrastructure to support these core practices. Across the field, persistent challenges in teacher educator development are well known—confirmed by research, surfaced in stakeholder feedback, and reinforced through the diagnostic and technical assistance work of countless programs and organizations. Hiring and onboarding of clinical supervisors is inconsistent and misaligned. Clinical supervisors are often hired late, selected for convenience or availability rather than their ability to teach or coach aspiring educators. Many are retired principals or former educators without recent classroom experience or training in practice-based teacher development. They are onboarded inconsistently—or not at all—and often operate in silos, disconnected from coursework, program goals, and shared candidate expectations. Coaching practices vary widely, with little to no accountability for the quality of support provided. Faculty expectations and instructional messages are fragmented. Faculty expectations also vary, sending mixed messages to candidates about what strong instruction looks like. In the absence of shared tools or developmental benchmarks, feedback and debriefs are inconsistent. Too often, candidates receive generic advice or “tips and tricks” rather than evidence-based coaching grounded in observed practice and instructional impact. Few faculty provide rehearsal opportunities or explicitly connect feedback to candidate developmental trajectories. Professional learning for faculty and field-based educators is limited. Many are excluded from ongoing development or receive one-off trainings that lack follow-up or coherence. They often have little exposure to their program’s instructional framework, teacher educator practices, or core tools—leaving them underprepared to support candidate growth in consistent, aligned ways. Observation, feedback, and rehearsal practices lack calibration. Most programs lack shared coaching protocols, defined performance criteria for pedagogies and content-specific practices, or normed expectations for feedback and evaluation. As a result, teacher educators rely on their own interpretations of quality, leading to wide variation in what ‘good teaching’ looks like and how it’s communicated to candidates. Feedback and accountability structures for teacher educators are weak or nonexistent. While candidates are routinely observed, evaluated, and coached, the same cannot be said for the individuals responsible for candidate development. Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentor teachers often operate without receiving feedback on their own practice—no observations, no coaching, and no performance expectations tied to their impact as teacher educators. Without structures to assess and develop teacher educator effectiveness, programs cannot ensure consistency, quality, or improvement across candidate experiences. While these challenges often surface locally, they reflect a broader systemic gap in how we develop and support the people who prepare teachers. They are symptoms of a broader systemic problem: the absence of robust infrastructure for developing and supporting the people who prepare teachers. And when left unaddressed, these gaps undermine even the strongest curriculum or clinical placement design. If we care about candidate quality, we can’t leave teacher educator quality to chance. What Strong Programs Do Differently Effective educator preparation programs recognize that developing teacher candidates requires equally rigorous investment in the development of teacher educators. They implement structured systems that align with research-backed practices, ensuring that teacher educators are equipped to model, coach, and support candidates effectively. Start with clear expectations for teacher educator practice. Strong programs define what quality looks like—not just for candidates, but for the people developing them. They establish explicit competencies for faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentor teachers aligned to research-based teacher educator practices. These expectations anchor coaching protocols, feedback cycles, and performance reviews—replacing ambiguity with clarity. Onboard and train all teacher educators with purpose. Onboarding is not an afterthought. Effective programs provide structured, role-specific training before a course is taught or a candidate is coached. Whether full-time faculty or part-time field supervisors, every educator receives grounding in the program’s instructional model, pedagogical expectations, feedback protocols, and the developmental trajectory of candidates. Embed coaching and rehearsal into teacher educator development. Programs that prioritize practice-based preparation also ensure that teacher educators themselves rehearse the practices they’ll be facilitating. This includes opportunities to model instructional strategies, analyze candidate performance, and role-play feedback conversations—all grounded in the same tools and criteria expected of candidates. Observe, support, and develop their teacher educators—routinely. Strong programs don’t just evaluate teacher educators—they coach them. Faculty and clinical educators receive feedback on their instructional moves, the quality of their feedback to candidates, and their alignment to core pedagogies. Observation and coaching cycles are routine, not reserved for remediation. The goal isn’t compliance—it’s growth. Build shared infrastructure to calibrate and align. To ensure consistency across courses, supervisors, and sites, strong programs implement shared tools: observation rubrics, coaching protocols, feedback templates, and performance benchmarks that make expectations visible. These tools are used not only with candidates, but with the teacher educators who support them—ensuring everyone is working from the same definition of quality. Treat teacher educator development as ongoing, not episodic. Professional learning is structured, job-embedded, and responsive. Strong programs create feedback loops from candidate performance to teacher educator development—recognizing that improving instruction at the candidate level requires skill-building at the educator level. They invest in communities of practice, calibration routines, and data-driven development plans. This work requires intention, structure, and investment. But the payoff—better-prepared candidates who are ready on day one—is worth it. A Call to Action: Elevating the Faculty Factor If we’re serious about dramatically improving teacher preparation, we have to begin with those responsible for delivering it. The research is clear. The practices are clear. And the need is urgent. We’ve long known that strong preparation requires aligned coursework, clinical experiences, and access to high-quality instructional materials. Even well-designed programs can struggle to deliver on their promise if faculty, supervisors, and mentors lack the support to bring them to life. Strong programs support candidates—but that support is only as effective as the people delivering it. And when those people lack the skills, structures, and support to model and develop effective instruction, candidates enter classrooms unready for day one. Teacher educator development is not a side issue—it’s the fundamental driver of program quality. At EdPrep Partners, we believe this is one of the most urgent and actionable levers for strengthening preparation nationwide. That’s why our work—spanning diagnostics, technical assistance, and implementation support—centers on developing the practices of teacher educators. We help programs define expectations, build infrastructure, and implement systems that elevate faculty, supervisors, and mentors as skilled instructors of teaching. Programs that make this investment aren’t just building stronger teams. They’re improving candidate outcomes, strengthening partnerships, and delivering on the promise of readiness for every candidate. Let’s raise the bar—for teacher educators, for teacher candidates, and for the future of the profession. Let’s make teacher preparation better—together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners A Note on the Field’s Progress & TeachingWorks I’ve long championed and supported the development of both innovation and attention in this space, and EdPrep Partners will continue that commitment—focusing teacher educator development as a core driver of program quality. Our technical assistance is grounded in the knowledge, skills, and systems that enable faculty and supervisors to prepare candidates well. We recognize the essential contributions of partners who have shaped this work nationally. TeachingWorks, in particular, has meaningfully codified what it means to prepare the people who prepare teachers—bringing clarity, structure, and urgency to the field. Their thought leadership continues to elevate expectations and sharpen the vision for teacher educator practice. We are proud to learn from and alongside them.

Mid-Year ASEP Data and Perception Data Refresh Attention Texas Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs): As mentioned in the most recent TEA EPP Newsletter , the 2024-2025 ASEP Mid-Year Data Sets are now available and include Year-to-Date Pass Rates, Year-to-Date Observations, and 5-Year Continuing Enrollment Status. Additionally, a new year of Perception Survey Data has been added to the Insight to Impact Dashboards. Now is the time to make the most of these data sets by applying structured protocols that drive evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvement. Here’s how: Leverage our modified ASEP Data Protocol: Developed by EdPrep Partners to help programs conduct a comprehensive and actionable analysis of their ASEP Mid-Year Data Sets. This protocol guides you through Framing, Describing, and Planning, enabling you to identify trends in pass rates, observation data, and enrollment status and connect those findings to meaningful program improvements. Access the protocol here: ASEP Mid-Year Data Protocol Utilize the Insight to Impact Perception Survey Protocol: Designed to support programs in analyzing perception data from candidates and principals, identifying trends, and informing program improvements. Access the protocol here: Perception Survey Protocol These structured approaches align with EdPrep Partners’ Data-Informed Decision-Making and Continuous Improvement levers—core elements of our 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. Take charge of your most relevant data and start making improvements now. This process doesn’t need to be overly formal or complex. Gather the right people, provide access to the data, pull up the protocol(s), and dive in. Get messy, make sense of the data, and drive positive change.  Doing so will strengthen your program’s quality, enhance candidate readiness, and, most importantly, drive better outcomes for P-12 students.

When Preparation Is the Priority: How the University of Houston Is Redefining Quality ACP at Scale The Big Picture: Preparation, Not Pathway As the nation continues grappling with how to solve the teacher shortage, one question—often unspoken—keeps surfacing: traditional, alternative, or no preparation at all? It’s time to take one variable off the table. This is no longer a debate about pathway . It’s about preparation . As we’ve outlined in a previous EdPrep Insight— Ready or Not: What Texas’ 2024–2025 Data Reveals About Teacher Preparation Gaps —the real dividing line is between programs that prepare teachers to be ready on day one, and those that don’t. Unfortunately, and far too often—no matter the pathway—preparation is the missing piece. The result? Let’s look at Texas—one of the nation’s largest producers of year-zero teachers—during the 2024–2025 academic year: 43,771 teachers were newly hired across the state. 31% (≈13,569 teachers) were hired without a Texas teacher certification or SBEC-issued permit. Just 12.3% (≈5,382 teachers) were hired with a Standard Certificate and completed clinical student teaching. Texas hired nearly 44,000 new teachers last year. But nearly one in three entered the classroom without certification or a state-issued permit. Fewer than 13% were fully certified with completed clinical student teaching. This isn’t an exception—it’s the system. And it’s failing to prepare—especially those teachers just starting in the profession, those who support and work alongside year-zero teachers on campus, and ultimately, the P–12 students they serve. UH ACP: From Pilot to Scale Back in 2022, during our time working at US PREP National Center, two colleagues and I met with two visionary leaders who were growing increasingly concerned about declining enrollment and meeting the needs of their district partners. Enrollment in their teacher preparation program was falling, and districts were sounding the alarm—they weren’t producing enough educators. Dr. Shea Culpepper and Dr. Amber Thompson , leaders of the University of Houston (UH) teacher preparation program, went all-in. Together, with the support of the Houston Endowment, we co-designed a scaled alternative certification program (ACP) that has helped redefine what quality can look like in a university-based ACP. We built on more than 15 years of learning from innovative alternative preparation programs across the country—models and structures proven to rapidly develop teacher candidates while meeting the real-time needs of P–12 districts. Programs like Teaching Excellence at YES Prep Public Schools , Urban Teachers , Relay Graduate School of Education , Sposato , and Alder GSE have led the way in demonstrating what’s possible when design is grounded in practice. UH launched its ACP with just 17 candidates in its first year, partnering with two school districts. In year two, enrollment grew to 106 candidates and five districts . Now, just over two years since that first planning meeting, UH is on track to enroll just under 200 candidates in districts across the Houston area for the 2025–26 school year. That means more than 200 well-prepared teachers will enter Houston-area classrooms—backed by a program that has scaled with intention, not compromise. To support this growth, UH now has eight full-time Site Coordinators to support candidates, ensuring the program not only expands—but strengthens. At a time when most university-based teacher preparation programs are shrinking, UH is opening new pathways . Not because it lowered the bar—but because it raised it across all programs and pathways. And because it listened—to districts, to candidates, and to what the research tells us works. What Makes Alternative Certification Work: Elements of High-Quality ACP Not all ACPs are created equal. In fact, much of the skepticism around alternative certification stems from programs that shortcut preparation—offering minimal training, limited coaching, and few performance expectations before teachers take full responsibility for a classroom. But that’s not how it has to be. High-quality ACPs share a set of non-negotiable design elements—structures that ensure teacher candidates are prepared to lead P-12 learning from day one. These elements are grounded in EdPrep Partners’ Performance Framework and reflect over a decade of national learning from programs that work. The University of Houston’s ACP shows what’s possible when these elements are put into practice.

What Texas’ Data Shows About Preparation Every child deserves an excellent educator. Let’s give them one. Recent data released by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) highlights concerning trends in how many newly hired teachers enter the profession with or without formal preparation. While rates vary across the state’s 20 education regions, the statewide picture reveals a growing divide between hiring needs and expectations, candidate enrollment, and the preparation pathways that support the demand. Texas Statewide Newly Hired & Certification Data in 2024–2025: 43,771 teachers were newly hired across Texas. 31% (approx. 13,569) were hired without a Texas teacher certification or SBEC-issued permit. 34% (approx. 14,882) were re-entering teachers, returning after a break in Texas public school teaching. Only 12.3% (approx. 5,382) were Standard Certified teachers—those who had completed clinical student teaching prior to being hired. Two Texas regions help help illustrate how this plays out on the ground: In Region 4 (Houston), 9,950 new teachers were hired. Only 2,782 (28%) were newly certified, while 3,191 were hired without a Texas certification or permit. In Region 19 (El Paso), 947 new teachers were hired. 434 (46%) were newly certified, and 96 entered without certification or under emergency permits. These aren’t just numbers. They reflect fundamentally different teaching conditions for P–12 students across Texas and continue to raise urgent questions for preparation programs, districts, and state leaders: Are preparation pathways keeping pace with the realities of regional hiring needs? Are certification and preparation being prioritized—or deprioritized—in staffing decisions? What systems are in place to ensure all new teachers are truly ready to teach? You can explore this data, and more, in the TEA Regional Dashboard . Preparation is the Non-Negotiable It’s time to reframe the conversation. This is no longer about traditional vs. alternative pathways. It’s about preparation vs. no preparation. Texas has long relied on a mix of pathways to meet workforce needs—from traditional certification programs to alternative certification and internship-based models. Each has a role to play. But across all pathways, the baseline expectation must be the same: teachers must be prepared to teach P–12 students on day one. When preparation is missing, the burden shifts to schools and students. Gaps in readiness lead to inconsistent instruction, classroom management challenges, higher attrition, and decreased outcomes for students. But when teacher candidates are well-prepared—through rigorous coursework, structured clinical experiences, and expert coaching—students benefit, and so do the systems that support them. What Quality Preparation Requires To close both certification and achievement gaps, we must shift the frame from "how many teachers" to "how well-prepared are they—and how do we scale that quality?" At EdPrep Partners, we believe the solution lies in investing in all preparation programs and pathways—traditional, residency, internship-based, and community college—that are designed to deliver both quality and scale. Any pathway can work when it reflects what research and real-world success tell us is essential. That means programs must be: Coherent and research-based: Coursework, clinical experiences, and data systems must align to a shared vision of instructional performance. Candidates, faculty, supervisors, and mentor teachers should all reinforce the same expectations—grounded in what excellent teaching is. Practice-rich and structured with high-quality feedback: Candidates need multiple, scaffolded opportunities to observe, rehearse, and enact instruction—both before and while they take on full classroom responsibility. Structured practice (such as simulations, rehearsals, and supported teaching experiences) must be paired with timely, specific, and high-quality feedback that drives meaningful reflection and instructional growth. Performance-driven and competency-based: Candidate progression must be based on demonstrated readiness, not just clock hours or course completion. Strong programs define clear developmental trajectories, set intentional benchmarks, and establish structured performance gateways—ensuring that candidates show they’re ready before advancing to the next stage of preparation or independent teaching. Accessible, scalable, and sustainable: The most effective programs reduce barriers to entry without lowering the bar—ensuring that preparation remains both inclusive and high-quality. This requires building the systems, staffing, and structures needed to “scale well.” Access and quality must grow together—not in opposition. This also means meeting candidates where they are, through the refinement and development of programs and pathways they’re most likely to pursue, while incentivizing and supporting more rigorous, practice-rich models that lead to lasting success in P-12 classrooms. These aren’t theoretical ideals—they’re already in practice across countless programs nationwide and are embedded in EdPrep Partners’ Performance Framework and 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. We’ve seen firsthand how these structures drive results for teacher candidates and P–12 students—and we’ve supported programs in building and refining them to increase quality, enrollment, completion, and retention. And we need to rapidly support more. The Research Is Clear: Preparation Matters A 2024 policy brief from Texas Tech University found that uncertified teachers without prior classroom experience were associated with significant declines in student achievement, while those with experience (like paraprofessionals) did not harm outcomes. ¹ A separate study from Texas State University showed that students taught by unlicensed instructors experienced up to three months less academic growth in math, and those teachers also left the profession at far higher rates.² Well-prepared teachers improve student learning and stay in the classroom longer. And any pathway that prepares them well is worth investing in. The Opportunity for States, Regions, and Programs Texas is not alone. States across the country are grappling with the same challenge: How do we expand the teacher workforce without sacrificing preparation quality? The data shows us both the risk and the opportunity. Some regions—like El Paso—are making aligned, intentional moves that prioritize preparation. Others are navigating fractured systems, where hiring decisions are driven more by urgency than by long-term readiness. The difference isn’t just about policy. It’s about intentionality, investment, and systems. At EdPrep Partners, we’ve seen what’s possible when systems and teacher preparation programs commit to: Using data not just to report progress, but to drive strategy —clarifying where to invest, how to improve, and where to grow. Aligning teacher educator practices across coursework, clinical experiences, and district hiring —so expectations are simplified, and preparation is streamlined around what matters most. Investing in the people who make preparation work —faculty, staff, supervisors, mentors, and program leaders. Building lasting infrastructure and capacity —anchored in enrollment, staffing, and program scale, so that change sticks beyond pilots and funding cycles. The tools exist. The frameworks are in place. We know what quality looks like. But knowing what works is not enough. We need bold action, strategic investment, and a shared sense of urgency—paired with the capacity and know-how to scale what works and sustain it over time. This, like many before, is a pivotal moment for teacher preparation. If we act now—with coherence, ambition, and long-term systems in mind—we can ensure that every P–12 student is taught by a well-prepared teacher. Let’s make this our shared commitment. Let’s make teacher preparation better—together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners 

Delaware’s Playbook: A Signal for What’s Possible in Teacher Preparation and Literacy A Signal for What’s Possible The 2025 Delaware Teacher Pathways Showcase wasn’t just a convening. As Michael Saylor, Director of Educator Excellence at the Delaware Department of Education, described it, the goal was to “Share. Learn. Get Inspired.” What unfolded was more than that. It was a signal. A signal that system-level transformation in teacher preparation isn’t theoretical—it’s already underway and positioned for rapid statewide expansion. That expanding access to the profession must be matched by a deep focus on candidate readiness. And that addressing long-standing student learning challenges requires investing in how teachers are developed. Delaware isn’t standing still. It’s moving with intention—through policy, partnership, and preparation systems designed to drive meaningful, lasting change. The Literacy Crisis: Delaware and the Data Demand More Delaware isn’t avoiding the hard challenges. One of the clearest takeaways from the 2025 Teacher Pathways Showcase was how openly state and institutional leaders acknowledged the depth of the literacy crisis—and their shared responsibility for solving it. Several speakers and panelists throughout the day pointed to the need for honest, systems-level reflection on current conditions and the bold steps required to drive lasting change. The data underscores the urgency. According to the 2024 Nation’s Report Card, gaps in literacy by race, income, and gender remain largely unchanged since 1998, and: Only 26 percent of DE 4th Grade students read at or above Proficient ; 45 percent scored below Basic . Just 23 percent of DE 8th Grade students reached Proficient ; 41 percent scored below Basic . These results aren’t anomalies—they are the predictable outcomes of preparation systems that have not fully aligned with how students actually learn to read. Too often, teacher preparation and P–12 instruction operate in silos, disconnected from the structured, evidence-based practices that research shows make a difference. Delaware is responding differently. Through strategic investments in pathways, preparation systems, and instructional alignment, the state is making it clear: improving literacy outcomes begins with how teachers are prepared—not just how they perform. Pathways With Purpose: Delaware’s Approach to Statewide Infrastructure Delaware is addressing its educator workforce challenge not with scattered programs, but through a coordinated, statewide strategy. The state is developing multiple entry points into the profession—each grounded in rigorous preparation, aligned to workforce needs, and designed to scale sustainably. As Senator Laura Sturgeon noted during the Showcase’s opening session, “We don’t have time to wait.” That urgency is evident in both the design and the rapid expansion of Delaware’s pathway system. Here’s where Delaware is currently investing in preparation pathways:

No More Data for Data’s Sake  Compliance-Driven Data ≠ Continuous Improvement Across the field of educator preparation, programs are inundated with data: licensure pass rates, observation data, candidate surveys, retention dashboards, etc. Yet despite this volume, many educator preparation programs struggle to translate data into sustained improvement. Instead, data use often centers on meeting accreditation requirements or state reporting mandates—important, but insufficient. The real risk is this: when data is collected but not used to inform decisions, it erodes credibility, overwhelms stakeholders, and ultimately does little to improve candidate readiness or program quality. It’s time to move from compliance to comittment—where data is not just stored and sorted, but embedded in daily practice, coaching, and leadership decisions. Data Is a Lever for Growth, Not Just a Record of the Past The strongest teacher preparation programs use data as a continuous improvement tool—not a retrospective one. That means: Grounding data in a shared vision for quality teaching & learning. Leveraging multiple data types (coursework, clinical, candidate performance, etc.). Using structured, routine data reviews to inform coaching, coursework revisions, and partnership decisions. Empowering faculty, supervisors, and candidates to own and act on the data—not just leaders. This shift—from data as evidence to data as action —is at the heart of EdPrep Partners’ approach. What It Looks Like in Practice: Frame → Describe → Plan Data protocols should be designed for clarity, utility, and collective ownership. Here’s how we have thought about shrinking the change and behavior of data usage: Frame Establish purpose and expectations. What are we trying to understand? What assumptions or biases might we bring into the conversation? “We expect strong performance in elementary certification areas, but prior data suggested gaps in secondary math. What will this year’s trends tell us?” Describe Analyze and interpret the data. What patterns, gaps, or inconsistencies are emerging? What seems surprising—or missing? “Observation counts meet minimum standards, but no extra support was provided to struggling candidates. That’s a missed opportunity.” Plan Develop a concrete action plan. What changes will we make? Who owns what? How will we monitor and report progress? “We’ll launch a targeted support series for secondary math candidates, implement coaching development for supervisors, and track & view impact data quarterly.” This protocol is intentionally simple—but powerful. It ensures that data review isn’t a one-time event or isolated to leadership. It’s a discipline of improvement shared across faculty, field supervisors, and program leaders. The Stakes: Why The Data Matters When data is embedded into the culture of teacher preparation, it improves outcomes for everyone. This seems obvious, though doesn’t live out in practice as much as we would hope: For Teacher Candidates : More timely support, clearer expectations for instruction and growth (for teacher educators too), and coaching that actually supports their instructional performance in the classroom with P-12 students. For Teacher Educators : Transparent benchmarks that articulate candidate growth, opportunities for feedback and professional development, improvement in candidate development practices, and a shared vision for quality teaching & learning. For Educator Preparation Programs : Alignment to district needs, stronger evidence of impact, and a more responsive approach to coursework, clinical design, and candidate supports. For State Agencies & Funders : Real-time insights into what’s working—and what isn’t—driving smarter investments and systemic improvement. This Is Not About More Data—It’s About Better Use If your data isn’t shaping quality teaching at every level , improving feedback, influencing program structures, or informing policy—it’s not doing its job. Across educator preparation, programs are working hard to collect and report meaningful data. But too often, those systems remain disconnected from the daily decisions that matter most—where faculty, field supervisors, and candidates need timely, actionable insights to grow. It’s not a question of effort. It’s a question of connection and use. We don’t need more data—we need more will to act. The good news is: the pieces are already in place. Many programs have clear frameworks, committed teams, and tools at their fingertips. What’s needed now is shared focus—embedding these tools into ongoing practice focused on quality of teaching, learning, and the programming that drives candidates’ development. The path to quality is clear. It’s time to walk it. Let’s stop collecting data for data’s sake. Let’s make teacher preparation better—together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

Field Supervision Matters. High-Impact Coaching & Feedback Matters Even More. Focusing on What Matters Most for Candidate Readiness Every child deserves an excellent educator. Let’s give them one. During my time at Teaching Excellence at YES Prep Public Schools as an instructional coach and program leader, we were relentless about quality coaching & feedback for teacher candidates. We applied the same principles we used in coaching teachers to the feedback we provided to one another as coaches and leaders. Every observation and coaching cycle was hyper-focused on developing candidates and moving them along a structured developmental trajectory. There wasn’t a moment or opportunity wasted. We drew heavily from the work of coaching experts like Jim Knight, Elena Aguilar, and Paul Bambrick-Santoyo—ensuring our coaching was: Focused , with clear criteria and modeling. Immediately actionable by the candidate. Tied to clear developmental goals . Andrew Kwok's recent article in Education Week reinforces something we already knew: Field supervisors are critical, but often overlooked, players in candidate development. His article highlights that effective supervision isn’t just about providing feedback; it’s about providing the right feedback, at the right time, in a targeted and actionable way. That’s when feedback becomes “quality.” Why So Many Programs Struggle Despite the progress made by programs and states adopting coaching models like the Texas Instructional Leadership (TIL) Initiative , too many programs still struggle to implement these processes consistently. It comes down to operationalization . Far too often, programs lack systems and structures that promote consistent development, implementation, and progress monitoring of coaching and feedback processes. This leads to inconsistency in the quality of feedback provided by coursework faculty and field supervisors. What’s Needed Shared Vision & Coherent Program Design: Programs must establish a stakeholder-driven vision that aligns coursework, clinical experiences, and feedback cycles to create seamless candidate development trajectories​. Shared Instructional Frameworks: Faculty, supervisors, and mentor teachers must model and reinforce consistent instructional expectations across all candidate experiences, this includes both the instructional expectations for candidates (e.g. pedagogical practices, content-pedagogy practices) and teacher educator practices (e.g. coaching & feedback practices, labeling, modeling, establishing criteria, rehearsals, etc.)​. Structured Coaching & Feedback Cycles: High-impact observation and coaching models are essential to ensuring candidates receive consistent, evidence-based, and timely feedback that drives their growth​.  EdPrep Partners’ Approach At EdPrep Partners, we help educator preparation programs build emulatable, effective, and streamlined systems and structures that ensure every teacher educator—whether coursework faculty or clinical/field supervisors—provides quality oral & written feedback via structured observations & coaching cycles. These systems do not need to be complicated, rather effective and consistent. Our EPP Performance Framework and 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation provide a comprehensive roadmap for strengthening teacher educator practices, enhancing coherence, and embedding sustainable systems for continuous improvement​. If you haven’t already, be sure to read Andrew Kwok’s article in Education Week here: Preservice Teachers Need Better Feedback. Here’s How . Let’s make teacher preparation better together. Calvin J. Stocker Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners