The Michigan EPP Collaborative: Learning Together, Advancing Preparation

Strengthening teacher preparation across a state does not require every university to make the same changes. It requires institutions to understand what needs to improve, focus on the practices that matter most, and have the support to put those changes into practice. The Michigan Educator Preparation Program Collaborative (MI EPP Collaborative), convened by the Michigan Educator Workforce Initiative, brings five universities together around that approach: institution-owned improvement strengthened through shared learning and sustained technical assistance, with candidate readiness as the common goal.

By the time members gathered at Western Michigan University for the Collaborative’s November 4–6 convening, substantial improvement work was already underway. Teams from Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, Northern Michigan University, and Western Michigan University brought developing candidate readiness frameworks, questions about strengthening coursework and clinical experiences, and emerging approaches to teacher educator practices. The convening provided opportunities to examine one another’s work, exchange expertise, and advance decisions about what to develop, test, and implement next.

Progress Across the Collaborative

Since the Collaborative launched in January 2026, all five universities have completed Program Performance Reviews, identified focused improvement priorities through Strategic Action Planning, and begun acting on those priorities with sustained technical assistance. The reviews examined strengths and opportunities across coursework, clinical experiences, teacher educator practices, and program systems. Working alongside dedicated EdPrep Partners Technical Assistance Partners, university teams are now engaging faculty and clinical partners, making implementation decisions, and developing the tools, routines, and supports needed to make stronger preparation practices part of their programs.

Across the five universities, members are developing and refining Candidate Readiness Frameworks, defining observable look-fors and developmental expectations for Michigan’s Core Teaching Practices, and examining where candidates analyze teaching, rehearse targeted practices, and enact instruction with P–12 students. Equally important, they are identifying and strengthening the teacher educator practices that support candidate development: how faculty, clinical supervisors, and mentor teachers explicitly label and model effective instruction, structure opportunities for practice, use evidence of candidate performance, and provide structured coaching and feedback. These efforts take different forms across institutions, but share a common purpose: making expectations for candidate readiness explicit and ensuring they shape what future teachers experience, practice, and demonstrate across coursework and clinical experiences.

How the Collaborative Advances the Work

At Convening #2, members built on the universities’ existing priorities and implementation questions. Their time together allowed them to draw on one another’s expertise, examine emerging practices, and strengthen the decisions they are making within their own programs.

Four elements make this approach particularly valuable:

• Build on institutional priorities. Each university’s Strategic Action Plan and ongoing technical assistance work guide what members bring to the Collaborative, which learning opportunities they pursue, and what they need to advance within their programs.
• Learn from work in progress. Members openly share developing frameworks, resources, implementation decisions, and challenges. This creates opportunities to examine different approaches, offer expertise, and adapt promising practices within their own programs.
• Connect shared learning to institutional action. Convening #2 organized targeted learning around Practice (candidate developmental experiences and teacher educator practices), Strategy (structures and supports for implementation), and Measurement (candidate performance, readiness decisions, and progress monitoring). Dedicated university team time followed each strand, allowing members to apply what they learned directly to their existing priorities.
• Sustain progress between gatherings. Members return to their institutions with focused actions, responsibilities, and ways to monitor progress. Working alongside their EdPrep Partners Technical Assistance Partners, teams continue developing resources, engaging teacher educators, testing approaches, and addressing implementation challenges between convenings.

The strength of this approach is how individual and collective improvement reinforce one another. Each university advances work that reflects its own context and priorities, while the experiences and emerging practices of other members become resources for strengthening that work.

What Members Are Taking Forward

Members are preparing to test Candidate Readiness Frameworks, map how prioritized teaching practices are developed across coursework and clinical experiences, strengthen teacher educator development and structured coaching and feedback, and use candidate performance evidence to guide readiness decisions and targeted support(s). Each university is sequencing these changes based on its priorities, existing strengths, and implementation needs. As these approaches move into practice, members will examine whether the intended changes are taking hold, what candidates are experiencing, and how their instructional proficiency is developing. The focus is on making stronger preparation practices a consistent part of how future teachers are developed and supported.

What Other States Can Learn from Michigan

The MI EPP Collaborative gives members a common foundation for improvement while preserving the institutional ownership needed to make meaningful changes. Each university contributes its expertise, developing approaches, and lessons from implementation, creating opportunities for others to strengthen their own work. For state agencies, funders, and intermediaries, the opportunity is to build on this approach: connect evidence-informed institutional priorities with purposeful cross-program learning and sustained technical assistance. The value of that investment extends beyond individual institutions, creating the conditions for stronger teacher educator practices, candidate developmental experiences, and ultimately, greater readiness to teach.

That is the promise of the Collaborative: five distinct paths toward stronger preparation, advanced together.