Aims and Accomplishments

The Yale National Initiative to Strengthen Teaching in Public Schools, which builds upon the success of a four-year National Demonstration Project, promotes the establishment of new Teachers Institutes that adopt the approach to professional development that has been followed for more than twenty-five years by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. Teachers Institutes focus on the academic preparation of school teachers and on their application in their own classrooms of what they study in the Institute. By linking institutions of higher education with school districts where the students are mainly from low-income communities, Institutes strengthen teaching and learning in public schools and also benefit the institutions whose faculty members serve as seminar leaders. Each Institute also helps to disseminate this approach, encouraging and assisting other institutions and school districts as they develop similar programs in their own communities.

A Teachers Institute places equal emphasis on teachers increasing their knowledge of a subject and on their developing teaching strategies that will be effective with their students. At the core of its program is a series of seminars on subjects in the humanities and sciences. Topics are suggested by the teachers based on what they think could enrich their classroom instruction. In the seminars, the university or college faculty members contribute their knowledge of a subject, while the school teachers contribute their expertise in elementary and secondary school pedagogy, their understanding of the students they teach, and their grasp of what works in the crucible of the classroom. Successful completion of a seminar requires that the teachers, with guidance from a faculty member, each write a curriculum unit to be used in their own classroom and to be shared with others in the same school and other schools through both print and electronic publication.

Throughout the seminar process teachers are treated as colleagues. Unlike conventional university or professional development courses, Institute seminars involve at their very center an exchange of ideas among school teachers and university or college faculty members. The teachers admitted to seminars, however, are not a highly selective group, but rather a cross-section of those in the system, most of whom, like their urban counterparts across the country, did not major in one or more of the subjects they teach. The Institute approach assumes that urban public school teachers can engage in serious study of the field and can devise appropriate and effective curricula based on this study.

The National Demonstration Project

The National Demonstration Project, supported by a major grant from the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund and a supplementary grant from the McCune Charitable Foundation, demonstrated that Teachers Institutes based on the principles grounding the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute can be established and sustained in other cities where the pattern and magnitude of needs and resources are different from those in New Haven. It did so in a variety of institutional contexts, which included liberal arts colleges, private universities, and state universities, acting individually or in a consortium. As a result of the Demonstration Project, institutions that had long relied simply upon departments or schools of Education for their programs in professional development are now providing seminars for teachers in the liberal arts and sciences. The Demonstration Project also, by establishing Institutes from coast to coast, a National Steering Committee of school teachers, and a National University Advisory Council (of university and college faculty members), and by holding a series of Annual Conferences, laid the groundwork for a national league of such Teachers Institutes.

In 1997 the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute had designed the Demonstration Project, had surveyed and visited likely sites, and had selected fourteen sites to be invited to apply for Planning Grants. (See "School Districts and Institutions of Higher Education" on page 52 for a listing of those involved in the Demonstration Project.) In 1998 it provided those sites with extensive information concerning the Institute's policies and procedures. On recommendation of a National Panel, it then awarded Planning Grants to five applicants. Their eight months of planning included a ten-day "July Intensive" in New Haven, during which Planning Directors and teams of university faculty members and school teachers participated in a varied program of activities that were designed to initiate them into the Institute process. Teachers took part in National Seminars (truncated versions of New Haven seminars) led by Yale faculty members, and also observed local seminars. University faculty members observed both types of seminars and, with the advice of Yale faculty members, wrote seminar proposals. Planning Directors also observed both types of seminars, attended workshops on Institute principles and procedures, and, with the advice of the Director of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, prepared proposals to establish Teachers Institutes.

Then, again on recommendation of the National Panel, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute awarded three-year Implementation Grants to four applicants: the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute (a partnership among Chatham College, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Pittsburgh Public Schools); the Houston Teachers Institute (a partnership between the University of Houston and the Houston Independent School District); the Albuquerque Teachers Institute (a partnership between the University of New Mexico and the Albuquerque Public Schools); and the UCI-Santa Ana Teachers Institute (a partnership between the University of California at Irvine and the Santa Ana Unified School District). These four Institutes exemplified a wide range of institutional type, city size, and opportunities for funding.

From 1999 through 2001 the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute monitored these new Institutes and helped them to become established as members of a collaborative network. It did so through a multitude of efforts, including a second "July Intensive"; three Annual Conferences; annual meetings of the Directors, the National Steering Committee (of teachers), and the National University Advisory Council (of faculty members); and many site visits and consultations. During those three years the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute offered 17 seminars, led by 11 different faculty members, in which 145 Fellows wrote curriculum units. The Houston Teachers Institute offered 17 seminars, led by 15 different faculty members, in which 129 Fellows wrote curriculum units. The Albuquerque Teachers Institute offered 20 seminars, led by 18 different faculty members, in which 157 Fellows wrote curriculum units. And the UCI-Santa Ana Teachers Institute offered 23 seminars, led by 18 different faculty members, in which 146 Fellows completed 151 curriculum units. (See "Seminars, Faculty, and Fellows" on page 54 for a listing of numbers of participants.) All of these curriculum units were circulated in printed copies and on Institute Web sites.

At all four sites the vast majority of the Fellows expressed great satisfaction with the kind of professional development that the Institutes made possible. At all four sites the administrators of the institutions of higher education and of the school districts praised highly the work of the Institute. From the Irvine-Santa Ana Teachers Institute, for example, Executive Vice Chancellor Lillyman wrote:

The goals and practices of the UCI-Santa Ana Teachers Institute are in keeping with the University of California and UCI's outreach mission, to expand educational opportunities for all Californians. Creating innovative opportunities for professional development is a key strategy in our efforts towards this goal. When teachers are inspired to take responsibility for the knowledge process through active engagement in reading, writing, and research, they can have a strong effect on the intellectual lives and futures of their students.

In Pittsburgh the principal of the high school that has sent the greatest number of teachers to the Institute wrote that never before had he witnessed a professional development program for secondary school teachers that "met the needs of experienced teachers as well as the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute does." And the Director of that Institute, Helen Faison, who had served as Acting Superintendent of Schools, has said,

In my more than a half century involvement in public education in positions ranging from novice teacher to interim superintendent of a large urban school district, I have never been associated with a teacher professional development model that afforded teachers the level of self-determination and satisfaction that the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model does.

She has also stated that "the public school community continues to think of the Institute as a permanent opportunity that will be available to teachers in the Pittsburgh Public Schools for an indefinite period."

Reflecting more broadly on the work of the Houston Teachers Institute and its applicability across the nation, Susan Sclafani (formerly Chief of Staff for Academic Operations in the Houston Independent School District and now Counselor to the United States Secretary of Education and Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Vocational and Adult Education) said to teachers gathered in New Haven:

We've got to change the way in which we prepare our young people. . . . Part of the reason that you are working in this Institute is because you have understood that you weren't getting all of your children engaged; that there had to be better ways to develop curriculum, there had to be better ways to learn. You needed yourself to learn new strategies that could be effective with the young people you teach—and to do that in a way that you had some say about. . . . What appealed to us in Houston—and what appealed to you in Albuquerque and Pittsburgh and Santa Ana—was that there was a different way of doing it.

Sclafani spoke of "teacher quality" as "the most important factor in whether or not children learn." That, she said, "is what this project is all about." And she challenged the group "to figure out how to expand and grow" the number of teachers involved in Teachers Institutes, within the cities represented now by such Institutes and within other cities across the nation. "How do we turn district-wide professional development into this?" she asked. "How do you start having an influence on the way in which all teachers are engaged in intellectual pursuits? Because that really is the issue."

Within these Institutes the teachers have found a greater creative responsibility for their own curricula, and they have found an opportunity to exercise leadership and judgment in sustaining the program of seminars that provides continuing professional development. The university faculty members have also recognized more fully their responsibility for teaching at all levels in their own communities. As this has occurred, both the school teachers and the university faculty members have discovered their true collegiality in the on-going process of learning and teaching. And they have realized both the opportunities and the responsibilities that follow from their membership in a larger community devoted to the educational welfare of the young people of this nation.

Each of the five Teachers Institutes involved in the National Demon-stration Project serves an urban school district that enrolls students, most of whom are not only from low-income communities, but also members of ethnic or racial minorities. (See "Demographic Information on Demonstration Sites" on page 55.) In New Haven, 57 percent of the students in the district are African-American and 28 percent are Hispanic. In Pittsburgh, 56 percent of the students are African American. In the participating schools in Houston, 30 percent of the students are African-American and 50 percent are Hispanic. In the participating schools in Santa Ana, more than 90 percent of the students are Hispanic, and more than 70 percent have limited English. As the Teachers Institutes enable teachers to improve their preparation in content fields, prepare curriculum units, and accept responsibility for much of their own professional development, they also help large numbers of minority students to achieve at higher levels by improving teaching and learning.

During the three years of the National Demonstration Project all four Institutes met the very difficult funding challenge posed by the terms of the Implementation Grants they were offered. And in December 2001, all four Institutes declared their intention to apply for Research and Planning Grants in the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative.

In sum, the National Demonstration Project has shown in four different cities larger than New Haven:

• that a Teachers Institute serving approximately 20 schools that enroll predominantly minority students can be rapidly inaugurated;
• that such a Teachers Institute can immediately carry out a program of 4-6 content-based seminars in the humanities and sciences, which increase teachers' knowledge, heighten their morale, encourage their use of new technologies, and result in individually crafted curriculum units of substance for use in classrooms;
• that such Institutes will arouse the enthusiasm and support of significant numbers of teachers and university faculty members;
• that such Institutes can attract support—including pledges of continuing support—from administrators of a private liberal arts college, a private university emphasizing the sciences, a flagship state university, and a major state university in a larger system;
• that high-level administrators in school districts, superintendents or their immediate subordinates, will be attracted by the idea of such an Institute, will start thinking about the local means of scaling-up, and will commit themselves to its long-term support;
• and that the strategies employed in establishing the National Demonstration Project, including National Seminars, the observation of local seminars in New Haven, and workshops on Institute principles and procedures, are admirably suited for the process of further disseminating the Yale-New Haven model and establishing a nation-wide network of Teachers Institutes.

In doing so, the National Demonstration Project has made amply clear the importance of the principles upon which these Institutes are based. It has shown that, given favorable circumstances, the new Teachers Institutes can sustain themselves after the initial Grant. It has provided the foundation for the expansion of some Teachers Institutes and the establishment of yet others in cities across the nation. And it has shown that such Teachers Institutes can make a substantial contribution to the most important kind of school reform in this nation—the improvement of teaching itself.

The Preparation Phase

The Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative (April 2002-June 2004) has led to yet further success in two of these new Institutes. The Pittsburgh Teachers Institute and the Houston Teachers Institute applied for and, on recommendation of a National Panel, received Research and Planning Grants. These grants, supported by an extension of unexpended funds from the Wallace-Reader's Digest Funds and a grant from the Jessie Ball duPont Fund, have enabled them to conduct both qualitative and quantifiable research into the effectiveness of their programs and to plan for future systemic impact within their school districts.

Though the Albuquerque Teachers Institute was prevented by administrative problems in the Albuquerque Public Schools from applying for a Research and Planning Grant, it has continued under the aegis of the College of Arts & Sciences of the University of Mexico and is expanding into other school districts. And though the UCI-Santa Ana Teachers Institute was likewise prevented by the financial crisis in California from applying for such a Grant, and temporarily suspended, the University and its faculty members continue to maintain strong relationships with teachers and administrators in Santa Ana and several other districts.

During the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative, the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute and the Houston Teachers Institute have not only sustained but also expanded and deepened their programs. In 2002, the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute mounted seven seminars, two of which were developed in collaboration with the Pittsburgh Public Schools. The Fellows completed 58 curriculum units. In 2003, this Institute mounted eight seminars, three of which were developed in collaboration with the Pittsburgh Public Schools. The Fellows completed 60 curriculum units. In 2002 the Houston Teachers Institute also mounted seven seminars, one of which was funded by Project TEACH, a partnership between the Institute and the Houston Independent School District supported by the U.S. Department of Education. The Fellows completed 69 curriculum units. In 2003 this Institute mounted eight seminars, two of which were funded by Project TEACH. The Fellows completed 85 curriculum units.

During this Preparation Phase, the Yale National Initiative has continued to advise and support these Teachers Institutes. It hosted an Annual Teachers Institutes Conference in November 2002, in which teams from the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute, the Houston Teachers Institute, and the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute participated. This Conference discussed, and enthusiastically endorsed, the principles and accomplishments of the Teachers Institutes. It also made suggestions with regard to the future work of the Yale National Initiative and indicated a readiness to participate in it. After the Conference, representatives from the Pittsburgh and Houston Teachers Institutes discussed their own on-going work in research and planning.

During the Preparation Phase, the Yale National Initiative has also continued to collate and analyze the Fellows Questionnaires and the Surveys of Curriculum Unit Use that were distributed during the National Demonstration Project. A preliminary report on the resulting data was presented by Rogers M. Smith of the University of Pennsylvania during a meeting in New Haven with the Directors of the Pittsburgh, Houston, and Yale-New Haven Teachers Institutes in July 2003. A more detailed written report, "To Motivate My Students: An Evaluation of the National Demonstration Project of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute," was prepared by Smith and his research team in October 2003. (See "Evaluations and Independent Studies" on page 14.)

During this Phase the Yale National Initiative has also developed a more integrated and somewhat expanded version of the Basic Principles underlying the National Demonstration Project—now included in this booklet as "Articles of Understanding" and "Necessary Procedures." These documents have also been discussed by the Directors of the three Institutes in their meeting of July 2003. They will now serve as a primary basis for proposals for the establishment of new Teachers Institutes under the Yale National Initiative. Also developed during the Preparation Phase are other elements of the framework that will be used for planning and implementing any new Institute, regardless of the nature of the funding that has been sought or obtained. That framework allows for a variety of possible funding—by a Federal or State program, by a national or local foundation, by a school district (through a variety of federal and other sources), or by a college or university—which might be provided directly to the new Institute or indirectly through the Yale National Initiative. The information provided in this booklet under "Proposals for Planning an Institute" and "Proposals for Implementing an Institute" specifies what such proposals should contain, including the narrative, budget, budget narrative, demographic chart, and other necessary information.

Effective Activities

The successes of the National Demonstration Project and the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative have been made possible by a series of activities undertaken by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute for and with the participating sites. Those activities began with a survey and a series of preliminary inquiries made of a variety of institutions and districts that had expressed some interest in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. These were accompanied by distribution to interested sites of an extensive body of publications and videos offering information about the policies and procedures of the Institute. There followed a number of visits, made by members of a Planning Team, including the Director and selected New Haven teachers and Yale University faculty, to selected sites, and then a voluntary information session in New Haven to which sites were invited. After Planning Grants were awarded, teams from the sites awarded Grants were invited to participate in the first July Intensive in New Haven. The following year, after Implementation Grants were awarded, teams from the new Institutes were invited to participate in a second July Intensive. These Intensives, described earlier in this brochure, have initiated school teachers and university faculty into the actual workings of a Teachers Institute. The National Seminars have been especially popular with teachers at every site, who have often called for further National Seminars to be established in New Haven and elsewhere. Each year during the National Demonstration Project there were also further site visits carried out by members of the Implementation Team from New Haven, highlighting each year a different aspect of the work of an Institute. These were of great assistance to both the new Institutes and those directing the Project.

As the Implementation Grants proceeded, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute placed increasing emphasis upon leading the new Institutes in common or shared work. It established an annual Directors' Meeting for reporting and planning by the five Teachers Institutes; a National Steering Committee, through which Fellows representing each Institute could have a voice in shaping the common activities; and a correlated National University Advisory Council, in which faculty members from the institutions of higher education might have an advisory voice. It also projected three Annual Conferences, at which the five Institutes could share their challenges and accomplishments. The First Annual Conference was planned by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute; but the four new Institutes played increasingly important roles in the planning of the Second and Third Conferences. In the Third Conference, which was overwhelmingly judged by the participants to be the most successful, all five of the Teachers Institutes took part on an equal basis. The questionnaires sent out to those in attendance elicited comments that reaffirmed the basic principles of the National Demonstration Project and offered further guidance for the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative—during which this strategy of equal participation has been continued in the Teachers Institutes Conference and Directors' Meetings.

Very important also in the success of this effort has been the commitment to documentation, evaluation, and dissemination of results from the points of view of all participants. The National Demonstration Project has gained information from Fellows' questionnaires on completing the seminars; the publication of curriculum units; Annual Reports from participating Institutes; questionnaires for Fellows and non-Fellows on the use of curriculum units; and the preparation of global Annual Reports for funders. The periodical On Common Ground has devoted one number to summarizing the views of participants. An external evaluation was carried out for the Wallace Funds by Policy Studies Associates. During the Preparation Phase, research and planning were carried out by the Pittsburgh and Houston Teachers Institutes, and by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, and reports from each Institute were discussed by all three. A further evaluation of the National Demonstration Project was also prepared by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania on the basis of the internal documentation that had been collected. The collaborative dimension of the process of documentation and dissemination is now most strikingly manifested in the linked Web sites of the group of Teachers Institutes, which may all be reached through links with the primary Web site for the Yale National Initiative.

Timeline

Evaluations and Independent Studies

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and the Yale National Initiative regard both internal and external evaluation of their principles, practices, and results to be of the utmost importance. For more than a quarter of a century the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has arranged for, and learned from, both internal and external evaluations. These have been embodied in its Annual Reports and other publications, including A Progress Report on Surveys Administered to New Haven Teachers, 1982-1990 (New Haven, 1991), the periodical On Common Ground, and two videotape programs, Teaching on Common Ground (1995) and Excellence in Teaching: Agenda for Partnership (1997). The National Demonstration Project and the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative have continued that process of multiple evaluation. The internal evaluations, based in part upon observations in site visits and conferences, the results of questionnaires, published curriculum units, and Annual Reports from participating Institutes, have been embodied in Annual Reports to the funding organizations. They have been supplemented by external evaluations of several kinds. The DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund commissioned an external evaluation of the National Demonstration Project conducted by Policy Studies Associates. As part of its research and planning, the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute commissioned an evaluation, using focus groups, carried out by Allyson Walker, of Cornerstone Evaluation Associates, and Janet Stocks, Director of Undergraduate Research at Carnegie Mellon University. As part of its research and planning, the Houston Teachers Institute commissioned a massive evaluation, using focus groups, interviews, surveys, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis, carried out by Jon Lorence and Joseph Kotarba of the Department of Sociology, University of Houston, and a further evaluation, based on interviews and observation of teaching, by Paul Cooke, Director of the Institute. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute also commissioned an evaluation of the entire National Demonstration Project, carried out by Rogers M. Smith of the Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, and his research assistants, that was based primarily on analyses of Fellows' questionnaires and of the survey of the use of curriculum units by Fellows and non-Fellows.

Though differing in their procedures and to some extent in their detailed results, these evaluations lend support to a number of important conclusions. At all four sites, there were positive results similar to those that had been obtained in New Haven over many years. Both Policy Studies Associates and Rogers M. Smith concluded that the National Demonstration Project had "succeeded in reaching its goal" of replication of the Yale-New Haven model within a relatively short period of time in four sites that are considerably larger than New Haven. At each site, new Institutes involved roughly 900 teachers and 60 college or university faculty members in 75 seminars over the course of the Project. Smith noted that these seminars produced results that were remarkably similar to each other and to experiences in New Haven, and markedly better than those reported by most existing forms of professional development. These results occurred despite significant demographic differences among the cities. The major variations, according to Smith, could be correlated with structural departures from National Demonstration Project guidelines and with certain administrative difficulties in the partnering districts and institutions of higher education.

As Smith pointed out, recent research indicates that the single most important factor in student performance is teacher quality. The consensus of researchers and teachers is that many existing forms of professional development are cursory, dreary exercises that leave teachers bored and resentful, not informed or inspired. The approach of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, however, significantly strengthens teachers in all five of the major dimensions of teacher quality: it helps to produce teachers who really know their subjects; who have good basic writing, mathematics and oral presentation skills; who expect their students to achieve; who are enthusiastic about teaching; and who can motivate all children to learn.

According to Smith's analysis, teachers in the new Institutes chose to participate out of desires to improve themselves in exactly these areas. At each site, teachers participated out of desires to obtain curriculum suited to their needs, to increase their mastery of their subjects, and especially to obtain materials to motivate their students. According to the research in Pittsburgh, moreover, teachers "find the Institute to be the best professional development they ever had" because its seminars increase their knowledge, emphasize content, not pedagogy, have direct applicability to their classrooms, encourage them to be creative, and are spread over sufficient time to allow them to master the content. The Pittsburgh teachers also reported that they were attracted to the Institute by the independence they enjoyed in suggesting seminar topics and then selecting those seminars in which they would participate without regard to the subject or grade levels at which they taught. According to the research in Houston, the Institute program "cultivates a significant increase in skill level for those many Fellows who were never really trained earlier in the design and implementation of a very workable, thought-out, substantively well-informed curriculum unit." Teachers therefore "take ownership of big corners of the fields of knowledge in which they labor and take that possession over to their students."

According to Smith, ninety-five percent of all participating teachers rated the Institute seminars "moderately" or "greatly" useful. Similar percentages said the seminars increased their knowledge, improved their skills and morale, and raised their expectation of students. Both teachers and principals who participated in the Pittsburgh study reported that the Institute experience boosts teachers' positive attitudes toward teaching and learning because: it excites teachers about learning and their excitement is transferred to their students; it enhances teachers' self-image and sense of direction; it augments teachers' sense of professionalism; it encourages collaboration among teachers; and it provides teachers with a network of resources. Smith also found that the Institutes served to foster teacher leadership, to develop supportive teacher networks, to heighten university faculty commitments to improving public education, and to foster more positive partnerships between school districts and institutions of higher education.

The Houston study concludes on the basis of interviews with Fellows, a survey, and observation of students "that students of HTI Fellows benefit from instruction informed by solid scholarly values, not simply bureaucratic curriculum requirements." It indicates also that "students benefit from the presence of teachers who can serve as role models of intellectualism, commitment, and excellence."

According to Smith, after teaching their curriculum units, two-thirds of all participants rated them superior to all other curriculum they had used. Roughly sixty percent of all participants rated student motivation and attention as higher during these units, producing substantially greater content mastery. The teachers and principals who participated in the Pittsburgh study also reported that the students learned new ways of thinking, questioned what they read and saw, made connections among various subjects, eagerly learned content set within a familiar context, and acquired and implemented research skills modeled by the teachers. These curriculum units, as Smith noted, emphasized teacher-led discussion, writing exercises, activities designed to strengthen speaking, listening, vocabulary, reasoning skills, and mathematics skills. The research in Houston indicated that "all categories of students benefit from teachers who have completed a Houston Teachers Institute seminar: skilled and unskilled; English speaking and ESL; Anglo and minority; and gifted, mainstreamed, or special education students."

All four studies do suggest that it would be fruitful to engage in yet further research concerning ways of assessing student learning in classes where Institute units have been taught. The DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, in supporting the National Demonstration Project, had explicitly excluded such research because of its firmly grounded belief that the most significant factor in producing increased student learning is teacher quality. And with regard to that factor, the more detailed studies in Pittsburgh and Houston confirm and extend the positive conclusions that have been reached by Policy Studies Associates and by Smith in their analyses of the National Demonstration Project.

According to the report from Policies Studies Associates, there is "clear evidence of important accomplishments, reflected in the number of seminars provided in the Institutes, the number of Fellows who participated in these seminars, and the number of curriculum units the Fellows produced." It stated further:

Large majorities of Fellows were unequivocal in saying that their experience in the Institutes, especially the preparation of a curriculum unit, gave them a real sense of accomplishment and rekindled their excitement about learning. As one Fellow put it: "To be teachers, we must also be learners." When asked in interviews to compare their experience in the Institutes with their experience in other kinds of professional development, teachers agreed that the Institutes are vastly superior.

The report by Rogers M. Smith concluded:

No single program can overcome the enormous obstacles to educational achievement faced by economically disadvantaged students, usually from racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities, in large American cities today. But if recent researchers are right to contend that the single most important factor in student achievement is teacher quality, and if quality teachers are indeed knowledgeable, skilled, and enthusiastic, with high expectations for their students and the means to motivate students to reach those expectations, then the National Demonstration Project provides strong evidence for the value of the Teachers Institute approach.

The League of Teachers Institutes

The three Teachers Institutes participating in the Yale National Initiative now comprise a League of Teachers Institutes, which will over time develop its own procedures. Each of these Institutes engages the serious educational problems associated with low-income communities and a high proportion of racial and ethnic diversity. Each illustrates, however, a somewhat different pattern of needs and relationships to local resources, institutional apparatus, and state mandates. Each may therefore serve as one example for the establishment of Teachers Institutes elsewhere in the United States. The two new Institutes are serving school systems that are considerably larger than that of New Haven. In New Haven the partnership includes a major private university that does not have a department or college of Education. In Pittsburgh the partnership includes a private university focused upon the sciences and a small liberal arts college that has a strong Education program. In Houston the partnership includes a state-supported urban university that includes a college of Education. These Teachers Institutes show that a successful professional development program in the humanities and sciences can exist in each of these institutional contexts. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has had for over a quarter of a century a very significant impact upon its school district. And the two new Institutes, after their successful start during the National Demonstration Project, are now adopting somewhat different scopes and strategies that are directed toward having such an impact upon yet larger districts. The following subsections will provide basic information about each member of the League of Teachers Institutes, sketching the programs carried out during 2002, 2003 and 2004, will mention the two Institutes that in certain respects are currently affiliated with the League, and will describe the arrangements within the League for communication, dissemination, documentation, expansion and systemic effect, and affiliation.

The Yale New Haven Teachers Institute

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, which celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary in the fall of 2002, brings the resources of Yale University to an entire school district in which 49 schools serve more than 20,000 students. The founding Director of the Institute is James R. Vivian. More than 60 percent of the students in the New Haven Public Schools come from families receiving public assistance, and 87 percent are either African-American or Hispanic. There are about 1,000 teachers eligible for participation in the Institute. Through 2004, the Institute had offered 165 seminars to 580 individual teachers, many of whom have participated for more than one year. The teachers had created more than 1488 curriculum units. Thirty-three percent of New Haven high school teachers of subjects in the humanities and sciences, 33 percent of transitional school teachers, 30 percent of middle school teachers, and 12 percent of elementary school teachers had then completed successfully at least one year of the Institute. Over the years, a total of 83 Yale faculty members had participated in the Institute by leading one or more seminars. Of them, 57 had also given talks. Forty other Yale faculty members had also given talks. About half these participants are current or recently retired members of the Yale faculty.

During the National Demonstration Project, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute had a dual relationship to the four other Teachers Institutes. It was both monitor of the Grant from the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund and a senior colleague. It offered technical assistance to the other Teachers Institutes, convened the Annual Conferences, maintained the National Steering Committee and the National University Advisory Council and helped in other ways to further the aims of the entire league of Teachers Institutes. At the same time, it encouraged each of the other Teachers Institutes to develop both a necessary independence and a collaborative spirit. Its aim has been to assist in transforming the existing and potential Teachers Institutes into a fully collaborative league that might in the future extend its membership to include Institutes at yet other sites. During the Preliminary Phase of the Yale National Initiative, this Institute has furthered that aim by working in concert with the Pittsburgh and Houston Teachers Institutes on mutually shared research and planning that have been funded by the Jessie Ball duPont Fund. It also continues to sponsor the national periodical On Common Ground, a forthcoming issue of which will be focused on the Yale National Initiative.

In 2002, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute offered six seminars for 62 teachers: "Survival Stories," "The Middle East in Film and Literature," "War and Peace in the Twentieth Century," "The Craft of Writing," "Food, Environmental Quality and Health," and "Biology and History of Ethnic Violence and Sexual Oppression." In 2003, this Institute offered five seminars for 55 teachers: "Geography through Film and Literature," "Everyday Life in Early America," "Poems on Pictures, People, and Places," "Physics in Everyday Life," and "Water in the 21st Century." In 2004 the Institute offered five seminars: "Children's Literature, from Infancy to Adolescence," "The Supreme Court in American Political History," "Energy, Engines, and the Environment," "Keeping the Meaning in Mathematics: The Craft of Word Problems," and "Representations of American Culture, 1760-1960: Art and Literature."

The Pittsburgh Teachers Institute

The Pittsburgh Teachers Institute, bringing the resources of Chatham College and Carnegie Mellon University to a school district that now has 95 schools serving 38,000 students, began in 1999 by working with 20 elementary, middle and high schools, representing the three regions of the district. In 2001 the Institute reached out to several other schools, and in 2002, after the National Demonstration Project, it opened its program yet more widely across the school district. The Director, Helen Faison, an experienced teacher and school administrator, is former chair of the Education Department at Chatham College and a former interim Superintendent of Schools.

Chatham College brings to the collaboration with the Pittsburgh Public Schools the strengths of a small liberal arts college; Carnegie Mellon brings those of a university with a strong program in the sciences. Although both institutions have previously worked with the schools—Carnegie Mellon, for example, sponsoring a program in the teaching of science, and Chatham maintaining a program in teacher certification—this is the first collaboration between the two institutions in partnership with the schools.

During the National Demonstration Project this Institute offered 17 seminars, led by 11 different faculty members. In 1999 there were 26 Fellows who completed their seminar work; in 2000 there were 47 Fellows; and in 2001 there were 72 Fellows. In 2002 the Institute mounted seven seminars, two of which were developed in collaboration with the Pittsburgh Public Schools, in which 58 Fellows participated. These included "Learning Science by Doing Science," "A Restless People: Americans on the Move, 1760-1900," "Comedy: From Aristophanes to the Present," "Everyday Science," "Genetics and Genomes," "Latin American and U. S. Popular Culture," and "A Survey of African-American History by Way of African-American Literature and Art." There were 55 curriculum units completed by the Fellows.

In 2003 the Institute offered eight seminars, three of which were planned in collaboration with school district staff. The Fellows completed 60 curriculum units. Seminar topics were: "Coming Over: The Old Immigration," "Looking at Everyday Mathematics," "Learning Science by Doing Science II-Electronics," "Integrating Musical Theater into the Curriculum," "Pittsburgh Rivers," "Reading and Teaching Poetry," "US Latino Literature and Culture," and "Understanding Nonfiction Genres." In 2004 the Institute offered eight seminars: "Everything You Wanted to Know About the Universe... But Were Afraid to Ask (Cosmology)," "The Great Problems of Mathematics," "A Mobile People: American Immigration and Migration, 1750-1900," "Healthy Bodies/Healthy Minds," "Introduction to Folktales," "Rendering the Visible in Writing," "Pittsburgh Landmarks and Parks," and "The Essentials of African Culture."

From the beginning all of the seminars have been approved for increment credit, which qualifies participating teachers for salary increases with the School District. Since 2001 they have been approved by the Pennsylvania Board of Education for Act 48 credit, which the State of Pennsylvania requires that teachers earn to retain their teacher certification. The Institute has also made a strong effort to relate the curriculum units explicitly to the national, state, and local standards that all Pittsburgh Public School curricula must meet.

During the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute undertook research and planning with the assistance of Allyson Walker, of Cornerstone Evaluation Associates, and Janet Stocks, Director of Undergraduate Research at Carnegie Mellon University and four-time seminar leader in the Institute.

The Houston Teachers Institute

In the fourth largest city in the United States, the Houston Teachers Institute brings the resources of the University of Houston to the Houston Independent School District, where 280 schools serve 212,000 students. The Houston Teachers Institute builds upon the experience of the Common Ground project at the University, directed first by James Pipkin and then by William Monroe, which assisted high school teachers in expanding the canon of literary texts that are taught in English classes. The late Michael Cooke, a Yale faculty member and participant in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, had served as an advisor for that project.

The Houston Teachers Institute began its work with 20 self-selected middle and high schools enrolling 31,300 students to establish a program that would address the needs of an ethnically mixed student-body, a large proportion of whom are non-English speaking. Paul Cooke, who had been a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, served as its first Director.

During the National Demonstration Project this Institute offered 17 seminars, led by 15 different faculty members. Fifty-eight Fellows completed curriculum units in 1999; 33 Fellows completed curriculum units in 2000. In 2001 there were 38 curriculum units completed by Fellows from 27 schools. The Institute has now opened its program to a yet wider range of schools.

In 2002 this Institute mounted seven seminars, one of which was funded by Project TEACH, a partnership between the Institute and the Houston Independent School District supported by the U.S. Department of Education. The Fellows completed 69 curriculum units. The seminars included: "Ethnic Music and Performing Arts in Houston," "Houston Architecture: Interpreting the City," "New Developments in Understanding the Human Body," "Reflections on a Few Good Books," "Shakespeare's Characters: The Lighter Side," "Sports Autobiographies: Mirrors of American Culture," and "Drinking Water: Finding It; Making It Clean; Using It Wisely." There were 69 curriculum units completed by the Fellows.

In 2003 the Institute offered eight seminars, two with the support of project TEACH: "The 20th Century's Most Significant English-Language Books for Children and Young Adults," "Heroes and Heroines in History and Imaginative Literature," "African American Slavery in the New World: A Different Voice," "Literature as Healing Balm: Multicultural Women Writers in America," "There's No Place Like Home: Architecture, Technology, Art, and the Culture of the American Home, 1850-1970," "From FDR's Death to the Resignation of Richard Nixon: America from 1945 to 1974," "Understanding the Wild Things Next Door: The Nature of Houston," and "The Science in Science Fiction." Fellows completed 85 curriculum units.

In 2004 this Institute offered nine seminars: "Eye on America: Playwrights and American Life and Times," "Hands-on Geometry: How We Can Use Geometry to See the World Around Us," "America at War," "Where Justice is Served: How American Courts Work From Bottom to Top," "The New Houston: New Immigrants, New Ethnicities, and New Inter-Group Relations in America's Fourth-Largest City," "Exciting Experiments and the Ethics of Experimentation," "Wild Habitats in the Urban Landscape," "George Gershwin, Aaron Copland, Samuel Barber, and the American Century," and "Beyond Houston: Literature of Travel and Exploration."

During the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative the Houston Teachers Institute undertook research and planning with the assistance of Jon Lorence and Joseph Kotaraba, of the Department of Sociology, University of Houston, supplemented by the additional research and writing of the Director, Paul Cooke.

Communication and Dissemination

This League of Teachers Institutes has already established an appropriate network of communication. During the Preparation Phase the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has continued to provide the new Teachers Institutes with a range of technical assistance, which includes the sharing of research, advice on specific problems, meetings of the Directors, and a fourth Annual Conference. Each year the new Teachers Institutes have submitted reports, described in the section on "Documentation and Evaluation" on page 24 of this booklet, to the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. During this Phase there has continued to be lateral communication among the new Teachers Institutes, and common work undertaken by members of the League of Teachers Institutes and school teachers and university faculty members from affiliated Institutes.

The National Steering Committee, which consists of two teachers from each Institute in the League, has continued to take a major initiative in planning this common work and encouraging communication among the teachers at the various sites. It is complemented by the National University Advisory Council, which consists of two faculty members from each Institute.

The Web site of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute already makes available the publications of this Institute, including all of its curriculum units. Other Institutes have established similar Web sites. A developing electronic network is therefore linking the Institutes more closely. The League is also seeking ways to increase electronic communication among the school teachers and university faculty members who participate in its Institutes. A Web site — http://teachers.yale.edu — has been created that is dedicated to the Yale National Initiative as an entity, with links to Teachers Institutes that are members or affiliates of the League of Teachers Institutes. This Web site is not only a communications hub for the work of the Project but also an important continuing means of disseminating its results to the nation. It carries literature (including policy statements, curriculum units, and issues of the periodical) and also video materials in several forms that can be downloaded. It also offers those who visit the Web site the opportunity to provide comments on curriculum units and other material. As other Teachers Institutes are established, this Web site will assume even greater importance as a national center of information on university-school partnerships.

The periodical On Common Ground is potentially an important means of disseminating the results of the Yale National Initiative. Number 9, for Winter 2000/2001, contained articles by persons from each of the sites on some aspect of the process of establishing a Teachers Institute and meeting the needs of an urban school district. In a similar fashion, Number 10 of will provide a summarizing account of the National Demonstration Project, the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative, and plans for the League of Teachers Institutes. It will contain the results of the four studies mentioned in the section of this brochure on "Evaluations and Independent Studies," with some other material contained in the brochure, and contributions from persons who have been working with Institutes in the Yale National Initiative.

Documentation and Evaluation

During the National Demonstration Project and the Preliminary Phase of the Yale National Initiative, each new Teachers Institute receiving funding through the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has been submitting to this Institute interim financial reports and annual narrative and financial reports. Each has also been submitting final narrative and financial reports. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute then submits its own annual and final narrative and financial reports to the funding agencies—The DeWitt Wallace Reader's Digest Fund (now the Wallace Foundation) and the Jessie Ball duPont Fund—which synthesize and assess the information provided by the sites.

These reports describe the scope, strategy, demonstration goals, and progress of the new Teachers Institutes. They include evidence that the new Institutes remain in accord with the basic principles of the Teachers Institute approach. They describe the curriculum units developed, the relationship between participating school teachers and university faculty, the nature and extent of leadership exerted by teacher-participants, the incentives for university faculty members and school teachers to participate, and the assistance from the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute that has been needed, obtained, and used. They include an analysis of the participation of school teachers in Institute activities, using surveys and other instruments developed by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and modified as needed to make possible comparisons across the five partnerships. They analyze the factors contributing to, and hindering, the success of the new Institutes, and the effects of those Institutes upon teacher empowerment, curricular change, and other issues central to school reform. They also give an account of the progress made toward funding the new Institutes beyond the period of the Grant. Once during the Grant period, annual reports also included surveys of the use of curriculum units by Fellows and non-Fellows in the school systems. In its final report on the National Demonstration Project the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute summarized the three-year demonstration, made clear the most important outcomes, impacts, and lessons learned, described how the demonstration had changed and how we might address the issues it posed, and indicated the plans at each site for continuing the partnership. The final reports on the Preparation Phase of the Yale National Initiative accomplish similar tasks.

During the Implementation Phase of the Yale National Initiative, newly participating sites, which may receive their funding from a variety of sources, will submit reports to the Yale National Initiative and to the funding agencies in a similar fashion.

Expansion and Systemic Impact

The expansion of existing Teachers Institutes in large cities may occur through a step-by-step process of scaling up, as more school teachers and university faculty become interested in participating, and as increased funding allows the offering of more seminars. A Teachers Institute may begin in this way to expand its scope of operation within a city. When the resources of a single institution of higher education are not adequate to meet the needs of a large school district, it may prove desirable to expand the partnership. There seems a possibility, for example, of expanding the partnership between Chatham College and Carnegie Mellon University to include other institutions in Pittsburgh. It also may be possible at some point for the Houston Teachers Institute to draw upon faculty from other institutions of higher education in Houston.

There are also opportunities for other kinds of expansion or increased systemic impact within a given scope. Teachers Institutes may wish to establish Centers for Professional and Curricular Development in the schools, as has been done in New Haven, which may bring to a higher proportion of relevant classroom teachers the work of Fellows in the Institute. Through such Centers they may wish to establish Academies in summer or after school, as has also been done in New Haven, in which teachers may collaboratively shape a curriculum for selected students on the basis of their work in the Institute. An Institute may also seek to relate its work quite explicitly to state and local requirements for teachers, as the Pittsburgh Teachers Institute has done. Or, as all three members of the League have done, an Institute may choose to address in certain of its seminars those subjects that have been designated as of signal importance by the school district. This may occur through discussions about possible offerings over the next several years, as in New Haven, or through contractual arrangements and partial funding for specific seminars, as in Pittsburgh and Houston. Finally, as all three members of the League have recognized, an Institute may increase its systemic effect by distributing curriculum units, maintaining a Web site that is easily accessed, and making itself known as a visible example of high quality professional development.

Affiliation with the League

New Teachers Institutes may be established at other sites through many different ways. Funding might be provided wholly or in part by a Federal or State program, a national or local foundation, a school district that channels government funds to an Institute, or a college or university. Such funding might be provided directly to a new Institute or indirectly through grants to the Yale National Initiative. Institutes that have been established through the Yale National Initiative will have already accepted the "Articles of Understanding" and "Necessary Principles" given below, and may then become members of the League of Teachers Institutes. That process will enable them to continue to receive technical assistance and collaborative support from other members of the League.

Other Teachers Institutes, whether established through the Yale National Initiative or through other means, may not be committed to the "Understandings" and "Necessary Procedures" but may share certain of the aims of the League of Teachers Institutes. Such Institutes may ask to be recognized not as members of the League but as affiliated Institutes. The League of Teachers Institutes seeks to remain in close touch with such affiliated Institutes, and will invite selected school teachers and university faculty members from those Institutes to participate in certain of its activities.

Steps in Establishing a Teachers Institute

The process of establishing a Teachers Institute that will participate in the Yale National Initiative and the League of Teachers Institutes requires of those who will engage in the new partnership a detailed acquaintance with, and understanding of, the principles and procedures of such an Institute. It also requires that the Yale National Initiative, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, and the other members of the League of Teachers Institutes assist with the gaining of that acquaintance and understanding. The new partnership must then apply for and receive permission to participate in the Yale National Initiative and in League activities, and receive League services, during a Planning Phase of at least nine months duration, which will enable it to devote itself to more detailed planning of a new Institute. The proposed Institute must then apply for and receive permission to participate in the Yale National Initiative and become a member of the League of Teachers Institutes during a multi-year Implementation Phase (optimally, a period of three years). During that Phase it will begin its operation and further refine its own processes.

Applications for permission to participate in the Yale National Initiative during the Planning Phase and the Implementation Phase have three purposes. First, the process of preparing such an application will lead the planners of a new Institute in a systematic way through tested procedures that enable the Institute to be workable and sustainable. Second, the application itself will provide assurance that the new Institute is qualified to receive the services of the Yale National Initiative and the League of Teachers Institutes. And third, the application will provide narrative and financial information that can be reshaped by the Institute in applying for funding.

Preliminary Steps

An important early step would consist of meetings not only of key university and school administrators, but also of school teachers who might assume a leading role in the new Institute and those university faculty members who might lead seminars and help to identify interested colleagues on the faculty. The Yale National Initiative would be able, directly or through its Web site, to furnish literature and videos in various forms and formats (e.g., DVD or interactive CD-ROM) to those persons who have this interest.

These preliminary meetings would be followed by an information session to be held where the new Institute will be established, at which the Director of the Yale National Initiative would speak with a number of interested teachers and faculty and administrators. At that time or shortly thereafter, the Director of the Yale National Initiative could arrange for teachers and faculty from the League who are knowledgeable of the Teachers Institute approach locally and nationally to meet with counterparts from this site.

During this process, the key university and school administrators would also be arranging for possible funding of the new Institute. This might occur in one or more of several ways. Federal programs might be able (perhaps through the cooperation of the school district) to provide full or partial funding for Institute activities, as currently occurs in Pittsburgh and Houston. A foundation or foundations with special interests in this region or locality might be able to provide full or partial funding. And a national foundation might be supporting the Yale National Initiative with funds that could assist the new Institute, either directly or by a sub-grant through the Yale National Initiative. The Application to Participate during Planning and the Application to Participate during Implementation, described later in the sections entitled "Planning an Institute" and "Implementing an Institute," can be reshaped into grant proposals for funding.

If there is then sufficient interest, and if funding is being or has been arranged, these preliminary steps might be followed by a more formal Planning Phase, with a Planning Director and a number of university faculty members and school teachers committed to assist with planning. The Institute may apply to participate in the Yale National Initiative and receive the services of the League of Teachers Institutes during this Planning Phase.

The Planning Phase

An applicant to participate in the Yale National Initiative and receive the services of the League of Teachers Institutes during a Planning Phase must have arranged—or must be arranging—to receive a planning grant from a federal program, or one or more foundations, or (by a sub-grant from a national foundation) the Yale National Initiative. An application should follow the instructions for planning an Institute given later in the section on "Planning an Institute." Such participation requires a Planning Director, who is committed to become Director of the new Teachers Institute if participation during an Implementation Phase is later approved, and a number of university faculty members and school teachers who are committed to assisting with the planning. An application also requires a written letter of agreement in which appropriate administrators of the institution of higher education and the school district lay out the terms and expectations of the collaboration entailed by their partnership. Applications for participation during a Planning Phase of a least nine months duration will be approved upon the recommendation of a National Panel of leading educators and philanthropists, and upon the awarding of appropriate funding. The response of the National Panel will provide useful feedback to the applicant and may also be of use in the seeking of funds. The Director of the Yale National Initiative will decide whether the application is in conformity with this Initiative.

During the Planning Phase a team of representatives from the institution of higher education and the school district will accompany the Planning Director to New Haven, where they will participate in national seminars and corollary workshops at Yale on the Institute's principles and practices. This will provide an opportunity for school teachers and university faculty members, along with the Planning Director, to learn about the Institute approach and procedures through first-hand experience. There will also be an opportunity for a team of representatives to attend an Annual Conference, where they may learn from the experience of both established and new Teachers Institutes at other sites.

During the Planning Phase, the Planning Director, with the assistance of the university faculty members and school teachers committed to this planning, will establish a body of Teachers Representatives, which will canvas teachers for their suggestions of topics for seminars and on that basis determine a desirable schedule of seminar offerings for the first year. The Planning Director will then recruit university faculty members who will be prepared to lead seminars that correspond, in their general focus or outline, to the topics proposed. The Planning Director will also arrange for the appointment of a University Advisory Council of faculty members who will serve in an advisory capacity and will review the seminar proposals. At some point during the Planning Phase, the Yale National Initiative will also arrange for a visit of colleagues, consisting of school teachers, faculty members, and directors from the League, to the site of the proposed new Institute.

On the basis of the arrangements made during the Planning Phase (and perhaps during ensuing months), the Planning Director will prepare an application to participate in the Yale National Initiative and become a member of the League of Teachers Institutes during a multi-year (optimally, a three-year) Implementation Phase.

The Implementation Phase

An applicant to participate in the Yale National Initiative and become a member of the League of Teachers Institutes during a multi-year (optimally, a three-year) Implementation Phase must have arranged—or must be arranging—to receive a multi-year grant from a federal program, or one or more foundations, or (by a sub-grant from a national foundation) the Yale National Initiative. This application should follow the instructions given later in the section on "Implementing an Institute." Participation during the Implementation Phase requires that the Planning Director now become Director of the new Teachers Institute. It also requires that a body of Teachers Representatives and a University or Faculty Advisory Council be established, and that plans have been laid for the first year of seminars. The application also requires a letter of agreement in which appropriate administrators of the institution of higher education and the school district lay out the terms and expectations of the collaboration entailed by their partnership. Such an application will be approved upon the recommendation of a National Panel of leading educators and philanthropists, and upon the awarding of appropriate funding. The response of the National Panel will provide useful feedback to the applicant and may also be of use in the seeking of funds. The Director of the Yale National Initiative will determine whether the application is in conformity with this Initiative.

During the Implementation Phase, the Teachers Representatives will proceed to receive and decide upon applications from teachers for admission to the seminars offered for the first year. They will also provide from among their number seminar Coordinators who will assist the seminar leaders and also help the Director to monitor the progress of the seminars. During each year of the Implementation Phase, the Teachers Representatives will continue the process of canvassing teachers and determining the topics of seminars for which the Director will recruit leaders from the faculty.

At least once during the Implementation Phase a team of representatives from the institution of higher education and the school district will accompany the Director to New Haven, where they will participate in another group of national seminars and corollary workshops at Yale on the Institute's principles and practices. This will provide an opportunity for additional school teachers and university faculty members to learn about the Institute approach and procedures through first-hand experience. During the Implementation Phase there will also be annual opportunities for a team of representatives to attend a Conference, where they may learn from the experience of both established and new Teachers Institutes at other sites. Each year during the Implementation Phase, the Yale National Initiative will also arrange for visits from its team of colleagues to the new Institute.

Articles of Understanding

Introduction:

Teaching is central to the educational process, and the ongoing professional development of teachers is essential for improved student learning. The Teachers Institute model is a long-term undertaking that focuses on the academic preparation of school teachers and the application of what they study to their own classrooms—and potentially also to the classrooms of other teachers. This model was developed initially by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute; it has been successfully tested in New Haven for twenty-seven years; it has also been successfully tested in a four-year National Demonstration Project; and it is now being disseminated through the Yale National Initiative.

Earlier in this booklet (see "Aims and Accomplishments: The National Demonstration Project" beginning on page 2) we have outlined the achievement of the National Demonstration Project. It showed in four different cities larger than New Haven that a Teachers Institute can be rapidly inaugurated and can immediately carry out a program of 4-6 content-based seminars in the humanities and sciences. It showed that the seminars increase teachers' knowledge, heighten their morale, encourage their use of new technologies, and result in individually crafted curriculum units of substance for use in classrooms. It showed that such Institutes will arouse the enthusiasm and support of significant numbers of teachers and university faculty members, and can attract support from administrators of a private liberal arts college, a private university emphasizing the sciences, a flagship state university, and a major state university in a larger system.

It also showed that high-level administrators in school districts, superintendents or their immediate subordinates, will think about means of scaling-up such an Institute, and will commit themselves to its long-term support. The strategies employed in establishing the National Demonstration Project, including National Seminars and observation of local seminars in New Haven, are admirably suited for the process of establishing a nation-wide network or League of such Teachers Institutes.

The Institute model is a natural and appropriate way for institutions of higher learning to be involved in elementary and secondary education. Teachers Institutes link institutions of higher education with local school districts (primarily urban school districts) in order to strengthen teaching and learning in public schools, but they also benefit those institutions whose faculty members serve as seminar leaders. In the National Demonstration Project and the Yale National Initiative these Institutes are located in school districts in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income communities. These Institutes also help to disseminate the Institute's model and materials, encouraging and assisting other institutions and school districts as they develop similar programs in their own communities. The following articles of understanding provide the necessary basis for Teachers Institutes that intend to adopt the New Haven model. Although listed as separate articles, they are interrelated elements of an organically unified approach. They are followed by a list of Necessary Procedures, designed to implement these articles. Continuing membership in the League of Teachers Institutes will depend upon the maintenance of a Teachers Institute in accord with these Understandings and Necessary Procedures.

Article 1: Each new Institute links an institution or institutions of higher education to a school district (or districts) in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income communities. The size, scope, and emphasis of the Institute will depend upon the needs of the district(s), the educational resources available, and the expected funding. Policies within the school district(s) pertaining to curriculum and professional development (as established by the state, the school board, the union, and specific administrators) must be favorable to the development of the Institute.

Article 2: Teachers who participate in an Institute become Fellows in its seminars. The body of Teachers Representatives in a given year will consist of selected teachers who are current or prospective Fellows of the seminars being offered. Faculty members from the institution(s) of higher education are invited to serve as seminar leaders and/or serve on a University or Faculty Advisory Council.

Article 3: A continuing, full-time director provided by the Institute serves as convenor, administrator, liaison between the school district(s) and the administration and faculty of the institution(s) of higher education, and fund-raiser. The director reports to the chief officers of the institution(s) of higher education and the district(s). The director shall have full authority and responsibility for the operation of the Institute in compliance with these Articles of Understanding. The director, who must work easily with the teachers of the district and the faculty members of the institution(s) of higher education, acts as leader and facilitator of the participating teachers or Fellows and recruits seminar leaders from among the faculty members of the institution(s) of higher education. Those institution(s) provide a job description for the director that establishes the director's place within their structure.

Article 4: The Institute is led in crucial respects by participating teachers in the district(s), who play a major and indispensable role in the planning, organization, conduct, and evaluation of the programs intended to benefit them and, through them, their students. They are responsible for recruiting other teachers into the program. In order to strengthen teaching and learning throughout the schools, and to have a significant impact upon the school district, the new Institute must involve a significant proportion of all teachers within its initially designated scope, who, in turn, must actively recruit teachers who have not participated before.

Article 5: Faculty members from the liberal arts and/or sciences in the institution(s) of higher education who teach at the undergraduate and/or graduate levels lead seminars, advise in the shaping of the seminars to be offered, and review each year the seminars offered by the Institute.

Article 6: The course of study consists of intensive and collegial or collaborative seminars (not lectures) of relatively small enrollment in several disciplines on broadly defined topics, which meet over a period of no less than three months. The seminar leader and the Fellows study and discuss certain common texts, objects, or places, and each Fellow prepares during the period of the seminar meetings at least two drafts of a substantial "curriculum unit" that he or she intends to employ in the classroom during the following year.

Article 7: The curriculum unit is important for the teacher as a means of articulating what is being learned in the seminar, applying it to the classroom, and sharing it with colleagues. Each curriculum unit consists of at least 15 single-spaced pages. It includes an essay of at least 10 pages that sets forth the unit's rationale and objectives, the material to be presented in the classroom, and the pedagogical strategies to be employed; it also includes several examples of the lesson plans to be used by the teacher, and one or more annotated bibliographies. The curriculum units are published electronically, and preferably also in printed format.

Article 8: The simultaneous consideration of subject matter and pedagogical procedures is fundamental to the Institute's approach and essential to the collegiality on which the Institute is founded. The seminar leaders are primarily responsible for presenting the "content" or "knowledge" of one or more disciplines, the inherent strategies whereby such knowledge is acquired and transmitted, and any pedagogical strategies that may therefore inhere in that field of study. The Fellows, individually and collectively, will be responsible for bringing to the seminar at appropriate points the pedagogical procedures necessary for encouraging active learners in their elementary or secondary classrooms to acquire this knowledge.

Article 9: Participating teachers from the institution(s) of higher education and the schools are considered professional colleagues working within a collegial relationship, and their respective contributions in the Institute process are valued equally. Seminar leaders and Fellows understand that all participants bring to the seminar important strengths, both experience and knowledge, with respect to the seminar topic and/or its potential relevance to the classroom.

Article 10: Within its designated scope, the Institute encourages any teacher to apply who has a teaching assignment relevant to a seminar topic, can present a proposal for a curriculum unit relevant to that topic, and will be assigned to teach a course in which that unit can be used.

Article 11: In order to recognize the intensive, demanding, and professionally significant nature of their participation in the seminars, the seminar leaders will be provided with some remuneration, and the Fellows, who participate on a voluntary basis, will be provided with an appropriate stipend and/or honorarium on completion of their unit and all Institute requirements.

Article 12: In establishing a Teachers Institute, the institutional and district administrations commit themselves to a long-term collaboration with each other in support of the Institute during and beyond the Planning Phase and Implementation Phase.

Article 13: The institution(s) of higher education and the school district(s) are committed to provide meaningful ongoing financial support to the Teachers Institute. They are also committed to provide or seek any necessary supplementary funding during the Planning Phase and the Implementation Phase, and have plans to seek entire funding thereafter.

Article 14: There will be an explicit and visible relation among the new Institutes, with the previously established Institutes, and with the Yale National Initiative in which they are participating. The Yale National Initiative aims to establish, with the help of these Institutes, a Yale League of Teachers Institutes in accord with these Articles of Understanding.

Article 15: The new Institutes are committed to undertaking at their own cost, in cooperation with the Yale National Initiative, an annual review of their progress and, at the end of the Implementation Phase, a final review. They assume responsibility for continuing self-evaluation, in cooperation with the Yale National Initiative. They will submit to the Yale National Initiative (and also, through this Initiative, to the relevant local or national funders) interim, annual and final financial reports and annual and final narrative reports as described in the "Necessary Procedures."

Necessary Procedures

For Article 1: The initial scope should include a minimum pool of 500 potentially eligible teachers in no fewer than 20 schools encompassing at least two of the three levels of schooling (elementary, middle, and high), and a minimum of four seminars to be offered annually. If the number of seminars increases in subsequent years, the number of schools and eligible teachers may also be appropriately increased. In any application for funding through the Yale National Initiative, school administrators must describe the relevant policies and the existing professional development programs, explain how they will relate to the new Institute, and identify the key district staff members who will be concerned with this relationship. The recipient of any Initiative grant for the Institute will be the sponsoring institution(s) of higher education in the partnership. The application will also require, however, a written agreement that sets forth the endorsement, the collaboration, and the prospective participation of the school district(s) that will be the sponsoring partner(s). In this letter of agreement the appropriate administrators of the institution of higher education and the school district will lay out the terms and expectations of the collaboration entailed by their partnership. An application must also provide a specific account of the anticipated funding for the entire Institute during the period of the grant.

For Article 2: The director, while ultimately responsible for the appointment of Teachers Representatives, will actively solicit recommendations offered by current Teachers Representatives and Coordinators. The President of the institution of higher education will, on recommendation by the director, invite faculty members to serve on a University or Faculty Advisory Council.

For Article 3: The director organizes a body of Teachers Representatives and a University or Faculty Advisory Council (to be appointed by the chief officer of the institution(s) of higher education on recommendation of the director). The director recruits faculty from various parts of the institution(s) of higher education to offer seminars that address the Fellows' interests and needs in the areas of further preparation and curriculum development. The director will hold a full-time, continuing appointment. The appointment of a director should be approved by the superintendent(s) of the school district(s) and chief administrative officer(s) of the institution(s) of higher education in the partnership. (A planning director for a new Institute during a Planning Phase must be prepared, on approval of the Yale National Initiative, to become director when the Institute is accepted as a participant in the Initiative during the Implementation Phase.) Any replacement for the director should be advertised and publicized internally and externally in accordance with the search procedures in place at the partnering institution(s) of higher education. The search committee for a replacement for the director should involve representatives from the local teacher leadership and university faculty advisory groups. A replacement for the director should then be recommended by the superintendent(s) of the school district(s) and chief administrative officer(s) of the institution(s) of higher education in the partnership, and approved by the Yale National Initiative. If the site requires that a Principal Investigator other than the Institute director be assigned for the grant, that person should be a member of the administration, at least at the level of Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. On the appointment of any director, the institution of higher education must provide a description of the position, indicate its classification in the personnel structure, and clarify in detail the lines of authority and reporting for the director within the institution. The letters of recommendation or accompanying materials from the superintendent(s) and chief administrator(s) of the institution(s) of higher education should document this search and appointment procedure.

For Article 4: An application should contain letters of commitment from teachers who will be involved in planning the Institute and who will assume leadership roles in it. Through the body of Teachers Representatives the teachers are involved in initiating and approving decisions with respect to seminars offered, within the scope determined as feasible and appropriate by university and school district administrators and the director. They are also involved in the process of recruiting teachers and enrolling them in the seminars. The director should also appoint from among the Fellows a group of Coordinators, one for each seminar, who may assist with application procedures, handle administrative details within the seminar, monitor its process, and help to advise Fellows. The Annual Reports of a Teachers Institute should document the meetings of the Teachers Representatives and the activities of Coordinators.

For Article 5: An application should contain letters of commitment from faculty members who wish to be involved in the Institute's program. Faculty members from departments, schools, or colleges of Education should indicate their readiness to lead seminars that focus primarily upon "content" rather than "pedagogy." An application should also contain letters of commitment from college or university faculty members who are willing to serve on an Institute advisory council.

For Articles 6 and 7: Experience shows that seminars with about a dozen participants, meeting approximately weekly, afford the best opportunity for discussing every Fellow's work in progress. The curriculum units may bear a variety of relations to the general topic of the seminar, appropriate to the grade-level and the aims of the teacher. They will have immediate application in the classroom, and must be consistent with the curricular guidelines provided by district or school that are to be followed by the teacher. It would be prudent for Institutes to establish handbooks or manuals for Fellows that lay out the necessary structure and content of a curriculum unit, taking advice in that regard from the Yale National Initiative.

For Article 8: It would be prudent for Institutes to establish handbooks or manuals for seminar leaders, taking advice in that regard from the Yale National Initiative. They should provide for two or more individual meetings between the seminar leader and each Fellow.

For Article 9: Although arrangements may be made for Fellows to apply to a relevant graduate program to receive university credit for a Teachers Institute seminar they have already completed, the Fellows are not to be regarded as students in regular university courses. Rather, they are considered full members of the university community during the year in which they are taking a seminar, and they will receive all privileges customarily given to faculty.

For Article 10: The Teachers Institute makes every effort to ensure that the pool of teachers applying to the Institute represents a cross-section of all eligible teachers. Its program should attract and accept teachers regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, academic background, professional experience, and length of time in teaching. It should document annually the percentage of Fellows in each category and relate that percentage to the demographics of the teaching cadre in the district.

For Article 11: In an application to participate in the Yale National Initiative during a Planning Phase or Implementation Phase the institution of higher education should indicate the appropriate range for remuneration of seminar leaders, in accord with that for comparable duties. For Teachers Institutes involving more than one institution of higher education, those institutions should devise an equitable arrangement for remuneration. The honorarium or stipend for participating school teachers is not salary or wages and is therefore not to be regarded as subject to any conditions of employment.

For Article 12: Letters from the highest administrators of the institution(s) of higher education and the school district(s) should explicitly state their commitment to this collaboration in support of the Institute through and beyond the grant period. In a written letter of agreement the appropriate administrators of the institution of higher education and the school district should lay out the terms and expectations of the collaboration entailed by their partnership.

For Article 13: Letters from the highest administrators of the institution(s) of higher education and the school district(s) should explicitly state their commitment to provide continuing funding, to seek necessary supplementary funding for the duration of the grant, and to plan to seek entire funding thereafter. They should also specify the support that the Development Office(s) of the institution(s) will provide in the continuing search for funding.

For Article 14: Each new Institute is committed to communicating with the Yale National Initiative and with the other Teachers Institutes, both new and established, and to disseminating its experience of the adaptation of the Institute model in various ways to other actual and potential Institutes across the nation. The means of communication may include participation in July Intensives and Annual Conferences, personal visits, e-mail, news groups, online chats, text-based forums, etc., and will also include written accounts by the new Institutes for publication in On Common Ground. Each new Institute is also committed to joining with the other Teachers Institutes in the Yale League of Teachers Institutes.

For Article 15: The reporting that is required of a Teachers Institute serves several functions and provides several advantages. It constitutes a detailed account, in depth and through time, of the operations and accomplishments of the Institute. This account is a requisite for current funding; it contributes greatly to the process of obtaining funding in the future; and it also contributes to the wider understanding by teachers, district administrators, university faculty members and administrators, and policy-makers of the role and importance of Teachers Institutes in this nation. If an Institute is receiving funding directly from one or more local or national sources, an account of this funding must be included in the reporting to the Yale National Initiative hereafter described.

Using surveys and other instruments developed by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and the Yale National Initiative, each new Institute will document: the number of teachers who apply; the representativeness of those teachers vis-a-vis the entire pool of teachers eligible to participate; the teachers' and faculty members' assessments of the new Institute; the classroom uses to which teachers put the curriculum units; and the students' responses to those units.

Each new Institute will provide reviewers who may be sent by the Yale National Initiative and/or any funding agencies with full access to their activities and their documentation, including school and university personnel and sites. Each new Institute will also submit to the Yale National Initiative interim, annual and final financial reports and annual and final narrative reports.

The financial reports will contain interim and annual financial accountings of expenditures made under the terms of any Agreement established through the Yale National Initiative, and through any direct local or national funding, including verification of cost-sharing. In order that new Teachers Institutes can prepare to become financially sustainable, they should follow a cost-sharing discipline during the Planning Phase and Implementation Phase. The required cost sharing of 1-to-1 for the Planning Phase will apply to the total budget and also to that part of the budget essential to operation—i.e., basic or necessary expenses—globally and severally. These necessary expenses will include salary for the Planning Director, honoraria for teachers, and travel expenses for the information session and the intensive session. The specified ratios for a 3-year Implementation Phase (1/2; 1/1; 2/1)—which may be modified appropriately for other multi-year Phases—will likewise apply to the total budget and also to that part of the budget essential to operation—i.e., basic or necessary expenses—globally and severally. These necessary expenses will include remuneration for seminar leaders, stipends for Fellows, one full-time salary for the director, the publication of curriculum units, office assistance for the director, and travel to League events. The financial reports will set forth in detail the cost of operating the Institute, provide a documentation of other funds allocated to it, and indicate the availability of long-term funding sources. The final financial report will provide such accounting for the full term of any Planning or Implementation Phase. The reports will be made on forms to be supplied by the Yale National Initiative.

The annual narrative reports should include as attachments only documents produced by or related to the project. Such documents should include three copies of all brochures, schedules, seminar proposals, curriculum units, questionnaires, reports, and news articles. The first report should describe the scope, the strategy, and the goals of the new Teachers Institute. It should explain the process by which it has been established and maintained, the ways that it has tailored the New Haven approach, its current activities, and the progress made toward its specific goals. There is no specific limitation on length. The style should be succinct, but important details should not be omitted for the sake of brevity. Detail should be provided concerning the activities of the Teachers Representatives in planning the seminars, the roles of the Coordinators in admitting Fellows, assisting them, and monitoring seminars, the length and nature of the curriculum units, the representativeness of the Fellows admitted, and the teachers' and faculty members' assessments of the new Institute. Subsequent reports should include continuing descriptions of the Institute's activities and progress. They should explain significant differences between the first, second, and third years of operation, and comment on the use of the curriculum units in the classrooms so far as that is known. They should update the account of progress made toward funding the new Institute beyond the Implementation Phase. They should also discuss any discernible effects of the new Institute upon teacher empowerment, curricular change, student learning, and other issues central to school improvement.

Each report should provide as specific an account as possible of each of the following items. The report should be explicitly keyed to these items, so that readers can easily note the information that pertains to each:

• evidence that the new Institute is faithful to each of these Articles of Understanding and the Necessary Procedures;
• a systematic description of the new Institute and its activities, including ways that it has applied the New Haven approach to its own situation, the process by which it was established, how that process has unfolded over time, and the progress made toward its goals;
• a description of the relationship between participating school teachers and university faculty members;
• an account of the ways in which teacher-participants in the seminars have exerted leadership in planning the seminars, recruiting teachers, admitting Fellows to the seminars, monitoring their process, and assessing their results;
• indication of the incentives at the new Institute for university faculty members and school teachers to participate;
• an analysis of the participation of school teachers in Institute activities (using surveys and other instruments developed by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and the Yale National Initiative, which might be completed on-line) that documents the number of teachers who apply, the representativeness of the teachers vis-a-vis the entire pool of teachers eligible to participate, and (through annual questionnaires) the teachers' participation in Institute activities and the teachers' and faculty members' assessments of the new Institute;
• the cost of operating the Institute, set forth in detail as specified in the financial reporting requirements; a documentation of all other funds allocated to the Institute; and the availability of long-term funding sources;
• a summary description of the curriculum units developed by participating teachers, with information about the teachers' use of the units and any other outcomes of their participation;
• an account of the assistance from the Yale National Initiative that was needed, obtained, and used;
• and an analysis of the factors contributing to, and hindering, the success of the new Institute.

Each report will also include a summary that sets forth in brief compass the accomplishments and impact of the Teachers Institute, its relations to local and national funding, the impediments that have been encountered, the unanticipated outcomes, and the lessons learned thus far. The final report for an Implementation Phase will summarize the items covered by the annual narrative reports, will include a survey of the use of curriculum units by Fellows and non-Fellows in the school system, and will then answer the following questions:

I. What are the most important outcomes, impacts, and lessons learned from the establishment of this Teachers Institute?

II. How has it changed the way in which your institution or other institutions may address these issues?

III. What plans do you have for continuing the Institute?

IV. Are there other observations or reflections that you would now like to make about your Teachers Institute's work during this Implementation Phase?

Planning an Institute

The Yale National Initiative and cooperating foundations and organizations will provide instructions and forms on which to apply to participate in the Yale National Initiative and the League of Teachers Institutes and receive their services during a Planning Phase of at least nine months duration. This Planning Phase may be funded in a variety of ways: e.g., by or through a federal program, a national funder, one or more local funders, a school district (e.g., district Title I funds), a college or university, or (by a re-grant from a national funder) the Yale National Initiative. An application will include a narrative, a budget, and a budget narrative. Such an application can also be shaped into a grant proposal for funding during the Planning Phase. A National Panel of educators and philanthropists will review the applications and recommend acceptance. The Director of the Yale National Initiative will determine whether the application is in conformity with the principles and procedures of this Initiative. Sites will be expected to match a grant received during the Planning Phase on at least a 1-to-1 basis. (Cost-sharing will apply to necessary expenses, for which see the explanation in the "Necessary Procedures for Article 15.")

The goal of the Planning Phase is to enable a full exploration of the likely form, major strategies, personnel, and funding of a Teachers Institute that conforms to the Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures that have been earlier set forth.

Declarations of Intent to Submit a Planning Application

A Declaration of Intent to submit an application to participate in the Yale National Initiative and the activities of the League of Teachers Institutes during a Planning Phase will be filed, on a form to be provided, at a specified date in advance of the submission of such an application. This Declaration of Intent will set forth the intentions and commitments of the collaborating institution(s) of higher education and the school district(s).

Planning Applications

The narrative for an application to participate in the Yale National Initiative and the activities of the League of Teachers Institutes during a Planning Phase will cover the following topics:

1. College or University: Specific people committed to do the planning for possible participation in a multi-year Implementation Period with strong prospects for continuation beyond that period; specific faculty who are qualified and available to lead seminars, with description of applicable experience and letters of commitment. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 1-3, 5, 12".)

2. Schools: Evidence that the district(s) serve a significant proportion of students from low-income backgrounds; specific people committed to do the planning for possible participation in a multi-year Implementation Period with strong prospects for continuation beyond that period; letters of commitment from those people; and a strategy for constructing a network of teacher leadership. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 1-4, 12.")

3. Director of Planning: Specific person (who must have agreed to become the permanent director of the proposed Institute), with description of applicable experience and letter of commitment. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 3.")

4. Scope: A description of the proposed scope within the school district, or indication of the process by which it will be determined (a minimum pool of 500 potentially eligible teachers in no fewer than 20 schools encompassing at least two of the three levels of schooling [elementary, middle, and high], and a minimum of four seminars to be offered annually); a list of possible seminar topics for the first year of Implementation, and an explanation of the process by which teachers will finally determine them. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 1-6.")

5. Funding and Cost-Sharing: A statement of the proposed funding and the proposed cost-sharing for the Planning Phase (specifying the primary funders, and the matching by university, by school system, and by any supplementary funders); institutional letters of commitment. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 13 and 15.")

6. Basic Commitments: A provisional statement of how the partnership envisions meeting all other Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures given earlier. In a written letter of agreement the appropriate administrators of the institution of higher education and the school district should lay out the terms and expectations of the collaboration entailed by their partnership. These commitments must be fully understood by administrators, by the director, and by participating faculty and teachers.

To be considered complete, a Planning Application should consist of the following:

1. Cover page (forms to be supplied by the Yale National Initiative)

2. Demographic information about partners (forms to be supplied)

3. Proposal Narrative (of no more than twenty double-spaced typed pages with at least one-inch margins)

4. Budget (forms to be supplied) and Budget Narrative (instructions to be supplied)

5. Attachments (attach only items requested and prepared specifically for this purpose)

Planning Phase Activities

At each site, during the planning period, there will be:

• Meetings with university faculty and school teachers that may participate in the project to ascertain their needs and their interest in, and commitment to, the project.
• Joint planning and meetings of university and school administrators to discuss, among other things, how to leverage local and other funds for the implementation phase of the initiative.
• Development of a three-year implementation plan and proposal for a potentially long-term Teachers Institute in accord with the Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures.
• Participation in an Intensive Session to be held in New Haven, which will include opportunities
• for the directors of planning to participate with James Vivian in a colloquium for directors;
• for at least one or two university faculty members and three school teachers to participate in a program that will include a number of "national seminars" (versions of a characteristic New Haven seminar supplemented by distance learning and supervision, involving preparation, readings, presentations, discussions, preparation of an essay relating the seminar topic to classroom needs and opportunities, and revision of that essay under guidance of a seminar leader), visiting of two regular seminars being offered, with opportunities for university faculty to review curriculum units in process; meetings with previous seminar leaders, Fellows, and teachers involved in the leadership of the Institute;
• for representatives from the site engaged in planning to advise on ways to preserve teacher leadership in the Yale National Initiative, and to participate in the National Steering Committee of school teachers and the complementary National University Advisory Council of faculty members;
• to attend sessions on Institute principles of organization, techniques and instruments for evaluation and documentation, admission procedures, and guidelines for curriculum units.

Although a Planning Phase of nine months duration looks toward a multi-year Implementation Phase, it is not required that an application for participation in the Yale National Initiative and membership in the League of Teachers Institutes during the Implementation Phase be made at the end of that initial Planning Phase. There may be a period of time for further planning, adjusted to the organizational needs of the site, before such an application would be necessary.

Implementing an Institute

The Yale National Initiative and cooperating organizations will provide instructions and forms on which to apply for participation in the Yale National Initiative and membership in the League of Teachers Institutes during a multi-year (optimally, a three-year) Implementation Phase. Such an application can also be shaped into a grant proposal for funding during the Implementation Phase. A National Panel of educators and philanthropists will review the proposals and recommend sites to participate in multi-year Implementation Phases, which may be funded in a variety of ways: e.g., by a federal program, a national funder, one or more local funders, a school district, a college or university, or (by a sub-grant from a national funder) the Yale National Initiative. Final decisions as to conformity with the principles and procedures of the Yale National Initiative will be made by the Director of this Initiative. It is required, if there is a sub-grant through the Yale National Initiative, that a site match any funding received for the Implementation Phase on a graduated basis, which will involve an increase in the cost-sharing to be borne by the institution, district, and supplementary funders from at least a 1-to-2 matching in the first year to at least a 1-to-1 matching in the second year and at least a 2-to-1 matching in the third year. This ratio will apply to the total budget and also to that part of the budget essential to operation—i.e., the basic or necessary expenses—both globally and severally. The basic and necessary expenses consist of the following: remuneration for seminar leaders, honoraria for Fellows, one full-time salary for the director, publication of the curriculum units, office assistance for the director, and travel for participating in League events. (See the budget forms and instructions, to be supplied by the Yale National Initiative.)

The partnerships will be required to submit annual reports to the Yale National Initiative that describe and assess the activities undertaken, describe challenges and successes, account for grant funds, and document other funds that have been allocated to the new Institute. Any change in the director or other key staff at a partnership that is participating in an Implementation Period must be approved in advance by the Yale National Initiative. In such instances, the candidate selected should be recommended to the Yale National Initiative in a letter from the Superintendent(s) of schools and the President(s) of the institutions involved in the partnership. This letter, or accompanying materials, should provide the job description used by the site, and describe the candidate's qualifications and the process used to solicit candidates and select the finalists.

Declarations of Intent to Submit an Implementation Application

A Declaration of Intent to apply for participation in the Yale National Initiative and membership in the League of Teachers Institutes during the Implementation Phase will be filed, on a form to be provided, at a specified date in advance of the submission of such an application. This Declaration of Intent will set forth the intentions and commitments of the collaborating institution(s) of higher education and the school district(s).

Implementation Applications

The narrative for an application to participate in the Yale National Initiative and become a member of the League of Teachers Institutes during the Implementation Phase will cover the following topics:

1. Scope: In discussing the initial scope of your Teachers Institute, describe how the scope was determined and how you envision it developing over the three or more years of the Implementation Phase. Include a map of the school district partner(s) noting the location of both the higher education institution(s) and the schools to be involved during the Implementation Phase. The scope should include a minimum pool of 500 potentially eligible teachers in no fewer than 20 schools encompassing at least two of the three levels of schooling (elementary, middle, and high), and a minimum of four seminars to be offered annually. Indicate any likely expansion of that scope during subsequent years of the Implementation Phase. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 1, 6, 10.")

2. Strategy: If you are working with a large school district or several school districts, state how you determined the scope of the proposed Teachers Institute so that its impact would not be diluted but would have as great an influence as possible. What do you expect this Teachers Institute to achieve within the school district(s) involved? (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 1, 6, 10, 12, 15.")

3. Structure: Describe with as much specificity as possible the structure of the proposed Teachers Institute, including the director, faculty advisory committees, and teacher leadership roles. A Teachers Institute participating in the Yale National Initiative must adhere to the Articles of Understanding and the Necessary Procedures. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures, especially: 1-5, 12.")

4. Seminars: In discussing the seminars for the first year of the Implementation Phase, describe how teachers have been involved in identifying topics, which faculty have been approached and selected to lead these seminars, the pool of eligible teachers, and how potential Fellows are being recruited. In discussing seminars for the subsequent years of the Implementation Phase, describe the pool of interested and available faculty and that of eligible teachers. (See "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 6-11.")

5. Revisions in Plan: Please note where there is a significant change from the information or plan submitted with the Planning Application.

6. Accompanying Letters: Letters indicating commitment from the institutions and individuals to be involved should be appended to the application to participate in an Implementation Phase. Each letter should make clear the writer's actual and potential involvement in the Institute, and his or her understanding of the role to be played in this project. Letters from administration should indicate their commitment to all items under the Articles of Understanding and the Necessary Procedures that fall under their purview. In a letter of agreement the appropriate administrators of the institution of higher education and the school district should lay out the terms and expectations of the collaboration entailed by their partnership. (See especially "Articles of Understanding and Necessary Procedures: 1, 12, 13.")

7. Basic Commitments: State how the new Institute will meet each of the other Articles of Understanding and the Necessary Procedures.

To be considered complete, an Implementation Application should consist of the following:

1. Cover page (forms to be supplied by the Yale National Initiative)

2. Demographic information about partners (forms to be supplied)

3. Proposal Narrative (of no more than thirty double-spaced typed pages with at least one-inch margins)

4. Budget (forms to be supplied) and Budget Narrative (instructions to be supplied)

5. Attachments (attach only items requested and prepared specifically for this purpose)

Implementation Phase Activities

Certain of the activities during the Implementation Phase will be planned in greater detail with the Teachers Institutes that are participating in the Yale National Initiative. They will include:

• visits to these Institutes by personnel from the Yale National Initiative;
• a meeting in New Haven of project directors, university faculty members, and school teachers from the Institutes;
• an Intensive Session in New Haven, for which each Institute will send the director to participate in a colloquium for directors, and will send six school teachers and three university faculty members who are actual or potential seminar leaders to participate in a program of "national seminars" and observation of seminars like those during the Planning Phase;
• participation in annual conferences and national advisory groups.

As the Yale National Initiative expands, there will necessarily be a series of Intensive Sessions for the Institutes being established. Existing Teachers Institutes may also help to present these Intensive Sessions, and send teams to participate in them. These Intensive Sessions will therefore provide continuing opportunities for additional faculty and school teachers to become acquainted with the principles and processes of an Institute.

Lists, Tables, and Graphs

School Districts and Institutions of Higher Education

Sites Invited to Apply for Planning Grants, National Demonstration Project (1998)

University of Houston/Houston Independent School District

University of California, Irvine/Santa Ana Unified School District

University of New Mexico/Albuquerque Public Schools

Washington University/St. Louis Public Schools and other contiguous districts

Johns Hopkins University/Baltimore Public Schools

Commonwealth Federation (from which we would invite applications from no more than two institutions with a focus on Pennsylvania cities)

Harvard University/15-18 school districts

Indiana University, PA/Indiana, Derry, Marion Center, Pittsburgh, Mill Creek

Rutgers University, Newark

University of California, Santa Cruz/Monterey Bay area

University of Michigan

University of Southern Maine/Portland

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University/rural Appalachia

Washington, D.C. (including Catholic University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, Howard University, and the Smithsonian Institution)

Sites Awarded Planning Grants (1998)

University of Houston/Houston Independent School District

University of New Mexico/Albuquerque Public School District

University of California, Irvine/Santa Ana Unified School District

University of California, Santa Cruz/Pajaro Valley Unified School District

Chatham College-Carnegie Mellon University/Pittsburgh Public Schools

Sites Awarded Implementation Grants, National Demonstration Project (1999-2001)

University of Houston/Houston Independent School District

University of New Mexico/Albuquerque Public School District

University of California, Irvine/Santa Ana Unified School District

Chatham College-Carnegie Mellon University/Pittsburgh Public Schools

Sites Awarded Planning and Research Grants, Preparation Phase, Yale National Initiative (2002-03)

University of Houston/Houston Independent School District

Chatham College-Carnegie Mellon University/Pittsburgh Public Schools

Seminars, Faculty, and Fellows

National Demonstration Project (1999-2001)

Preparation Phase, Yale National Initiative (2002)

Preparation Phase Yale National Initiative (2003)

Preparation Phase Yale National Initiative (2004)

Demographic Information on Demonstration Sites

Financial Support, 1999 - 2001

Contact Information

The Yale National Initiative Director

Director: James R. Vivian

Mail Address:

P.O. Box 203563 Yale Station

New Haven, Connecticut 06520-3563

Phone: (203) 432-1080

Fax: (203) 432-1084

Electronic Mail: teachers@yale.edu

Web site: http://teachers.yale.edu

The Houston Teachers Institute

Director: David Judkins

Mail Address:

c/o The Honors College University of Houston

Houston, Texas 77204-2090

Phone: (713) 743-3726

Fax: (713) 743-3727

Electronic Mail: djudkins@uh.edu

Web site: http://hti.math.uh.edu/

The Pittsburgh Teachers Institute

Director: Helen S. Faison

Mail Address: Chatham College-Braun Hall

Woodland Road

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15232

Phone: (412) 365-2773

Fax: (412) 365-1515

Electronic Mail: faison@chatham.edu

Web site: http://www.chatham.edu/pti

Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

Director: James R. Vivian

Mail Address: P.O. Box 203563 Yale Station

New Haven, Connecticut 06520-3563

Phone: (203) 432-1080

Fax: (203) 432-1084

Electronic Mail: ynhti@yale.edu

Web site: http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu