EdPrep Insights

Beyond the Review: Where Reports End and Results Begin

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:00:15 GMT

Beyond the Review: Where Reports End and Results Begin

How clear findings and priorities drive lasting improvement in educator preparation

The missing link between reviews and results

If you lead an educator preparation program or oversee the reviews of programs, you know what it means to be surrounded by data - and how difficult it can be to turn that data into real improvement. Enrollment dashboards, observation results, surveys, candidate coursework, and assessments fill your folders and, hopefully, inform your conversations with stakeholders. But how much of that information truly reveals what matters most?

The challenge is rarely a lack of data. It is that much of what is collected does not illuminate the performance of candidates or the systems and people responsible for developing their instructional practice. And even when it does, the next steps often remain unclear.

Too many continuous improvement efforts end with long inventories and detailed reports but little tangible direction about what to do next. The difference between activity and improvement is not more evidence. It is the discipline to translate evidence into findings and findings into prioritized action. Doing that well takes more than good intentions. It requires expert review teams trained in a shared and rigorous methodology - people who know educator preparation from the inside, across all parts of programming, and can distinguish isolated examples from true patterns of practice at both the systems and teacher educator levels.

Evidence is the starting point, not the destination

Evidence should capture how preparation actually operates for candidates and teacher educators, not only what is planned or intended. The goal is not to collect more data but to collect the right evidence that highlights how programs, teacher educators, and candidates typically perform.

Doing this well requires both discipline and expertise. Strong reviews depend on teams that apply consistent, evidence-based methods to analyze performance, verify patterns, and separate signal from noise. Without that structure and skill, data collection becomes a compliance exercise, or worse a skewed reflection of program quality, rather than a driver of improvement.

In an EdPrep Partners Program Performance Review there are three major types of evidence examined:

Artifacts. These include syllabi, course materials & assignments, handbooks, observation tools, mentor and teacher educator training, data sets, candidate assignment samples, among many others. Within artifacts there are both inputs such as what programs design or expect, and outputs such as what candidates or teacher educators actually produce. Artifacts reveal how preparation is structured on paper and how that design translates into candidate or faculty performance.
Observations. These capture how stakeholders enact the preparation. This includes live instruction of both candidates and faculty members, observation and feedback cycles with clinical supervisors, etc. Within observations there are inputs such as the systems and routines that make these experiences possible, and outputs such as the observed actions, language, and feedback that both demonstrate and shift practices.
Interviews. These surface what people understand about roles, systems, and the impact of actions, and how they describe their own practices and contributions. Faculty, clinical supervisors, candidates, mentors, and partners alike provide context that connects what is designed to what is enacted. Interviews include inputs such as intentions, structures, and beliefs and outputs such as reflections on outcomes and evidence of follow through or perceived needs to improve the system.

Collecting these three types of evidence is only the first step. High-quality Program

Performance Reviews evaluate each source through two essential lenses.

Evidence should be representative of what typically happens for most candidates and teacher educators rather than an isolated example.
Evidence should be reinforced by multiple sources rather than driven by a single piece that tells a different story.

Together, these perspectives separate isolated examples from reliable patterns. They help reviewers determine whether the evidence reflects a single strong case or a consistent way of working across the program. When convergence confirms a pattern, that evidence becomes the foundation for a credible finding. When evidence conflicts, the gaps between sources often reveal where systems are misaligned or breaking down.

Evidence observed through these two lenses paints a clear picture of how preparation functions in practice. It shows not only what exists but how consistently and effectively it operates for the people most central to preparation - teacher educators and candidates.

Findings make meaning leaders can use

A finding is not a restatement of evidence. It is a clear explanation of a system pattern grounded in multiple sources. Interpretation is a professional discipline in educator preparation. It is the work of translating evidence into meaning that leaders, faculty, and partners can use to make decisions and take action.

Strong findings do four things:

Identify the pattern that holds true across multiple sources
Locate the root cause within the system
Explain why it matters for candidate readiness and P 12 learning
Point to the leverage that would change it at scale

This is where many reviews fall short. They inventory, but do not interpret. They describe but do not prioritize. High-quality findings require expert teams with evaluative skill, and with deep content knowledge in teacher preparation, including people who have served and led in educator preparation and who can synthesize, not summarize, distinguishing isolated signals from recurring systematic patterns.

At EdPrep Partners, our approach to Program Performance Reviews centers on how structures operate in practice. We look at how faculty label and model methods, pedagogy, and content-pedagogy, how candidates rehearse and receive feedback, how faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors alike coach to shared criteria, and how these actions connect back to what candidates learn in coursework and to what P-12 districts expect in classrooms.

When these pieces align, candidates progress from analysis to rehearsal to enactment with increasing skill. When they do not, even the strongest intentions to develop candidates fail to take hold.

Findings emerge only when the weight of evidence points in the same direction and any conflicting data have been resolved. Findings connect structures to experience and experience to outcomes . They give leaders a set of truths they can act on - clear, credible insights that anchor improvement in evidence and strengthen how programs develop their candidates.

Prioritized action is most likely to lead to action

Not every finding carries the same weight, and trying to change everything that needs improvement within a program at once dilutes impact. Prioritization is not about doing less. It is about focusing energy and attention on the few actions that matter most, first.

To determine what comes first, we use three guiding considerations:

Impact on candidate experience and performance
Feasibility given time, people, and resources
Dependencies that must be in place so early progress does not collapse

The outcome is a concise set of recommendations rooted in EdPrep Partners’ ‘14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation’ , with clear owners, milestones, and supports. A short-cycle plan builds early momentum, and a year one roadmap sequences the larger shifts that follow. At EdPrep Partners we “roll up our sleeves” and model and complete these actions alongside programs, and regular progress checks confirm whether core actions are happening with quality and consistency. Quarterly reviews test whether those changes are reflected in candidate performance and partner outcomes.

How lasting improvement takes hold

The strength of any review is measured not only by the quality of its findings but by what happens next. Many reviews stop at recommendations, leaving programs without the clarity, systems, or support to act. At EdPrep Partners, our approach is different. We connect evidence, findings, and action through four complementary approaches that we take alongside programs to sustain improvement over time.

Focus on locus of control. Reviews center on decisions that leaders, faculty, clinical supervisors, and partners can make — and on the stakeholders they can most directly influence and impact now. This keeps the work grounded, practical, and moving forward.

Begin by investing in teacher educator practice. Quality lives in the people who label, model, develop, coach, and give feedback. When faculty and clinical supervisors use shared definitions, clear look-fors aligned to a candidate’s developmental trajectory, and consistent teacher educator practices for how they will develop candidates, candidates improve faster and quality strengthens across the program.

Keep score with simple routines. Leaders do not need a new data warehouse or elaborate dashboards, though those can help. What matters most is a short set of leading indicators that confirm core practices are happening — and a few strong routines that create space to check in, validate impact on candidate development and partner outcomes, and plan whether to expand, adjust, or retire a practice.

Provide hands-on technical assistance to design, implement, and sustain change. Improvement is not sustained through reports or one-time recommendations; it requires partnership. Our technical assistance model pairs expert guidance with on-the-ground support — modeling teacher educator practices, facilitating capacity-building, and embedding the routines that ensure programs can sustain, scale, and continuously strengthen their systems. Through strategic planning, coaching, and progress monitoring, we help teams design, do, and sustain the work long after the review concludes.

Together, these approaches create system-level improvement. Coursework and clinical experiences align. Teacher educator practice strengthens. Partner expectations are met. Candidates enter classrooms ready to teach.

From findings to action

EdPrep Partners’ Program Performance Reviews produce a focused set of findings that lead to a clear set of prioritized actions - the few changes that make the greatest difference. We then work alongside leaders, faculty, and clinical supervisors to implement those actions with precision and care, building the routines that sustain and scale quality teacher preparation. Because every child deserves an excellent educator, and every candidate deserves excellent preparation. Let’s deliver both.

This approach is adaptable across pathways and designed to strengthen the systems programs already have while aligning to what partners need most.

The field does not need more reports. It needs Program Performance Reviews that lead to tangible improvements in what candidates experience and how teacher educators prepare them. When evidence becomes findings, and findings become focused action, improvement stops being a plan and becomes practice - the way preparation was always meant to operate: by teaching well.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update - Winter 2025

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 20:33:15 GMT

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update
Winter 2025 | From Design to Practice. What Works at Scale.

What We’re Designing For

As one year comes to a close and another begins, many educator preparation programs and system partners are taking stock of how their work is showing up in practice. Across the field, there is real momentum around strengthening preparation, alongside a growing recognition that progress depends on whether effective teaching practices are intentionally built into candidate preparation and show up consistently in P-12 classrooms.

That recognition sits at the center of EdPrep Partners’ work.

We focus with our partners on preparation that results in consistent candidate readiness, not isolated bright spots. That requires attention to the systems that shape daily teaching & learning: the opportunities candidates have to practice the work of teaching, the ways teacher educators model and coach those pedagogies, and the degree to which expectations and feedback are aligned across coursework and clinical experiences. When those elements are intentionally built into the design of the preparation program, improvement is more likely to hold as programs scale, staffing changes, and contexts shift.

Design, in this sense, is concrete. It shows up in whether candidates have sustained opportunities to move from analyzing teaching to rehearsing and enacting it. It shows up in whether faculty and clinical supervisors share clear instructional expectations and provide feedback that supports improvement. And it shows up in whether evidence is used routinely to guide decisions over time, strengthening both teacher educator practice and candidate learning.

Over the past quarter in the bodies of work we have the privilege of supporting, we have seen programs and states increasingly centering the work on a common set of fundamentals: clarifying what strong practice looks like, narrowing priorities, strengthening teacher educator practices, and building routines that connect evidence to action. The progress emerging from these efforts reflects a shared understanding that durable improvement comes from doing fewer things with greater intent and building systems that support consistent execution.

This quarterly update reflects that focus. It includes a synthesis of emerging patterns in how preparation improvement work is taking shape, highlights from organizations and research informing our thinking, a recap of recent EdPrep Insights, and a look ahead to where our work will deepen in the months ahead.

We are grateful to the preparation leaders, faculty, clinical supervisors, district partners, and state teams engaging in this work with care and a serious attention to what we know works . When preparation systems are built with clarity and discipline, candidates are better prepared to enter classrooms ready to teach and contribute meaningfully to P-12 student learning from day one.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

EdPrep Insights: What You May Have Missed

Our EdPrep Insights series brings forward urgent challenges in educator preparation and offers research-aligned, actionable strategies for improvement. Each brief is grounded in our program performance review and technical assistance approaches, and directly reflects the EdPrep Performance Framework and our 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. If you haven’t had a chance to explore the latest editions, here’s what you’ve missed:

Beyond Access: Preparing Candidates to Teach with HQIM

Across a five-part series, Beyond Access examined what it actually takes for candidates to leave preparation ready to teach with the instructional materials they will be expected to use in P-12 classrooms. The series moved from defining why HQIM must be foundational in preparation to outlining the developmental skills candidates need, the role of teacher educators in modeling and coaching curriculum use, and the program-level systems that make readiness routine rather than incidental.

Read the five-part series here

The Prioritization Imperative

This Insight explored how strong programs avoid dilution by narrowing focus to a small number of high-leverage priorities. It highlights how clear sequencing, shared routines, and disciplined scope allow changes to show up in teacher educator practice and candidate learning, rather than remaining stuck at the planning level.

Read the EdPrep Insight here

But Who Develops the Mentors?

One of our most-read Insights this year, this piece revisits a persistent gap in preparation systems: mentor development. This EdPrep Insight reinforces that strong mentoring does not happen in isolation, and is built upstream through faculty and clinical supervisor development. It outlines five concrete actions programs take to support the teacher educators who make effective mentoring possible.

Read the EdPrep Insight here

Emerging Patterns in Preparation Improvement

Across our work this year, a set of recurring approaches has surfaced as programs, states, and collaboratives work to strengthen educator preparation. These patterns reflect how our teams and those we have the privilege of supporting are organizing improvement efforts across different contexts. This list is by no means exhaustive or prescriptive; rather, it illustrates common ways the field is approaching durable improvements in teacher preparation.

What We’re Learning From the Field

This quarter, a few efforts stood out to us for how directly they connect instructional improvement to educator practice and system design.

From TeachingWorks at the University of Michigan

The TeachingWorks team recently joined the University of Michigan Marsal Family School of Education’s Innovator Showcase to reflect on what it truly takes to prepare teachers well and at scale.

Francesca Forzani named the central tension many preparation programs face: preparing excellent teachers in the numbers the field requires. Deborah Loewenberg Ball underscored what is often missing in that pursuit – a deep understanding of the actual work of teaching and how candidates learn to do it.

This conversation reinforces a core premise of strong preparation: candidates need repeated, supported opportunities to learn the work of teaching, not just knowledge about it. That focus on practice sits at the center of effective preparation design.

Watch the conversation

From the Educational Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) at UNC Chapel Hill

EPIC’s evaluation of the Rethink Initiative offers a thoughtful look at how innovation efforts succeed, or stall, based on how deeply they are embedded into instructional systems.

The report highlights the importance of clear instructional focus, sustained implementation support, and attention to educator practice over time rather than short-term pilot outcomes. The findings reinforce what many programs experience firsthand: durable improvement depends less on launching new initiatives and more on designing systems that help educators learn, enact, and sustain strong practice.

Read the final report | View the summary infographic

From the Charles Butt Foundation

Over eight years, the Raising Blended Learners initiative demonstrated how blended and personalized learning can scale across diverse Texas contexts when districts integrate these practices into their core instructional systems.

What began as a demonstration effort ultimately informed statewide policy, supported long-term district implementation, and shaped how blended learning is supported across Texas today. Raising Blended Learners shows that what often gets labeled as “innovation” is frequently strong instructional practice, and is successful when districts (and educator preparation programs) invest in educator learning, align systems, and commit to sustainability from the start.

Explore the impact report and resources

From E3 Alliance

A new E3 Alliance report examining ten years of teacher retention data in Texas highlights stark differences across certification pathways and subject areas.

Teachers entering classrooms without meaningful preparation return at significantly lower rates than those who complete standard or alternative certification pathways with preparation requirements. The data makes a clear case that preparation is not a bureaucratic hurdle – it is a workforce stability strategy. Where preparation is stronger, retention improves.

Read the full report

From the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

A recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas examines how individuals enter the teaching profession and finds that career decisions are shaped much earlier than preparation systems often assume – frequently during high school and in response to local economic conditions.

The research shows that when local economies weaken, more students consider teaching, and those who do tend to be stronger academically and more effective once they enter classrooms. These findings underscore the importance of early pathways, local partnerships, and preparation systems that align with regional labor markets. Strengthening preparation is not only about program design – it is also about when and how (and when) potential teachers first enter the profession.

Read the study

What’s Ahead

In the months ahead, EdPrep Partners will deepen our work with state agencies, educator preparation programs, and system partners to support rigorous preparation at scale.

Statewide Networks & Collaborations

We are launching several new, multi-year, statewide collaborations and focused bodies of work aimed at strengthening preparation across groups of educator preparation programs. These efforts are anchored in program performance reviews that generate clear, prioritized recommendations and focus areas, and are paired with targeted technical assistance and cross-program learning.

Across these collaborations, EdPrep Partners supports programs in strengthening teacher educator practices; improving coursework alignment and instructional impact; and refining both coursework and clinical experiences to ensure candidates have sustained opportunities to analyze teaching, engage in representations and rehearsal of core methods and content pedagogies, and enact instruction with high-quality oral and written feedback. This work also supports programs in strengthening data use and routines and deepening district partnerships. Together, these efforts are designed to help teams redesign coursework, strengthen clinical experiences, expand high-quality pathways, and build durable systems that support sustained improvement over time.

Advancing Content-Specific Preparation in Literacy and Mathematics

Alongside our systems-level work, EdPrep Partners will continue to advance content-specific efforts in literacy and mathematics. This work focuses on how candidates learn to develop and apply disciplinary knowledge through instruction, and how teacher educators design, model, and coach high-quality teaching practices across coursework and clinical experiences.

Across both content areas, this work is intentionally connected to program design, teacher educator practice, and data use, ensuring content-specific improvement strengthens preparation systems rather than operating as isolated initiatives.

Throughout these efforts, our focus remains consistent: supporting programs to align educator practice, program design, and system-level conditions so candidates enter classrooms prepared to teach and contribute meaningfully to P-12 student learning from day one.

More to come in the new year.

Beyond Access Part 5: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Programs

Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:30:05 GMT

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

When Preparation Fails the Candidate

She arrives at student teaching ready to plan & facilitate her first unit. The district has fully adopted high quality instructional materials, and her mentor sets a thick binder on the table. She flips through the lessons, realizing this is the first time she has ever been asked to use them. In coursework, she only saw fragments. In methods, she built units from scratch. Her clinical supervisor still only expects generic lesson plans based on topics or subject areas of interest. She really likes her mentor teacher, and she’s heard that her mentor is a really great teacher. She doesn’t want to let her down, but more importantly she wants to meet expectations and not let her P-12 students down.

She wonders: if my program never prepared me to use these materials, how am I supposed to be ready now?

Why Program Design Matters

High quality instructional materials will not get implemented by candidates or teacher educators through good intentions. They get implemented through strong program design. For candidates to develop the skills and habits needed to use HQIM with precision, programs must build and sustain systems with teacher educators that create consistent development across every experience: coursework, clinical practice, data routines, and feedback expectations.

This requires more than a handoff from one teacher educator to another, or a collection of isolated assignments. It demands structural alignment across the program. Too often, compliance approaches are mistaken for readiness. A curriculum map is created, a planning task is inserted into one course, or a resource room is stocked with instructional materials. These efforts check a box but do not prepare candidates. Exposure without deliberate design leads to improvisation, not readiness.

Research bears this out. National studies have found that candidates often graduate from preparation programs without meaningful experience using district curricula, and as a result many enter classrooms improvising their approach to grade level instruction. The Opportunity Myth showed how this gap contributes directly to students being denied access to rigorous content. In contrast, when preparation programs embed curriculum use systematically, candidate readiness improves. In Tennessee’s HQIM network, for example, the share of teacher candidates making decisions that supported rigorous instruction rose from 45 percent to 77 percent after program-level modules were introduced.

Programs that make HQIM central to their design send a different message. Southeastern Louisiana University requires candidates to engage in structured internalization and rehearsal cycles using district-adopted curricula, with supervisors and mentors trained to provide aligned feedback. Dallas College redesigned its coursework so that candidates analyze and teach real lessons from Eureka Math and Amplify Reading, ensuring that practice reflects what they will encounter in schools. These examples show that HQIM readiness does not emerge from access alone - it requires program design.

Programs that make HQIM central to their design ensure that candidates rehearse with the same materials they will be expected to teach, receive feedback from faculty and clinical supervisors who share consistent expectations, and experience developmental growth that is measured and reinforced at every stage.

Program Structures That Anchor HQIM Readiness

Strong programs make high-quality instructional material use a design choice, not an add on. The goal is simple and ambitious. Every candidate experiences deliberate, repeated practice with the high-quality instructional materials they will need to identify, and/or use to teach. Every teacher educator models, rehearses, and coaches the same expectations. Every decision about coursework, clinical, and assessment points candidates toward day one readiness. The structures below turn that aim into a plan.

1. Understanding District Context

We covered this in depth in Part 2 of Beyond Access. The point here is direct. Programs cannot prepare candidates for curriculum readiness without knowing what their district partners actually use. That means more than assuming or referencing a resource room. It requires going to see for yourself, clarifying expectations, and designing preparation around that picture so candidates rehearse and enact what they will one day be responsible for.

Key steps

Identify which curricula are in use by grade and subject.
Clarify district expectations for how those materials must be implemented.
Surface common challenges, misconceptions, and supports that teachers receive.
Define what strong implementation looks like in classrooms.

Program routines

Convene a partner group each term to review the curriculum landscape.
Conduct site visits and co-observations to see materials in practice.
Engage faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors in reviewing candidate tasks for alignment.

Artifacts and decisions

A curriculum landscape brief that shows which materials are adopted and where candidates are placed.
Short curriculum profiles outlining lesson structures, routines, and non negotiables.
Placement and mentor selections that guarantee authentic curriculum practice.

2. Shared Vision for HQIM Ready Candidates and Teacher Educators

Candidates and teacher educators cannot work from different playbooks. Programs must define what success looks like for both, make it explicit, and reinforce it everywhere. Without a shared vision, candidates receive mixed messages and faculty or supervisors default to personal preference. With a shared vision, everyone speaks the same language, uses the same criteria, and holds to the same expectations.

Expectations for candidates

Identify and select materials that are standards aligned and rigorous.
Internalize lessons with clarity of goals, anticipated student thinking, and planned moves.
Adapt for access while preserving rigor and lesson intent.
Facilitate instruction responsively with purposeful pacing, questioning, and checks for understanding.

Expectations for teacher educators

Model and label curriculum moves in their own teaching.
Provide rehearsals that mirror real classroom use.
Deliver specific, timely, and aligned feedback tied to shared criteria & ‘look fors’.
Calibrate expectations through co-observation, video review, and use of common tools.

Embedding the vision

Syllabi, course modules, and rehearsal protocols carry the same expectations
Observation and coaching tools reference the same look fors.
Candidate assessments and gateways check for proficiency of the same criteria

Communication plan

Launch the vision at the program starting with candidates, faculty, supervisors, and mentors.
Revisit and reinforce it in each course and field seminar.
Provide a short reference tool naming the four candidate skills and the teacher educator responsibilities.

3. Beyond Access: Prioritizing What Matters Most

Access is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Too often programs treat curriculum access as the finish line: a login, a sample lesson, or a single planning task. Exposure without depth produces shallow results. Candidates may know a material exists, but they leave without the fluency to internalize, adapt, and facilitate it with students.

Strong programs move beyond access by making deliberate choices about which curricula to emphasize and how to build candidate fluency. The goal is not to cover everything. The goal is to cover the right things, deeply and well.

Prioritization rules

Select the few curricula that account for the largest share of placements and likely hiring.
Begin with early literacy and mathematics, where expectations for structured instruction are most defined.
Expand strategically once the foundation is stable, rather than spreading thin across too many materials.

Program routines

Provide candidates with repeated practice using these materials across coursework and clinical experiences.
Ensure every teacher educator models, labels, and reinforces the same criteria for strong curriculum use.
Calibrate feedback so that regardless of who is coaching, candidates hear the same message about what quality looks like.

Markers of quality

Candidates engage with priority curricula multiple times per term in cycles of analysis, rehearsal, and facilitation.
Assignments require authentic lessons, not excerpts or substitutes.
Faculty and mentors use shared study guides and feedback language tied to the chosen curricula.
Evidence shows candidates can use materials with integrity and purpose, not just that they had access to them.

Being strategic about emphasis does not limit candidate preparation. It increases impact. When candidates can internalize, adapt, and facilitate high quality instructional materials with precision, they are ready for day one in any classroom, whether the district provides those same curricula or none at all. They leave with both the habits and the bar for excellence.

4. Coursework and Clinical Integration

Curriculum use cannot be siloed in one course or left to chance in clinical placements. It must be the spine of the program. Integration means threading high quality instructional materials across coursework and fieldwork in ways that are intentional, aligned, and sequenced.

Mapping the sequence

Place the four candidate skills - identify, internalize, adapt, and facilitate - across the program in a clear progression.
Link assignments and performance tasks (signature tasks, etc.) in coursework to authentic lessons from priority curricula.
Connect clinical experiences so candidates have daily opportunities to practice those same routines with students.
Use artifacts and gateways to confirm growth at each stage.

Design rules for coursework

Assignments require real lessons, not excerpts or contrived activities.
Each major task includes rehearsal, feedback, and revision before candidates attempt full enactment.
Faculty model and label curriculum moves in class, then coach candidates to do the same.

Design rules for clinical

Select placements where priority curricula are consistently in use.
Ensure mentors and supervisors apply the same look fors and feedback language as faculty (and vice versa).
Build co observation into each term so teacher educators calibrate expectations together.

Cadence of practice with aligned feedback

Early term: analysis and approximations/representations (rehearsals).
Rest of term: rehearsal, targeted adaptation, and full lesson enactment with reflection on P-12 student impact (e.g. evidence of student learning).

Integration is not about exposure. It is about fluency. When coursework and clinical are mapped together, candidates experience a coherent path where each stage of preparation reinforces the last. Faculty, supervisors, and mentors all point to the same expectations, creating the consistency needed for candidates to be ready on day one.

5. Data That Drives Improvement

You cannot improve what you do not measure. Programs must build data routines that track both candidate growth and teacher educator practice with curriculum. Without evidence, leaders rely on impressions. With evidence, they can spot breakdowns, adjust supports, and strengthen the program.

What to measure

Candidate progress on internalization, adaptation, and facilitation across courses and terms.
Teacher educators practices include modeling, rehearsal, and feedback.
Placement quality and whether candidates have daily opportunities to practice with priority curricula.
Effectiveness of coursework tasks in building fluency.
Student learning evidence from candidate lessons where available.

Tools and artifacts

A tracker that captures candidate skill growth with notes on evidence.
A calibration log showing agreement across faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors.
Placement profiles documenting curriculum use and opportunities to practice.
End of course and end of placement surveys that surface candidate experiences with curriculum.

Routines and cadence

Monthly meeting to review snapshots and plan small adjustments.
Mid term reviews to check gateway pass rates and target support.
End of term reviews with faculty, clinical supervisors, and P-12 district partners to set priorities for the next cycle.

How to use the data

Revise coursework and clinical supervision practices.
Run calibration sessions when feedback quality varies.
Adjust placement lists if candidates lack sufficient curriculum practice.
Scale assignments or tasks that consistently drive strong growth.

Data is not about compliance. It is about quality. The anchor questions apply every term: Are candidates day one ready? How do you know?

Putting it All Together

The structures described above give programs a clear path for designing HQIM readiness that is consistent, intentional, and measurable. Each structure - understanding district context, defining a shared vision, moving beyond access, integrating coursework and clinical, and using data for improvement - reinforces the others. Together they form the system that turns candidates’ curriculum exposure into curriculum readiness.

A detailed table in the appendix summarizes these structures into specific actions, program routines, and artifacts. It is designed as a practical tool for program leaders to adapt and apply within their own context.

Series Conclusion: Beyond Access

Across this series we have followed a simple but urgent truth: access alone does not prepare teachers. In Part 1, we saw how too many candidates first encounter the curriculum as a sealed box, unpracticed and unfamiliar. In Part 2, we examined the need to align preparation with the materials districts actually use, rather than assuming exposure is enough. Part 3 showed what readiness means for candidates themselves - developing the skills to identify, internalize, adapt, and facilitate curriculum with integrity. Part 4 shifted the lens to teacher educators, whose modeling, rehearsal design, and feedback practices determine whether candidates experience coherence or confusion. And in Part 5, we have highlighted that program design is the anchor that holds it all together.

The message is clear: strong preparation does not happen by chance. It is the result of deliberate program structures, aligned expectations, intentional partnerships, and teacher educator development that centers high quality instructional materials at every stage. When programs commit to this work, candidates stop improvising and start teaching with clarity and confidence. District investments in HQIM pay off, novice teachers enter classrooms day one ready, and P-12 students, especially those furthest from proficiency, gain consistent access to the grade level instruction they deserve.

The challenge now is for preparation programs, states, and funders to move beyond pilot efforts or surface compliance and make HQIM readiness non-negotiable. The research is compelling, the steps are clear, and the examples are growing. What remains is the will to act. Let us ensure that no candidate leaves a program still opening the box for the first time.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Appendix

What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Programs

Beyond Access Part 4: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 14:33:35 GMT

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

Inside the Program: The Teacher Educator’s Role

In methods, she was told to design lessons from scratch, filling in empty templates with objectives and activities. In her placement, her mentor encouraged her to “find your own style” and improvise when lessons went off course. When her clinical supervisor observed, the debrief focused almost entirely on classroom management, pacing, and “paying attention” to certain students. Each teacher educator offered a different message, but none grounded their guidance in the instructional materials she would later be expected to use every day. She never saw a lesson unpacked from a curriculum, never rehearsed with high-quality instructional materials, never had anyone model how to adapt a lesson while preserving its intent. More than once, she heard the materials dismissed as “scripted curriculum,” which signaled that they were second-rate, something to avoid. Surely the teacher educators around her knew best.

Instead of clarity, she carried away mixed signals and lingering doubts. If no one in my program thinks these materials are important, do I really need them at all?

Why Teacher Educator Practice Matters

When candidates receive mixed messages across courses, fieldwork, and clinical supervision, they learn to improvise rather than to plan, internalize, adapt, and facilitate with high quality instructional materials. Strong preparation depends on the daily practice of teacher educators who model, rehearse, and coach the work we expect candidates to do. Quality rises or falls with the people who prepare teachers.

Without aligned practice, programs struggle to build readiness. Expectations and language vary across courses and clinical sites, leaving candidates with generic tips rather than clear, evidence based feedback that builds toward shared criteria. Faculty and supervisors themselves are rarely coached on their own practice, which means rehearsal structures and feedback routines are uneven and uncalibrated. Many programs emphasize candidate observation and evaluation but do not apply the same focus to teacher educator effectiveness, limiting growth for both candidates and those responsible for preparing them.

By contrast, strong programs treat teacher educator practice as instructional work in its own right, work that must be modeled, coached, and calibrated with the same clarity expected of candidates. They define explicit expectations for teacher educator practice, onboard faculty and clinical supervisors to those expectations, and use shared tools for observation, coaching, and feedback. They build practice based professional learning for teacher educators that includes rehearsal of modeling moves and feedback conversations, rather than one time training. They create common language and routines across roles so candidates experience alignment rather than confusion. And they use data not only to monitor candidate performance but also to track teacher educator practice, then adjust supports accordingly. Organizations such as TeachingWorks at the University of Michigan have been focused on these teacher educator practices for over a decade.

This work is especially important for HQIM. Access to curriculum is not enough. Candidates build readiness only when teacher educators model how to select high-quality instructional materials, internalize a lesson, anticipate misconceptions, rehearse delivery, and adapt without losing alignment, and then coach those moves to shared criteria. Developmental structures must intentionally move candidates from analysis, to rehearsal, to enactment, using the same HQIM or HQIM that coheres to the same criteria, that they will teach on day one. Coursework and clinical experience alignment becomes a condition for growth. When all teacher educators reinforce the same expectations for HQIM, candidate development accelerates.

Ultimately, programs must hold teacher educators accountable for the same practices they expect of candidates: modeling and labeling HQIM use in their own teaching, designing rehearsals that cover the developmental trajectory of the candidate, coaching to evidence of candidate practice of pedagogies and/or student learning using program wide criteria, and calibrating expectations through co-observation and video. These expectations reflect the EdPrep Performance Framework focus on practice based experiences, high impact teacher educator practices, and formal coaching and feedback structures.

Investing in teacher educators raises the ceiling for both candidates and the P-12 students they will teach. Programs that define, develop, and coach teacher educator practice see clearer expectations, stronger feedback, and candidates who are more ready to teach with high quality instructional materials.

Core Competencies and Approaches for HQIM Ready Teacher Educators

Strong preparation requires strong preparation practices, and quality teaching at every level. If we expect teacher candidates to select, internalize, adapt, and facilitate high quality instructional materials, then the faculty and clinical supervisors responsible for their development must model, label, and provide opportunities to rehearse those same practices and hold themselves accountable to them. Too often, preparation programs begin and end with giving candidates access to curriculum. But access alone is insufficient. It is the practices of teacher educators, how they model and label HQIM use, the developmental experiences they design to move candidates from analysis, to representations and approximations, to enactment, and the coaching and feedback they provide aligned to program wide criteria that shape candidate readiness.

Being HQIM ready as a teacher educator means more than being aware of a curriculum, or providing candidates with access to it. It means planning coursework and field experiences around high quality materials, modeling instructional decision making in real time, and supporting candidates in applying these materials with integrity and purpose. It means understanding not just the content of HQIM, but the instructional shifts they require. Programs must ensure all teacher educators, course instructors, clinical supervisors, and support staff are aligned around a shared vision of HQIM use and candidate expectations. That vision must be implemented consistently, reinforced with clear structures and routines, and supported with the same intentional development we expect for candidates.

Core Competencies for HQIM Ready Teacher Educators

The readiness of candidates with high quality instructional materials depends first on the readiness of the teacher educators who prepare them: faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors must share a vision for HQIM use and consistently model, rehearse, and coach its application. The core competencies below outline the practices that determine whether candidates graduate HQIM ready.

Shared Vision and Language
Establish clear and consistent expectations for HQIM use and for teacher educator practices across faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors. Ensure that every candidate experiences the same language, criteria, and developmental progression.

Modeling and Labeling
Explicitly model HQIM criteria and ‘look fors’ through model lessons. Label the instructional moves, decisions, and success criteria so candidates see both the what and the why.

Rehearsals
Provide structured opportunities for candidates to rehearse HQIM practices, including selection, internalization, adaptation, and facilitation. Rehearsals should take place in safe settings with immediate feedback and coaching, anchored in shared criteria and look fors.

Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy in HQIM
Demonstrate deep understanding of both the content and the pedagogical approaches embedded in HQIM. Highlight lesson priorities, make connections to standards, anticipate common misconceptions, and surface the instructional routines and representations that help students reach grade level expectations.

Feedback That Moves Learning
Deliver specific, timely, accurate, and actionable feedback tied to lesson goals, standards, and HQIM use. Feedback should occur in both coursework and clinical experiences, using shared criteria and ‘look fors’ across faculty, supervisors, and mentors to ensure consistency.

Adaptation Coaching for Access and Rigor
Guide candidates in making integrity preserving adjustments that expand access for multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and students with unfinished learning, while maintaining the rigor and intent of HQIM.

Data Use and Calibration
Engage in regular calibration using shared tools and observation routines so that all teacher educators apply expectations consistently. Use data on candidate performance and teacher educator practices to refine coaching and support.

HQIM readiness cannot be achieved by candidates alone. Candidate preparation depends on teacher educators who consistently model, rehearse, and provide feedback using the same language and expectations, and who take responsibility for preparing them. When programs invest in HQIM ready teacher educators, they are ultimately investing in HQIM ready candidates.

1. Access to HQIM

In many preparation programs, providing candidates with access to high quality instructional materials is treated as a solution. A curriculum sample is shared. A resource room is stocked. A login is issued. And while access is necessary, it is far from sufficient.

Access without intentional development results in passive exposure, not instructional readiness. Candidates may:

Skim a lesson without fully internalizing it
Pull excerpts for an assignment without seeing the larger structure
Develop their own materials disconnected from the realities of P-12 classrooms

Without structured opportunities to engage with HQIM, alongside explicit modeling, labeling, rehearsal, and feedback, candidates rarely develop the habits or fluency required for implementation with integrity.

Programs and the teacher educators within must move beyond access. They should:

Define which HQIM are prioritized based on placement and hiring contexts
Provide consistent access across coursework and clinical experiences
Ensure candidates are supported by all teacher educators to engage deeply, not just interact superficially
Develop faculty and supervisors so they can model and label HQIM use

If teacher educators themselves are unfamiliar with HQIM, or not equipped to model and coach its use, candidates will graduate underprepared for the systems they are entering.

2. Teacher Educator Practices

The quality of teacher educator practice is one of the most critical drivers of candidate development. EdPrep Partners’ EdPrep Performance Framework emphasizes that modeling, practice-based development, and aligned and consistent (quality) feedback are foundational to quality preparation. In HQIM aligned preparation, teacher educators must go beyond assigning curriculum tasks.

To prepare candidates for HQIM readiness, teacher educators should:

Model how to internalize a lesson
Demonstrate to candidates how to study a lesson with clarity and intentionality. This includes surfacing the standard and goal, working through student tasks, anticipating misconceptions, preparing models and questions, and rehearsing pacing and language.

Anticipate misconceptions
Make visible the common misunderstandings and sticking points that candidates should expect when teaching (with the HQIMs, as well), and show how instructional moves can respond to them while keeping the lesson goal intact.

Rehearse delivery with candidates
Provide structured opportunities to practice HQIM aligned routines in low stakes settings. These rehearsals should move across the developmental trajectory: evaluating and selecting materials, internalizing lessons, adapting tasks for rigor and access, and facilitating delivery. Immediate feedback aligned to the criteria & ‘look fors’, along with coaching tied to these shared criteria, ensures candidates improve with each cycle.

Adapt without losing alignment
Coach candidates in making precise adjustments for multilingual learners, students with disabilities, or students with unfinished learning. Emphasize adaptations that preserve rigor, maintain cognitive demand, and connect back to the core instructional goals of the lesson.

Label instructional choices and connect them to standards and criteria
Name the decisions made while modeling or coaching, and tie them back to the shared HQIM criteria, ‘look fors’, lesson objectives, and/or state standards. This helps candidates see not only what was done, but why it matters for student learning.

HQIM use cannot be treated as a checklist. It must be embedded throughout candidate development. When course instructors, clinical supervisors, and mentors use common language, model the same developmental trajectory, and provide feedback aligned to shared criteria & ‘look fors’, candidates experience true preparation. As well, alignment across coursework and clinical experiences is a condition for growth in candidate readiness.

To support HQIM aligned development, teacher educators should:

Use common language and routines across roles so that faculty, supervisors, and mentors send coherent messages instead of conflicting ones.
Model and label each stage of HQIM use: Selection, internalization, adaptation, and facilitation - making visible the choices and criteria that guide strong implementation.
Provide structured rehearsal opportunities where candidates practice HQIM routines in low stakes settings, receive immediate coaching, and refine their performance before working with P-12 students.
Offer actionable and specific feedback on candidate planning, delivery, and decision making, always tied to evidence of student learning and program wide criteria.
Connect all feedback to standards and lesson goals , rather than giving general advice or impressions of “good teaching.”
Reinforce HQIM expectations across every touchpoint: Coursework, field-based experiences/candidate observation, clinical supervision, coaching, signature assignments, etc. - so candidates experience consistency and consistent reinforcement of what is expected.

3. Teacher Educator Development

Programs cannot expect candidates to be HQIM ready if the faculty and supervisors preparing them are not. Being a content expert or an experienced teacher is not enough. Teacher educators must receive structured development to model, label, coach, and provide feedback aligned to HQIM use.

High quality teacher educator development should be:

Grounded in program criteria for HQIM and candidate expectations
Development should begin with the program’s own definition of HQIM and clear descriptions of what candidates must know and be able to do by specific performance gateways and by program completion.
Direct and practice-based
Teacher educators need opportunities to rehearse the same instructional moves and coaching strategies they are expected to use with candidates. Professional learning should include modeling, role play, and coached practice.
Aligned to a shared vision of candidate outcomes
All teacher educators should reinforce the same developmental trajectory - evaluation and selection, internalization, adaptation, and facilitation - so candidates experience alignment across courses and clinical settings.
Consistent across roles
Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors must use common expectations, shared routines, and the same observation and feedback tools to avoid cognitive burdens on candidates.
Grounded in real HQIM
Training must use the actual curricula that candidates are working with in coursework and field placements, giving teacher educators the chance to internalize lessons, anticipate misconceptions, and calibrate their approaches and feedback together.

Too often, professional learning for teacher educators centers on program updates while leaving untouched the major instructional priorities of P-12 districts, such as HQIM. Ongoing training, structured support, and regular calibration are essential. Quality preparation requires quality preparation practices, and those practices must be developed with the same intentionality expected for candidates.

Putting it All Together

Strong preparation requires strong preparation practices, and quality teaching at every level. If candidates are expected to select, internalize, adapt, and facilitate high quality instructional materials, then teacher educators must be able to model, label, rehearse, and coach those same practices with consistency. Being HQIM ready as a teacher educator means more than awareness of curriculum or providing access to it. It requires planning coursework and field experiences around HQIM, modeling instructional decision making in real time, and supporting candidates in applying materials with integrity and purpose.

Included in the appendix is the What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Teacher Educators , which defines the core competencies and approaches for HQIM ready teacher educators. Programs can use this table as a roadmap to align faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors around the shared practices, structures, and development to ensure HQIM ready candidates.

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Programs

Part 5 in the Beyond Access series will explore how programs can design HQIM-focused preparation from start to finish. We will look at how programs can best prepare for the HQIM landscape of their district partners, define a shared vision for what HQIM readiness looks like for both candidates and teacher educators, and intentionally map developmental experiences across coursework and clinical so candidates build readiness over time.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Teacher Educators

Candidates should not have to outpace the people who are responsible for developing them. Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors shape how candidates experience HQIM through the developmental opportunities they provide, skills they model, the feedback they provide, and the expectations they reinforce. In the next part of our Beyond Access series, we will explore what strong HQIM integration looks like for teacher educators - the daily preparation practices that will make “curriculum readiness” a reality for every candidate.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Appendix

What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Teacher Educators

Beyond Access Part 3: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 15:00:13 GMT

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

Inside the Box, In Front of Students

In Part 1, she stood in her classroom, staring at a sealed box of curriculum she had never practiced with. In Part 2, the box was finally opened, pages spread across her desk as she searched for where to begin.

Now she leans over Lesson 5, pencil in hand. She circles the goal, underlines a question she wants to ask, and sketches how she will model the solution. She reads the directions aloud but hesitates, unsure which lines are meant for her and which for her students. She stumbles, starts again, and forces the words into something she thinks her class will understand. Why is this so difficult, she wonders, especially given the cost of these materials. There is no time left to anticipate student responses or likely misconceptions. This will have to do.

The next morning, she delivers the lesson. The pacing feels steady, the questions land though she and her students muscle through moments of confusion. When students falter, she improvises. By the end of class, the assessment shows little progress. She tells herself it is just the start of the year, that the interruptions were to blame, that routines will take time to hold.

Back at her desk, she notices the box is filled with tools she has never touched. Are they supplemental, or something essential she never learned to use?

Why Practice Matters for Readiness

High quality preparation begins with the candidate. If we expect teachers to deliver curriculum aligned instruction on day one, programs must move candidates beyond exposure and into deliberate, repeated practice. Simply providing access to materials is not enough. Readiness grows when candidates plan, rehearse, and receive feedback using the very curricula they will be expected to implement in P-12 classrooms.

When that practice is missing, candidates improvise. They piece lessons together from Pinterest or Teachers Pay Teachers, or they rewrite tasks without understanding the progressions they are interrupting. Research confirms this pattern: early career teachers often struggle to create high quality, standards aligned lessons on their own, especially without access to vetted materials or training on how to use them effectively. A study of first grade literacy instruction found that Teachers Pay Teachers was the most used source of materials, with Pinterest also widely used, particularly among novice teachers.

The result is a disconnect that impacts P-12 students as much as it does the candidate. Many students, particularly those in historically underserved schools, are at risk of receiving daily instruction that falls below grade level, lacks rigor, and fails to engage them. Studies such as The Opportunity Myth have long since highlighted that most students are not given consistent access to grade level content or meaningful assignments.

By contrast, when high quality instructional materials are used well, teachers report increased confidence, greater clarity around pacing and routines, and stronger student engagement. Programs that give candidates repeated, coached practice with HQIM show measurable gains in candidates’ ability to identify, analyze, and use the materials; candidates also report that quality materials reduce planning burden and allow them to focus on instruction and student thinking.

If the goal is day one readiness, programs cannot stop at access. They must intentionally build candidate practice with HQIM into the preparation experience from start to finish.

HQIM Readiness for Candidates

Readiness to use curriculum is not a single skill. It develops through deliberate, scaffolded opportunities in coursework and clinical experiences. Candidates must learn to identify/select/evaluate, internalize, adapt, and facilitate high quality instructional materials with fidelity, building both the judgment and the habits needed for day one readiness. This developmental approach mirrors the standards laid out in EdPrep Partners’ Performance Framework, where coursework and clinical experiences are designed to integrate HQIM and prepare candidates through practice-based development.

1. Evaluating, Identifying, and Selecting HQIM

Teacher candidates must first learn to judge what makes instructional materials high quality. This skill equips them to choose curricula that are aligned to standards, rigorous, and usable, rather than relying on convenience sources. Training with structured analysis tasks has been shown to improve candidates’ ability to identify, analyze, and use HQIM effectively.

To evaluate, identify, and select HQIM, candidates must be able to:

Identify the standard and the lesson objective (aligned to the states’ standards)
Check alignment to unit goals and assessments
Examine tasks for cognitive demand and conceptual rigor
Note embedded assessments and success criteria
Review usability for teachers and students
Conclude with an evidence-based judgment of quality

2. Internalizing HQIM-Aligned Lessons

Once candidates can identify quality instructional materials, they must learn to prepare lessons with clarity and intentionality. Internalization is the process of studying a curriculum-aligned lesson to understand its purpose, anticipate student thinking and misunderstandings, and plan instructional moves that reflect the lesson goals and support P-12 student learning progressions. Tennessee now requires preparation programs to demonstrate that candidates are explicitly taught to internalize HQIM lessons, signaling the importance of this skill for readiness.

To internalize HQIM, candidates must be able to:

Clarify the lesson goal and standards alignment
Work through the P-12 student tasks themselves
Anticipate likely misconceptions and plan responses
Prepare models, examples, and purposeful questions
Decide when and how to check for understanding
Rehearse a slice with a peer and adjust pacing and language

3. Adapting HQIM for Rigor and Access

Candidates must also learn to make strategic adaptations that increase access without reducing rigor. Adaptation is necessary to meet diverse student needs, but untrained teachers often dilute lessons in ways that lower expectations. Research shows that additive, targeted adaptations can strengthen outcomes, while removing core demands undermines learning.

To adapt HQIM, candidates must be able to:

Name the core instructional goal that must remain intact
Use student work or observation to identify the need for change based on students’ needs, accommodations, etc.
Choose a precise move such as scaffolding, pacing, or discourse structure
Preserve the intended task demand and grade level expectation
Plan how to check the impact on P-12 student learning
Review evidence and decide to keep, revise, or revert

4. Facilitating HQIM-Aligned Instruction

The culmination of readiness is the ability to deliver lessons responsively and with fidelity to their intent. Facilitation brings together judgment, preparation, and adaptation in real time, requiring candidates to manage pacing, engage students, and adjust based on evidence. High quality materials improve outcomes only when taught well, and observation systems now expect teachers to demonstrate these skills when using adopted HQIM.

To facilitate HQIM, candidates must be able to:

State the lesson goal and connect activities to it
Use questioning and modeling to surface P-12 student thinking
Elicit evidence of learning and respond in the moment
Maintain cognitive demand while supporting access
Keep pacing purposeful and transitions efficient
Close with an assessment aligned to the objective

Effective facilitation of HQIM still includes effective facilitation of each of the core methods, and instructional & content pedagogies.

Putting it All Together

Each part of this series has illustrated how candidates, teacher educators, and programs can move beyond access to prepare for real readiness with high quality instructional materials. For candidates, readiness is not a single step but a developmental arc that begins with identifying quality, moves through internalization and adaptation, and culminates in facilitation.

To support programs that want to see this progression clearly laid out, we have included an appendix. The appendix provides a consolidated table of What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates , outlining the purpose of each developmental skill and the specific actions candidates must be able to demonstrate. Programs can use this reference as a practical tool for coursework design, clinical coaching, and performance assessments.

Taking Action: Building HQIM-Ready Candidates

There are practical steps programs and teacher educators can take now to begin strengthening candidate readiness with high quality instructional materials. These actions lay the foundation for the specific teacher educator and programmatic practices, structures, and processes that will be explored in Parts 4 and 5 of this series.

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Teacher Educators

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Appendix

What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

Beyond Access Part 2: Aligning with the Quality Curriculum that Matters Most

Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:00:19 GMT

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

The Curriculum Box

In Part 1 of this series, we met a first year teacher standing in her classroom on day one, facing a choice: rely on the training she received to design lessons from scratch, or use the high quality instructional materials her district provided - materials she had never practiced with.

Now picture her again. In the corner of the room sits a sealed curriculum box from the district. The district has spent thousands of dollars on this curriculum, a resource that in many schools is a prized possession. Inside are teacher guides, student workbooks, and assessments - the very materials her district expects her to use to deliver instruction and that are meant to improve P-12 student outcomes. She pulls off the cellophane, opens the flaps, and begins taking out the resources one by one. This is the moment she realizes that while she now has all of these materials, she does not know how to use them. Her preparation program may have mentioned curriculum materials, even had a resource room filled with sample curricula, but she never really engaged with them in her coursework, and she never had the chance to practice teaching with them during student teaching.

What happens when teacher preparation leaves candidates “opening the box” for the first time only when they enter their own classroom as the teacher of record?

District Investments Depend on Preparation

Teacher preparation cannot truly align coursework, clinical practice, or teacher educator development without a clear view of what curriculum materials districts expect new teachers to use. In reality, the majority of a program’s completers are typically hired into just a handful of local or regional districts for most programs, and in core subjects like reading and math many of those districts often use the same high quality instructional materials. Knowing the local curriculum landscape means a preparation program can make intentional choices about how faculty model teaching with it, what candidates rehearse their instruction with, and how clinical supervisors and faculty members alike coach and provide feedback on. For example, Louisiana now requires P-12 districts to publish the curricula they are using, which helps nearby teacher preparation programs identify which materials are most relevant for their candidates given where they are likely to student teach or be hired.

Districts invest millions of dollars in curriculum adoption because research shows that strong instructional materials, in the hands of well prepared teachers, can significantly accelerate P-12 student learning. Choosing a top tier curriculum can be as powerful a lever for improving P-12 student achievement as the difference between a novice and an experienced teacher. But those investments only pay off if novice teachers enter classrooms ready to use the materials with skill and confidence. If new teachers are not prepared to use a rigorous, standards aligned curriculum, they often end up defaulting to piecemeal lessons from Pinterest or other unvetted sources. The Education Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) found that more than 90 percent of novice teachers turned to Teachers Pay Teachers and about 70 percent used Pinterest when district materials were not provided.. This gap in training has serious implications for students: when new teachers are not equipped to use strong materials, their students miss out on grade level content, and because students furthest from opportunity are more likely to have novice teachers, inequities in access to quality instruction are exacerbated.

Districts purchase HQIM expecting them to drive learning gains, but that can only happen if teachers know how to use them.

If preparation programs do not begin with clarity about the curricula their candidates will use when teaching, how can those candidates be expected to meet expectations and lead improved P-12 outcomes when they arrive on day one?

When Preparation Falls Short

Too often, preparation programs do not ask their partner districts what curriculum materials they use. Instead, candidates are taught to design lessons from scratch or are given access to a resource room filled with materials, but without meaningful opportunities to engage with them. Faculty and supervisors may acknowledge curriculum in theory, yet do not model or coach with the very materials districts expect new teachers to use.

The result is that many candidates graduate confident in writing lesson plans but unready to adapt and deliver instruction from the curriculum they will be required to implement as teachers of record. Research has shown that teacher preparation programs frequently train candidates to plan lessons in isolation, selecting standards, activities, and assessments on their own, even as P-12 districts increasingly require teachers to use high quality instructional materials. The more relevant skill for novice teachers is not designing lessons from scratch but learning to internalize, adapt, and deliver rigorous, standards aligned lessons from adopted curricula.

When preparation fails to provide guided practice in doing so, the opportunity to connect preparation with practice is missed, not because it is impossible, but because curriculum alignment has not been treated as foundational.

If a preparation program never takes the first step of asking districts about the materials they have adopted, how can it claim to be preparing candidates for the classrooms they will actually enter?

What States and Programs Are Showing the Field

Some educator preparation programs explain that it would be impossible to prepare candidates for every possible curriculum across all their P-12 partner districts. But the reality is different. As described in the first part of this series, the criteria for what makes instructional materials high quality are consistent across states and national partners. HQIM must be standards aligned, systematically sequenced, include embedded assessments, and provide the support(s) teachers need to deliver instruction with rigor and clarity (see Part 1: The Case for HQIM in Teacher Preparation for the full definition). Most curricula that meet these criteria share common structures and similar demands on teachers and P-12 students.

In practice, the number of high quality curricula that districts adopt at scale is relatively small. For example, in Louisiana the state’s review process has identified just over 50 curricula that meet Tier 1 criteria across subjects, and more than 80 percent of school systems in the state have adopted these Tier 1 programs as their curriculum of choice. As a result, over 90 percent of Louisiana students now have access to a high quality curriculum in core subjects.

Tennessee has pursued a similar approach. State leaders recognized that educator preparation is a critical driver of HQIM implementation and launched the HQIM Network to help teacher preparation programs integrate widely adopted literacy curricula into their coursework and clinical experiences. In one network, after candidates completed modules aligned to a common ELA curriculum, their ability to identify standards aligned materials and make rigorous instructional decisions increased significantly. Assessment scores rose by 25 percentage points, and the share of candidates selecting approaches that supported rigorous instruction increased from 45 percent to 77 percent.

After asking districts about their curriculum choices, programs can uncover a clear and manageable picture of what matters most. Instead of dozens of disparate resources, programs often find that a small set of curricula account for the vast majority of classroom use in their partner districts. This makes alignment possible and practical.

The evidence points to a consistent conclusion: preparation is not about training candidates on dozens of different materials. It is about aligning preparation to the relatively small number of high quality instructional materials and the common elements that define their quality that candidates are most likely to encounter in the classrooms where they will teach.

Steps Programs Can Take Now

Preparation programs can take practical steps to ensure candidates are not opening the curriculum box for the first time when they enter the classroom as teacher of record. Below are seven approaches programs can use to build clarity and alignment.

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Candidates

Knowing is not enough. Readiness for candidates comes from practice. In the next part of our Beyond Access series, we will explore what it takes for teacher candidates to move beyond exposure to high quality instructional materials and into authentic preparation and use. How can preparation programs ensure that candidates leave ready not only to recognize HQIM, but to use it with skill, purpose, and impact from day one?

Let's make teacher preparation better together.

Beyond Access Part 1: The Case for HQIM in Teacher Preparation

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:18:49 GMT

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

The Reality for New Teachers Entering the Classroom

Picture this: a first year teacher walks into her classroom on day one and finds a stack of curricular materials in the classroom closet. The resources are high quality instructional materials (HQIM), the very curriculum her district expects her to use, and has paid to have teachers trained and developed on. But her preparation program trained her to design lessons from scratch, not to internalize, adapt, and deliver lessons from a rigorous, P-12 standards aligned curriculum. This teacher is at an inflection point: does she leverage the resource, or continue doing what she has been trained to do?

This is the reality for far too many new teachers. And there are a lot of them.

Our National Emergency

Each year, about 8% of all teachers are year-zero teachers, and that share in P-12 schools is rising. Too often, they step into classrooms unready for the instructional demands they face. These year-zero teachers step into classrooms full of students who deserve instruction that is clear, engaging, and on grade level.

The impact and results are clear nationally: in 2024, 69 percent of fourth graders and 71 percent of eighth graders could not read on grade level, while 61 percent of fourth graders and 72 percent of eighth graders could not do math on grade level. These are not abstract statistics. Behind every percentage point are classrooms of children sitting below proficiency, often struggling to access grade-level content and losing confidence in themselves as P-12 learners. At a moment when P-12 students urgently need access to excellent teaching, too many novice teachers enter schools without the preparation to deliver it.

The stakes could not be higher. Without preparation that is deliberately aligned to high-quality instructional materials, the gap between what students need and what novice teachers can provide will persist.

What Makes an Instructional Material “High-Quality?”

EdPrep Partners’ analysis of state definitions and expectations, along with guidance from national partners, shows strong agreement on what constitutes HQIM. At a minimum, HQIM meet the following criteria:

Standards and assessment alignment. Materials are explicitly aligned with college and career ready state standards and support the development of knowledge and skills assessed on state and national exams.
Systematic and aligned instruction. Content follows a logical, intentionally sequenced progression that builds knowledge and skills over time, especially in early literacy, mathematics, social studies, and science.
Structured literacy aligned to the science of reading. For early grades and intervention, materials reflect structured literacy principles including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, delivered through systematic and explicit instruction aligned to the science of reading.
Mathematics aligned to effective teaching practices. Math materials reflect the NCTM Effective Mathematics Teaching Practices, such as establishing clear goals, including cognitively demanding tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving, building procedural fluency from conceptual understanding, supporting meaningful discourse and purposeful questioning, connecting multiple representations, eliciting and using evidence of student thinking, and sustaining productive struggle.
Content accuracy and rigor. Materials are content rich, discipline specific, and designed to promote rigorous thinking, conceptual understanding, and procedural fluency.
Embedded assessment tools. Materials include formative and summative assessments that are clearly embedded so teachers can make real time instructional adjustments.
Educator usability and support. Materials provide lesson plans, sample responses, pacing guides, and annotations that help educators deliver instruction with consistency and fidelity regardless of years of experience.
Instructional efficiency. Materials streamline preparation and lesson delivery so educators spend more time on student learning and less time searching for or creating content from scratch.

Why HQIM Matters

The stakes go beyond teacher readiness. Ensuring HQIM is foundational in teacher preparation has two parallel impacts. First, it aligns what candidates learn with the expectations of the districts, schools, and classrooms where they will serve as teachers of record. When preparation is designed around the same materials districts expect new teachers to use, candidates complete their program confident and practiced in delivering rigorous, standards aligned lessons.

Second, HQIM are shown to positively affect student learning in both literacy and math. Rigorous evaluations have documented meaningful gains in reading achievement, particularly for students who enter school behind their peers. In mathematics, randomized and quasi experimental studies have demonstrated measurable improvements in student outcomes, including gains equivalent to additional months of learning. At the state level, Louisiana and Tennessee have shown that when HQIM are implemented systemically, and when preparation aligns with that implementation, proficiency rates in reading and math rise even in the wake of pandemic disruptions.

HQIM is not simply another reform trend. It is one of the most direct and cost effective ways to improve both teacher readiness and P-12 student learning outcomes. This series is about how programs can take the steps necessary to move preparation beyond access.

So the question becomes: what does it take for teacher preparation to move beyond access and make HQIM fundamental to the preparation of teacher candidates?

The HQIM Preparation Gap

Many teacher candidates graduate from preparation programs having never used or practiced with HQIM. Coursework still emphasizes designing lessons from scratch, or may merely provide candidates with access to HQIM in a resource room, without expecting teacher educators (faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors) to be developed in it, let along embedding it in coursework or reinforcing its use in clinical experiences.

Often the explanation is that programs have many district partners, each with its own curriculum materials. How could a program possibly equip candidates for them all? Yet the criteria for what makes instructional materials high quality are consistent, and the overwhelming majority of candidates from any program are hired in just a few local or regional districts. Further, most of those districts, when they have sourced a true HQIM, are drawing from a small set of publishing groups. In core subjects like reading and math, many districts are using the very same materials. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has noted that HQIM share common attributes such as alignment to standards, coherent sequencing, embedded assessments, and usability for teachers. In practice, then, most teacher candidates are hired into a relatively small number of partner districts, and in many cases those districts are implementing the same HQIM.

The result is predictable. Preparation and practice remain misaligned, leaving new teachers unready, districts frustrated, and students without consistent access to the grade level and responsive instruction they deserve. But it does not have to be this way.

Signs of Progress

Across the country, there are examples of what it looks like when teacher preparation is aligned with the curriculum students actually experience. Understanding the local curriculum landscape is a critical first step for programs, enabling programs to align coursework and clinical experiences rather than leaving teacher candidates to make the connection on their own.

Many states have already moved in this direction, though teacher preparation programs must catch-up. In Louisiana, the Believe and Prepare initiative helped ensure that candidates learned to teach with the same Tier 1 curricula their districts had adopted. Evaluations by REL Southwest found that the reform strengthened preparation, improved alignment with school systems, and contributed to measurable differences in teacher practice and student outcomes. In Tennessee, the state partnered with Deans for Impact to launch the HQIM Network, ensuring that educator preparation programs across the state developed coursework tied to high-quality literacy curriculum and structured literacy practices aligned to the science of reading. Candidates in the network showed significant gains on HQIM assessments, and districts reported stronger novice teacher readiness as a result.

Moving ‘Beyond Access’

To move beyond access, we need to ask the right questions, and the order in which we consider them matters. These questions are designed to guide reflection, create dialogue, and help programs and their partners see where preparation and practice can become more closely aligned and take action. Each question points to an area where programs and teacher educators can make meaningful progress toward stronger preparation. Together, they serve as guideposts for building programs that embed HQIM across candidates, teacher educators, and partnerships, ultimately preparing candidates to improve learning and outcomes for P-12 students.

Beyond Access | Part 1: The Case for HQIM in Teacher Preparation

Why is HQIM fundamental in quality teacher preparation?

Too many candidates complete programs without ever rehearsing or enacting instruction with the very materials they will be expected to use on day one. Treating HQIM as an in-service issue leaves new teachers unready, districts frustrated, and P-12 students underserved. The impact and results are clear nationally.2

Beyond Access | Part 2: Aligning with the Quality Curriculum That Matters Most

Do teacher preparation programs know which curriculum their partner districts expect new teachers to use?

Programs cannot align coursework and clinical practice without a clear view of the local curriculum landscape. Knowing what districts use is the first step to move beyond access and begin designing candidate and teacher educator experiences around the materials that matter most.

Beyond Access | Part 3: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

In what ways are candidates practicing with HQIM across coursework and clinical experiences?

Candidates need repeated, authentic opportunities to plan, rehearse, and enact instruction with HQIM, not just see materials in passing or pull them from a resource room. Real practice builds day one confidence and skill.

Beyond Access | Part 4: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Teacher Educators

How are teacher educators, including faculty, supervisors, and mentors, being developed to use and model HQIM with skill and consistency?

Even when HQIM is present, candidates will not learn to use it well if the people who prepare them are not ready. Developing teacher educators to model, label, lead rehearsals, and coach with HQIM ensures consistent guidance, and candidate preparation, across the program.

Beyond Access | Part 5: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Programs

What plans do programs have in place to ensure HQIM readiness across coursework, clinical practice, and partnerships?

Isolated efforts fall short. Programs need an aligned plan that ties together candidate preparation, teacher educator development, and district partnership so HQIM moves from exposure to sustained practice.

Taken together, these questions point toward the steps necessary for moving preparation beyond access. Those steps include understanding the curriculum materials P-12 partner districts expect their teachers to use, ensuring candidates have repeated opportunities to practice with HQIM in both coursework and clinical experiences, developing teacher educators to label, model, lead rehearsals, and coach with HQIM, and building program structures that align with the developmental needs of candidates and the expectations of P-12 district partners.

The next four EdPrep Insights in this series will explore each of these steps in turn, offering a closer look at what strong HQIM integration requires for candidates, teacher educators, and programs.

Up Next: Aligning with the Quality Curriculum That Matters Most

The starting point for HQIM readiness in teacher preparation is clarity about what candidates will actually be expected to use in clinical experiences while they are being prepared and as teachers of record. Part 2 of our Beyond Access series examines why knowing what curricula P-12 partner districts expect new teachers to use is the essential first step for aligning coursework, clinical experiences, and teacher educator practice with the realities of the P-12 classroom.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update - Fall 2025

Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:22:33 GMT

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update
Fall 2025 | Preparation Moves Forward. With Purpose.

Our State of Readiness

Across the nation, teacher preparation is gaining measurable traction. State leaders are investing not just in recruitment but in readiness itself, expanding quality pathways and making them more accessible, strengthening literacy and mathematics preparation, and aligning programs to the expectations of today’s classrooms and to the standards that have guided the field for decades. The message is consistent and aligned to what we’ve known for decades: the quality of candidate preparation determines the quality of learning for P-12 students.

Arizona, Florida, and Wisconsin have enacted major literacy laws that require every preparation program to teach evidence based reading instruction aligned to the science of reading. Maine and Massachusetts are embedding the science of reading and mathematics into teacher education statewide. Colorado and Tennessee have scaled apprenticeship and residency models that allow candidates to learn in classrooms while earning full credentials.

Large states are leading as well. California dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars in its 2025 budget to student teacher stipends and residency grants, ensuring candidates can complete full time clinical training without financial hardship. Texas passed House Bill 2, creating new formula funding for quality pathways, mentors, and preparation. Michigan continued its statewide investment in workforce development, while Delaware advanced a comprehensive agenda linking literacy, strategic staffing, and pedagogical performance measures.

From small rural states to large urban systems, these efforts reflect a national shift, from isolated reform to focused implementation. States are raising expectations for preparation, investing in teacher educators, and creating the conditions for sustainable improvement.

At EdPrep Partners, we are proud to help translate this momentum into daily practice. Our work alongside states, educator preparation programs, and P-12 districts is rooted in a shared belief: when preparation is rigorous, practice based, and aligned to what teachers will actually teach, candidates enter classrooms ready to make an immediate and long-term impact on P-12 learning.

Let’s keep the momentum going. Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

Beyond Access: Preparation That Builds Readiness with HQIM on Day One

Districts and states continue to invest in high quality instructional materials (HQIM) because the research is clear: when used well, these materials accelerate P-12 student learning and help teachers focus on what matters most - quality instruction & student learning. Yet for too many teacher candidates, their first encounter with HQIM happens only after they begin teaching as a teacher of record.

EdPrep Partners’ Beyond Access series calls on educator preparation programs to make HQIM readiness a central outcome of teacher preparation. The five part EdPrep Insights series invites programs to design coursework, clinical experiences, and faculty practice around the materials that define effective instruction in today’s classrooms, ensuring every candidate graduates proficient in the tools their P-12 districts and school use with students to accelerate learning.

The message is simple and urgent: preparation must mirror practice. Readiness grows when candidates learn to identify, internalize, adapt, and facilitate instruction using HQIM that reflects the materials adopted by their partner districts. Through clear examples and practical guidance, the series illustrates what strong HQIM integration looks like, first for candidates, then for teacher educators, and ultimately for programs as a whole.

Together, these installments help the field move beyond access to instructional materials toward ensuring that every new teacher can use them skillfully to advance P-12 student learning.

Visit the full series at www.edpreppartners.org/beyond-access and follow EdPrep Partners on LinkedIn for upcoming EdPrep Insights and ‘Beyond Access’ releases.

What’s Ahead: Strengthening Preparation Through State-Led Commitments

Delaware Department of Education

In partnership with the Delaware Department of Education, EdPrep Partners is collaborating with a network of strategic partners and stakeholders to lead a comprehensive, multi-year effort to strengthen educator preparation across the state. Through four connected projects, EdPrep Partners will: (1) conduct literacy reviews aligned to Delaware’s Science of Reading goals and support related program improvements; (2) partner with teacher educators and P-12 school leaders to expand strategic staffing models and fellowships that scale high quality, year long teacher residencies; (3) design a technology platform to streamline Delaware’s program modification and addition application process; and (4) assist educator preparation programs in implementing pedagogical performance measures that reflect the state’s standards for P-12 teaching and candidate performance.

This work reflects our belief that stronger preparation produces stronger outcomes for candidates and for P-12 students, and that state education agencies can be the most powerful catalysts in making that vision a reality.

From the Field: What’s Working and Why It Matters

Across the field, bold and grounded work continues to move preparation forward. Recent contributions from national leaders and institutions are part of a growing body of efforts that highlight the practical shifts, leadership priorities, and instructional models driving meaningful progress. Together, they reflect a shared commitment to deepening candidate development, raising expectations for teacher educators, and building systems that deliver lasting results for teacher candidates and P-12 students.

From Educational Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) at UNC Chapel Hill

The Education Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) has produced a powerful three part research series examining North Carolina’s Science of Reading professional development initiative, LETRS. Together, these briefs offer valuable insight into what it takes to strengthen literacy preparation and classroom practice across a statewide system.

Brief 1 - The Foundation for Implementation
The first brief established the foundation for North Carolina’s statewide rollout of LETRS, documenting early implementation and system-level coordination. EPIC found strong participation among districts and teachers, along with broad recognition of the value of Science of Reading training. The study emphasized that lasting improvement requires more than individual effort. Rather, it depends on coherent systems that align preparation programs, professional learning, and classroom expectations around shared standards for effective reading instruction.

Brief 2 - Teacher Perceptions and the Conditions for Change
The second brief captured teacher perspectives on implementation. Educators overwhelmingly valued the rigor and relevance of the Science of Reading content, yet many cited the need for more time, collaboration, and guided practice to apply what they were learning. The study showed that time to internalize and practice new strategies is not simply a logistical consideration - it is essential to sustained instructional change and improved student outcomes.

Brief 3 - From Learning to Implementation
The third brief examined how professional learning translated into classroom instruction. EPIC found that seventy three percent of observed lessons were rated high quality, and most teachers demonstrated strong understanding of Science of Reading aligned practices. However, instruction in vocabulary and comprehension lagged behind phonics and foundational reading skills, and some outdated strategies persisted. EPIC’s team recommended ongoing coaching, differentiated supports, and continued professional learning to help teachers refine and deepen their practice. A core recommendation includes allocating funding for instructional coaches to support teachers in translating LETRS knowledge into daily classroom instruction. A powerful reminder that professional development without follow-up support is critical for change to take place, which is noted in by the participants and in the researchers’ data.

Why It Matters
Across all three briefs, EPIC’s work reinforces an essential message: knowledge alone does not create readiness. Effective preparation - whether for teacher candidates or in-service educators - requires structured time, applied practice, and sustained support. The READS series offers a roadmap for how statewide initiatives can move beyond awareness toward real readiness for teachers and the students they serve.

From Dean’s for Impact

Deans for Impact’s Pathways That Deliver framework offers a clear vision for how states and programs can build affordable, high quality routes into teaching that are instructionally focused, practice based, and grounded in how students learn. The framework highlights emerging models where preparation programs and P-12 schools align coursework and clinical practice around shared expectations for effective teaching. The takeaway is straightforward and aligned with EdPrep Partners’ approach as well: when pathways provide meaningful practice and remove barriers to access, every candidate can enter the classroom ready to teach with skill and confidence.
Download the Framework

From the Charles Butt Foundation

The 2025 Texas Teacher Poll from the Charles Butt Foundation captures a pivotal shift in teacher perceptions and preparation across the state. Encouragingly, the percentage of teachers considering leaving the profession dropped from 78 percent in 2024 to 66 percent in 2025, signaling gradual improvement in morale and retention. Yet, fewer than half of teachers report feeling prepared for their first year in the classroom.

Teachers called for more time in real classrooms, paid and extended student teaching, stronger mentoring, and deeper preparation in managing diverse student needs. Seventy five percent reported that most of their students began the year below grade level, underscoring the importance of preparation that equips teachers to close learning gaps from the start.

While challenges remain, the poll highlights clear priorities from teachers themselves: focus on readiness, strengthen preparation, and invest in systems that equip new educators to meet the realities of today’s classrooms with confidence and skill.

Visit the 2025 Texas Teacher Poll Website

Read the 2025 Report

EdPrep Insights: What You May Have Missed

Our EdPrep Insights series continues to surface the most urgent challenges in teacher preparation and highlight research-aligned, practical strategies for improvement. Each brief reflects EdPrep Partners’ technical assistance approach and connects directly to our Performance Framework and 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. If you missed the latest installments, here are a few to explore:

From Data Collection to Daily Practice: How Strong Data Routines Improve Teacher Preparation

Effective data use depends on discipline, not volume. This Insight shows how educator preparation programs can build recurring, high quality data routines that strengthen faculty practice, accelerate candidate growth, and connect evidence directly to improvement in real time.

Read the EdPrep Insight

But Who Develops the Mentors: Why Faculty Development Is the Foundation of Teacher Preparation

Strong mentoring begins with strong teacher educators. This Insight explores how programs that invest in faculty and supervisors build the modeling, calibration, and coaching practices that make high quality mentoring possible for candidates and the P–12 students they teach.

Read the EdPrep Insight

The Coaching Gap: Moving From Chance to Design

Too often, coaching in teacher preparation varies by who delivers it rather than by what candidates need most. This Insight highlights how structured coaching cycles, shared rubrics, and developmental trajectories help programs move from coaching by chance to coaching by design.

Read the EdPrep Insight

The Prioritization Imperative: How Programs Make Change Stick

Real improvement depends on focus. This Insight examines how programs that limit priorities, track progress with precision, and align leadership routines to what matters most sustain change and build a culture of continuous improvement.

Read the EdPrep Insight

Beyond Access: Preparation that Builds Candidate Readiness with HQIM on Day One

This five part series calls on educator preparation programs to make HQIM readiness a central outcome of preparation. It examines what readiness looks like for candidates, teacher educators, and programs, showing how aligning coursework, clinical experiences, and faculty practice to the curricula teachers actually use can close one of preparation’s most persistent gaps.

Read the EdPrep Insight

When Convenience Replaces Preparation

Our CEO, Calvin J. Stocker, recently asked a critical question: What happens when convenience replaces preparation? A new study in Educational Researcher by Jacob Kirksey and Jessica Gottlieb offers an answer – and a warning. Teachers trained fully online are more likely to leave the classroom, and their P-12 students lose months of learning. This is not about traditional or alternative pathways – it is about preparation or no preparation. As Texas implements the PREP Allotment, the opportunity is clear: expand access while investing in preparation that endures.

Read the Full Post

See How UH Scaled a More Accessible Pathway

Our Growing Team: Advancing a Shared Mission

Now Hiring: Program Impact Manager

As our work expands across states and educator preparation programs, EdPrep Partners is growing our team. We are currently seeking a Program Impact Manager, a full-time remote role that plays a central part in helping our partners move from knowing what to improve to knowing how to improve - and doing it alongside them. The Program Impact Manager will:

Lead implementation of EdPrep Partners’ Program Performance Review and Technical Assistance approaches
Support educator preparation programs and state partners to achieve measurable and lasting improvement in teacher preparation quality
Collaborate with program leaders, faculty, clinical supervisors, and P-12 partners to strengthen teacher educator practice, data use, and systems for improving both preparation and candidate instruction

We invite you to share this opportunity within your networks or with anyone who might be a great fit to join our team.

View the LinkedIn Posting

Share the Full Position Description

The Prioritization Imperative: How Programs Make Change Stick

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:01:58 GMT

The Prioritization Imperative: How

Programs Make Change Stick

Focusing on What Matters Most for Candidate Readiness

The Power of Focus

Educator preparation programs often try to fix everything at once: new frameworks, new pathways, new partnerships, new requirements. The result is predictable: initiative overload, surface level change, and candidates who do not get the preparation they deserve.

As the saying goes, when everything is a priority, nothing is.

This EdPrep Insight highlights how programs serious about dramatic improvement narrow their focus to a few high leverage shifts, sequence change through Strategic Action Plans (SAPs) and a phased improvement approach, and reinforce focus with disciplined data routines that bring teacher educators together around improvements in candidate preparation and experiences.

Why Prioritization Matters: What’s at Stake

Research across fields is clear: spreading change too thin produces fatigue, weak implementation, and little impact. Lasting improvement comes from narrowing focus, sequencing efforts, and holding the line on what matters most.

Every program leader has lived it: a new mandate from the state, a promising partnership opportunity, another framework to align to, and an urgent grant requirement - all arriving at once. The instinct is to take on everything. The outcome is predictable: initiative overload . Faculty and clinical supervisors inevitably feel scattered, action items pile up, and candidates’ preparation experiences begin to fragment.

Across disciplines, the evidence points to the same truth: lasting improvement does not come from doing more. It comes from doing a few things deeply, and well.

Improvement Science: Define the Problem, Test the Solution

Anthony Bryk and colleagues remind us that progress begins with a sharply defined problem of practice. Too often, programs fall into “solutionitis” - adopting broad reforms without clarifying the real problem. Improvement science instead calls for narrowing the focus and running small, rapid tests of change before scaling. Each test yields evidence about what works, for whom, and under what conditions. Over time, this disciplined inquiry produces scalable, reliable improvement.

Implementation Research: Overload Creates Fatigue, Not Change

Dean Fixsen and the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) have shown that implementation succeeds when it is staged and supported by aligned drivers: competency (training and coaching), organization (systems and infrastructure), and leadership. When programs try to implement everything at once, none of these drivers get adequate attention. The result is what Douglas Reeves calls the law of initiative fatigue : as initiatives multiply, the time, energy, and resources for each one dwindle, and impact collapses.

Lessons from System Change: Choosing the Right Drivers

Michael Fullan describes the trap of “wrong drivers”: piling on new mandates, compliance tasks, or fragmented programs that give the illusion of progress but fail to change practice. The alternative is what he calls simplexity : focusing on a small number of high-leverage drivers, pursuing them with depth, and aligning everything else behind them.

Proof This Works

The logic of prioritization is not unique to education, and it’s proven to work:

Healthcare: The Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s 100,000 Lives Campaign didn’t ask hospitals to improve everything. It focused on six specific interventions. The result: more than 122,000 lives saved in 18 months.
K–12 systems: The Peel District in Ontario reduced overload by pruning initiatives and focusing on four strategic goals. Teachers reported renewed clarity, and student outcomes improved.
Individual schools: In Garden Grove, California, leaders resisted scattershot reforms and instead rallied staff around a few shared goals, building coherence and producing sustained literacy gains.

Whether in healthcare, K–12, or educator preparation, the evidence is clear: focus is not a constraint. Focus is the condition for sustained improvement. Programs that try to do everything at once rarely change much at all. Programs that choose a vital few priorities, sequence them, and hold attention are the ones that produce measurable shifts in practice and outcomes.

System Design: How EdPrep Partners Approaches Change

At EdPrep Partners, we see prioritization as system design. The EdPrep Performance Framework and the 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation define what strong preparation looks like in action. But improvement does not come from pulling all 14 levers at once. It comes from selecting the right levers for the moment based on where a program currently is, sequencing those levers and corresponding actions across an intentional period of time, and building capacity and structures either within existing systems or from the ground-up. Most importantly, it means leveraging what already works and holding focus until the changes show up in teacher educator and candidate performance.

Choose a vital few, on purpose.

The EdPrep Partners 14 Key Levers for Quality Teacher preparation are all essential for high quality preparation. But programs cannot pull them all with equal force at the same time. Improvement requires a methodical order, identifying which levers are of highest priority right now and which will drive the most significant improvement in candidates’ developmental experiences and readiness.

We help teams prioritize the Key Levers that will have the strongest line of sight to candidate readiness, which often begins with a program’s vision for quality teaching & learning, extends to teacher educator practices, and then considers how data can support alignment within, across and external to the program to better meet the workforce needs/priorities in the field. The outcome of this step is explicit: a short list of near term priorities, goals, actions, and metrics for progress monitoring change.

Sequence before you scale.

Depth requires pacing. We guide programs to stage both what changes and how changes are introduced over time, planning for what happens next week, in six weeks, over a semester, across a year, and through a three year trajectory. A clear roadmap gives program leadership, faculty, and clinical supervisors the confidence and processes they need to enact changes with fidelity and to reinforce new expectations as they take hold. Sequencing protects people from initiative overload and protects the work from shallow adoption.

Build the conditions for focus.

Sustained focus is only possible when the right conditions are in place. At EdPrep Partners, we use the Four C’s as the readiness screen for whether change will stick and scale:

Commitment: Leaders demonstrate visible will, urgency, and sponsorship for improvement, backed by time, resources, and capacity.
Capacity: Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors have the people, time, and basic systems needed to enact new practices with quality.
Clarity: Goals, measures, and expectations are shared, simple, and aligned to what matters most for candidate readiness.
Collaboration: Candidates, teacher educators, P-12 districts, and community partners are all engaged in both the decision-making and the implementation.

We help state agencies, regional collaboratives, and teacher preparation programs assess, strengthen, and monitor these conditions so that chosen priorities can take root, spread, and endure through leadership, staffing, policy, or environmental changes.

Lead from your locus of control.

Programs gain traction fastest when they begin where authority, influence, and ability to impact change are strongest. We guide teams to focus first on what they can control — program design, faculty expectations, clinical supervision protocols, tools, training and development, and candidate experiences. From there, we help them influence what they can — such as partnership agreements, calendars, and shared practices with districts. Finally, we prepare them to navigate what is beyond their control without letting it dictate the agenda or distract from the work. This discipline keeps energy aimed at changes that can be implemented with quality and sustained over time.

Design for practice.

The real test of prioritization is whether teacher educators change how they prepare candidates through their practices, the environments they create, and the routines they model, and what they prepare candidates to do through the methods, instructional moves, and content pedagogies that matter most for readiness. Success is measured by whether candidates can demonstrate these practices against shared standards in both coursework and clinical experiences.

Guardrails that protect focus.

Every priority is anchored in a clear aim, a focused set of action steps, a near term win window, and defined owners. Just as important, every plan also identifies what will not be added during the term. These guardrails keep agendas, professional learning, and project management aligned to the same targets until evidence shows the work is landing. By naming both the work to pursue and the work to defer, programs protect faculty and clinical supervisors from overload and ensure that chosen priorities move from plan to practice.

Operationalizing Change: The Playbook

Strong programs do not rely on willpower alone. They put structures in place that protect focus: Strategic Action Plans that anchor one or two priorities, phased models that define what happens now versus later, and data routines that keep attention on the chosen goals.

1. Strategic Action Plans (SAPs)

A Strategic Action Plan is the anchor document that turns broad aspirations into focused, near term work. A well designed SAP answers five questions:

Aim: What one or two priorities are we pursuing this term?
Drivers: What specific practices, structures, or conditions must change to make progress?
Milestones: What 90 to 120 day wins will show evidence of progress?
Evidence: What data, artifacts, or observations will we use to know it is working?
Owners: Who is responsible, and by when?

Equally important is naming what will not be added this term. These guardrails prevent initiative creep and keep agendas disciplined.

For example, a program might set an aim of improving candidate rehearsal and feedback cycles. The SAP would specify drivers such as faculty & clinical supervisor modeling & labeling criteria-driven feedback, rehearsal opportunities, and each of the elements of quality coaching. Milestones might include teacher educator professional development, practice opportunities, shadowing or observations, peer feedback, and candidate survey data.

SAPs become the plan of record for program leaders, faculty, and clinical supervisors. Meeting agendas, professional learning, and all corresponding coaching cycles are aligned to the SAP, ensuring energy is directed toward the Key Lever of focus rather than scattered across competing initiatives.

2. Phased Improvement

Change is more sustainable when sequenced over time. EdPrep Partners uses a three phase approach that helps programs distinguish between what happens now, and what comes later:

Diagnose & Plan

Conduct diagnostic reviews to surface strengths and gaps
Use prioritized stakeholder questions and artifact reviews to identify high leverage levers
Co create an initial SAP with near term wins

Implement and Early Scale

Support faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors to put new practices into action
Provide modeling, professional learning, and coaching aligned to SAP drivers
Capture early evidence of candidate and teacher educator practice shifts
Evaluate fidelity before expanding

Sustain and Monitor

Embed routines that ensure practices stick across semesters
Adjust and refine based on evidence
Decide whether to deepen the same lever or add a new one

Each phase has gates: clear evidence criteria that determine whether a program is ready to move forward. These gates prevent programs from scaling new practices before they are ready and keep attention fixed on current priorities until they are solid.

3. Data Routines That Hold Focus

Data routines are the discipline that sustains prioritization. They are not compliance exercises. They are structured, repeatable processes that ensure data is not just collected but actively interpreted, discussed, and used to improve candidate preparation. When implemented with consistency, data routines clarify not only what happened but also what should happen next.

A strong data routine keeps action close to the candidates’ developmental experiences. Faculty, clinical supervisors, mentors, and candidates themselves use timely evidence to adjust instructional practices, coaching approaches, and supports in ways that directly impact candidate development.

A simple monthly or bi monthly routine might include:

Agenda: 75 minutes, with 80 percent devoted to current SAP priorities
Artifacts: candidate observation and signature assignment data, rehearsal performance results, coaching feedback notes (faculty and clinical supervisors)
Questions:
Are candidates enacting the instructional practices - methods, pedagogies, and content knowledge - along the program’s developmental trajectory with consistency?
What trends are emerging in candidate performance?
Which teacher educator practices are promoting or deterring candidate growth?
What does teacher educator performance reveal about readiness?
What trends are visible in disaggregated data compared to aggregate data?

At their best, data routines do two things at once: they reinforce or refine focus by keeping the chosen lever at the center of discussion, and they surface near term wins by highlighting evidence of progress to celebrate and build momentum.

We explore this idea in greater depth in a previous EdPrep Insight, From Data Collection to Daily Practice: How Strong Data Routines Improve Teacher Preparation. Read here

Measures of Progress: Depth Over Breadth

The best signal of successful prioritization is not the number of initiatives launched. It is the evidence that one or two critical improvements are implemented with depth, sustained across semesters, and visible in both teacher educator practices and candidate enactment. At EdPrep Partners, we look for progress across four dimensions:

1. Implementation Fidelity

The first signal is whether the plan is being executed with discipline.

SAP milestones completed on time, showing that 90 to 120 day wins are achieved
Leadership, faculty, and clinical supervisor meetings aligned to stated priorities
Calibration checks showing implementation in programmatic experiences

These indicators reveal whether programs are sticking with their priorities rather than drifting back into overload.

2. Practice Change

The real test of prioritization is what happens in the daily work of teacher educators and candidates.

Faculty and supervisors enacting practices tied to the chosen priority area(s)
Candidates demonstrating stronger performance on prioritized skills in rehearsals, coursework, and clinical observations
Coursework and clinical expectations aligned so all teacher educators are reinforcing the change

When prioritization is working, practice across the program becomes coherent, not just compliant on paper.

3. Sustained Focus

Improvement is fragile unless it survives the inevitable turnover and shifting pressures.

Priorities carried consistently across two or more terms, even with leadership or staffing changes
Practices and routines institutionalized over two or more years so they become standard operating procedures rather than temporary projects

Depth requires persistence. Sustained focus shows that programs are embedding change rather than launching initiatives that fade.

4. Guarding the Gains

Strong programs protect improvements even as new priorities emerge.

Evidence that gains from prior terms are still holding
No regression in candidate performance or faculty practices tied to earlier Key Levers
Standard operating procedures in place so progress does not depend on one leader or champion

Guarding the gains ensures improvement is cumulative. Each new priority builds on the last rather than replacing it.

Let’s Give Them One

Dramatic improvement does not come from doing everything. It comes from doing the right things, deeply and well. Programs that choose a vital few priorities, sequence them with discipline, and sustain them through practice based routines are the ones that change what candidates experience, how they perform, and ultimately the outcomes of P12 students.

At EdPrep Partners, we help programs focus, sequence, and sustain the improvements that matter most. Because every child deserves an excellent educator.

Let’s give them one.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

The Coaching Gap: Moving From Chance to Design

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 19:19:54 GMT

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

The challenge in coaching within teacher preparation programs is not a lack of effort. It is the absence of a consistent system across programs that ensures every candidate receives the same quality of coaching. Coaching should be the backbone of preparation, not something only some teacher educators do (well).

In strong programs, feedback follows a predictable rhythm across both coursework and clinical experiences. Faculty, supervisors, and mentors all use the same cycle so candidates experience coaching as a system rather than a matter of chance. The structure below reflects what research and high performing programs show works in practice.

Components of an Effective Shared Coaching C ycle

The payoff: Candidates know exactly what to do next and why it matters for P-12 students.

Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors reinforce the same expectations in coursework and in classrooms. Programs establish a culture where coaching is the norm rather than the exception. And students benefit because their teachers enter classrooms ready to act with skill, confidence, and effectiveness. In a word, candidates are ready.

Teacher Educator Development Matters

Teacher educator development matters. For candidates to experience coaching as a reliable and impactful system, teacher educators must also be developed. Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors cannot be expected to deliver consistent, high quality feedback without structured preparation of their own. Strong programs build this capacity by:

Onboarding every teacher educator into the coaching cycle practices so that faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors share a common language and set of practices.
Providing ongoing training that mirrors what candidates experience: modeling, rehearsal, feedback, and refinement.
Calibrating regularly by reviewing the same candidate teaching clips in specific instructional domains or indicators, and the corresponding artifacts, and together aligning on what was observed and the expectations of quality.
Providing feedback on coaching practice itself, observing and supporting teacher educators (including faculty and mentors, not just clinical supervisors) so they continually strengthen their ability to model, coach, and develop candidates in effective instruction.

When teacher educators are consistently trained and supported, candidates do not depend on the chance of being paired with someone who can provide quality, criteria driven feedback. Instead, every candidate benefits from a shared structure reinforced across settings, making their preparation intentional and dependable.

Measures That Show the Coaching is Working (or Isn’t)

A coaching cycle only matters if it is implemented consistently. The way to know is not through more paperwork, but by tracking a small set of measures that reveal whether coaching is happening as intended and whether it is improving candidate learning.

Strong programs focus on three types of measures:

Teacher educator quality of coaching

Do faculty, supervisors, and mentors calibrate regularly on what “good” looks like using shared clips, artifacts, and success criteria?
Are teacher educators modeling practices, labeling criteria clearly, and giving candidates structured rehearsal opportunities in both coursework and clinical experience debriefs?
Are faculty, clinical supervisors, and faculty using the shared cycle and language with candidates consistently across programmatic experiences?

Implementation checks

How many teacher educators are consistently implementing the coaching cycle, and with what frequency?
How many candidates are receiving a full cycle in both coursework rehearsals and clinical observations? How often does this occur?
What percentage of coaching conversations include a rehearsal with feedback, rather than discussion alone?
How often is oral feedback provided immediately and written feedback delivered within 48 hours?

Impact and growth signals

Are candidates improving on the prioritized skills identified in the program’s developmental trajectory? How many are on track, and how many are off track?
Do observation records demonstrate that coaching is leading to visible shifts in candidates’ instructional practice?
Do candidates report that feedback is timely, specific, actionable, and useful in shaping their next lesson and overall development?

These measures are simple enough to capture through coaching logs, quick pulse surveys,

learning walks, teacher educator observations, or shared trackers, yet powerful enough to show whether coaching is timely, consistent, and effective. When tracked with discipline, they ensure candidates are not left to the chance of who coaches them, but are instead supported by a system intentionally designed for their growth.

From Coaching by Chance to Coaching by Design

The challenge is clear. Too often, candidates learn by chance rather than by design. But the

solution is within reach. Every program has the people and the commitment to make coaching the throughline of preparation. What is missing is the choice to adopt one shared system, one effective coaching cycle, one common language, and one set of expectations that make feedback consistent, timely, and actionable across coursework and clinical experiences.

This is not about adding more requirements. It is about redirecting existing effort toward what matters most: coaching that models, rehearses, and reinforces the instructional skills candidates must be proficient in to teach well from day one.

Programs can start by agreeing on a shared coaching cycle, training every teacher educator to use it, and tracking a few simple measures to ensure quality. Together, these steps turn feedback from scattered advice into a reliable system for candidate growth. Every candidate deserves more than the luck of who coaches them. They deserve deliberate preparation that equips them to enter classrooms with clarity, confidence, and skill. The field can solve this challenge - and must.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

From Data Collection to Daily Practice: How Strong Data Routines Improve Teacher Preparation

Wed, 03 Sep 2025 17:03:37 GMT

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:

Frame the purpose before diving in. Why are we looking at this data? What decisions are we trying to make? What assumptions do we have?

Describe what the data shows. What patterns are emerging? Where are the gaps or inconsistencies across candidates, teacher educators, or teaching spaces? Are we seeing progress, or missing opportunities?

Plan clear, specific next steps. What will we do differently? Who is responsible? How will we know if it worked?

This cycle may sound straightforward, but when approached with rigor and discipline, it shifts data from passive to powerful. It creates space for shared reflection, timely action, and real ownership. Most importantly, it keeps the focus on what matters most: preparing future teachers more effectively.

The Five Qualities of High-Quality Data Routines

Not all data use is created equal. A spreadsheet or data system is not a strategy. A dashboard is not a routine. And reviewing data without action is not continuous improvement.

High quality data routines go beyond collection and compliance. They are structured, intentional, and focused on improving the experience and outcomes of those doing the work—especially teacher educators and teacher candidates. They don’t just identify gaps. They clarify what must change in the design, content, and actions of coursework, clinical experiences, and support(s) for candidates’ development in teaching.

We can use five criteria to define high quality data routines in educator preparation:

1. Rooted in Candidate Development

The strongest routines are anchored in instructional practice and candidate performance. They are designed to improve preparation, not just document it. Ask: Does this routine lead to better prepared teacher candidates—or is it instead for something (or someone) else?

2. Connected to Teacher Educator Practices

High quality routines support growth not only in candidates—but in those who prepare them. Faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentors must make the most significant shifts in practice. Ask: Are teacher educators using the data to examine and strengthen their own instructional and coaching practices?

3. Align Coursework and Clinical

Strong data routines reveal whether what candidates learn in coursework is showing up in their performance—and where it’s not. They surface misalignments, clarify expectations, and drive tighter integration across candidates’ developmental settings. Ask: Does this routine expose gaps or disconnects between coursework and clinical practice—and help address them?

4. Timely and Actionable

High quality routines happen on purpose, at the right moments, and result in clear decisions. They use enough data to spark action, without overwhelming or delaying it. Ask: Is this routine timely and focused enough to drive real changes in candidate support or program practice?

5. Visible, Shared, and Communicated

High quality data routines don’t sit in spreadsheets/data systems or stay siloed in leadership meetings. They are shared across roles, informed by those teacher educators closest to candidates, and clearly communicated to drive action. Visibility builds trust. Shared ownership builds momentum.

Ask: Who is in the room—and who else needs to be? Are decisions and insights shared, or stuck?

Common Data Routine Types in Strong Programs

Here are eight high-leverage data routines commonly used by strong programs:

What sets strong data routines apart isn’t that they use data—it’s how, how often, and with whom. They are embedded in the daily work of preparation: consistent, collaborative, and purpose driven. They shape how that work gets done.

The Shift We Need: From Data Collection to Development

The strongest preparation programs model for teacher educators the same habits they expect from teacher candidates: collect, analyze, plan, enact, and improve. In these programs, data isn’t a sidebar, it’s part of doing the work. It shapes how teacher educators teach and how candidates learn.

Let’s embed data routines into the daily work of preparation. Let’s use data to strengthen the people and practices that shape candidates’ preparation, every day.

Let’s make teacher preparation better—together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update Summer 2025

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 18:28:31 GMT

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?

Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:41:17 GMT

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

Thu, 17 Jul 2025 19:26:18 GMT

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

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 19:41:38 GMT

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:

All pathways—traditional, residency, internship-based, and alternative—can be high quality when they reflect what research and real-world practice show to be both essential and effective. But program type alone doesn’t guarantee results. A “residency” may amount to little more than a yearlong placement without the supports needed to drive development, while an internship program with rigorous coaching, practice-based coursework, and strong on-site support can produce highly effective teachers. What matters is not the format, but the design and execution. Strong programs share four core features:

Research-based and instructionally aligned
Coursework, clinical experiences, and feedback systems align to a shared vision of instructional excellence that gets implemented.
Practice-rich and feedback-driven
Candidates receive structured opportunities to observe, rehearse, and enact instruction, paired with specific, actionable feedback.
Performance-based and competency-aligned
Candidate progression is driven by demonstrated readiness—not seat time—through clear benchmarks and performance gateways that inform program adjustments and support continuous improvement.
Accessible, scalable, and sustainable
Programs reduce barriers to entry without lowering the bar—investing in the systems, staffing, and teacher educator expectations & development needed to scale high-quality preparation effectively.

To meet the moment, we need more than isolated fixes—we need preparation models that are aligned, practice-based, performance-driven, and scalable. At EdPrep Partners, we help programs build and refine these models from the inside out, beginning with program leaders and teacher educators who shape the systems, instruction, and feedback that drive candidate readiness.

Let’s Shift the Narrative Together: To Urgency and Preparedness

We agree with the article’s core concern: learning must return to the center. But the solution is not a new slogan—it’s local, technical, and within reach.

Yes, we need content and standards-based curricula.

Yes, we need structured literacy and cognitive science practices.

Yes, we need college- and career-ready pathways.

But none of these will reach their full potential without well-prepared teachers.

Across the country, states face a shared dilemma: How do we expand the teacher workforce without sacrificing preparation quality? The data shows us both the risk—and the opportunity.

Some systems are making intentional moves to prioritize preparation. Others are navigating fractured pipelines, where urgency overtakes long-term quality. The difference isn’t just about policy. It’s about intentionality, investment, and systems .

But knowing what works isn’t enough. Now is the moment for bold action, strategic investment, and a shared sense of urgency—paired with the structures and support needed to scale what works and sustain it over time.

A Commitment to Solutions

Our work isn’t about “sides.” It’s about strengthening preparation—together. We support and believe in educator preparation programs of all types—traditional and alternative, urban and rural, large and small—because we believe every candidate deserves access to high-quality preparation, and every student deserves an excellent teacher from day one. In our field, it’s time to reframe the conversation. This is no longer about traditional vs. alternative pathways to teaching. It’s about preparation vs. no preparation.

Join Us

This is not the time to give up on children’s learning. It’s time to refocus our systems, reinvest in preparation, and work together to ensure the next generation of educators enters the classroom fully prepared to make a difference.

This is a pivotal moment for teacher preparation—one that demands more than slogans or short-term fixes. It requires clear priorities, sustained investment, and the belief that instructional quality begins with preparation quality .

If we act now—with clarity, urgency, and systems built to last—we can ensure that every P–12 student is taught by a well-prepared teacher.

Let’s make teacher preparation better—together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

The Faculty Factor: Elevating the Teacher Educators Who Equip Future Teachers

Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:01:16 GMT

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 Protocol

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:22:05 GMT

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 Prep is the Priority

Thu, 22 May 2025 18:44:37 GMT

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.

We Need More Programs Like This

At EdPrep Partners , we’ve long believed that quality ACP is not only possible—it’s necessary in today’s preparation landscape. UH’s program shows that when universities step up, collaborate with districts, and build programs that reflect what works, candidates choose them. Districts choose them. And teacher candidates and P-12 students benefit.

This isn’t about residency versus traditional versus ACP. It’s about preparation —doing it well, and doing it at scale. The University of Houston’s program proves that educator preparation programs don’t have to choose one model over another. UH has shown that it’s possible to offer both: a strong yearlong residency and a high-quality, scalable ACP.

That’s the bar: quality preparation at scale. It’s time more institutions rise to meet it. Candidates deserve access to a high-quality teacher preparation program—regardless of the pathway.

How We Support this Work

At EdPrep Partners , we work alongside educator preparation to build, strengthen, and scale what works . Our role isn’t to prescribe from a distance—it’s to partner deeply and help bring promising models to life with clarity, quality, and sustainability.

We help educator preparation programs:

Design and implement research-backed programs that define what quality looks like across coursework, clinical experiences, and each and every candidate developmental experience.
Develop and coach teacher educators —including faculty, field supervisors, and program leaders—ensuring they are equipped to deliver high-impact coursework, feedback, model and develop candidates aligned to the most effective practices, and guide their candidates along a clear developmental trajectory.
Scale quality pathways —whether traditional, residency, or internship-based—without sacrificing rigor, ensuring that access and quality grow together.

We’re proud of UH’s growth—and we’re ready to help programs take the same bold step. Quality preparation at scale isn’t just possible, it’s essential.

Let’s make teacher preparation better—together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

Ready or Not: What Texas’ 2024–2025 Data Reveals About Teacher Preparation Gaps

Tue, 20 May 2025 21:32:29 GMT

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

¹ Kirksey, J. (2024). Amid Rising Number of Uncertified Teachers, Previous Classroom Experience Proves Vital in Texas. Center for Innovative Research in Change, Leadership, and Education. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/98166

² Van Overschelde, J., Ellis, C., Nale, F., & López, M. M. (2024). Texas Districts of Innovation: Unlicensed Teachers Hurt Student Math Achievement. Research for EDucator Equity & Excellence Center, Texas State University. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24459.91688

About EdPrep Partners
Elevating Teacher Preparation. Accelerating Change.

EdPrep partners is a national technical assistance center and non-profit. EdPrep Partners delivers a coordinated, high-impact, hands-on technical assistance model that connects diagnostic with the support to make the changes. Other fields—such as healthcare, engineering, and even teaching—have long embraced continuous improvement models that integrate diagnostics with targeted intervention & support, leading to measurable, lasting change. So why not in educator preparation? Our approach moves beyond surface-level recommendations, embedding research-backed, scalable, and sustainable practices that most dramatically improve the quality of educator preparation—while equipping educator preparation programs, districts, state agencies, and funders with the tools and insights needed to drive systemic, scaled, and lasting change.

Let's make teacher preparation better together.
www.edpreppartners.org

Delaware's Playbook

Mon, 19 May 2025 18:40:34 GMT

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:

These aren’t isolated initiatives—they’re a coordinated infrastructure, intentionally built to meet Delaware’s long-term talent needs.

At Delaware Technical Community College , access isn’t just structural—it’s financial. Through the SEED+ Scholarship , most eligible students can earn an associate degree tuition-free and apply for a third year of funding toward a bachelor’s degree . This dramatically reduces, and in many cases eliminates, tuition debt for aspiring educators—especially those who begin their journey through community college.

In parallel, Delaware is investing in a statewide residency hub and strategic staffing initiative , led by the Delaware Department of Education in collaboration with all five educator preparation programs and cohorts of participating school districts. Each partnership moves through a structured design year followed by implementation, embedding yearlong teacher residencies into district staffing strategies. As part of this model, candidates receive residency stipends ranging from $20,000 to $25,000 , with some districts offering up to $45,000 in exchange for serving in high-need school roles while completing their final year of preparation. These structured roles are designed to support candidate development and ensure they are ready to lead classrooms on day one.

SEED+ and strategic staffing in residency hubs are making it possible for many candidates to enter the profession with a bachelor’s degree, deep clinical experience, and no tuition debt .

Delaware is serious about teacher preparation, and EdPrep Partners applauds the momentum. As Dana Davisson, Clinical Practice Director of Relay Delaware , reflected, “[In Delaware] we’re showing the country what’s possible when state, higher ed, and districts and charters play the long game - collaborating and problem solving now in order to support and retain high quality, more diverse educators next year and for years to come.”

Pathways for Impact: Designing for Quality

Even the most accessible pathway won’t lead to impact if the preparation within it isn’t aligned to instructional rigor—especially in literacy and math.

Delaware understands this. Its approach is not only about expanding who enters the profession, but transforming what they experience once they do. The state’s model reinforces a broader truth: improving student outcomes starts with improving teacher preparation—and that requires deep, structural work across programs, pathways, and partnerships.

At EdPrep Partners, we walk alongside educator preparation programs to build, strengthen, and scale what works. We don’t prescribe from a distance. We partner deeply—helping institutions bring promising models to life with clarity, quality, and sustainability.

We support EPPs to:

Define and implement research-based program models across coursework, clinical practice, and developmental supports.
Develop and coach teacher educators —faculty, field supervisors, and program leaders—to deliver rigorous instruction and meaningful feedback.
Scale strong pathways —traditional, residency, or internship—without sacrificing quality.

Our work is grounded in a clear, evidence-aligned preparation framework, including:

Program Leadership & Continuous Improvement:
A shared instructional vision and developmental trajectory for candidates, reinforced by clear structures, processes, and performance-based decision-making.
Candidate Preparation & Development:
Practice-based candidate development that moves candidates from analysis, to rehearsal, to enactment of core pedagogical methods and content-pedagogies.
Teacher Educator Practices:
Embedded, high-impact coursework facilitation and clinical coaching, and delivered consistently across faculty, field supervisors, and mentors.
District & Program Partnerships:
Strong site-based mentor and leadership support, enabled by shared ownership and aligned staffing strategies between EPPs and P–12 partners.

A Challenge—and a Playbook

Delaware isn’t claiming to have solved every problem. In fact, quite the contrary—it knows where the challenges are, and it’s working with urgency to address them. The state is willing to confront those problems directly and invest in the systems required to solve them.

There’s a playbook emerging in the First State and we should all be watching closely. For states, institutions, and systems across the country, the lessons are clear:

Expand access without lowering expectations —ensure standards are defined, embedded, and reinforced at every level.
Design pathways that scale and sustain —build strong systems and enable local reallocation to support long-term viability.
Invest in teacher educators, not just candidate completion —prioritize the development of those who deliver preparation.
Align preparation to what P-12 students truly need —with a clear focus on foundational skills needed for teachers and students alike to succeed in literacy & math.

At EdPrep Partners , we’re proud to support Delaware and ready to walk alongside others committed to doing this work with depth, urgency, and long-term vision.

Let’s make teacher preparation better—together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

No More Data for Data's Sake

Wed, 07 May 2025 14:37:58 GMT

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.

Sat, 05 Apr 2025 21:44:30 GMT

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

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update Spring 2025

Fri, 04 Apr 2025 13:40:54 GMT

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update

Spring 2025 | Elevating Teacher Preparation. Accelerating Change.
EdPrep Partners: A National Center for Quality Teacher Preparation

Improving Teacher Preparation—Together

At EdPrep Partners, we believe every child deserves an excellent educator—and that starts with dramatically improving how teachers are prepared. As a national technical assistance center, our mission is to strengthen educator preparation programs, scale the number of well-prepared teachers, and ensure every candidate enters the classroom ready to teach, lead, and make an impact on day one.

We’re already fast at work alongside educator preparation programs, state agencies, and funders committed to lasting change in educator preparation. Our support moves beyond compliance or theory—we provide on-the-ground, research-based technical assistance that helps programs dramatically improve coursework, clinical and internship experiences, and teacher educator practices, while embedding systems that drive continuous improvement. Our work reaches every level of program design and every person involved—from faculty and supervisors to mentor teachers, candidates, and P–12 students—ensuring that quality teaching isn’t just the goal for candidates, but the expectation for everyone responsible for their preparation.

We know that meaningful change in teacher preparation doesn’t happen through isolated efforts—it requires shared vision, intentional design, and sustained support. That’s why we’re building tools, partnerships, and capacity at every level of the system. It will take all of us.

This is our first quarterly update. It offers a glimpse into what we’re seeing, what we’re sharing, and what we’re building—together with the field. Whether you’re leading an EPP, setting state policy, supporting the teacher workforce, or driving innovation in educator preparation, we’re grateful for your partnership and momentum. This work can’t wait—and we’re here to help it move faster, further, and more effectively.

Let’s make teacher preparation better—together.

Calvin J. Stocker

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners

--------------------------------------------

EdPrep Insights: What You May Have Missed

Our EdPrep Insights series brings forward urgent challenges in educator preparation and offers research-aligned, actionable strategies for improvement. Each brief is grounded in our technical assistance approach and directly reflects the EdPrep Performance Framework and our 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. If you haven’t had a chance to explore the latest editions, here’s what you’ve missed:

No More Data for Data’s Sake

Data systems abound—but when disconnected from daily decisions, they lose power. This Insight reframes how programs can embed data use into real-time improvement.

- Read the EdPrep Insight

The Preparation Gap: What 2024–2025 Texas Data Reveals About Teacher Readiness

Texas data shows a widening divide in teacher readiness—not just by certification status, but by pathway and region. This Insight argues for re-centering preparation, not just compliance. - Read the EdPrep Insight

Field Supervision Matters. High-Impact Coaching & Feedback Matter Even More.

Too many candidates are supervised. Too few are coached. This Insight outlines what structured, high-impact coaching systems require to truly drive candidate development.

- Read the EdPrep Insight

EdPrep In Focus: Resources for Program Leaders

This spotlight series delivers timely, region-specific guidance to support improvement in educator preparation.

Mid-Year ASEP Data & Perception Survey Refresh

With the release of the 2024–25 ASEP Mid-Year and Perception Survey data sets, EdPrep Partners has developed two structured tools to help educator preparation programs make meaning of the data and translate insights into action:

- ASEP Mid-Year Data Protocol

- Perception Survey Protocol

These tools align with EdPrep Partners’ Data-Driven Decision-Making & Continuous Improvement lever—one of the 14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation. With nearly 130 educator preparation programs operating across Texas, these resources offer a clear, practical path for programs to engage in data-driven reflection and implement meaningful improvements—starting now.

What We’re Learning From the Field

Across the field this spring, several powerful voices are elevating what matters most in educator preparation—structured development, deeper learning, and systems that prioritize quality over narrative.

From EPIC at UNC Chapel Hill

EPIC’s recent research focuses on two urgent areas of system-level need:

A Bridge to Success? Outcomes for Students Attending Summer Transition Grades Programs in NC

This brief examines the design and implementation of summer bridge programs in North Carolina, the characteristics of P-12 students that attended, and their potential impact on student outcomes (e.g. student achievement scores, attendance in the subsequent academic year, etc.).

- Read the Brief

Transitions from Community College to Teacher Education: Motivations, Barriers, and Post-Secondary Experiences Among University of Houston Teacher Candidates

This report explores the lived experiences of aspiring teachers transferring from community colleges into EPPs. Key takeaways include the need for clearer advising, credit transfer transparency, and culturally responsive supports to help these candidates persist and thrive. - Read the Brief

From Natalie Wexler

In her new book, Beyond the Science of Reading , and a related feature in The 74, Wexler argues that phonics alone won’t produce strong readers or deep thinkers. Without a content-rich curriculum grounded in cognitive science, students lack the conceptual foundation to analyze, synthesize, and write with meaning. As Wexler writes: “The more students know, the better they can write; the better they can write, the more they can learn.”

- Explore the Book

- Read the Interview

From TeachingWorks at the University of Michigan

In Why is “learning loss” so trendy?, TeachingWorks’ Nicole Garcia challenges surface-level interpretations of NAEP score trends, calling for deeper investment in mathematics teacher preparation. She emphasizes that what’s been lost is not just points—but opportunity: the chance for students to engage in rich, meaningful mathematical thinking that goes beyond procedures to reasoning, justification, and communication.

- Read the Piece

What’s Ahead

As demand for aligned, high-impact preparation grows, EdPrep Partners will continue to support programs, systems, and states in building the conditions for lasting improvement. We’ll share additional insights, expand our reach, and deepen our partnerships—always with a focus on sustainable change, instructional quality, and readiness on day one.

We look forward to sharing key developments and new learning in our next quarterly update.

EdPrep Insights

Beyond the Review: Where Reports End and Results Begin

Beyond the Review: Where Reports End and Results Begin

How clear findings and priorities drive lasting improvement in educator preparation

The missing link between reviews and results

Evidence is the starting point, not the destination

Findings make meaning leaders can use

Prioritized action is most likely to lead to action

How lasting improvement takes hold

From findings to action

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update - Winter 2025

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update Winter 2025 | From Design to Practice. What Works at Scale.

What We’re Designing For

Calvin J. Stocker

EdPrep Insights: What You May Have Missed

Beyond Access: Preparing Candidates to Teach with HQIM

The Prioritization Imperative

But Who Develops the Mentors?

Emerging Patterns in Preparation Improvement

What We’re Learning From the Field

From TeachingWorks at the University of Michigan

From the Educational Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) at UNC Chapel Hill

From the Charles Butt Foundation

From E3 Alliance

From the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

What’s Ahead

Statewide Networks & Collaborations

Advancing Content-Specific Preparation in Literacy and Mathematics

Beyond Access Part 5: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Programs

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

When Preparation Fails the Candidate

Why Program Design Matters

Program Structures That Anchor HQIM Readiness

Putting it All Together

Series Conclusion: Beyond Access

Appendix

What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Programs

Beyond Access Part 4: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

Inside the Program: The Teacher Educator’s Role

Why Teacher Educator Practice Matters

Core Competencies and Approaches for HQIM Ready Teacher Educators

Core Competencies for HQIM Ready Teacher Educators

Putting it All Together

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Programs

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Teacher Educators

Appendix

What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Teacher Educators

Beyond Access Part 3: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

Inside the Box, In Front of Students

Why Practice Matters for Readiness

HQIM Readiness for Candidates

Putting it All Together

Taking Action: Building HQIM-Ready Candidates

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Teacher Educators

Appendix

What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

Beyond Access Part 2: Aligning with the Quality Curriculum that Matters Most

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

The Curriculum Box

District Investments Depend on Preparation

When Preparation Falls Short

What States and Programs Are Showing the Field

Steps Programs Can Take Now

Up Next: Strong HQIM Integration for Candidates

Beyond Access Part 1: The Case for HQIM in Teacher Preparation

A Five-Part Series on HQIM Readiness in Teacher Preparation

The Reality for New Teachers Entering the Classroom

Our National Emergency

What Makes an Instructional Material “High-Quality?”

Why HQIM Matters

The HQIM Preparation Gap

Signs of Progress

Moving ‘Beyond Access’

Beyond Access | Part 1: The Case for HQIM in Teacher Preparation

Beyond Access | Part 2: Aligning with the Quality Curriculum That Matters Most

Beyond Access | Part 3: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Candidates

Beyond Access | Part 4: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Teacher Educators

Beyond Access | Part 5: What Strong HQIM Integration Looks Like for Programs

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update
Winter 2025 | From Design to Practice. What Works at Scale.

EdPrep Partners Quarterly Update
Fall 2025 | Preparation Moves Forward. With Purpose.

Programs Make Change Stick

Focusing on What Matters Most for Candidate Readiness

Chance to Design

Implementing Coaching Systems Every Candidate Can Count On

Components of an Effective Shared Coaching C ycle