Skin in the Game: District Investments in Residency Preparation

• In Event: Reconfiguring University-District Roles in Teacher Preparation: Residency Partnerships and Equitable Workforce Pathways

Abstract

Introduction:

Securing sustainable funding is one of the biggest challenges for the residencies studied. Compared to traditional preparation programs, residencies tend to be more expensive to operate: Residents typically receive a stipend during their yearlong clinical placement, and mentor teachers are sometimes compensated at higher levels to match the elevated intensity and extended duration of their clinical responsibilities (National Center for Teacher Residencies, & Public Impact, 2018). Furthermore, residency partnerships involve ongoing local education agency (LEA) collaboration, which, as noted above, often requires the LEA to dedicate staff toward residency management.

In order to sustain their operations, the studied residency programs drew on multiple funding sources, including state and federal grants, local community and philanthropic funds and resources, and LEA partner contributions including strategic staffing models. In this presentation, we focus our discussion on LEA investments.

Methods:

This presentation draws on findings from seven case studies of effective residency programs in California and Texas. Data collection included interviews with program administrators, faculty, teacher candidates, program alumni, mentor/cooperating teachers, principals, and district administrators, as well as educator preparation program (EPP), LEA, and state-level document analysis.

Findings:

The residency model, which situates LEAs as reciprocal partners in pre-service preparation, requires a paradigm shift in how the teacher preparation ecosystem is viewed. Although many LEAs and their leaders are not accustomed to thinking about or participating in pre-service teacher preparation, the studied residencies in most instances partnered with districts who were willing to put “skin in the game” by investing the preparation of residency candidates, typically by providing part or all of residents’ stipends.

Residency leaders viewed financial investment from LEA partners as critical to a sustainable residency model. LEAs drew on state-allocated district dollars to create stable funding streams for their residency partnerships, with some programs designing clinical experiences based on strategic staffing models. For example, some programs developed clinical models that allowed residents to serve part-time as paraeducators or substitute teachers, allowing them to tap into these LEA budget lines. In addition to resident stipends, LEA partners contributed classroom meeting space, mentor teacher stipends, and FTEs for program coordination. LEA residency leaders shared the sense that the LEA’s gains from the residency made it worth the investment. Because residency graduates tend to be retained at high rates, an LEA’s investment has the potential to reduce turnover, allowing funds that would have otherwise gone toward recruiting and onboarding new teachers to be reallocated to the residency. In addition, the residency model allowed LEAs to influence the content and structures of the program and to advocate for district specific needs, which added to the value proposition of investment.

Although residencies can be more expensive to implement than historical teacher preparation, these costs can be considered investments into the profession writ large, especially as residency models are moving the field toward conceptualizing teacher preparation as a joint endeavor between EPPs and LEAs. Programs are braiding funding using public funds and resources, private grants, and, most notably, financial contributions from LEAs.

Authors

• Wesley Wei, Learning Policy Institute

• Cathy Yun, Learning Policy Institute

• Julie Fitz, Learning Policy Institute

• Victoria Wang, Learning Policy Institute

• Steven Wojcikiewicz, Learning Policy Institute

• Kimberlee Ralph, Learning Policy Institute

• Jennifer A. Bland, Learning Policy Institute