University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

California teacher residency leaders’ understanding and implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency

(USC Thesis Other)

California teacher residency leaders’ understanding and implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

California Teacher Residency Leaders’ Understanding and Implementation of the Characteristics and
Evidence of an Effective Teacher Residency

Zaia Vera

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Zaia Vera 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Zaia Vera certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Marthaa Torres
Monique Datta
Morgan Polikoff, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The state of California has invested $425 million dollars over the past 4 years to create and expand
teacher residencies. California is in a perpetual teacher shortage and teacher residencies are a promising
alternative teacher credentialing pathway. Teacher residencies tend to draw in a more diverse teaching
workforce than the traditional pathway and retain teachers at higher rates than other alternative
pathways. The 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency is a
framework to guide teacher residency leaders in developing residency programs. The present study uses
a mixed methods approach to understand the following: To what extent do California teacher residency
leaders understand and implement, or plan to implement, the 10 characteristics and evidence of an
effective California teacher residency? What supports do leaders need to implement the characteristics
to build their programs? Leaders from the 41 teacher residencies who received 2022 CA teacher
residency capacity grant funding were invited to participate in a self-assessment survey and opt into an
interview about the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency. Eighty-five
percent of the 41 residency programs responded to the survey, and seven residency leaders were
interviewed. The results highlight specific areas of technical and adaptive supports needed. The
discussion includes next steps to create a statewide system of support for teacher residency leaders. The
characteristics can be revisited to consider California’s nuanced context and to center student voice and
outcomes. By supporting robust and effective teacher residency programs, California students can enjoy
a prepared and dedicated teacher workforce that reflects their diversity.

v
Dedication
To my family. A mi mamá Diana Vera, mi abuela Magdalena, y a mi abuelo Pedro. Un sobreviviente de la
depresión, guerra mundial dos, y la corona virus. El tiene cien años. Estoy aquí a causa de su
perseverancia.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my husband Andrew and two children, Amelia and Sebastian. Thank you for
all your support as I have gone on this doctorate journey over the years.
I also thank the USC Rossier School of Education program and my Wednesday cohort class. I
truly appreciate the lively night discussions and project collaborations. Special thank you to the
professors, especially Dr. Polikoff, my dissertation chair. I am super thankful for your guidance and
partnership, and grateful to know you. Thank you to Dr. Datta and Dr. Torres, my dissertation
committee. Dr. Datta, I appreciate your teaching style and feedback. Dr. Torres, you have been the best
thought partner and mentor anyone could ask for. Without Dr. Torres, I would not be in this program.
Finally, I would like to show immense appreciation and gratitude for the teacher residency
leaders across California, and the organizations that support them. I am super hopeful about the success
of California teacher residencies based on the knowledge base and equity focus leaders in this study
have shown. And, thank you to the researchers at WestEd and the leaders at the California Teacher
Residency Lab. I appreciate your thoughtful insight on this project.
Fight on!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iv
Dedication ..................................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ........................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Opportunity ........................................................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 4
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................. 4
Researcher Positionality ................................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 7
Diversity Teacher Shortage ............................................................................................................. 7
Why Teacher Diversity Matters ...................................................................................................... 9
Teacher Residencies Prepare Diverse Teachers ............................................................................ 11
What Exactly Is a Teacher Residency? .......................................................................................... 13
Teacher Residency Model Background ......................................................................................... 17
California Teacher Residency Grant Program ............................................................................... 19
Evidence of Effective Teacher Residencies: West Ed Evaluation .................................................. 23
California Teacher Residency Lab ................................................................................................. 29
CA Lab Characteristics and NCTR Levers crosswalk ...................................................................... 35
Theory of Action ........................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................................... 38

viii
Sample and Population ................................................................................................................. 39
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................ 43
Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 45
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 46
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................................................... 48
Survey Participants ....................................................................................................................... 48
Interviewees ................................................................................................................................. 50
RQ1 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 52
RQ2 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 73
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 88
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 88
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................................... 90
Limitations of the Study and Future Research .............................................................................. 93
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 94
References ................................................................................................................................................. 95
Appendix A: Indicator Crosswalk Between the 10 Characteristics and the 8 Levers Chart ..................... 104
Appendix B: Survey Protocol Chart .......................................................................................................... 113
Appendix C: Interview Protocol Chart ..................................................................................................... 120
Appendix D: Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned in the Survey Open Items ....................... 125

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of the 10 CA Characteristics and the 8 NCTR Levers 35
Table 2: Teacher Residency Capacity Grantees 40
Table 3: Teacher Residency Capacity Grantees IHE Partner 41
Table 4: Teacher Residency Program and Teacher Residency Leader Characteristics 50
Table 5: Teacher Residency and Teacher Residency Leader Interviewee Demographics 52
Table 6: The 10 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Residency and Corresponding Categories 53
Table 7: Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Residency Survey Cluster Mean and Cronbach's 𝝰 54
Table 8: Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Residency Survey Items in Clusters Scored
Completely True (1) to Moderately True (2) 56
Table 9: Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Residency Survey Items in Clusters Scored
Moderately True (2) to A Little True (3) 58
Table 10: Frequency Percentage of Themes Mentioned in each of the Qualitative Survey
Questions 60
Table 11: Technical Areas of Support Mapped onto Mean Survey Items and Interviewee Quotes 84
Table 12: Adaptive Areas of Support Mapped onto Mean Survey Items and Interviewee Quotes 85
Appendix A: Indicator Crosswalk Between the 10 Characteristics and the 8 Levers Chart 104
Table B1: Teacher Residency Characteristics Self-Assessment Survey Items and Concept
Alignment Chart 113
Table B2: Teacher Residency: Section 3 of 5: Implementation of 10 Characteristics 116
Table B3: Teacher Residency: Section 4 of 5: Focal Areas to Develop 118
Table B4: Teacher Residency: Section 5 of 5: Demographics 119
Table C1: Interview Protocol Questions With Transitions Chart 120
Table D1: Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for Why Is This Teacher Residency
Being Developed? 125
Table D2: Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for What Are Some Specific Action
Steps Outlined in the Teacher Residency Grant Proposal? 126
Table D3: Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for What Would You Hope to Achieve
With a Residency Partnership? 127

x
Table D4: Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for What Are One or Two Focal Areas
Your Residency Team Would Like to Develop? 128

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Concept Map 37
Appendix A1: Crosswalk Between the 10 CA Residency Characteristics and the 8 NCTR Levers Chart 104
Appendix B1: Teacher Residency Characteristics Self-Assessment Survey Items and Concept 112
Alignment Chart

Appendix C1: Interview Protocol Questions with Transitions Chart 120

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
California is in a perpetual teaching shortage. Specifically, a teacher diversity shortage (Data
Quest, 2019; La Torre et al., 2021; Tadayton, 2020; The Education Trust, 2022). Traditional teacher
preparation pathways are not enrolling enough teaching candidates to meet the demand. Additionally,
the demographic makeup of teachers in traditional programs continues to lean white and female (La
Torre et al., 2021) when there is ample evidence highlighting the benefits of having teachers that reflect
the student population (Battey et al., 2018; Bristol & Martin-Fernandez, 2019; Carver-Thomas, 2018;
Dee, 2004; Eddy & Easton-Brooks, 2011; Fox, 2015; Gershenson et al., 2016; Guha et al., 2016; Guha &
Kini, 2016; Hart, 2020; Klopfenstein, 2005; Ouazad, 2014; Philip & Brown, 2020; Rogers-Ard et al., 2019).
Demographic trends show that the student population in California is becoming more diverse while the
teaching population is not (Data Quest, 2019; La Torre et al., 2021; The Education Trust, 2022). There is
a need to recruit and retain a diverse teaching workforce.
Teacher residencies have been growing in popularity as an effective alternative teaching
preparation pathway in the past decade. Since their inception, teacher residencies have made positive
impacts on recruitment and retention of diverse teachers across the country, and in California (Berry et
al., 2008; Bristol & Martin-Fernandez, 2019; Carver-Thomas, 2018; Eiler White et al., 2020; Guha et al.,
2016; Guha & Kini, 2016; La Torre et al., 2021; LiBetti & Trinidad, 2018; NCTR, 2019; Papay et al., 2012).
The teacher residency is modeled after a professional medical residency, which focuses on practical
experience (for a definition of teacher residencies, see Wagoner, 2022). Teacher residents embark on a
full year mentorship in a classroom setting, in a context in which they will eventually teach. Expert
mentor teachers guide residents through a year-long gradual release of responsibilities in order to get a
full year understanding of how the school year unfolds. Credential coursework at a partner university is
closely aligned to the practical student teaching experience. Teacher residents are typically paid a
stipend or receive tuition support in exchange for their commitment to teach in the school district.
2

Mentors are also paid a stipend. School districts make a financial investment in teacher residents’
preparation in order to build a robust and sustainable pipeline and stabilize long term retention of
typically more than 3 years (Guha et al., 2016; NCTR, 2019).
California has made an unprecedented investment in teacher residencies over the past 4 years.
In 2018, California legislators set aside $75 million in grant funds to create teacher residencies across the
state. And, with the later addition of Senate Bill 130 (2021) the law includes $350 million in grant funds
to launch, expand or improve teacher residencies. To support and strengthen the impact of the state’s
financial investment and commitment to teacher residencies, the Californians Dedicated to Education
(CDE) Foundation launched the California Teacher Residency Lab, or “Lab” (California Teacher Residency
Lab, 2022) to support new and developing programs. While the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) apply
for and are awarded state funds to create and launch residency programs, the grant language does not
provide specific guidance as to how to go about creating residency programs. The Lab, as a technical
assistance provider, created the characteristics and evidence of effective CA teacher Residencies (the
characteristics) to guide and support residency teams as they develop their programs (Ollison et al.,
2022).
The teacher shortage and the diverse teacher shortage is a systems and structure issue. We are
perpetually in a teaching shortage, so we have placed our bets in alternative pathways into teaching
because the traditional pathway is not sufficient on its own to produce the teacher demand, and
teacher diversity demand, needed to educate a growing and diverse student population. The statewide
investment in bolstering teacher residency programs is part of an overall strategy to recruit and retain a
diverse teacher population (Tadayton, 2022).
Statement of the Opportunity
There is an opportunity for teacher residencies to be the gold standard of teacher preparation.
The California Teacher Residency Lab currently provides technical assistance to 19 teacher residency
3

programs across the state. And, with each round of teacher residency grant funding, that number is
expected to increase. The Lab is building a statewide system of support for teacher residency teams in
various stages of program development, using the characteristics as a universal frame to support
residency teams (Ollison et al., 2022). If California is investing in teacher residencies, it makes sense to
ensure that residencies have a thoughtful and intentional plan to become robust and effective. Having a
common set of standards or indicators help to ensure teacher residencies across the state are working
towards the same goals. However, these effective residency characteristics were recently rolled out and
it is unclear to what extent residency teams know and use them as a framework to launch or expand
their programs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to gather insight as to how California residency teams, who are
teacher residency grantees, know and use the characteristics and evidence of an effective California
teacher residency to build or enhance their teacher residency programs. The characteristics include
indicators around equity, partnerships, financial sustainability, and resident and mentor professional
development. My goal is to enhance a statewide system of support that leverages the characteristics
and evidence of an effective California teacher residency to provide targeted coaching and support to
new residency teams. Given multi-million-dollar financial investment and commitment to California
teacher residencies, it makes sense to ensure programs are robust and effective. If California teacher
residency teams are financially backed and are supported to understand and implement the
characteristics and evidence an effective teacher residency program, then teacher residency programs
are more likely to be successful as indicated by the recruitment and retention of a diverse teacher
workforce.
The study uses a mixed methods approach to understand to what extent do California residency
leaders understand and implement the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher
4

residency. Additionally, the study investigates the support residency leaders need to implement the
characteristics to build or enhance their teacher residency program. Residency leaders in 41 different
teacher residency programs were all invited to complete a survey, and of these leaders, seven opted to
engage in an in-depth qualitative interview.
Forty-one local education agencies (LEAs) were awarded capacity grant funds in 2022 to build
capacity to launch or expand their teacher residency programs. These 41 teams were invited to
complete a self-assessment survey around their experiences with the 10 characteristics and evidence of
an effective California teacher residency. Then, a self-selected sample of seven residency programs were
invited to share more in depth their experiences with the characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency and support needed to actualize them. The explanatory sequential design
allowed quantitative data to be collected first, then qualitative data to be gathered second to further
explain context and specific areas of support and improvement.
Research Questions
1. To what extent do California residency leaders understand and implement, or plan to
implement, the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency?
2. What support do residency leaders need to implement the characteristics and evidence of
an effective California teacher residency?
Significance of the Study
This is the first study of this kind. There is literature that outlines best practices for teacher
residencies, for instance research and reports from the National Center for Teacher Residencies and the
Learning Policy Institute, among others (Azar et al., 2021; Berry et al., 2008; Dickstein-Staub & Frank,
2019; Guha et al., 2016; LiBetti & Trinidad, 2018; National Center for Teacher Residencies, 2021; Papay
et al., 2012; Yun et al., 2020). But there is no literature on how residency teams understand and use the
characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency to inform their program
5

development. This is important because teacher residency programs in California are increasing in
number. Research on teacher residency development is growing; California presents a unique
opportunity to provide an inside look on several new and developing programs due to the influx of
funds. While other states have teacher residency programs, no state has as many as California. This
study will illuminate how teacher residency teams know and use these the characteristics and evidence
of an effective California teacher residency, paving the way to develop a statewide system of residency
support. Specifically, I am investigating how self-reported use of the characteristics can support targeted
coaching systems and structures. This study investigates how concrete characteristics and indicators are
being used as part of a differentiated coaching structure and a statewide teacher residency support
system.
Researcher Positionality
In my researcher worldview, I am interested in making my research accessible and usable. I
would describe myself as a critical realist, a pragmatist with sprinkles of post-positivism, constructivism,
and feminism. A chameleon-like epistemological worldview fits perfectly with a mixed methods
approach. I can use multiple paradigms to study my topic of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Reality
may exist, but it may not be generalizable because knowledge is a subjective human construct
influenced by the political world (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). With a critical lens, I plan to leverage the
lived experiences of residency teams to give voice to the qualitative aspect of building a residency
program. We often look at quantitative data to show the success of our educational programs or to
make decisions about what to support. But, by using self-assessments and reflective tools, we are able
to gain a deeper understanding of needs and supports.
In 2019, I co-founded and launched the Oakland Teacher Residency (Vera, 2019, 2020, 2021).
Our residency team partnered with the CA Teacher Residency Lab for technical assistance and provided
us with a professional cohort of teacher residency leaders. In 2021, I became a Residency Lab Support
6

Lead. This role is as needed- individuals or residency teams reach out when they need thought
partnership or coaching around their residency program development. There may be power dynamics
related to positionality which may lead to researcher reactivity, or to provide socially desirable answers.
In my ethnic and racial positionality, I am cognizant of how the world sees me and how I see the
world as a Latina woman who may be white passing depending on the crowd and how I dress and talk.
My biases as a Latina could influence how I see and code the qualitative responses.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One is an overview of the study. Chapter Two
is a review of the literature. Chapter Three discusses the study’s methodology. Chapter Four gives the
results. Chapter Five is a discussion of the findings with recommendations for policy and future study.
7

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter illustrates the California teacher shortage in the context of teacher diversity, and
how teacher residency development can be leveraged to increase diverse teacher retention. In an effort
to decenter whiteness, this paper uses the term non-BIPOC for people that are not Black, Indigenous,
People of Color (BIPOC). However, terminology will be consistent with the terms used by the
researchers in the literature reviewed and presented in this chapter. The review will show why BIPOC
teachers matter as it relates to student outcomes and how teacher residencies prepare BIPOC teachers.
I will also provide a teacher residency definition and a brief history before describing teacher residency
support via California grant programs and technical assistance providers. This chapter will also highlight
residency grant research and explain the characteristics and indicators of effective teacher residencies.
Finally, the chapter will close with a theory of action to create efficacious teacher residency programs.
Diversity Teacher Shortage
California is in a perpetual teaching shortage; specifically, a teacher diversity shortage. In the
2018–2019 school year, there were 6,186,278 public school students (Data Quest, 2019) and not all saw
themselves represented in the teaching force. In fact, for the three largest subgroups of students,
Latino, Asian and Black, respectively, there is an underrepresentation of teachers of those ethno-racial
backgrounds relative to the students. Latino students represent 54.9% of the total student population,
Latino teachers represent 21.3% of the entire teaching force. Asian students represent 9.4% of the total
student population, Asian teachers represent 5.8% of the entire teaching force. Black students represent
5.4% of the total student population, Black teachers represent 3.8% of the entire teaching force. In
contrast, for the largest non-BIPOC ethno-racial group, there is an over representation of teachers of
that group relative to students. Non-BIPOC students represent only 22.6% of public-school students
while non-BIPOC teachers make up 61% of the total public school teaching force, the majority of public-
8

school teachers. In other words, the data show that only 39% of CA teachers identify as BIPOC while 77%
of California students are BIPOC (The Education Trust, 2022).
However, there are many factors that contribute to the diversity teacher shortage. The racial
disproportionality in the teaching profession is a symptom of ongoing systemic oppression that has
historically and contemporarily disadvantaged the BIPOC community. For example, after the Brown v.
Board of Education (1954) decision to integrate public schools, Black students were integrated into
white public schools, but teachers were not. Most Black teachers were fired which led to a huge exodus
of talented Black educators out of the field (Anderson, 2016). These events, coupled with discriminatory
economic practices related to redlining and housing loans (Rothstein, 2017), salary and job promotions
influence the financial capital and income inequalities we see today (Altonji & Doraszelski, 2005). For
example, BIPOC students have higher school loan debt than their white counterparts (Kerby, 20212).
Systemic discrimination and financial barriers to enter and persist in higher education influence the low
BIPOC enrollment in graduate programs, and under representation in the teaching profession (Ahmed &
Bosser, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2016; Philip & Brown, 2020).
The bottom line is, traditional teacher preparation pathways are not enrolling sufficient enough
teaching candidates to meet the demand. Additionally, the demographic makeup of teachers in
traditional programs continues to lean white and female (La Torre et al., 2021) when there is ample
evidence highlighting the benefits of having teachers that reflect the student population. Demographic
trends show that the student population in California is becoming more diverse while the teaching
population is not (California Department of Education, 2021). There is a need to recruit and retain a
diverse teaching workforce.
9

Why Teacher Diversity Matters
The literature in the next section outlines why teacher diversity matters. First, I briefly review
teacher diversity impacts on student achievement outcomes. Then, I highlight a few studies showing the
influence on social emotional outcomes. Finally, I explore student perceptions of diverse teachers.
Diversity Impact on Student Achievement Outcomes
Literature supports the need and positive impact of BIPOC educators, especially as it relates to
BIPOC student achievement. For example, students with teachers of the same race are assessed more
favorably (Ouazad, 2014). Latina/o students are placed in higher ability groups when they have Latina/o
teachers (Banergee, 2019). Black students score higher on achievement tests and have more favorable
teacher ratings when they are assigned to Black teachers (Dee, 2005; Downing & Pribish, 2004; Redding,
2019). Black students’ reading scores increase when they have Black or Hispanic teachers (Yarnell &
Bohrnstedt, 2018). Black students have higher math achievement and a higher likelihood of enrolling in
rigorous math classes and advanced courses when they have Black teachers (Dee, 2004; Eddy & Easton-
Brooks, 2011; Hart, 2020; Klopfenstein, 2005). Additionally, Black students exposed to at least one Black
teacher in elementary school increases the likelihood of graduating high school and enrolling in college
(Gershenson et al., 2016). These research studies show the positive and substantial effect of same race
teacher match on student outcomes.
Teacher Diversity Influence on Student Social Emotional Outcomes
Studies show that students have better outcomes when they have teachers that match their
identities. Exposure to same-race teachers is associated with reduced rates of exclusionary discipline for
Black students (Lindsay & Hart, 2007). Black and Brown students benefit when they have teachers that
reflect their critical identities; benefits include social emotional connectedness to school, increased
graduation rates, increased enrollment in AP courses, and increased attendance (Bristol & Martin-
10

Fernandez, 2019; Carver-Thomas, 2018; Guha et al., 2016; Guha & Kini, 2016; Philip & Brown, 2020;
Rogers-Ard et al., 2019).
Student Perceptions of Diverse Educators
There are a few reasons why we see positive outcomes when BIPOC students have BIPOC
teachers. For example, Black teachers hold higher expectations for Black students, especially around
framing their ability positively (Battey et al., 2018; Fox, 2015; Gershenson et al., 2016; Ouazad, 2014).
There may also be reduced racial bias and lower stereotype threat. One main reason is the positive
perception BIPOC students have for BIPOC teachers.
There is power in seeing yourself represented in your teachers, in a position of authority. In
2014, Atkins et al. added to the research of representative bureaucracy, showing that the mere
presence of minority teachers in the school can improve educational outcomes for minority students at
that school. Specifically, the researchers found that the presence of minority teachers increases minority
students’ connectedness to their school and students’ educational aspirations. There is a strong link
between school connectedness and increased educational outcomes (Blum & Libby, 2004). The Atkins et
al. (2014) study showed that by increasing representation of Black and Latino/a teachers, increases
educational expectations for Black students. Increasing representation of Latino/a teachers increases
school connectedness and educational expectations for Latino/a students. Qualitative and quantitative
data allowed the researchers to capture how the beliefs and aspirations of individual Black and Latina/o
students are linked to the overall representation of Black and Latina/o and teachers in their schools, not
to a specific teacher, but in general.
Cherng and Halpin (2016) asked whether students’ perceptions of their teachers vary by teacher
race/ethnicity. The researchers found that students perceive minority teachers more favorably than
white teachers. Specifically, minority students have more positive perceptions of their teachers than
11

White students. Black students have particularly favorable perceptions of Black teachers, but the same is
not true for Latino students and Latino teachers.
Having teachers that match students’ identities matters. Egalite and Kisada (2018) showed that
students that have teachers who matches their gender and racial identities have more positive
perceptions of feeling cared for, feeling that their schoolwork is interesting, and more positive reports of
instructional characteristics related to student–teacher communication and guidance compared with
unmatched students in the same classroom. Student perceptions were gathered using close-ended
survey data responses and quantitative correlational statistics, matching students’ race and gender with
their teachers’ race and gender.
Egalite and Kisada (2018) found that independent variables “same race” and “same sex” were
correlated with specific favorable responses on the survey. Disaggregated results suggest that many of
the largest benefits are demonstrated by White female students assigned to White female teachers,
Black male students assigned to Black male teachers, and Black female students assigned to Black
female teachers, compared with non-matched students in the same classrooms. Notably, however,
there was no strong evidence of effects from demographic matches with Hispanic students and
teachers. The most consistently large and negative results of this subgroup analysis are observed for
middle school students experiencing the double impact of a gender and race mismatch. On average,
students report having more favorable perceptions when their teacher is the same gender as them
relative to students in the same class who do not share the gender of their teacher.
Teacher Residencies Prepare Diverse Teachers
Students show positive outcomes when they have a teacher that reflects their identity. The
increase in literature pointing to the positive effect BIPOC educators have on BIPOC student success has
led to the proliferation of policies and initiatives (Black Educators Initiative, 2020; Bristol et al., 2021;
12

OUSD, 2021) to create a more diverse teacher workforce. Funding for California teacher residencies
specifically highlights this goal, outlined in Assembly Bill 130, Chapter 44:
This bill would appropriate $350,000,000 from the General Fund to the commission for the
Teacher Residency Grant Program for the commission to make one-time grants to develop new,
or expand, strengthen, or improve access to existing, teacher residency programs that support
designated shortage fields or local efforts to recruit, develop support systems for, provide
outreach and communication strategies to, and retain a diverse teacher workforce that reflects
a local educational agency community’s diversity, as provided. (AB 130, 2021)
Teacher Residencies across the country have shown to increase the recruitment and retention
of diverse educators. The National Center for Teacher Residencies provides technical assistance to 46
teacher residency programs across 26 states. In their 2019–2020 annual report, 62% of newly prepared
teacher residents identified as BIPOC, compared to 22% of new teachers nationally (Azar et al., 2021).
The National Center for Teacher Residencies supported 2,025 Residents in 2020–2021 (Wagoner, 2022).
Teacher residencies support teacher diversity within the school districts. Denver is a specific example.
Ethnically diverse educators represent 37% of the teachers in the Denver Teacher Residency, compared
with the school district’s 20% diverse teacher population (Dickstein-Staub & Frank, 2019). Many large
urban teacher residency programs positively impact their districts’ teacher diversity workforce.
In California specifically, teacher residencies are preparing a more diverse teacher workforce.
For example, the Teacher Residency at Alder Graduate School of Education has prepared 665 teachers
over the past 12 years, 65% identify as BIPOC. In the most recent cohort year, 83% of the teacher
residents identify as BIPOC (Kirkpatrick, 2022; Teacher residency at alder GSE annual program
assessment report, 2021). Alder Graduate School of Education partners with 64 school districts across
California and has established teacher residencies in 185 schools. They have graduated more than 3,000
BIPOC Teachers (Kirkpatrick, 2022; Teacher residency at alder GSE annual program assessment report,
13

2021). Another example is the San Francisco Teacher Residency (SFTR). Since 2010 SFTR has prepared
150 new teachers, 66% identified as BIPOC compared to 49% of BIPOC educators in the school district.
In 2016, the 5-year SFTR retention rate was 80%, compared to 53% of all new hires in the school district
(Guha et al., 2016). Across the bay in Oakland, there are similar results. From 2019–2022 the Oakland
Teacher Residency (OTR) has prepared 48 new teachers, 68% identify as BIPOC compared to 53% BIPOC
teachers district wide. After 3 years of the program, OTR graduates have a 90% retention rate,
compared to the 83% teacher retention rate district wide (Vera, 2022).
Teacher residencies are effective at increasing the likelihood of

teachers of color choosing and
staying in the profession (Carver-Thomas, 2018). Nationally, research on teacher residencies finds that
intensive, yearlong, paid clinical teacher preparation yields impressive results for both teacher retention
and student outcomes as research indicates that graduates of teacher residencies increase student
achievement in comparison to traditionally trained teachers. In a profession that typically loses 20–30%
of new teaching talent in the first 3 to 5 years, 80%–90% of teachers trained as residents remain in the
profession 3 to 5 years later (Espinoza et al., 2018; Guha et al., 2016; Guha & Kini, 2016; National Center
for Teacher Residencies, 2019; Silva et al., 2015).
What Exactly Is a Teacher Residency?
The teaching profession as a few routes to obtain a credential; a teacher residency is one route.
The next section describes the different methods to earn a teaching credential in California. Then, I
highlight how a teacher residency is different from the other routes. Finally, I provide an overview of the
residency model.
Routes to a Teaching Credential in California
In California, there are different routes into the teaching profession: emergency credential
pathway, intern pathway, residency pathway, and the traditional pathway. An educator can use an
emergency credential and become a teacher without any formal pedagogy preparation. This credential
14

is short term, it expires after a few years because the goal is for the educator to enroll in a teaching
preparation program such as an intern, residency or traditional pathway. In the intern credential
program, the educator is teaching full time while also attending teacher credential classes. Intern
teachers are concurrently full-time teachers and university students (Lambert, 2022).
In a traditional teaching credential preparation program, the educator is a full-time student and
then part time student teacher. In a traditional teacher preparation program, educators are full time
students taking teaching theory classes first, and then apply these concepts as part time student
teachers at sites where the teacher may or may not eventually teach. The residency pathway, however,
has clear alignment with coursework and the practicum experience (LiBetti & Trinidad, 2018). The
teacher resident is a full-time university student and full-time student teacher under the guidance of an
expert mentor teacher. There is an intentional partnership between the university and the school
district to provide on the job experience and future employment. Additionally, teacher residents receive
financial incentives in exchange for their commitment to teaching in the district.
It is assumed that the traditional or residency pathways offer a more robust preparation
experience. However, many new Black and Hispanic teachers enter the teaching profession through
alternative pathways into teaching, via emergency permit or intern, at a higher rate than white teachers
(La Torre et al., 2021). In La Torre et al.’s 2021 study, they looked at a sample of 44,000 first time CA
teachers. Of the 4% who identified as Black, only 53% attended a teacher preparation program prior to
teaching full time. Several Black teachers began teaching on an emergency permit (28%) or an Intern
(17%). Similarly, of the 21% Hispanic teachers, 67% attend a teacher preparation program prior to
teaching full time. While, again several Hispanic teachers began teaching on an emergency permit (19%)
or on an intern credential (14%). Of the 58% White teachers, 77% held a preliminary credential prior to
entering the workforce. While 12% started on an emergency permit and 11% on an intern credential.
15

As this review has shown, having a thorough preparation enables teachers to be efficacious at
their craft and thus, they are more likely to stay in the field. A Teacher Residency is an effective
alternative teacher preparation route when measured by recruitment and retention. And teacher
residencies are more financially feasible than the traditional route (Yun & DeMoss, 2020).
The Teacher Residency Model
Teacher residency programs are district-serving teacher education programs that pair a rigorous
full-year classroom apprenticeship with masters-level education content. Building on the medical
residency model, teacher residency programs provide residents with both the underlying theory of
effective teaching and a year-long, in-school teaching residency in which they practice and hone their
skills and knowledge alongside an effective teacher-mentor in a high-need classroom. Teacher residents
receive financial stipends as they learn to teach and commit to teaching in their districts for three or
more years beyond the residency (Guha et al., 2016). Key characteristics are that residencies:
• Are strong partnerships between school districts and universities.
• Recruit high-ability candidates to meet specific district hiring needs, especially in fields
where there are shortages.
• Provide a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside an expert mentor teacher.
• Provide relevant coursework that is tightly integrated with clinical practice.
• Recruit and train expert mentor teachers who co-teach with residents.
• Place cohorts of residents in “teaching schools” that model good practices with diverse
learners and are designed to help novices learn to teach.
• Offer ongoing mentoring and support for graduates.
• Offer financial support for residents in exchange for committing to teach in the sponsoring
district for a minimum number of years. (Guha et al., 2016, p. 6).
16

Similarly, LiBetti and Trinidad (2018) outline common components of a residency program. They
posit that transforming a teacher preparation program to a residency should fundamentally improve the
quality of teacher preparation through an intentionally designed program. Simply slapping on the
residency qualifier does not in of itself change the program, there should be an intentional
transformation of the teacher preparation program to warrant the residency name. Specific teacher
residency components include:
1. Residencies have a close-knit partnership between the residency operator and placement
local education agency (LEA). The LEA may comprise either district or charter schools. In
some cases, the residency operator and the LEA are one and the same.
2. Residency operators control candidate recruitment and selection process and criteria.
3. Teacher candidates in a residency program go through a lengthy (at least one year) clinical
experience under the supervision of an effective mentor teacher. Over the course of the
residency, teacher candidates gain increasing levels of responsibility in the classroom.
4. Education coursework is tightly linked to the teacher candidate’s teaching experience in the
classroom.
5. Teacher candidates receive support from the residency operator and LEA through coaching,
mentoring, and induction.
6. Teacher candidates commit, if hired, to working in their placement LEA for a predefined
period of time after completing the residency program. (LiBetti & Trinidad, 2018, p. 11)
There are clear overlapping themes within these two sets of criteria for residency programs.
Both name strong partnerships between the IHE and the LEA as the first priority. Other common criteria
are related to intentional resident recruitment, clinical placement with an expert mentor, linked
coursework with clinical placement, and ongoing mentoring support beyond the residency year. Finally,
17

one major distinguishing factor in a residency program is the commitment to work in the LEA after the
residency year.
Teacher Residency Model Background
Teacher residencies have been around to serve district hiring needs, they are framed as “grow
our own” strategies. There was a need to create a dedicated pipeline of teachers with practical
experience. For example, the Chicago Academy for Urban School Leadership was founded in 2001 in
partnership with Chicago Public Schools. Their goal was to recruit mid-career, non-traditional candidates
into the teaching field because the university alone was not producing enough qualified teachers for
Chicago’s 408,000 students (Berry et al., 2008). This strategy formalized local “grow our own” efforts
into a residency model. The first formalized residencies popped up in Chicago and Boston (Berry et al.,
2008; Papay et al., 2012; Solomon, 2009). They came together and outlined specific characteristics of
urban teacher residencies. The guidelines continued to evolve to inform other developing teacher
residency programs. The National Center for Teacher Residencies was created to support residencies
across the nation using specific standards to guide their work (NCTR, 2007).
Boston Teacher Residency
One of the first teacher residencies was the Boston Teacher Residency. Founded in 2003 in
partnership with the Boston Plan for Excellence, the goal was to create a pipeline of teachers to fill the
Boston Public School needs (Solomon, 2009). From 2003 to 2007 the residency prepared 30% of the
total teacher hires in Boston Public Schools. The teachers were predominantly teachers of color. 86%
Retention rate compared to the 38% for teachers districtwide (Papay et al., 2012). The Boston Teacher
Residency outlined 5 core principles that make for a successful program:
• The program serves the school district.
• The program is structured to blend theory and practice.
18

• The program emphasizes the selection, recruitment and support of the mentor teacher and
treats the mentors as teacher educators.
• The program creates an aligned set of induction supports which extend for the first 3 years
of the new teacher’s career.
• The program treats student achievement as its ultimate outcome. (Solomon, 2009, pp. 481–
486)
Urban Teacher Resident Institute
The Chicago Academy for Urban School Leadership and the Boston Teacher Residency along
with a few others, came together to create the Urban Teacher Resident Institute (UTRI). In Urban
Teacher Residencies, the school district selects the aspiring teacher residents using rigorous selection
criteria based on the districts’ needs. Teacher residents integrate their master’s level course work with
an intensive, full year classroom residency alongside an experienced Mentor. In their second year, they
become the teacher of record in their own classroom while continuing to receive mentoring. UTRs are
distinctive in that they:
• tightly weave together education theory and classroom practice
• focus on Residents learning alongside an experienced, trained Mentor
• group candidates in cohorts to cultivate professional learning community and foster
collaboration
• build effective partnerships among school districts, higher education institutions and
nonprofit organizations
• serve school districts by recruiting and training teachers to meet specific district needs
• support Residents once they are hired as teachers of record
• establish and support differentiated career goals for experienced teachers (Berry et al.,
2008, pg. 5)
19

National Center for Teachers Residencies
The Urban Teacher Resident Institute evolved into Urban Teacher Residency United and then
into National Center for Teacher Residents (NCTR, 2007) in 2007. From serving a few nascent residency
programs in 2001 to over 40 across the country in 2022, NCTR has continued to refine the key
components of an effective residency. Through their work with high performing residencies across the
country, NCTR refined their knowledge and anchored continuous improvement, action, and systemic
change in their levers for high quality teacher residencies.
NCTR Levers for High Quality Teacher Residencies
The current NCTR levers of effective teacher residencies were informed by the need to focus on
students for whom the education system has not historically equitably served. Namely, supporting
effective teacher residencies to increase teacher diversity and effectiveness in service to students. There
are 8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
• Lever I: Partnering and designing for equity
• Lever II: Residency leadership
• Lever III: Residency year experience
• Lever IV: Financial sustainability
• Lever V: Resident recruitment & selection
• Lever VI: Mentor recruitment, selection, & support
• Lever VII: Training site recruitment, selection & support
• Lever VIII: Graduate support (Levers for Equitable Teacher Residencies, 2021, p. 8)
California Teacher Residency Grant Program
California teacher residencies are the most recent iteration of the nation’s first Urban Teacher
Residencies. Due to the promise of the model to increase teacher retention and diversity, California
made a financial investment to create and expand the teacher residency across the state. Grants were
20

offered for teams of LEAs and IHEs to build capacity to launch teacher residencies (Capacity Building)
and to implement their residency program (Residency Program).
2019 California Teacher Residency Grant
Authorizing legislation of the Teacher Recruitment Retention and Support Grant Legislation was
first introduced in 2019 (CDE Ed Code, 2019). A total of $75,000,000 was granted to the Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (CTC), from the general fund, to create and/or expand teacher residency
programs. The grant defined a teacher residency program as
a grant applicant-based program that partners with one or more commission-approved teacher
preparation programs offered by a regionally accredited institution of higher education in which
a prospective teacher teaches at least one-half time alongside a teacher of record, who is
designated as the experienced mentor teacher, for at least one full school year while engaging
in initial preparation coursework. (CDE Ed Code, 2019, p. 34)
Partnerships between school districts and universities could use these grant funds for up to 4 years to
establish or expand teacher residencies in the following areas: special education, bilingual education, or
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Monies were specifically set aside for programs
looking to increase their Special Education credentialed candidates ($50,000,000) or Bilingual, Science,
Technology, Engineering, or Math credentialed candidates ($25,000,000) The use of these grant funds
are directly allocated to the resident and or mentor. For example, the $20,000 allocated per resident
was only to be used for resident stipends or mentor stipends, costs directly associated with the
preparation of the teacher and mentor.
2019 Capacity Building Grant
Capacity building is housed within the overall residency grant funds. Partnering School districts
and IHEs could apply for a Capacity Building grant to support the work of expanding or creating teacher
residency programs that lead to more credentialed special education or bilingual education teachers, or
21

credentialed science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, teachers. Capacity grant recipient teams
could apply for up to $75,000 to build internal capacity to set up the processes and structures for the
teacher residency programs to exist. This may include supporting personnel and professional
development around the residency model and structures to put in place to support the launch or
expansion of the program (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Teacher Residency Grant
Program, 2022).
The CTC released the 2019 Residency grant and the Capacity grant at the same time, so grant
recipients were creating or expanding their new or existing residency programs, while also building
capacity to create or expand their programs. Ironically, the model of “building the plane while flying it”
is similar to the teaching intern model where the teacher is going to school to get their credential while
also teaching full time. The teaching residency model is positioned as a more sustainable and effective
route over the teaching intern route because the teacher resident is building capacity before becoming
the full-time teacher of record. The following round of teacher grants will take into consideration the
need to build capacity, supports, and plans prior to launching a residency program (California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Teacher Residency Grant Program, 2022).
2021 California Teacher Residency Grant Program
The July 2021 authorizing legislation set aside $350,000,000 to the CTC from the general fund to
support teacher residency creation and expansion for the next 4 years (AB 130, 2021) The language
mirrors the previous 2019 grant, with a few notable additions. First, teacher residency programs are not
limited to a focus on Special Education, Bilingual Education, and STEM. The grant includes establishing,
expanding or improving access for teachers to become credentialed in Special Education, Bilingual
Education, STEM, Transitional Kindergarten, and Kindergarten, which is a Multiple Subjects credential. In
addition to these credential focus areas, the grant also includes the preparation of a diverse teacher
workforce. Specifically, the monies in the Teacher Residency Grant program support “Local efforts to
22

recruit, develop support systems for, provide outreach and communication strategies to, and retain a
diverse teacher workforce that reflects a local educational agency community’s diversity” (AB 130, 2021,
p. 6). Meaning, a teacher residency program could focus on a diverse representation of teachers within
any credential subject area. This new language recognizes that while California is in a teacher shortage
for specific subject areas, California is in a diversity teacher shortage across all subject areas.
Another key area of change includes the amount that can be spent per resident. For example, in
the previous grant language, $20,000 was allocated per resident. The new grant increased that amount
to $25,000 per resident. These monies go directly to resident or mentor support, stipends, or tuition
reimbursements.
Finally, the matching funds made on behalf of the LEA are more lenient. In the 2019 grant round
the LEA had to match 1:1 funding, whereas in the recent 2021 round, the LEA only has to match (0.8) for
every (1.0) spent. Meaning. The LEA must show financial commitment or investment to be able to move
towards sustainability. The grant forces the LEA to consider how the residents will be supported when
the grant funds expire.
2021 Capacity Grant
Similar to the prior Capacity Grant, LEA and IHE residency teams are able to apply for up to
$250,000 to build capacity to grow their teacher residency programs. Funds are for programmatic and
personnel capacity building. The intention is for the capacity building to ultimately lead to a residency
program that produces a more diverse credentialed teacher workforce and/or more credentialed
teachers in the subject shortage areas (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Teacher
Residency Grant Program, 2022).
Grant Request for Applications Process
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing oversees the Teacher Residency grant
Request for Applications (RFA) and the selection of grant recipients. There was nuance in the process
23

with this most recent round of funding. First, the RFA start times for the Capacity Grant and the
Expansion and Implementation Grant are staggered. Second, there are a few different Request for
Application (RFA) rounds. In the past, both the Residency Grant and the Capacity Grant RFA and funding
were both released at the same time, and there was a limited window. This required grant recipients to
build capacity, plan, and implement a residency program all at once. The most recent round, however,
the CTC strategically released the RFAs for Capacity building first, then the RFAs for the Residency grant.
This allowed LEA and IHE partners to develop and carry out a capacity building plan for several months
before applying for the Residency Grant. These changes are of note because it highlights the importance
of supporting burgeoning residency teams to build capacity prior to creating effective programs
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Teacher Residency Grant Program, 2022).
Evidence of Effective Teacher Residencies: West Ed Evaluation
West Ed partners with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to conduct an
evaluation of the California Teacher Residency Grant program. They report findings for each year of the
program for the purpose of understanding to what extent teacher residencies actualized the intention of
the grants: to prepare diverse, well-prepared STEM, bilingual, and special education teachers who work
in high-need schools. In September 2022, WestEd released a data dashboard that tracks the number of
teacher residents the grant program enrolled and subsequently credentialed. The dashboard shows 682
teacher residents enrolled from 2019 to 2021, first 2 years of the program. Of the 682 teacher residents,
46% identified as Hispanic/Latino, 27% identified as White, 13% identified as Asian, and 4% identified as
Black. Further, 88% have earned a preliminary credential (WestEd, 2022). This tool provides evidence
that the California teacher residency program grantees are enrolling and credentialing a diverse teacher
population. In addition to compiling demographic data reports, WestEd conducted other in-depth
program evaluations related to the residency program launch, financial sustainability, and grant
partnerships.
24

West Ed CA Teacher Residency Evaluation Findings from Year 1
In findings from Year 1, Launching the CA Teacher Residency Grant program (Eiler et al., 2020),
gathered data around four focus processes: partnerships, resident recruitment, mentorship, and
alignment of coursework and clinical practice. Thirty-seven of the 38 state funded teacher residency
programs participated in the 2019–2020 school year West Ed Evaluation. Stakeholder surveys were
administered twice a year to the residents, mentors, and university supervisors. The response rate was
76% (533 of 703) in Fall and 69% (522 of 756) in the spring. Program leads were surveyed once a year
with a response rate of 75% (21 of 28). The surveys had 25 or fewer items.
Additionally, a stratified random sampling of 10 residency program leads were selected to
participate in semi structured, 23 item, interviews in the fall. A subset of the 10 residency programs
participated in a second round of interviews and finally, two programs participated in a third round of
interviews. The interviews were transcribed and coded into 5 main categories: program specialization,
partnership, residents, mentors, and clinical placement.
Of the 165 residents surveyed, approximately 38 % were pursuing an Education Specialist
credential, 23 % pursuing a STEM credential, and 42 % pursuing a bilingual authorization. Some
residents were pursuing dual credentials. About 70% identified as teachers of color. The largest group
being Hispanic/Latino (52%). The other diverse identities reported included: Asian (10%), Multiracial
(5%), Black or African American (3%), Filipino (1%). It is notable that the residency program shows
greater teacher diversity than the grantee LEA’s teaching workforce. For example, 30% of teachers
across the grantee LEAs identify as Latinx/Hispanic, but in the residency 52% identify as Latinx/Hispanic.
Meanwhile, 65% of students identify as Latinx/Hispanic. While partnership team members are
committed to developing teachers of color, there is still room for improvement.
Other key findings from the surveys and interviews showed that all stakeholder groups valued
the residency programs. The majority of stakeholders endorsed their programs, 79% to 97% of each
25

stakeholder group indicated that they would recommend their program to someone who wants to
become a teacher (White et al., 2020, p. 4). Specifically, residents, mentors, and supervisors highlighted
the clinical experience as a valuable aspect of the residency programs. Additionally, mentors valued the
opportunity to mentor residents. However, many partnerships experienced challenges establishing
strong connections between coursework and clinical experience. Financially, many residents struggled
to meet their financial needs. Many residencies tapped into other sources of financial support to
supplement the resident stipend. There is a need to develop long-term, sustainable teacher residency
financial models.
The report of year one findings lists the following recommendations (Eiler et al., 2020, p. 5):
• Ensure stable leadership roles in both the local education agencies and institutions of higher
education that are participating in the residency partnership.
• Technical assistance offered to funded-partnerships should focus on issues of key
importance.
• Ensure that programs are encouraged to take a stance of learning and improvement.
• Prioritize supports for the cohort of residents entering their first year as teachers in 2020–
21.
• Ensure residency stipends can be supplemented with additional financial aid and supports to
make the full-year residency a financially viable pathway.
West Ed CA Teacher Residency Evaluation Findings: Financial Sustainability
West Ed released another report in January 2022 (Hirschboeck et al., 2022). The report focuses
on financial sustainability challenges and opportunities within the California teacher residency
programs. However, the findings built off the data gathered from the Year 1 report. In a presentation to
the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, West Ed focused on two guiding questions: Who
26

enrolls and is hired in a Teacher Residency? How are teacher Residencies moving toward financial
sustainability and affordability?
Thirty-three of 37 programs completed surveys about their programs in Fall of 2021. There were
high survey completion rates of all the stakeholders surveyed: residents (74%), mentors (73%), program
leads (84%). Fall survey data collected shows that 323 teachers enrolled in a teacher residency in the
2019–2020 school year; and 359 residents enrolled in the 2020–2021 school year. Among both teacher
resident cohorts, the following percentages of residents pursued these credentials: 30%–35% STEM
credential, 42%–43% Education Specialist Credential, 23%–26% Bilingual credential.
The report shows that teachers prepared through a residency more closely reflect the racial
diversity of the students than the general LEA teacher workforce. For instance, of the 89% of residents
hired as teachers, 45% identify as Hispanic/Latinx. Whereas the LEA teacher workforce has 31%
Hispanic/Latinx identifying teachers, compared to the 65% Hispanic/Latinx identifying student
population in the LEAs. Additionally, of all the residents hired as teachers, 14% identify as Asian.
Whereas the LEA teacher workforce has 8% Asian identifying teachers, matching the 8% Asian
identifying student population in the LEAs. Mixed-race teacher residents make up 4% of residents hired
as teachers, compared to 1% of mixed-race LEA teachers, and 3% of the mixed-race student population.
However, only 3% of residents hired as teachers identify as Black or African American, whereas 7% of
the LEA teacher workforce identify as Black or African American. There continues to be a need to
support more Black teachers through teacher credentialing programs. Overall, 67% of residents hired as
teachers identify as teachers of color, compared to the 47% of teachers of color in the LEA.
Approximately 84% of students in participating residency LEAs are students of color. Ultimately, the
teacher residency grant program is making progress towards the goal of creating a teacher workforce
that more closely reflects the student population.
27

Making progress towards the intended goal, and sustaining progress are different. There are key
challenges that have surfaced towards the latter. Specific challenges related to affordability for residents
choosing the program. Fifty one percent of program leads indicate that financial barriers related to
resident recruitment is the greatest area of need. Additionally, the report finds that the majority of
residents are experiencing financial difficulties during their residency year; this is particularly true for
residents of color. For example, in the sample of 288 residents, 53% indicated that occasionally to
constantly they were unable to pay school expenses or pay their bills; and 28% indicated that
occasionally to constantly they experienced food or housing insecurity. Approximately 75% of African
American residents indicated difficulty in paying for school expenses and over 90% reported difficulty
paying bills.
Additionally, the West Ed 2022 report (Hirschboeck et al., 2022)- Teacher Residency Programs in
California: Financial Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities- found that most of the 26 residency
programs surveyed are not yet broadening their funding sources, but instead rely heavily on the state
grant funds to run their programs. Diversifying funding sources is an important step towards residency
sustainability, specifically tapping into renewable and stable funding streams (Yun et al., 2020).
However, while 56% of residency program leads report using or planning to use discretionary school or
district funds in their financial model, only 9% to 31% of residency programs report using or planning to
use other funding sources in their financial model. These other funding sources used include
philanthropic/foundation support (22%), federal grants (18%), local resources from advocacy groups,
teachers’ associations, organizations and businesses (9%), and Every Student Succeeds Act Title I funds
(5%). Based on these findings, the report recommends the following policy and programmatic
recommendations (Hirschboeck et al., 2022, pp. 13–14):
● Build a statewide vision, framework, and coherent support system for residencies that
prioritizes sustainability and affordability.
28

● Provide residencies with ongoing guidance and technical assistance to make use of non-
grant funding sources and existing resources to sustain programs beyond the grant, and
support affordability for candidates.
● Provide clear guidance to residencies on the federal and state financial aid that is available
to residents, and how to support residents to access this aid.
● Align their residency program with the strategic vision and goals of the district partner,
ideally from the start.
● Engage the right system level leaders at the outset.
● Incorporate dedicated support roles responsible for sustainability planning and relationship
building.
● Prioritize affordability for residents from diverse backgrounds and income levels, with a
focus on residents of color and residents from local communities.
WestEd Grant Partnership Interviews: Building Strong Residency Partnerships
Most recently in October 2022, WestEd presented findings from a formative evaluation. WestEd
selected 12 residency leads from the 33 residency programs that received the first round of state
residency grant funding in 2019. The 12 residency leads were interviewed in May 2022 specifically
around the processes of their residency partnerships.
The main takeaway was that while several residency programs had foundations for strong
partnerships, residency leads faced challenges building these partnerships in order to be sustainable and
scale the program. Partnership foundations included LEA leadership engagement, a long-term workforce
strategy, and leadership by-in and intention to scale. However, interviewees expressed a desire for more
LEA leadership awareness and engagement, strengthened team structures, and residency stability.
Based on their learnings, WestEd included residency policy and residency leadership recommendations.
29

The policy recommendations center around creating an ecosystem conducive to partnership
engagement via communication strategies, funding resources and strategies, reducing residency
participation barriers particularly among BIPOC candidates, funding and building partnership
foundations and high-quality technical assistance. Residency leadership recommendations support
residency development by having an intentional workforce strategy, sufficient personnel and monetary
resources, access to LEA and IHE leadership decision makers, structures to support collaboration,
resilience against turnover, and a communications strategy rooted in data (Hirschboeck et al., 2022).
California Teacher Residency Lab
The California Teacher Residency Lab, a technical assistance provider, offers a key partnership to
the CTC in support of effective residency expansion. Launched in 2019, the California Teacher Residency
Lab team supports grant applicants develop and improve their teacher residency programs. As an arm of
the non-profit Californians Dedicated to Education (CDE) Foundation, the California Teacher Residency
Lab proactively works with the CTC to provide technical assistance to residency teams developing
effective teacher residency programs. The professional development services provided include team
coaching, webinars, and one on one grant writing support.
Characteristics and Evidence of an Effective California Teacher Residency
Recently, the California Teacher Residency Lab released a concept paper that outlines a plan to
provide a statewide system of support for residency teams (Ollison et al., 2022). The paper proposes a
cohesive plan to scale residency professional development that is research based, long term,
development specific, and self-sustaining (Ollison et al., 2022, p. 5). The guiding standards are the 10
characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency:
1. Equity and justice are defined and advanced at all levels of residency work.
2. Authentic partnerships among LEAs, CSUs, and other IHEs and organizations exist.
3. The residency system is financially sustainable.
30

4. Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used for continuous
improvement.
5. Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the recruitment of resident
candidates who reflect the district’s and community’s unique diversity.
6. Residents engage in a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside an accomplished
mentor teacher.
7. Coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly integrated with clinical
practice.
8. All residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers who reflect their district’s and
community’s unique diversity.
9. Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one another at residency partners
“teaching schools.”
10. Residency graduates are supported to continue their professional learning and develop as
leaders. (Ollison et al., 2022, p. 6)
The 10 characteristics of an effective teacher residency program are an attempt to codify
California specific, equity centered, developmentally appropriate foci. Each characteristic has
subcategories of evidence. The next few paragraphs describe the specific indicators of each
characteristic of an effective teacher residency program in more detail.
Characteristic 1 shows, in an effective California teacher residency program, equity and justice is
defined and advanced at all levels of residency work. Meaning, the mission, vision, and theory of change
make explicit commitments to equity and justice. Short- and long-term residency goals include evidence
of equity and justice. Recruitment and retention targets include specific numbers of mentors and
teachers reflecting the LEA’s and community's unique diversity. Formal, consistent, and institutionalized
spaces to discuss equity and justice work exist. Institutionalized affinity spaces are created and led by
31

and for residency community members. Action research is centered on addressing equity focused
opportunities of practice.
Characteristic 2 focuses on how authentic partnerships among LEAs, CSUs, and other IHEs and
organizations exist in an effective teacher residency program. Specifically, Residency teams include
leaders and decision-makers from IHEs, LEAs, schools, collective bargaining entities, and local
communities. MOU or partnership agreements among all residency partners exist. There is a shared
mission, vision, and theory of change for the residency. Entire residency team– especially decision-
makers– reflect the LEA’s and community's unique diversity. IHEs have the capacity (or a clear plan to
develop the capacity) to meet LEA’s hiring needs. Staffing, roles, and responsibilities are delineated
across the residency. There are established norms for collaboration and decision-making. Collaboratively
defined and data-based residency goals and milestones are revisited over time.
Characteristic 3 illustrates an effective residency is financially sustainable. Program costs include
resources and personnel necessary for effective implementation. Incentives (i.e., resident, mentor
stipends) are defined and tied to the value of the residency program to the LEA. A 3–5-year strategic
plan exists, tied to mission, vision, theory of change, and long-term budget. Long-term budget projection
is defined, including increasing cost savings to the LEA. There is a long-term commitment by all partners
to contribute the necessary resources to operationalize the program. All available funding sources are
examined and accessed. Revenue sources are diverse.
Characteristic 4 describes how formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used
for continuous improvement in an effective California teacher residency program. Meaning, data-
sharing agreement between stakeholders exists. Program assessment and evaluation plan with multiple
measures are all tied to the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency
program. Protocols to communicate about and share data exist. Regular meetings are scheduled to
analyze data across stakeholder groups. Data is used in real-time to revise the residency program as
32

needed. Mentors model how to collect, disaggregate, and make evidence-based analyses that inform
their teaching practice.
Characteristic 5 outlines how specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the
recruitment of resident candidates who reflect the district's and community's unique diversity. Meaning,
resident recruitment targets are set based on LEA need and student demographics. Recruitment efforts
target and prioritize candidates who reflect the students they will serve. Resident recruitment strategy
includes explicit tactics to recruit candidates who reflect the students they will serve. Resident and
program expectations are shared with candidates. Recruitment processes include differentiated support
for candidates who reflect the students they will serve (e.g., testing support or waivers, flexible
deadlines to apply). Resident selection strategy screens and vet potential residents using multiple
measures (e.g., paper application, interview, model lesson, group tasks). Resident selection strategy
includes assessment of candidate awareness of the impact of identity and institutionalized racism on
teaching and learning in California. Resident recruitment and selection utilize and lift up the work of
current residents, mentors, principals, and partners.
Characteristic 6 shows that residents engage in a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside
an accomplished mentor Teacher. Specifically, resident co-teaches alongside a mentor teacher for no
less than one full school year. The resident gradually takes on teaching responsibilities throughout the
school year. The resident has consistent opportunities to observe other mentors and debrief
observations at the school site. Residents are coached, assessed, and given regular feedback by
mentors, teacher educators, and program staff. The IHE coursework and other professional learning
opportunities are designed or adjusted to support and align with clinical practice.
Characteristic 7 focuses on how coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly
integrated with clinical practice. For example, coursework, professional learning opportunities, and
clinical experiences are aligned through a set of prioritized skills or Day 1 ready skills. A shared
33

observation rubric/framework is used to assess residents on agreed-upon performance benchmarks.
Scope and sequence of coursework and professional opportunities allows residents to practice and
receive feedback on skills before being applied and assessed. All teacher educators and mentors (across
coursework, professional learning opportunities, and clinical practice) effectively employ a shared
observation rubric/framework to support and track resident growth. Residents understand that teaching
is an act of social justice and that examining (in)justices must inform their teaching practice. Residents
reflect on the growth and impact of their teaching practice.
Characteristic 8 highlights that all residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers
who reflect their district's and community's unique diversity. Meaning, mentors have at least 3 years of
teaching experience and a clear credential. Mentors have a record of successful teaching, growth
mindset, receptiveness to feedback, and willingness to disrupt problematic and racist actions. Mentors
reflect the teachers and students they serve. Mentor selection strategy screens and vet potential
mentors using multiple measures (e.g., paper application, interview, model lesson and debrief session,
colleague recommendation, etc.). Mentor selection strategy includes assessment of a potential mentor's
awareness of the impact of identity and institutionalized racism on teaching and learning in California.
Mentors receive specific training for the mentor teacher role. Mentors receive ongoing professional
development tied to resident learning and need. Professional development builds capacity to mentor
during and around TK–12 instructional time. Mentors use knowledge of equity principles and culturally
responsive pedagogy to support their resident to address issues of equity, bias, and access to standards-
based curriculum. Mentors use mentoring stances strategically to engage their resident in collaborative
problem-solving and reflection. Mentors develop the resident’s abilities to self-assess and co-assess
practice based on evidence, to set professional goals, and monitor progress. Mentors support residents
to ground the critical analysis of teaching practice in student experience and learning.
34

Characteristic 9 illustrates how clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one
another at residency partners "teaching schools." Meaning, recruitment or tactical outreach plan exists
for potential Teaching Schools. Teaching School administrators prioritize residents in hiring processes.
Teaching School selection criteria and process defined and prioritizes schools whose students reflect the
LEA’s and community's diversity. Some/all coursework and professional learning opportunities take
place on site in Teaching School classrooms. Professional learning communities at each Teaching School
include administrators, mentors, and residents. Administrators, mentors, residency graduates and
residents examine ways in which white supremacy shows up in grading systems, perpetuates and masks
inequities, and discredits improvements made by students over time.
Characteristic 10 describes that, in an effective California teacher residency program, residency
graduates are supported to continue their professional learning and develop as leaders. Specifically,
residents are prioritized in partner LEA hiring. Formal induction support is provided to all graduates.
Professional learning includes guaranteed and opt-in opportunities for graduates to continue to learn,
grow and develop as leaders. Apprentice mentor opportunities exist. Post-induction professional
opportunities (e.g., Master's Degree, National Board Certification) exist.
The goal of the CA Teacher Residency Lab is to use these characteristics and evidence to guide
programs through a differentiated professional development experience. This way, the statewide
system of support has specific benchmarks that describe what their program could look like, or scale to
be. This goal is in alignment with the grant evaluation finding from West Ed. In particular, West Ed
recommended that technical assistance offered to funded partnerships should focus on issues of key
importance (Eiler et al., 2020, p. 5). Additionally, their second report recommended to specifically build
a statewide vision, framework, and coherent support system for residencies that prioritizes
sustainability and affordability (Hirschboeck et al., 2022, pp. 13–14). The work of the CA Residency Lab is
building a statewide system of support and grounding professional development in the 10
35

characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency program. This coincides with the
recommendations.
CA Lab Characteristics and NCTR Levers crosswalk
The 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency are similar to the
NCTR levers. While the CA characteristics were informed by the NCTR standards, there is a California
specific intentionality embedded in the indicators and evidence. Appendix A outlines an in-depth
indicator crosswalk between the 10 Characteristics and the 8 Levers, including the 69 and 66 sub
indicators, respectively. Table 1 compares only the 10 Characteristics with the 8 Levers.

Table 1
Comparison of the 10 CA Lab Characteristics and the 8 NCTR Levers
10 characteristics and evidence of an effective CA teacher
residency
8 NCTR levers for high quality
teacher residencies
1. Equity and justice is defined and advanced at all levels of
residency work.
Lever 1: Partnering and designing
for equity
2. Authentic partnerships among LEAs, CSUs, and other IHEs and
organizations exist.
Lever 2: Residency leadership
3. The residency system is financially sustainable. Lever 4: Financial sustainability
4. Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used
for continuous improvement.
Lever 1: Partnering and designing
for equity
5. Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the
recruitment of resident candidates who reflect the district's and
community's unique diversity.
Lever 5: Resident recruitment &
selection
6. Residents engage in a full year of clinical practice teaching
alongside an accomplished mentor teacher.
Lever 3: Residency year
experience
7. Coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly
integrated with clinical practice.
Lever 3: Residency year
experience
8. All residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers
who reflect their district's and community's unique diversity.
Lever 6: Mentor recruitment,
selection, & support
9. Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one
another at residency partners "teaching schools."
Lever 7: Training site recruitment,
selection & support
10. Residency graduates are supported to continue their
professional learning and develop as Leaders.
Lever 8: Graduate support

36

Theory of Action
A theory of action is if we build a statewide system of support to create robust and effective
teacher residency programs, then we will increase the number of prepared and diverse teachers
entering and staying in the workforce. Teacher residency teams are in various stages in developing their
programs. The Characteristics and Indicators of an Effective CA Teacher Residency Program were
created as guideposts to support residency teams at any stage. To protect our investment in teacher
residencies, it is necessary to ensure that residencies are intentionally planned and encouraged to
become robust, effective, scaled, and sustainable. Having a common set of characteristics will help to
ensure teacher residencies across the state are working towards the same goals. The 10 characteristics
and evidence of an effective teacher residency were recently introduced to new and established
residency teams. The first step is to understand to what extent residency teams know and use the
characteristics. Then, we can use this information to develop differentiated support while
simultaneously creating a coherent statewide support system. Figure 1 shows a concept map that is
foundational to this theory of action.

37

Figure 1
Concept Map

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study used a mixed method approach to understand to what extent California teacher
residency leaders, who are recipients of the California Teacher Residency grant funds, know and use the
characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency (Ollison et al., 2022). The study
seeks to uncover:
1. To what extent do California residency leaders understand and implement, or plan to
implement, the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency?
2. What support do residency leaders need to implement the characteristics and evidence of
an effective California teacher residency?
A mixed methods approach draws upon the strengths of quantitative and qualitative
methodology to wholly describe the research topic (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Both quantitative
surveys and qualitative interviews were used to get a sense of residency leaders' experiences in an
explanatory sequential design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). First, quantitative Likert scale survey data were
collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Then, in order to go more in depth and identify areas
of support, purposeful interviews with residency leaders were conducted in order to reveal how leaders
know and use the characteristics, and support needed to fully actualize them. A qualitative
methodological approach is appropriate to explore perspectives. The quantitative and qualitative survey
data and the qualitative interview data will serve to triangulate the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This pragmatic approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative inquiry, coincides with my multiple
worldview paradigms. I am constructing knowledge with the tools at my disposal.
The mixed method design is within a California case study; the survey and interview questions
will examine and amplify the experiences of teacher residency leaders who received CA teacher
residency capacity grant funding to launch or expand their teacher residency program. The present
39

investigation is a specific case study focused on the California context, and may not be generalizable to
teacher residency programs in other states.
Sample and Population
Context
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing announced in 2022 the 41 Local Education
Agencies (LEA) who were awarded capacity grant funds to build capacity to launch or expand their
teacher residency programs. Each LEA’s teacher residency focus includes one or more of the following
areas: Bilingual education, Diversity of workforce, Special Education, STEM, Transitional
Kindergarten/Kindergarten (Funding announcement: 2021 teacher residency capacity grants round 1
funding, 2022). The LEAs span across California in urban, suburban and rural settings, and vary in
degrees of size. Additionally, the partner Institutes for Higher Learning (IHEs) are spread across the state
and partner with one or more LEA. Similarly, the LEA may partner with more than one IHE. These
different types of partnerships are created to maximize the residency reach to prospective teacher
residents looking to enroll in a specific credential program within the residency model. In total, 41 LEAs
received grant funding to create or scale their teacher residency programs. These LEAs are listed in
Table 2. Further, 33 IHEs partner with one or more LEA to create a teacher residency program. These
IHEs are listed in Table 3.

40

Table 2
Teacher Residency Capacity Grantees
Teacher residency capacity grantees Local education agencies
Bakersfield City School District Palm Springs Unified School District
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy Petaluma City Schools
Ceres Unified School District Sacramento City Unified School District
Davis Joint Unified Sacramento County Office of Education
Del Norte County Office of Education San Diego Unified School District
El Dorado County Office of Education San Francisco Unified School District
Elk Grove Unified School District
Fresno County Office of Education
San Joaquin County Office of Education
San Marcos Unified School District
Humboldt County Office of Education San Mateo County Office of Education
Inglewood Unified School District
Kern High School District
Merced County Office of Education
San Rafael City Schools
Santa Barbara County Education Office
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Monterey County Office of Education Santa Maria Bonita School District
Mount Diablo Unified School District
Mount Pleasant Elementary School District
Santa Paula Unified School District
Santa Rosa City Schools
Napa Valley Unified School District Simi Valley Unified School District
Northern Humboldt Union High School District Torrance Unified School District
Oak Grove School District Tulare County Office of Education
Oakland Unified School District
Oxnard School District and Rio School District
(Ventura County Consortium)
West Contra Costa Unified School District
West San Gabriel Valley Special Education LPA
Wonderful College Prep Academy

41

Table 3
Teacher Residency Capacity Grantees IHE Partners
Teacher residency capacity grantees IHE partners
Alder Graduate School of Education Reedley College
Cal Poly Humboldt San Francisco State University
Cal State Teach San Jose State University
California Lutheran University San Mateo Community College District
CSU Bakersfield Sonoma State University
CSU Channel Islands St. Mary's College of California
CSU Dominguez Hills
CSU East Bay
Stanford University
Teachers College of San Joaquin
CSU Fresno UC Berkeley
CSU Monterey Bay
CSU Sacramento
CSU San Marcos
UC LA
UC Merced Extension
UC San Diego
CSU Stanislaus UC Santa Barbara
Holy Names University
Loyola Marymount University
University of San Diego
University of the Pacific
National University West Hills College Coalinga
Pacific Oaks College

The LEA manages the grant funds with the expectation that they are in partnership with the IHE,
collaboratively creating a teacher residency program that meets the district’s hiring needs. This
partnership is a symbiotic relationship where the residency program acts as a recruitment tool for both
the IHE and the LEA and leads into a sustainable diverse teacher recruitment pathway. To strengthen
the IHE/LEA partnership and provide professional development around building an effective teacher
residency program, the California Teacher Residency Lab provides technical assistance to grantees. This
technical assistance support is on an opt in basis.
Participants
All 41 residency teams were invited to complete a survey around their experiences with the
characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency. Teams include at least one LEA
42

representative and one IHE representative, but may include other personnel from the IHE, LEA, or other
community partners leading the teacher residency development work. Around 82 individuals were
invited to take the survey. The sampling technique for the quantitative survey was a census (Johnson &
Christensen, 2017) because I reached out to and offered up the survey to all teacher residency grantee
recipients.
I framed the survey as part of a USC research study exploring teacher residency leaders’
perceptions and stated that the survey is optional. The census technique is appropriate for a self-
assessment program evaluation and for the study’s purpose. Additionally, it is the first step to gather
insight as prior literature from West Ed (Eiler et al., 2020; Hirschboeck et al., 2022; White et al., 2020)
set a precedent to use survey responses as part of a systematic program evaluation.
The sampling technique for the qualitative interviews was a convenient, yet purposeful, sample
of seven teacher residency leaders who opted in to share more in depth their experiences with the
characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency and support needed to actualize
them. I asked for volunteers at the end of the survey, and from those volunteers, I selected a purposeful
sample of diverse leaders who represented teacher residencies in a range of geographical areas and
stages of residency development. Participants, who highlight several areas of support needed in their
responses on the quantitative survey, were asked to elaborate on their responses in qualitative
interviews. As the explanatory sequential design follows, quantitative data are collected first, then
qualitative data is gathered to explain the particular findings from the survey (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In this case, leaders opted to further explain their context and specific areas of improvement.
In the qualitative approach, the goal was to gain insight, not necessarily to generalize. This way,
teacher residency leaders who opted to talk about how they were implementing the characteristics and
evidence of an effective California teacher residency were the most qualified to be interviewed. I
conducted seven interviews. During the final interviews, I noticed some redundancy in responses, and
43

therefore had reached a point of saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The goal was to maximize
information in the fewest interviews.
Instrumentation
The self-assessment of the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher
residency survey and a follow up interview are the primary data collection tools to address all of the
research questions.
Survey Instrument
I created the self-assessment of the characteristics and evidence of an effective California
teacher residency program survey as an ongoing formative assessment tool. The intention is for the
survey to be used to inform differentiated technical assistance support as well as create a statewide
system of support for California teacher residency programs. The development of the 44-question
survey was informed by the 10 characteristics and a desire to have residency teams self-reflect on areas
of need. The survey starts with six items of basic residency background information, then poses three
open ended questions related to why the residency program is being developed. The next part is the
bulk of the survey, which asks participants to rate on a 5-point scale (completely true, moderately true,
a little true, not at all true, unsure) to what extent the following 30 statements are true of their teacher
residency program. Each of the 10 characteristics has two to four sub items related to that specific
characteristic; most have three sub items. For example, for Characteristic 3 the survey asks to what
extent the following three statements are true: residency system is financially sustainable; program
costs include resources and personnel necessary for effective implementation; Incentives (i.e., resident,
mentor stipends) are defined and tied to the value of the residency program to the LEA. The survey
closes with three participant demographic questions. The survey instrument is in Appendix B.
44

Interview Guide
The Interview Guide is a series of 25 questions. The interview starts with general background
questions about the teacher residency program and why it is being developed. Then, there are specific
questions related to the 10 characteristics and support needed. The interview closes with a few
demographic questions. The question types include background questions, knowledge questions,
opinion questions, ideal position questions (Patton, 2015).
The first seven questions gather neutral, descriptive knowledge around background and context.
These questions can be answered in a few words, and two of them are forced options. For example,
item two is, “Who is the LEA partner?” Item five asks what population the residency primarily serves-
urban, rural, suburban. The next three items ask about the goals of the teacher residency program. One
of these questions is an ideal position; it asks, “In one year from now, describe what your teacher
residency program would ideally be like.” The next set of questions is the bulk of the interview. Ten
questions include descriptive questions about implementing each of the 10 characteristics and a follow
up opinion question about support needed. For example, question 11 includes, “How are you
implementing or planning to implement Characteristic 1, Equity and justice are defined and advanced at
all levels of residency work?” The follow up question is, “What support do you anticipate needing to
develop this area?” This section closes with an ideal position question related to hopes for the
partnership. And the interview closes with three demographic background questions of the interviewee.
The sequencing of the questions moves from neutral descriptive to ideal position and opinion.
This way, participants are activating background knowledge schemas prior to the more thought-
provoking questions. This sequencing is considered a good practice to yield rich contributions (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The full interview guide is presented in Appendix C.
45

Data Collection
Quantitative Data
All 41 California teacher residency leaders, who are recipients of the California Teacher
Residency grant funds, were invited to complete a self-assessment survey. It was stressed that the
survey was optional. The census technique is appropriate for program evaluation and for the study’s
purpose and first step to gather insight as prior literature set a precedent to use survey responses.
Survey research is an appropriate initial first step to describe participants’ knowledge and
implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency, albeit from a
standardized perspective. This cross-sectional survey (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) was only given at one
point in time to participants in the study.
Qualitative Data
A purposeful sample of residency leaders self-selected to elaborate on their responses in online
zoom interviews. The online platform offers transcripts of the conversations, which will make for
smoother data analysis, “Verbatim transcription of recorded interviews provides the best database for
analysis” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 131).
The interviews were semi structured with a predetermined set of open-ended questions that
were piloted prior to the actual interview for the study. Piloting the questions beforehand informed the
correct wording and respondent worldview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Meaning, the questions were
crafted to make sense to the participants.
Good interview questions are open ended and provide rich descriptive data, and stories.
Additionally, probing and clarifying questions can bolster the data. The fewer, more open-ended
questions, the better (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of the interviews was to systematically
collect data on descriptive meaning making; specifically, CA residency leaders’ implementation of the
46

characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency and support needed to actualize these
characteristics.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis consists of descriptive statistics reports: frequencies, patterns,
trends. Measures of central tendency were taken for each of the 10 characteristics and evidence of an
effective teacher residency. Each characteristic has a Cronbach's alpha scale to show internal
consistency. Additionally, the means for each category and sub category helped to determine if each of
the 10 characteristics are positively or negatively skewed towards or away from implementation,
respectively (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis and data collection occurred simultaneously. After each interview, I
started the inductive process of coding, clustering and category creation. On the first pass of the data, I
highlighted tentative themes I saw pop up. I wrote myself memos explaining my thought process. As
data poured in from the interviews, the coding classification process moved to a more deductive
approach in order to create exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and conceptually congruent categories
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Meaning, as I moved toward a deductive mode, I verified if the categories and
themes created in the inductive mode held up with the new data coming in. The final categories became
the findings of the qualitative section.
Data Validation
Strategies I employed to promote validity and reliability include those outlined by Merriam &
Tisdell (2016, p. 259). I triangulated the interview data with the survey data by comparing the means of
survey questions to answers on the counterpart interview question. I engaged in periodical critical self-
reflection of my biases and assumptions that may have affected my interpretation of the data through
47

self-memos. I have an audit trail that includes a detailed account of my procedures and decision-making
thought process through each phase of the study.
Conclusion
We are poised to build an effective statewide system of support to enhance teacher residency
programs across California. Actualizing effective CA teacher residencies will lead to a more prepared,
diverse teacher workforce for our students. Evaluating to what extent teacher residency teams use and
understand the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency will allow us to build
differentiated technical assistance within a statewide system of support. This study triangulates
quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data to provide a landscape snapshot of how CA
teacher residency leaders understand and use effective teacher residency characteristics to build and
enhance their programs. This knowledge will allow us to provide the support needed to create
efficacious teacher residency programs.

48

Chapter Four: Findings
The mixed methods study approach serves to triangulate the data to explore the research
questions:
1. To what extent do CA teacher residency leaders know and implement, or plan to implement,
the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency?
2. What support do CA teacher residency programs need to implement the characteristics and
evidence of an effective teacher residency?
In this concurrent, convergent mixed method design, I collected survey data and interview data from
teacher residency leaders across California. The data were analyzed separately, then converged together
to compare and corroborate the findings.
The chapter reviews descriptive respondent data and findings related to the two research
questions. First, I will review residency program and respondent descriptive statistics for both the survey
and the interviews, respectively. Then, I will present the findings related to Research Question 1 by
analyzing the survey data and triangulating these findings with the interview responses. Finally, I will
present the findings related to research question 2 by analyzing the interview responses and comparing
these responses with the survey data.
Survey Participants
The survey was distributed to 41 California Teacher Residency teams who received state
capacity grant funding to build their teacher residency programs in 2022. There is an 85% response rate;
meaning, 35 of the 41 programs had at least one LEA or IHE partner complete the survey. See Table 4 for
the program frequency and percentage of responses.
Program Descriptive Data
There were 41 complete responses to the questions around teacher residency focus areas and
population served. While 29 responses included more than one focus area, 12 selected just one focus
49

area. The results show that 28 programs have a Special Education focus, 23 programs have a Diversity
focus, 20 programs have a STEM focus, 19 have a Bilingual focus, and 16 have a TK/K focus. Conversely,
while 12 of the 41 respondents have programs that serve two or more geographical populations, 29
programs focus on primarily one geographical population. The results show that 22 teacher residency
programs serve urban populations, 22 teacher residency programs serve suburban populations, and 15
serve rural populations. The interpretation of these findings shows that while there is a distribution of
Teacher Residency programs across content focus and geographical areas, there is a greater
representation of programs that specialize in Special Education and a greater representation of
programs that primarily serve urban and suburban populations.
Respondent Descriptive Data
Of the 41 survey respondents, 33 opted to respond to the demographic questions related to
their role, gender, and ethnic description. These questions were positioned at the end of the survey.
Twenty respondents selected their role is housed within the LEA, while 12 respondents indicated they
represented the IHE, and one respondent selected “other partner member” as their role. Role longevity
is distributed between four bands. Seven respondents indicated that they have been in the role for 0–1
years, 11 respondents indicated 2–3 years, five respondents 4–5 years, and 10 respondents selected
more than 5 years of being in their role. The gender breakdown includes 21 females, 11 males, and one
preferring not to say. Respondents could select any number of racial/ethnic categories that applied. Two
respondents selected two categories; 31 respondents selected only one category. Twenty-three
respondents selected white, five selected Hispanic, four selected Black or African American, two
selected Asian, one selected Prefer not to say. BIPOC leaders and men were underrepresented in this
data, and in teacher residency leadership positions in general. Alternatively, non BIPOC people and
females were over-represented in this data; and thus, in teacher residency leadership positions in
general. See Table 4 for the frequency and percentage of responses.
50

Table 4
Teacher Residency Program and Residency Leader Characteristics
Nominal characteristic Responses
n %
Residency program focus area
Special education 28 26
Diversity 23 22
STEM 20 19
Bilingual education 19 18
TK 16 15
Residency program population served
Urban 22 37
Suburban 22 37
Rural 15 25
Residency leader role
LEA 20 61
IHE 12 36
Other partner 1 3
Residency leader role length
0–1 years 7 21
2–3 years 11 33
4–5 years 5 15
Residency leader gender
Female 21 64
Male 11 33
Prefer not to say 1 3
Nonbinary 0 0
Residency leader racial/ethnic identity
White 23 66
Hispanic/Latinx (of any race) 5 14
Black or African American 4 11
Asian 2 6
Prefer not to say 1 3

Note. N = 41

Interviewees
The seven interviewees were a representative subset of the 41 survey respondents. Table 5
provides a summary of the teacher residency program and residency leader demographics. The seven
51

residency programs serve a variety of geographical areas. One residency program serves primarily rural
populations, two residency programs serve primarily suburban populations, two residency programs
serve primarily urban populations, and two residency programs serve all three rural, suburban, and
urban populations. Three residency programs are new, 0–1 year old; and four residency programs are
established, 2–3 years old, 4–5 years old, and more than 5 years old, respectively. Of the seven leaders,
five leaders selected their role is housed within the LEA, while two leaders indicated they represented
the IHE. Role longevity is distributed between three bands. Three leaders indicated that they have been
in the role for 0–1 year, three leaders indicated 2–3 years, and one leader indicated 4–5 years of being
in their role. The gender breakdown includes five females and two males. Leaders could state any
number of racial/ethnic categories that applied. Two leaders identified with two categories; five leaders
identified with only one category. Four leaders selected White, two selected Black and White, and one
selected Latina.

52

Table 5
Teacher Residency and Teacher Residency Leader Interviewee Demographics
Interviewee
pseudonym
Residency
population served
Residency
age
Leader
role
Time in
role

Gender

Ethnicity

Rogelio

Rural

0–1 year

LEA

0-1 years

Male

Black, White

Xiomara

Rural, suburban, urban

0–1 year

LEA

0-1 years

Female

Latina

Jane

Rural, suburban, urban

4–5 years

IHE

4-5 years

Female

White

Alba

Suburban

0–1 year

IHE

0-1 years

Female

White

Rose

Suburban, rural

2–3 years

LEA

2-3 years

Female

White

Rafael

Urban

> 5 years

LEA

2-3 years

Male

Black, White

Petra

Urban, suburban

4–5 years

LEA

2-3 years

Female

White

Note. N = 7. All interviews were conducted in August 2022. All residency programs have two or more
foci that include Diversity and STEM, Special Education, Bilingual Education, and/or TK.

RQ1 Findings
The 34-question survey and the 40-minute interview were designed to elicit response data to
answer the first research question: To what extent do CA teacher residency leaders know and
implement, or plan to implement, the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency?
The 41 survey respondents and seven interviewees provided ample evidence of their knowledge and
implementation of the 10 characteristics. The findings below show how 35 of the 41 teacher residency
programs who received capacity grant funding are developing their teacher residencies.
53

Leaders’ Knowledge and Implementation of the 10 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Residency
The bulk of the survey includes 30 questions: about three questions for each of the 10
characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency. Table 6 shows the 10 characteristics and
evidence of an effective teacher residency and the corresponding category.

Table 6
The 10 Characteristics of an Effective CA Teacher Residency and Corresponding Categories
Characteristic of an effective CA teacher residency Category
1. Equity and justice is defined and advanced at all levels of residency work. Equity and justice
2. Authentic partnerships among LEAs, CSUs, and other IHEs and
organizations exist.
Authentic partnerships
3. The residency system is financially sustainable. Financial sustainability
4. Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used for
continuous improvement.
Data
5. Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the recruitment
of resident candidates who reflect the district's and community's unique
diversity.
Resident hiring
6. Residents engage in a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside an
accomplished mentor teacher.
Clinical practice
7. Coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly integrated
with clinical practice.
Coursework
8. All residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers who reflect
their district's and community's unique diversity.
Mentors
9. Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one another at
residency partners "teaching schools."
Teaching schools
10. Residency graduates are supported to continue their professional
learning and develop as Leaders.
Graduate support

54

Characteristic Cluster Mean Survey Results
Participants were asked to what extent each statement is true of their residency program using
a 5-point scale: completely true (1), moderately true (2), a little true (3), not at all true (4), unsure (5).
For all the statistical calculations, unsure (5) was removed. The statements that rang most true were
around the themes of clinical practice (mean 1.53), mentors (mean 1.54), authentic partnerships (mean
1.56), coursework (mean 1.61), and equity and justice (mean 1.76). Statements in these previously
stated categories scored mostly in the range from moderately to completely true. Statements that
scored mostly in the a little true to moderately true included themes around hiring (mean 2.06),
financial sustainability (mean 2.12), graduate support (mean 2.25), teaching schools (mean 2.28), and
data (mean 2.45).
Item Internal Consistency
The responses show a high level of internal consistency among items within each characteristic
cluster. Cronbach’s alpha calculations ranged from 0.67 (data) to 0.95 (financial sustainability). Meaning,
the answers to the three financial sustainability items are very reliable indicators of a respondent’s
evaluation of this characteristic. Table 7 displays the characteristics of an effective teacher residency
survey cluster means and Cronbach’s ⍺.

55

Table 7
Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Residency Survey Cluster Mean and Cronbach’s 𝝰

Survey cluster characteristic Number of items M Cronbach’s ⍺
Clinical practice 3 1.53 0.82
Mentors 3 1.54 0.82
Authentic partnerships 3 1.56 0.70
Coursework 3 1.61 0.89
Equity and justice 4 1.76 0.74
Resident hiring 3 2.06 0.85
Financial sustainability 3 2.12 0.95
Graduate support 2 2.25 0.77
Teaching schools 3 2.28 0.79
Data 3 2.40 0.67

Note. N = 37. Participants were asked to what extent each statement is true of their residency program
using a 5-point scale: completely true (1), moderately true (2), a little true (3), not at all true (4). The
unsure (5) score was removed from data calculations.

Statements Scored As Most True
Comparing the statements, there were statements that were scored as being truer descriptors
of their residency program over other statements. The top six statements that scored closest towards
completely true (1) were as follows:
• Mentors have at least 3 years of teaching experience and a clear credential (mean 1.06), in
the mentors category.
• Authentic partnerships exist between LEAs, IHEs, and other organizations (mean 1.30), in
the authentic partnerships category.
• Mission, vision, and theory of change make explicit commitments to equity and justice
(mean 1.32), in the equity and justice category.
• Coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly integrated with clinical
56

practice (mean 1.38), in the coursework category.
• An MOU or partnership agreements among all residency partners exist (mean 1.41), in the
authentic partnerships category.
• Residents are engaged in a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside an accomplished
mentor teacher (1.44), clinical practice category.
The statements indicate that residency leaders know and implement key foundational components of
the residency program related to equity and justice, authentic partnerships, clinical practice and
coursework, and mentor selection. For example, leaders know the basics: the residency is equity and
justice focused, authentic partnerships are established with MOUs, residents engage in a full year
clinical practice with aligned coursework, and mentors need a clear credential and at least 3 years of
experience. Additionally, the above statements fall into frequently mentioned themes in the open-
ended questions: mentors, authentic partnerships, equity and justice, and clinical practice. See Table 8
for the complete results.

57

Table 8
Characteristic of an Effective Teacher Residency Survey Items in Clusters Scored Completely True (1) to
Moderately True (2)
Survey item M SD
Clinical practice
Residents are engaged in a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside an
accomplished mentor.
1.44 1.14
Residents gradually take on teaching responsibilities throughout the school year. 1.47 1.22
Residents co-teach alongside a mentor teacher for no less than one full school year. 1.68 1.37
Mentors
Mentors have at least 3 years of teaching experience and a clear credential. 1.06 0.24
Mentors have a record of successful teaching, growth mindset, receptiveness to
feedback, and willingness to disrupt problematic and racist practices.
1.58 0.99
All residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers who reflect their
LEA’s and community’s unique diversity.
2.00 1.37
Authentic partnerships
Authentic partnerships exist between LEAs, IHEs, and other organizations. 1.30 0.73
MOU or partnership agreements among all residency partners exist. 1.41 0.79
Residency teams include leaders and decision-makers from IHEs, LEAs, schools,
collective bargaining entities, and local communities.
1.97 1.03
Coursework
Coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly integrated with
clinical practice.
1.38 0.54
A shared observation rubric/framework is used to assess residents on agreed-
upon performance benchmarks.
1.62 1.16
Coursework, professional learning opportunities, and clinical experience are
aligned through a set of prioritized skills or day 1 ready skills.
1.82 1.20
Equity and justice
Mission, vision, theory of change makes explicit commitments to equity, justice. 1.32 0.74
Short- and long-term residency goals include evidence of equity and justice 1.78 0.90
Recruitment and retention target include specific numbers of mentors and
teachers reflecting the LEA’s and community’s unique diversity.
1.92 1.07
Equity and justice are defined and advanced at all levels of residency work. 2.03 1.28

Note. N = 37. Participants were asked to what extent each statement is true of their residency program
using a 5-point scale: completely true (1), moderately true (2), a little true (3), not at all true (4). The
unsure (5) score was removed from data calculations.
58

Statements Scored as Moderately True to a Little True
Similarly, the six statements that respondents indicated were the least true, scoring between a
little true (3) and moderately true (2), were as follows:
• The residency system is financially sustainable (mean 2.67), financial sustainability category.
• Program assessment and evaluation plan with multiple measures are all tied to the
characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency program (mean 2.56), data
category.
• Data-sharing agreement between stakeholders exists (mean 2.44), data category.
• Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used for continuous improvement
(mean 2.36), data category.
• Teaching school administrators prioritize residents in hiring processes (mean 2.36), teaching
schools category.
• Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one another at residency partner
Teaching Schools (mean 2.35), teaching schools category.
The statements fall in the themes of financial sustainability, data, and teaching schools. These results
indicated that residency leaders are less confident in their knowledge and/or implementation of
characteristics related to financial sustainability, data, and teaching schools. Similar to the open-ended
response questions, financial sustainability and data were not as frequently mentioned as an action step
or area of focus, as compared to the other themes. Additionally, the mention of teaching schools was
absent in all open-ended responses. See Table 9 for the complete results.

59

Table 9
Characteristic of an Effective Teacher Residency Survey Items in Clusters Scored Moderately True (2) to a
Little True (3)
Survey item M SD
Resident hiring
Recruitment efforts target, prioritize candidates who reflect the students they
serve.
1.97 1.38
Resident recruitment targets are set based on LEA need and student
demographics.
2.09 1.23
Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the recruitment of
resident candidates who reflect the LEA’s and community’s unique diversity.
2.12 1.32
Financial sustainability
Program costs include resources, personnel necessary for effective
implementation.
1.78 1.03
Incentives (i.e., resident, mentor stipends) are defined and tied to the value of
the residency program, and to the LEA.
1.92 1.14
Residency system is financially sustainable. 2.67 1.37
Graduate support
Residents are prioritized in partner LEA hiring. 2.21 1.64
Residency graduates are supported to continue their professional learning and
develop as leaders.
2.29 1.47
Teaching schools
Recruitment or tactical outreach plan exists for potential Teaching Schools. 2.12 0.99
Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one another at
residency partner teaching schools.
2.35 1.39
Teaching school administrators prioritize residents in hiring processes. 2.36 1.59
Data
Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used for continuous
improvement.
2.36 1.47
Data sharing agreement between stakeholders exists. 2.44 1.46
Program assessment and evaluation plan with multiple measures are all tied to
the characteristics and evidence of effective California teacher residency
programs.
2.56 1.38

Note. N = 37. Participants were asked to what extent each statement is true of their residency program
using a 5-point scale: completely true (1), moderately true (2), a little true (3), not at all true (4). The
unsure (5) score was removed from data calculations.
60

Survey Open-Ended Response Themes
Four open-ended questions embedded in the survey served to elicit response data to answer
the first research question: To what extent do CA teacher residency leaders know and implement, or
plan to implement, the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency? The four open-
ended questions were as follows:
1. Why is this Teacher Residency program being developed?
2. What are some specific action steps outlined in the teacher residency grant proposal?
3. What would you hope to achieve with a residency partnership?
4. What are one or two focal areas your residency team would like to develop?
Questions 1, 2, and 3 were presented at the beginning of the survey. There were 37 responses to each
of the first three questions. The fourth question was presented at the end of the survey, after the 30
Likert scale response questions. There were 34 responses to the fourth question.
I analyzed each question first using an open coding process. After reading each response, I
categorized the statement or phrase thematically. Many times, one statement or idea included several
themes. I then grouped these themes according to the a priori codes. The a priori codes were comprised
of words and phrases based on the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency:
Equity and justice, authentic partnerships, financial sustainability, data, hiring residents, clinical practice,
coursework and clinical alignment, mentors, teaching schools, graduate support. Table 10 compares the
frequency percentage of themes mentioned in each of the four survey questions. For clarity, authentic
partnerships are shortened to partnerships, financial sustainability is shortened to sustainability, hiring
residents is shortened to hiring, clinical practice is shortened to clinical, and coursework and clinical
alignment is shortened to coursework.

61

Table 10
Frequency Percentage of Themes Mentioned in each of the Four Qualitative Survey Questions
Why % Action steps % Hopes % Focus areas %
Hiring 78 Hiring 57 Hiring 62 Hiring 44
Clinical 41 Mentors 54 Clinical 51 Mentors 32
Equity, justice 38 Partnerships 49 Equity, justice 49 Clinical 29
Partnerships 19 Clinical 35 Partnerships 24 Equity, justice 29
Mentors 11 Equity, justice 32 Mentors 14 Data 26

Coursework 30 Sustainability 11 Partnerships 21

Data 19

Coursework 12

Sustainability 8

Sustainability 12

Graduate
support
3

Note. Why, Action steps, Hopes, and Focus areas represent the four questions related to why the
residency is being developed, specific action steps outlined in the grant proposal, what leaders hope to
achieve, and focal areas the team would like to develop, respectively. For the Why, Action steps, and
Hopes questions, n = 37. For the Focus areas question, n = 34. The % is the percentage of all n responses
that include each respective theme.

There are four major findings that can be pulled from these qualitative responses. These
findings include: theme congruence, high frequency mentions, breadth of action and focus areas, and
the mention of student achievement.
Theme Congruence: Residency Hiring, Clinical Practice, Equity and Justice
The first trend is the similarities of themes between why the residency is being developed and
hopes for the program. The frequency percentage of response themes mirror each other, which may
62

show question reliability. The major recurring themes include answers related to resident hiring, clinical
practice, and equity and justice. While the comments are from residency leaders serving different
populations throughout the state, their responses have similarities.
For example, in response to why the residency is being developed, a residency LEA leader that
serves urban, suburban and rural populations responded, to “Create home grown qualified teachers that
have great foundations and will be lasting educators in our community.” The response includes themes
around hiring and clinical practice. Similarly, in response to the same questions, an urban residency IHE
leader responded, “To provide a clinically rich pathway to increasing the number of Education Specialists
in the local area.” This statement also includes themes of hiring and clinical practice. Additionally, a
suburban residency partner leader responded:
The residency is being developed as part of a broader "grow your own" approach to filling key
credential areas in the district with diverse candidates. While the primary driver is the
diversification of the faculty, there is also a clear need to fill high need credential areas and
address broader staffing challenges (e.g., offering the residency professional advancement
incentive for hiring and retaining classified staff).
This statement includes themes around resident hiring, and equity and justice. These three themes are
congruent with the response themes to the question around what residency leaders hope to achieve
with a residency partnership. Below is a comment from an urban residency LEA leader:
The [Education Specialist Teacher Residency] is dedicated to recruit and train talented and
passionate future educators from diverse backgrounds with distinguished pedagogical skills,
culturally responsive practices, and strong connections to the community. The [Education
Specialist Teacher Residency] will be a model program for teacher preparation to produce highly
qualified candidates. The program is committed to the highest quality educational experience
for future educators to serve students with a variety of learning differences.
63

This statement is in response to hopes for the program, it includes themes of resident hiring, clinical
practice, and equity and justice.
The residency leaders’ responses are illustrative of the theme congruence between the why and
hopes for the residency: increase teacher, specifically diverse teacher, retention and capacity. These
themes and comments are representative of the literature, mentioned in Chapter One regarding the
purpose and need of residency programs (Carver-Thomas, 2018, Guha & Kini, 2016; Guha et al., 2016).
For a complete breakdown of specific number and percentage of themes mentioned in each question,
please refer to Appendix D.
High Frequency Mentions: Resident Hiring
Similar to theme congruence, resident hiring was a high frequency mention across all four
questions. For example, in response to why the teacher residency was being developed, 78% of
responses included resident hiring. A rural residency LEA leader responded, “Improve teacher
availability and retention.” An urban residency LEA leader responded, “We have a shortage of
credentialed Special Education teachers within [our district].” These responses are illustrative of the
theme of teacher resident hiring across all geographical areas.
Resident Hiring: Diverse Candidates
While residency hiring may have been a stand-alone answer, often resident hiring was
mentioned along with diverse candidates. In response to the question around what you would hope to
achieve with a residency, an urban residency IHE leader responded, “We hope to establish practices and
policies that other districts and teacher preparation programs can use to increase the numbers of Black
male teachers in their areas.” The response includes themes around residency hiring and equity and
justice. Similarly, in response to the action steps outlined in the proposal question, an urban residency
LEA leader’s response was, “Recruitment of diverse residents for STEM/SPED and other high needs
64

areas.” These two responses are representative of several responses that include residency hiring and
equity and justice themes.
Resident Hiring: Authentic Partnerships and Clinical Practice
Residency hiring was also a theme alongside authentic partnerships themes. For example, in
response to the action steps outlined in the grant proposal, an urban residency IHE leader responded,
“Recruit and retain Education Specialists in partnership with local districts.” Similarly, an urban,
suburban, and rural residency LEA leader responded, “Developing a shared approach to recruiting,
selecting and placing residents across the Consortium designed to attract diverse future special
educators.” Both responses included residency hiring in conjunction with partnerships.
The question around focus areas to develop showed responses of resident hiring alone, like,
“improve hiring decision making systems” and “better recruitment strategies.” But resident hiring was
also coupled with partnerships or clinical practice. For example, a suburban residency IHE partner
responded, “Work with the district to clearly identify their hiring needs for the future.” An urban
Residency IHE partner responded, “More effective hiring practices with our partner LEA.” These
responses are illustrative of residency hiring themes in the context of partnerships. Resident hiring
responses in the context of clinical practice included responses such as urban and suburban residency
LEA leader’s response, “We have a strong desire to improve the retention of quality teachers,” and an
urban residency leader’s response, “Building a pipeline of highly qualified educators.” These hiring
themes are mentioned in the context of quality teachers, which falls under the clinical practice theme.
Hiring and retaining high quality, diverse teachers in specific high need content areas is the
major reason for building teaching residency programs. The reflections of teacher residency leaders
across the state support prior literature findings around the need for teacher residency expansion.
(Carver-Thomas, 2018, Guha & Kini, 2016; Guha et al., 2016).
65

Breadth of Action Steps and Focus Areas
While the goal of teacher residencies is to hire and retain quality, diverse teachers, residency
leaders offer a variety of action steps and focus areas for their residency team. The residency leaders’
action steps and areas of focus span eight major themes: equity and justice, authentic partnerships,
financial sustainability, data, hiring residents, clinical practice, coursework and clinical alignment, and
mentors.
In response to what specific action steps are outlined in the teacher residency grant proposal,
residency leader action responses ranged from one theme to several. For example, an urban residency
leader responded, “To collaborate with the district partners (consortium) through an advisory panel to
support the development of teachers with a common vision and mission.” The actions in this statement
are part of the authentic partnership theme. A rural residency LEA leader responded, “Training mentors
(who are predominantly white) so they can support and mentor diverse future candidates.” This
response touched on the theme of mentors and equity and justice. The mention of diverse candidates is
coded in the equity and justice theme.
Several responses included several different themes. For example, a suburban residency IHE
leader responded, “Significant number of partnership meetings to launch the capacity building, renew
MOU between district and CLU, marketing and recruitment, and planned curriculum workshops.” This
response illustrates action step themes around resident hiring, authentic partnerships, and coursework.
Similarity, an urban residency IHE leader responded,
Identifying a group of BIPOC critical allies (in-service teachers, recent graduates) who can assist
with an "audit" of district practices and teacher education program curriculum and practices;
implement recommendations from the audit; engage BIPOC critical friends allies in a mentorship
community that will also include undergraduates interested in teaching.
66

This response included action steps related to the themes of equity and justice, data, curriculum,
partnerships, and mentors.
The responses to the question of focal areas the residency team would like to develop mirrored
the breadth of themes in the action steps question. Residency leaders, again, touched on a few themes,
to several themes within their areas of focus. For example, a suburban residency leader responded,
“Clinical practice and program evaluation.” These include the themes of clinical practice and data. A
suburban and rural residency LEA leader responded, “IHE coursework and other professional learning
opportunities are designed or adjusted to support and align with clinical practice.” This response
includes themes around coursework and clinical experience. An urban IHE leader mentioned,
“Sustainability of the program, priority practices for residents, Mentor Teacher coaching skills.” This
response includes themes around sustainability, clinical practice, and mentors. And finally, an urban,
suburban, rural residency IHE leader responded,
We would like to [a] develop a tight partnership between the university and the local districts
included in the grant by creating a Steering Committee to develop the residency (e.g.,
mission/vision, recruitment of residents and mentors, evaluation metrics, financial model,
staffing system, processes, etc.) and a Design committee to develop the curriculum for ongoing
seminars and mentor/resident trainings; and [b] develop the residency year including training
mentors and administrators on inclusive education, create the assessments, create the shared
experiences, etc.
This response includes the themes authentic partnerships, resident hiring, mentors, data, financial
sustainability, coursework, and clinical practice.
The residency leaders’ responses show the complex role of residency leaders and teams.
Residency program development must focus on several areas simultaneously. I am wondering if leaders
67

and teams have the support and capacity to do all these action items well. A focus on capacity building
in specific areas is key for these programs to be successful (Eiler et al., 2020; Hirschboeck et al., 2022).
To Serve Students and Increase Achievement
Meeting the needs of students, student achievement and student growth are arguably the most
important reasons teacher preparation programs exist. While the goal of teacher residency programs is
to recruit and retain a diverse teaching force, it is all in service to students. One recurring theme
mentioned in responses throughout all the questions included references “to better serve our student
population” and “to teach a diverse student population” and to “serve students with a variety of
learning differences.” These references are either in the context of resident clinical practice, mentoring,
hiring, data, or equity and justice. While the final coding depends on the context, it is important to
highlight the student theme through line.
Clinical Practice in Service to Students and Achievement
For example, in response to the why is the residency being developed, an urban, suburban
residency LEA leader responded,
To increase the quality and effectiveness of new classroom teachers to meet the academic
needs of all students including low income, foster youth, and English learners. By building the
district’s teacher capacity with support in both content and pedagogy for all new teachers and
teacher residents the district anticipates results in continued academic growth in all content
areas for students.
This reference to meeting student needs and student academic growth is housed in the context and
theme of clinical practice. Similarly, an urban residency leader responded, “Support teacher capacity to
implement high quality instruction for your younger students.” This response is also illustrative of a
student focus housed within the clinical experience theme. Finally, in response to the question around
hopes for the teacher residency, an urban and suburban residency LEA leader responded, “supports and
68

guides residents in developing the critical skills necessary to work with students with disabilities and
their families.” This comment is also illustrative of supporting a specific group of students, housed within
the clinical experience themes.
Mentors in Service to Students and Achievement
Student support and achievement was coupled with mentoring as well. For example, in
response to the specific action steps outlined in the residency proposal, an urban and suburban
residency LEA leader responded,
[The IHE] will help [the LEA] select mentor teachers based on strong content knowledge,
effective teaching methods, a commitment to culturally relevant pedagogy, ability to use data
and provide feedback, a collaborative and transparent approach, and demonstrated student
achievement gains across all student groups.
In this response, the mention of student achievement was mentioned in the context of mentor
selection. Additionally, in response to the question around hopes for the residency partnership, a
different urban and suburban LEA leader responded, “This is a brand-new residency, so we want to
focus on building the capacity of mentors to truly meet the needs of residents to ultimately meet the
needs of students.” The theme of meeting the needs of students is also housed within mentor capacity
building, and the mentor theme.
Resident Hiring, Data, and Equity and Justice in Service to Students and Achievement
The themes of resident hiring, data, and equity and justice also included an undercurrent of
serving students and achievement. For example, in response to the focus area question, an urban
residency leader responded, “Building a pipeline of highly qualified educators to meet the social,
developmental, and academic needs of our students.” Pipeline development is under the resident hiring
themes, and meeting the academic needs of the students is housed under this theme. Additionally, in
response to the same question, a different urban residency leader responded, “Providing cycles of
69

inquiry using the improvement science framework to provide just in time support for educators to be
successful at meeting the needs of their students.” In this statement student needs are housed within
the data theme. Finally, an urban residency IHE leader responded, “A match between student and
teacher leading to increased academic achievement for the student.” This statement was an area of
focus that falls into the equity and justice theme.
While the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency do not specifically
highlight student achievement and growth as an indicator, several teacher residency leaders name this
as an area of aspiration and/or focus. One leader accurately sums up the hope for the teacher residency,
“to prepare educators who are driven to provide each student with a learning experience in which they
THRIVE!” This sentiment is shared throughout several of the survey open responses. For a complete
breakdown of specific number and percentage of themes mentioned in each open response question,
please refer to Appendix D.
Interviewee Responses Corroborate Survey Findings
The findings from the seven interviews mirror the responses from the survey. See Table 2 for
the interviewee demographics. I applied the same coding process to analyze the themes from the
following four interview questions: Why is this teacher residency program being developed? What are
some specific action steps outlined in the teacher residency grant proposal? In one year from now
describe what your residency program would ideally be like. What would you hope to achieve with a
residency partnership? The findings show similar themes from the interviews as seen in the survey
responses. For example, there are high frequency mentions of teacher hiring and recruitment, clinical
practice, equity, and partnerships. There is also a breadth of action steps among the seven programs, as
well as a theme of student centeredness which was also highlighted in the survey responses. A couple
emerging themes from the seven interviews include being “full circle” and a focus on the operational
aspects of the residency program.
70

High Frequency Themes: Residency Hiring, Clinical Practice, Equity, and Partnerships
Resident recruitment was mentioned most frequently among all the questions. There were high
frequency mentions of themes related to clinical practice, equity, and partnerships. For example, in
response to why the residency is being developed, Rogelio, a rural residency LEA leader, discussed
investing in “Peer educators, our instructional aids and our small group instructors” in an effort to build
a “farm system of available teachers to help with our retention issues” and to have “highly qualified
educators that are familiar with our system.” Themes related to hiring via grow our own recruitment
and clinical practice are evident in his statements. Similarly, Rafael’s, an urban residency LEA leader,
response included themes of hiring and equity. He mentions, “The larger ideal goals are around
recruiting teachers that represent sort of the demographics and values of our city and districts, and that
field fit specific needs in terms of credential in areas that we often see that are often hard to staff, so
STEM, SpEd, bilingual.” Meanwhile, Petra, a rural, suburban and urban residency IHE leader, responded
“This will be a nice alternative to an intern program, and it will be a way to get our districts to be
invested in a grow your own type of program.” The comments include grow our own hiring and
partnership themes. Xiomara, a rural residency LEA leader, sums up the hopes for the residency
partnership, “Take a year to be a full-time student and learn the art and craft of teaching … highly
skilled, highly qualified, and are staying in the field.” She touches on themes of clinical practice and
hiring. Even though each residency leader serves a different geographical context, there are similarities
in their responses.
Breadth of Action Steps
Similar to the survey responses the seven interviewees touched on a breadth of action steps.
Partnership and mentor development, recruitment and hiring, mentors, clinical practice, equity,
coursework, and financial sustainability were all mentioned as specific action steps outlined in the
proposal. For example, Jane, a rural, suburban and urban residency IHE leader, mentions a number of
71

steps such as “buying Swivels to support students with their EdTPA” and, “to prepare their professional
development to be equity based ... we switched our textbook to Grading for Equity,” and “work on the
website.” These actions show themes around clinical experience, coursework, and equity. Meanwhile,
Xiomara’s, a rural residency LEA leader, residency action steps are focused on partnerships, “identify
people within the IHE and LEA to do this work … committee for creating curriculum … committee on
how supervision is going to be handled, a committee on finances.” Petra, a rural, suburban and urban
residency IHE leader, spoke about mentor recruitment and development, “we plan to create a teacher
leader, mentor certificate Program which would allow our all of our partners to recruit potential
mentors and then we can provide some training so that we can kind of widen our mentoring pool, and
we could just have a larger pool to pull from for high quality mentors.” The responses show a wide
variety of action steps the residency program leaders are focused on taking over the course of the year.
Student Centeredness
A few interviewees spoke about the residency program’s impact on students. For example, Alba,
a suburban residency IHE leader, centered students as she described her ideal residency and hopes for
the partnerships,
The overarching goal is providing the students with the best education that we can with people
that look like them … from very diverse backgrounds … who have a growth mindset … culturally
relevant practices … ability to connect, and really want to educate their students … teachers that
you would want to put your own kids in the classrooms of.
Similarly, Jane described her hope for the residency partnership, “I hope that we can prepare teachers
who will lift the literacy rate … I want good teachers who stick around, who care about kids.” Both Jane
and Alba centered student education in their responses.
72

Emerging Interview Themes: “Full Circle” and Operations
Two themes emerged from the interviews: the concept of the residency being “full circle” and
residency operations. In response to the question about what the residency program would ideally be
like one year from now, Petra, Rogelio, and Jane spoke about the residency being “full circle” and/or
operational aspects of the program.
For example, Rogelio discussed the concept of making the residency full circle,
We do want to help support as many educators as possible … and we're also trying to align it
with our educator pathway in the high school to try and get our [High School] scholars to come
back into our residency program and kind of make it full circle.
Jane also described the residency being “full circle.” Specifically, having mentors who went through the
program as a resident who then, in turn become mentors,
We have one of our mentors who went through the program as a resident so she, this year for
the first year, she was in the residency in the first cohort and now she's a mentor. And I would
like to see more of those and so to start seeing it feed itself.
Rogelio and Jane illustrate professional growth and sustainability of the teaching workforce.
Additionally, Rogelio discussed residency operations, “building upon what we have already created and
then improving the systems for efficiency and operations.” Petra also spoke about the operational
aspect of the residency when discussing what the program would ideally be like in a year,
I would ideally love to have a clear view of our daily and monthly and yearly what we're doing,
everything … I feel like we're still so far behind, not behind, but always playing catch up so I just
want a clear picture of our organization and responsibilities and things like.
Similarly, Jane highlighted operational aspects of the residency program,
73

What we really struggled with was getting the candidates to be ready to rock. I feel like we were
chasing them down to do stuff and take care of things up until the very, very last minute. So,
streamlining their entry into the residency is something I think we want to focus on.
Comments from Rogelio, Jane, and Petra focus on the operational sustainability of the teacher residency
program, specifically, the systems and structures needed to keep it going.
RQ1 Findings Summary
Teacher Residency Leaders are knowledgeable of the 10 characteristics and evidence of an
effective teacher residency. Leaders are also implementing several of the characteristics. The
quantitative results have high item internal consistency, which shows that the responses are reliable
indicators of leaders’ evaluations. Clinical practice, mentors, authentic partnerships, coursework, and
equity and justice received higher implementation scores. While data, teaching schools, graduate
support, financial sustainability, and residency hiring received lower implementation scores. However,
all characteristics received scores that showed at least some degree of implementation. Implementation
was further illustrated in the qualitative responses. Insights from the qualitative open ended survey
responses include high frequency mentions of residency hiring and a breadth of action steps and focus
areas that span all 10 of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency. To serve
students and increase achievement was a theme that threaded throughout areas of clinical practice,
mentors, hiring, and data. The qualitative interview responses corroborated the survey findings.
RQ2 Findings
Given the hopes and ideals for the teacher residency program, what barriers or challenges lay in
the way? And what support do teacher residency programs need? The 40-minute semi-structured
interview served to provide evidence for Research Question 2: What support do CA teacher residency
programs need in order to implement the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher
residency? One item at the beginning of the interview asked, “In one year from now, describe what your
74

teacher residency program would ideally be like,” with the follow up question, “what would be potential
barriers to make this a reality?” However, the bulk of the interview included asking residency leaders
how they implement, or plan to implement each of the 10 characteristics, with the follow up question,
“what support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?” The findings highlight themes and areas
of support.
Partnerships and Financial Sustainability: Barriers to an Ideal Residency Program
Five of the seven residency leaders indicated partnerships as a potential barrier, while four
indicated financial sustainability (two leaders indicated both as barriers). For example, under the
partnership theme, issues that surfaced were around collaboration and shared understanding as well as
actual FTE dedicated to the role. Under financial sustainability, a focus on resident stipends and funding
sustainability, in general, emerged.
The residency leader responses illustrate partnerships as a barrier. Rafael, an urban residency
LEA leader, mentions, “Lead decision-maker understandings and knowledge base of teacher preparation
and political whims.” And Jane, a rural, suburban, and urban IHE leader, surfaces that some of her
colleagues are, “definitely an old boys’ network.” Similarly, Xiomara, a rural residency LEA leader, lifts
up, “the work that goes into collaboration … and when we get to an IHE, the egos get bigger and bigger.”
These statements illustrate the lack of copacetic partnerships. Similarly Rose, a suburban and rural
residency LEA leader, surfaced, “We are not working together, all of our districts have to work really
hard to recruit … we don't have people dedicated to it.” Petra, an urban and suburban residency LEA
leader, responded, “Our biggest barrier is getting the right people in the room at the right time ...
districts have had a lot of turn-over … the people on our partnership teams.” These two statements
speak to the lack of dedicated personnel that support teacher residency work.
The seven teacher residency leaders have varied FTE, full time employment, dedicated to
residency development work. One program has two full time FTEs. One program has one full time FTE
75

and a few part time FTEs. Two programs have one full time FTE each. One program has two part time
FTEs. And one program has one part time FTE. Three of the seven leaders indicated that a partial FTE
was written into the capacity grant. The number of dedicated personnel to the resident work may or
may not be related to the size of the residency program.
Most interviewees were concerned about financial sustainability as a barrier. Rogelio, a rural
residency LEA leader, expresses a barrier, “I think financing is always, you know, a big, big thing. We are
paying our residents a solid hourly salary and making sure that it's fiscally responsible and sustainable
would be one barrier.” Similarly, Rose’s, a suburban and rural residency LEA leader, response is focused
around the resident,
Barriers are that our students need to work … students go to school, to the residency every day.
There's no time for them to substitute … so we need to provide maybe a better stipend. It’s very
hard for our students, they're working, they're doing the residency, they're going to school full
time. I mean, we're asking a whole lot of them so they can stay in school. And then housing is
another issue for teachers as well.
Rose expresses concern about the financial capacity of residents to be in the program, and the barriers
they face. Alba, a suburban residency IHE leader, speaks about the residency program in general, as well
as the resident stipends,
Keeping the program sustainable beyond the initial three hundred and twenty-five million and
state grants, and beyond the implementation grant site, having the districts really put the
funding for the program for the stipends for the educators of our LCAP ... sustainability from a
financial perspective, and then being able to offer big enough stipends that we can recruit
diversity.
Alba alludes to sustainability through district contribution to the residency and ties it back to the need
to increase the number of diverse teachers, the purpose of a teacher residency program. Despite the
76

diverse contexts, the residency leaders interviewed highlight partnerships and financial sustainability as
potential barriers to a successful teacher residency program.
Technical and Adaptive Areas of Support
All seven teacher residency leaders welcomed support in at least two or more of the 10
characteristic themes when asked directly about support needed for each specific area: equity,
authentic partnerships, financial sustainability, data, hiring, clinical, coursework, mentors, teaching
schools, graduate support. Additionally, the themes emerging as adaptive and technical areas of support
cross over two or more of the 10 characteristics. High frequency technical themes included support
around financial sustainability, data usage, and practical frameworks in general. Reoccurring adaptive
areas of support include purposeful recruitment, partnership development, and maintaining an equity
focus.
Financial Sustainability
Teacher residency funding and financial sustainability support not only came up when leaders
were asked directly about financial sustainability, but also during other questions around equity, clinical
support and coursework support. Five of the seven leaders indicated that their programs rely directly on
the grant funds, while six out of the seven residency leaders mentioned the need for financial
sustainability support. Rose poignantly mentioned, “once the grant runs out the program will likely
end.” Xiomara was hopeful that the funds would keep coming, “we can continue with these grants, and
apply for more grants … and going forward hopefully, there will be more funding available after these
next sets run out.” Petra, however, offers a reason for why her residency program is slow to tackle
financial sustainability, “Year to year there's more and more and more grant funding thrown at us,
which I think takes a little bit of that responsibility away from thinking about how it's going to be
sustainable.” Petra also offers how her program could be supported, “it's where the districts take
ownership, they see the benefits ... it goes back to that financial sustainability piece, I feel like the
77

districts have to see the benefits of the residency and like really, really believe in it.” Rafael offers even
more specifically how his teacher residency program could be supported towards financial sustainability,
Just clear, A plus B equals C formulas of costs of new teachers and residents and the cost savings
… highlighting value add right. We all know teacher turnover costs tons of money, and so, being
able to help illustrate really concretely to folks that are making decisions, like look when we
invest in residents, every resident that we keep, and that we have past X number of years that
saves us X number of dollars. So, the better we do this work around our pipelines, it saves
money in the long run.
These residency leader insights on financial sustainability offer concrete, technical, guidance on how to
move districts forward to advocate for a teacher residency. Alternatively, Alba recommends advocating
for teacher residency financial sustainability by saying, “we need to lobby legislation, specifically
establish a state perpetuity grant. A pipeline that continues … we need to fund teacher preparation in
perpetuity.”
Only one program indicated that financial sustainability was not an area of need because the
residency leadership team made the case for the school districts to financially commit to supporting
residents. Here, Jane illustrates the value proposition of the residency,
This residency is amazing, here's the data, here's the longevity for the teachers ... they're
prepared, but you have to pay for it ... we're not going to do this if you don't commit financially
... you pay them it's a pittance for what you're getting…you're getting basically a teacher second
semester … and then you've got a guarantee good teacher for the next 4 years … we're
awesome if you want it, you have to pay for it.
Jane’s team made the case that the residents are worth the financial investment. However, not all
programs are able to capture the data needed to make the case.
78

Data Gathering and Analysis
Six out of seven residency leaders indicated data gathering and analysis as an area of support
when asked directly about data and, or other areas. For example, Petra discusses a data package that
highlights the value of residency,
I feel like the data that we collect isn't really like selling the benefits of our program…I want
something that's just a nice like data package, so I can take it and communicate out how
amazing this program is, our student impact ... and collect data about difference between
someone who's prepared for an entire year with a veteran teacher versus somebody who's gets
checked on regularly, intern hires.
Similarly, Alba expresses the need for longitudinal data to compare the residency with other programs,
If I want to compare the data of my residency program to other programs … any longitudinal
data will also be nice and helpful. And, also the codes. I mean, if I’m putting out surveys or
interviewing teachers, it would be nice to see what codes, what areas they're looking at for that
component, otherwise it's starting from scratch.
Rafael also mentions longitudinal data and clear data systems, specifically,
Having clear data systems. How do we track people? How do we track if residents 5 years ago
left their teaching positions in the district last year? I don't have a way of knowing that. It's a
systematic gap, because if I'm gone in 2 years, the next person should be able to have access to
that data. How do we have the longitudinal data?
These three leaders highlight programmatic data and data collection.
However, Xiomara and Rogelio framed data support around teacher professional development.
Xiomara mentioned, “the instructors will most likely need support ... you know they don't have enough
time to do a lot of the assessment pieces and developing these data and looking at trends.” Rogelio
mentioned learning related data, “we are always open to new professional development and learning
79

opportunities, the more data we can gather on any given topic would be helpful.” These statements
show how data usage was mentioned along with professional development and mentor support.
Practical Frameworks
Six out of the seven teacher residency leaders lift up practical applications and frameworks.
These practical technical skills are housed in data analysis, professional development, and coursework.
Rogelio mentions practical frameworks in general, “some structures or framework as to best practices
regarding most effective support.” While other residency leaders speak more specifically. For example,
Xiomara speaks about integrating practical coursework frameworks,
IHEs can float in the clouds, and they have these dreams and visions. But what do you do when
Johnny loses their tooth? What do you do when this student needs a tissue? There are some
very practical things that need to be built in.
Jane, on the other hand, voices the need for practical technical assistance coaching,
If the coach was like ‘Okay next week, bring all your data and let's just sit down for an hour and
let's go through it, go collect your exit forms and let's go through and sort through it all and
make it into some charts and start collating the information and figuring out. Okay, what are the
trends ... we are constantly trying to navigate what's the running data 2 years down the road, 3
years down the road. It is a scramble every year.
Rose voices very specific practical support related to usable templates and guides,
What I'd really like to see is a handbook or something that said, ‘this is how you start a teacher
residency program, These are the things that you know this is how you do the reporting,’ some
guidance to say look before everybody leaves make sure that you get their contact
information…the practical knowledge that you need to run a program … what kind of support
your mentors need what kind of support to our residence need … all this could be put into a nice
80

little handbook or toolkit or something like that, with templates and with training that's what
we need practical on the ground, this is how you do it.
In addition to practical “residency handbook,” Rose also expresses how learning from other residency
programs would support her in applying practical knowledge. She asks,
How are people recruiting? Are people putting these career pathways together? What are
people doing to get people interested in teaching? What are some ideas around that? Show me
a flier that you made that I can maybe copy for my own area, my own region.
Petra also lifts up peer learning as a way to apply practical program improvement implications. Petra
offers,
I'd like to see what different residences are doing that's effective and telling the positive parts of
our story … I heard in another program principals going in and doing observations of residents
towards the end of their school year was really, really effective, and so the principals were able
to take that data and kind of share out what they saw and that's something that we're not doing
that could be powerful.
These leaders, who represent diverse contexts, voice a need to gather and apply practical frameworks
and tools that have been successful in other teacher residencies. This technical support can be
applicable to any leader at any stage of teacher residency development.
Partnerships
All seven residency leaders indicated a need for partnership support. Support developing and
maintaining partnerships is an adaptive capability because the skill involves collaborating and
influencing others towards a shared goal. For example, Rogelio lifts up partnerships specifically related
to resident graduate support, “after they get their credential or if they move on to another school or
district, making sure that they are still connected through the grant funds and that we maintain
communications with them.” While Xiomara, Rafael and Petra view partnership support needed to
81

achieve the residency mission. Xiomara illustrates what partnership support would look like, “We would
need support in working with these other LEAs to ensure that they understand what the mission of the
Teacher Residency is, and how it can truly address diversity in their districts.” Similarly, Rafael explains
his partnership support needs,
There's this hidden sort of challenge of capacity for everybody. How do we still get to these
goals, which are ultimately going to be really fundamental, and help both of us be more efficient
and be more optimized ultimately ... helping new partners establish those things initially.
Petra also speaks about partnerships with unions and stakeholders and support LEAs to,
Connect with their unions, we have a lot of different unions in our area and they're going to
have to be some different job descriptions and bargaining agreements. See how they can grow
their own pipeline to meet the needs of their community and then make that commitment to
that long term commitment, which is going to fund residents, maybe even provide benefits.
However, one barrier to partnership development is lack of dedicated FTE. As Rose mentioned before,
“it's more difficult with the LEAs because we don't have somebody dedicated to the program … our
program has had difficulty creating genuine partnerships.” The lack of dedicated FTE impacts a
residency’s ability to develop authentic partnerships.
Purposeful Recruitment
Six of the seven leaders expressed needing support in recruiting teacher residents and/or
mentors. This adaptive capacity is responsive to the community need and calls for collaboration and
influencing others to choose education. Rogelio expresses a need for, “help to get additional people
interested in education or becoming an educator ... it's a kind of a paradigm shift as to the role that
educators serving our community.” Most residency leaders specifically request support recruiting
educators of color. For example, Jane requests support,
82

Recruiting other teachers of color, how do we get to those populations? We have reached out
to some athletic programs here because we found out that talking to their coaches, the coaches
are like ‘yeah help me send them off in a direction, they have no idea what to do’ so we are
trying to do some of that, but we can go everywhere and do everything.
Petra explains support needed in recruitment practices,
Some initial feedback is that calling out the equity focus has been helped us attract people of
color but, our district partners are not really communicating to us like who they necessarily
want in terms of recruiting candidates that reflect their community, so I feel like there's just a
lot of work that we need to do…we're examining our recruitment practices, I know we have a lot
of work to do there's still so many just white women, so I think just getting into that mindset of
looking at our community and learning from others, and how can we be just more purposeful in
our recruitment.
This statement is reflective of adapting recruitment approaches to fit the needs of the community, while
focusing on recruiting diverse candidates. Xiomara echoes this theme of purposeful recruitment,
Children need to see themselves in their teachers. And then also, white children need to see
men and women of color in places of authority, because if the only time you see a person of
color is in a job that they consider menial or subservient, then it's an unconscious, subconscious
thing. That's where they think those people belong. And with that terrible, terrible ideology that
you perpetuate this inequality.
Xiomara also explains how important it is to have bilingual teachers,
Because we'll have a lot of kiddos that are coming to school, not speaking English, but we also
want to make sure that we are watering the garden of their own language, because if they
understand and you know bilingualism, it changes the way you think and experience the world.
And so, it and It's part of you know, loving and respecting culture.
83

Xiomara explains how purposeful recruitment is beneficial to students’ social justice development.
Finally, Rafael speaks about mentor recruitment support,
Trying to recruit and have a pool that's large enough to be able to match folks ideally with the
best folks possible ... ideally, there's affinity, pedagogical, overlap … But ultimately the support
really is recruiting. How do we recruit our teachers, especially it's just been really different, you
know? The last couple of years have been so hard for folks.
Equity Focus
Six of the seven residency leaders mentioned an equity focus in their support. This adaptive
capacity span themes around measurement, finance, partnerships, and hiring. Rafael, questions how to
calibrate and measure social justice and equity,
We have times, experience a gap between espoused language and values and practice, and
differences in understanding of like, well, how do you measure that? Calibration amongst the
people that are doing the work. What does that mean to you? What does justice mean to you in
education? And then what are the measures for the definitions and criteria. The support really is
really understanding. How do you measure that? How do you measure those things and
quantify them? And you know in some ways to be able to have shared understandings and
shared measures so that you can actually look at. We're on target. We're not on target, and we
can target energies to be able to move things forward.
Calibrating and measuring equity concepts are an important first steps for Rafael in order to tackle
program improvement. Meanwhile, Rose describes financial equity opportunities, specifically,
The need to create opportunities for our students to work and to live … we need to really look at
the salary and what it takes to become a teacher, I mean we're plugging so much money into
programming when I’d really like to see some money be spent on salaries.
84

This statement describes financial justice with regard to resident and teacher compensation. Jane, on
the other hand, integrates equity focused professional development. Jane explains that support would
look like someone,
Coming in with ideas, because assessment is based on grading for equity, so if we can help the
mentors understand here's the approach we're trying to get our students to use then maybe
they'll be more willing to let them try it in there in the clinical.
Jane is suggesting integrating specific equity grading practice in professional development and in clinical
practice. Finally, Xiomara’s comments around equity support include,
I think the biggest thing that I hope to take away is that we do have a major focus on equity and
on diversifying the field, again, children need to see themselves. Other children need to see
people in authority, and so that's going to be a major focus of this residency grant.
These comments show equity in the contest of hiring.
Interviews Findings Corroborate Survey Data
There are similarities between the interview findings and the survey data. Most all the indicated
technical areas support: financial sustainability, data gathering and analysis, practical application; and
the adaptive areas of support: partnerships, purposeful recruitment, equity focus, are survey responses
marked with lower confidence, as compared to the other statements. Meaning, the comparable
statements that align with the technical and adaptive support themes skew towards being a little true to
moderately true of their residency programs; they have higher mean average scores that indicate lower
confidence that these statements are descriptive of their residency programs. This tracks because if
residency leaders are marking certain survey items with lower confidence, this could be an indication
that more support is needed in this area. Table 11 outlines the similarities between the technical
support themes, survey findings and quotes from the interviews. Table 12 outlines the similarities
between the adaptive support themes, survey findings and quotes from the interviews.
85

Table 11
Technical Areas of Support Mapped onto Mean Survey Items and Interviewee Quotes
Theme Survey Item Results Example Interview Quotes
Financial
Sustainability
Residency system is
financially
sustainable.
M= 2.67, a little true
to moderately true.
“Once the grant runs out the program will likely end.”
(Rose, LEA Leader)
“We need to lobby legislation, specifically establish a state
perpetuity grant. A pipeline that continues…in
perpetuity.” (Alba, IHE Leader)

Data Gathering
Analysis
Formative and
outcome data are
collected, analyzed,
and used for
continuous
improvement.
M = 2.36, a little true
to moderately true.
“The data that we collect isn't really selling the benefits of
our program…I want something that's just a nice data
package, so I can take it and communicate out how
amazing this program is, our student impact.” (Petra,
LEA Leader)
Practical
Applications

“What I'd really like to see is a handbook…the practical
knowledge that you need to run a program…what kind
of support your mentors need what kind of support to
our residence need…with templates and with training”
(Rose, LEA Leader)

Note. Survey item results, N = 37. Participants were asked to what extent each statement is true of their
residency program using a 5-point scale: completely true (1), moderately true (2), a little true (3), not at
all true (4). The unsure (5) score was removed from data calculations. M= mean score.

86

Table 12
Adaptive Areas of Support Mapped onto Mean Survey Items and Interviewee Quotes
Theme Survey Item Results Example Interview Quote
Partnerships Authentic
partnerships exist
between LEAs,
IHEs, and other
organizations.
M= 1.30, completely
true to mostly
true.
“We would need support in working with these other LEAs
to ensure that they understand what the mission of the
Teacher Residency is, and how it can truly address
diversity in their districts.” (Xiomara, LEA Leader)
“It's more difficult with the LEAs because we don't have
somebody dedicated to the program…our program has
had difficulty creating genuine partnerships.” (Rose, LEA
Leader)

Purposeful
Recruitment
Specific hiring needs
are defined and
filled each year
with recruitment
of resident
candidates who
reflect the LEA’s
and community’s
unique diversity.
M= 2.12, a little true
to moderately
true.

“Recruiting other teachers of color, how do we get to those
populations?” (Jane, IHE Leader)
“We're examining our recruitment practices, I know we
have a lot of work to do there's still so many just white
women, so I think just getting into that mindset of
looking at our community and learning from others, and
how can we be just more purposeful in our recruitment.”
(Petra, LEA Leader)

Equity Focus Equity and justice
are defined and
advanced at all
levels of residency
work.
M= 2.30, a little true
to moderately
true.

“We have times, experience a gap between espoused
language and values and practice, and differences in
understanding of how you measure that. Calibration
amongst the people that are doing the work. What does
that mean to you? What does justice mean to you in
education? And then what are the measures for the
definitions and criteria. The support really is
understanding, how do you measure that…and quantify
them?” (Rafael, LEA Leader)

Note. Survey item results, N = 37. Participants were asked to what extent each statement is true of their
residency program using a 5-point scale: completely true (1), moderately true (2), a little true (3), not at
all true (4). The unsure (5) score was removed from data calculations. M= mean score.
87

Findings Conclusion
The survey results and the interview responses show the depth and breadth of teacher
residency leaders’ understanding of the 10 characteristics of an effective teacher residency while also
highlighting specific areas for support. The findings show a wide geographical range of teacher residency
programs with different teacher credentialing focus areas and a breadth of action step foci. However,
while leaders show knowledge of the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency,
they have more confidence in their ability to implement some characteristics over others. For example,
teacher residency leaders have more confidence in actualizing themes related to clinical practice,
mentors, partnerships, coursework, and equity and justice. While less confidence in actualizing resident
hiring, financial sustainability, graduate support, teaching schools, and data usage. Additionally, all
residency leaders clearly articulate why the residency is being developed. These missions include
themes related to resident hiring, equity, clinical practice, mentors, and partnerships with a focus on
serving students as the end goal. However, the findings show that partnerships and financial
sustainability could be potential barriers to success. Residency leaders highlighted two areas of support
needed: technical support and adaptive support. Technical support includes developing models for
financial sustainability, data gathering and analysis, and practical frameworks. Adaptive support includes
areas of partnership development, purposeful resident and mentor recruitment, and maintaining an
equity focus. The next chapter will explore these findings, discuss possible next steps and suggestions
for future research.

88

Chapter Five: Discussion
California is investing in systems and structures to establish and expand teacher residency
programs across the state. These efforts serve to increase diverse, local teacher workforces. There are
several dedicated and knowledgeable teacher residency leaders who are guiding the residency work to
ensure successful programs across California. The next section describes how to support residency
leaders to be more efficacious in their role and bolster teacher residency programs.
Findings
California teacher residency leaders bring with them a wealth of knowledge about effective
teacher residencies. The study findings shed light on what systems and structures can be implemented
to support teacher residency leaders and programs to be robust and effective. Specific technical and
adaptive themes centered around partnerships, financial sustainability, data gathering and usage, and
student achievement.
The survey results and the interview both show residency leaders implementing, and/or moving
towards implementation of the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency. Hiring
was the most common theme, and focus area, that came up when asked about the mission and ideals
for the residency program. Residency leaders also clearly expressed developing other aspects of their
program related to equity, authentic partnerships, clinical practice and coursework, and mentors.
One finding that stands out is residency leaders are knowledgeable and do feel supported in
developing their programs. Overall, the 37 leaders evaluated their residencies as meeting, or close to
meeting, the 10 characteristics indicators. And the seven interviewees, overall, felt supported to engage
in residency work. I informally examined all the responses of the interviewees along the various
characteristics: program age, program location and focus, leader role and length in role, leader race and
gender. There were no discernible outlier interviewee responses, or patterns, from residency leaders or
programs that shared a particular characteristic. For example, programs that were newer versus
89

established, or situated in rural versus urban, or leader newness in role versus veteran residency
leaders, or being from the IHE or LEA. Additionally, there were no discernible patterns of response from
BIPOC leaders versus non-BIPOC leaders, nor female versus male. The patterns that emerged were
patterns across all programs, with one exception.
There were two residency leaders of the seven, however, that despite launching new residency
programs, felt very supported by their partnerships to be successful. These two geographically different
residencies shared the same IHE partner. The partner IHE had a proven track record of successful
residency program development across the state. So, when the two residency leaders were asked if they
needed support for each of the 10 indicators, most often they would speak about the support they were
getting from their IHE partner. This highlights the importance of establishing authentic, cohesive,
partnerships. This finding coincides with WestEd’s 2022 report that focuses on building strong
partnerships in service of residency development (Hirschboeck et al., 2022).
It tracks that residency leaders mentioned authentic partnerships and financial sustainability
most frequently as the two barriers that could stymie teacher residency progress. A few residency
leaders expressed frustration with some aspect of the partnership. This could signal more work to be
done around relationship building especially as it relates to the value of the residency to meet districts’
equity and hiring needs. Creating an ecosystem conducive to partnership development was a
recommendation from Hirschboeck et al. (2022), specifically creating a data driven value proposition.
The strain on the relationship was alluded to the positionality power dynamics within the IHE and LEA as
well as the turnover in leadership positions that hold the residency work. There is no specific guidance
or recommendation as to the leadership or funding structures for residency leadership. The FTE varies
across each residency team. Further, the lack of understanding or implementation of financial
sustainability compounds the problem of creating and maintaining authentic residency partnerships.
90

Financial sustainability was a common theme throughout. It was mentioned as a potential
barrier and as an area for support. Most programs surveyed indicated they were least confident in
actualizing financial sustainability. This finding was further supported by the interviewee responses.
Most residency leaders rely on the grant funding, and without it, the residency program would cease to
exist. There is a need to develop long-term, sustainable teacher residency financial models (Eiler White
et al., 2020). Only one program was able to make the case for the LEA to make substantial investments.
And she was able to do this through making a compelling case, with data.
Data gathering and usage was the other characteristic least likely to be marked with confidence.
Additionally, several of the residency leaders welcomed support in this area, particularly around
technical aspects of data gathering and reporting tools. High quality technical assistance includes
support around a communications strategy rooted in data (Hirschboeck et al., 2022). Specific guidance,
models, templates or examples could serve the practice of data usage to inform particular aspects of
program improvement. A few areas mentioned included data platforms that show how residency
prepared teachers compare to other pathway prepared teachers, overall program outcomes, calibrating
clinical practice, and showing the student impact in the classroom.
Student support and achievement was a common focus. Several residency leaders were student
centered in their responses related to equity, resident hiring, clinical practice, and mentor development.
While teacher residencies are effective at increasing BIPOC teacher retention (Carver-Thomas, 2018)
and California teacher residencies are preparing a high percentage of BIPOC teachers (WestEd, 2022), it
is clear that students are the end user for residency development. Leaders are developing teacher
residency programs in service to students.
Implications for Practice
The study findings can be used to inform a statewide system of support. The recommendations
include state level implications, technical and adaptive support, revisiting the 10 characteristics and
91

evidence of effective teacher residencies, and focusing on student impact. Supporting teacher residency
leaders to understand and implement the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency
will help create more effective teacher residencies.
State Level Implications
State level implications include two specific recommendations. The first recommendation is
funding in perpetuity for LEAs to establish and expand teacher residency programs. Many programs rely
on state funding to operate, and if this state funding is cut off, LEAs do not have the capacity to continue
their teacher residency programs. The second recommendation is the formation of a state funded
technical assistance center whose mission is to provide technical and adaptive assistance to beginning
and established residency programs to launch and expand. A technical assistance center can offer a
centralized organizational structure to serve the variety of teacher residency programs at various points
of development throughout the state.
Practical Technical and Adaptive Support
There is ample evidence in the present study that highlights the need for practical technical and
adaptive support. Residency leaders expressed need for more support, or understanding, around the
practical operational aspects of the teacher residency, specifically, systems, structures, and operations.
Additionally, there is a need for focused support leveraging data systems for program improvement.
One way this could be accomplished is through the creation and use of residency evaluation tools,
checklists, practical toolkits, guides, and examples or learnings from other programs. For example,
applying practical local funding strategies that are backed by data laden teacher residency value
propositions can serve to increase financial sustainability. Offering differentiated support to residency
programs would allow for a more individualized approach for local, contextual needs. While programs
indicated a variety of focus areas and action steps, one theme was the practical application and support
to move them forward.
92

Adaptive support stems from the need for a focused, coherent path forward. Professional
development related to partnership development, hiring, and keeping an equity focus are key. For
example, how are we calibrating and measuring equity among the residency leadership team? Or, how
can funding be leveraged to support capacity building for consistent teacher residency leadership and
partnerships? Being adaptive and responsive to community teacher hiring needs in support of students
is a fundamental capacity building area of focus.
Revisit the 10 Characteristics and Evidence of an Effective Teacher Residency
The 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency may need a revisit.
Teacher residency leaders basically completed a self-evaluation of their program by taking a close look
at how their programs embody each characteristic and subsequent indicators. The survey's open
responses and interview statements show what characteristics are mentioned versus those
characteristics not mentioned. The mention of teaching school hub sites is noticeably absent. In the
rural context, teaching schools are more difficult to create because mentorship is dependent on the
number of credentialed teachers who are mentor eligible. In a rural area, this may not be concentrated
at one location or school site. While it is an effective characteristic, it may not be California context
appropriate given the geographical diversity context. Most residency leaders did not place high value on
this particular characteristic to expand their teacher residency program. One recommendation would be
to reconsider the standalone teaching school characteristic indicator instead as a subset of clinical
practice in the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency.
While the characteristic of teaching schools is absent in residency leader responses, the mention
of student impact, while present in leaders’ responses, is absent in the 10 characteristics and evidence
of an effective teacher residency. One strong recommendation is to integrate student impact in all levels
of residency work, explicitly stating student impact in the 10 characteristics. Student centered themes
kept resurfacing in the qualitative interviews, and the qualitative survey responses. Student voice and
93

achievement is a necessary part of residency development and residency characteristics. The purpose of
teacher residencies is to create a more diverse teacher workforce in service to student growth. There is
an assumption in the characteristics that student achievement will be part of how residencies measure
success. However, this is not specifically named. There is an opportunity to be clear about why teacher
residencies exist; specifically, to create skillful, prepared, dedicated teachers who reflect the student
population in order to increase academic and social emotional growth. Educational systems and
structures should always be tied to the student impact.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research
Teacher residency leaders show they are very knowledgeable about what it takes to build a
successful teacher residency but may need specific support to get there. However, social desirability
may have influenced responses. Meaning, folks may have scored their programs more favorably, or
exhibiting the indicators of effective teacher residencies. But even taking social desirability scoring into
account, some areas were still consistently scoring higher than others. Clear patterns emerged that
were corroborated by the open responses and the interviews. Regardless, the current study is limited by
self-reports. More research is needed to fully understand the scope of teacher residency
implementation and support and how teacher residencies are impacting teacher stability and student
growth.
Understanding how teacher residency leaders conceptualize effective practices may be different
than actual implementation. Future research can move from self-reports to calibrated walkthrough tools
or residency audits that show how the 10 characteristics and evidence of effective teacher residencies
are authentically in launched programs. Further, research can focus on how the support provided to
teacher residency leaders is impacting change and improvement. Specifically, how are the teacher
residency systems and structures impacting student success? How are we defining equity within the
Teacher Residency context?
94

Conclusion
Education Leaders across the state are developing teacher residency programs to meet the local
need for well prepared, diverse teachers committed to the teaching profession. Theoretically, strong
teacher residency programs actualize the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective California
teacher residency program. The characteristics touch on themes related to equity and justice, authentic
partnerships, financial sustainability, data usage, resident hiring, clinical practice, coursework, mentors,
teaching schools, and graduate support. California teacher residency leaders, who received 2022
capacity grant funding to build their teacher residency, have more confidence implementing some
characteristics over others. The study findings show a need for a statewide system of support that
focuses on practical technical and adaptive capacity building with an end goal of student growth.
California is poised to be a nationwide leader in teacher residency implementation and a model for
teacher residency capacity building.

95

References
AB 130, committee on budget. education finance: Education omnibus budget trailer bill. 23, 2021-2022
Cong. (2021).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB130
A broken pipeline: Teacher preparation's diversity problem. (2020). United States: TNTP reimagine
teaching. https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_BrokenPipeline_FINAL.pdf
Anderson, J. D. (2006). A Tale of Two Browns: Constitutional Equality and Unequal Education. Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105(2), 14–35.
Altonji, J., & Doraszelski, U. (2005). The role of permanent income and demographics in Black/White
differences in wealth. Journal of Human Resources 40, 1–30.
Atkins, D. N., Fertig, A. R., & Wilkins, V. M. (2014). Connectedness and expectations: How minority
teachers can improve educational outcomes for minority students. Public Management Review,
16(4), 503-526.
Banerjee, N. (2019). Student–Teacher ethno-racial matching and reading ability group placement in
early grades. Education and Urban Society, 51(3), 395-422.
Banks, J. (2016). An exploration of the experiences of black high school students in the mathematics
classroom: A qualitative study
Battey, D., Leyva, L. A., Williams, I., Belizario, V. A., Greco, R., & Shah, R. (2018). Racial (mis)match in
middle school mathematics classrooms: Relational interactions as a racialized mechanism.
Harvard Educational Review, 88(4), 455-482.
Berry, B., Montgomery, D., Curtis, R., Hernandez, M., Wurtzel, J., & Snyder, J. (2008). Creating and
sustaining urban teacher residencies: A new way to recruit, prepare, and retain effective
teachers in high-needs districts. The Aspen Institute and The Center for Teaching Quality.
96

Retrieved from https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/FINAL.CREATINGANDSUSTAININGUTR.PDF
Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146-170.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/mkraft/publications/teacher-and-teaching-effects-
students%E2%80%99-attitudes-and-behaviors
Bristol, T., Gupton, S., Han Harris, S., & Lillis, S. (2021). How to increase California’s educator workforce.
(No. 34). Routledge.
Bristol, T. J., & Martin-Fernandez, J. (2019). The added value of Latinx and Black teachers for Latinx and
Black students- implications for policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
6(2), 147-153.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 294 (1954).
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing- Teacher Residency Grant Program. (2022).
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/grant-funded-programs/teacher-residency-grant-
program
California Department of Education, Fingertip Facts on Education in California. (2021).
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp
California Teacher Residency Lab. (2022, February 28). California teacher residency lab. Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation. https://cdefoundation.org/cde_programs/thelab/
Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain teachers of
color. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/diversifying-teaching-profession-report
CDE Foundation. (2022, February 28). Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.
https://cdefoundation.org/
97

Cherng, H. S., & Halpin, P. F. (2016). The importance of minority teachers: Student perceptions of
minority versus white teachers. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 407-420.
Data Quest CA Department of Education.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrEthGrd.aspx?cds=00&agglevel=state&year=2018-
19&ro=y
Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195-210.
Dee, T. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? American Economic
Association.
Dee, T., & Penner, E. (2019). My brother's keeper? the impact of targeted educational supports.
National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://studentexperiencenetwork.org/research_library/my-brothers-keeper-the-impact-of-
targeted-educational-supports/
Eddy, C. M., & Easton-Brooks, D. (2011). Ethnic matching, school placement, and mathematics
achievement of African American students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Urban
Education, 46(6), 1280-1299.
Egalite, A. J., & Kisida, B. (2018a). The effects of teacher match on students’ academic perceptions and
attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59-81.
Egalite, A. J., & Kisida, B. (2018b). The effects of teacher match on students’ academic perceptions and
attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59-81.
Eiler White, M., Hirschboeck, K., Takahashi, S., Reade, F., Perry, R., & Honigsberg, L. (2020). Launching
the California teacher residency grant program: Findings from year 1 (2019/20). WestEd.
Fairlie, R. W., Hoffmann, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2014). A community college instructor like me: Race and
ethnicity interactions in the classroom. The American Economic Review, 104(8), 2567-2591.
98

Fox, L. (2015). Seeing potential: The effects of Student–Teacher demographic congruence on teacher
expectations and recommendations. AERA Open, 2(1).
Funding announcement: 2021 teacher residency capacity grants round 1 funding, February 2022.
(2022). California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/educator-prep/grants/funding_announcement_round1_-
2021_teacher_residency_capacity_grants.pdf?sfvrsn=213224b1_5
Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Papageorge, N. (2015). Who believes in me? the effect of student-teacher
demographic match on teacher expectations W E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Papageorge, N. W. (2016). Who believes in me? the effect of student–
teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education Review, 52, 209-
224.
Guha, R., Hyler, M. E. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). The teacher residency: An innovative model for
preparing teachers. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-residency
Guha, R., & Kini, T. (2016). Teacher residencies: Building a high-quality, sustainable workforce.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-residencies-building-high-quality-
sustainable-workforce
Hart, C. M. D. (2020). An honors teacher like me: Effects of access to same-race teachers on black
students’ advanced-track enrollment and performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 42(2), 163-187.
Hirschboeck, K., Eiler White, M., Brannegan, A., & Reade, F. (2022). Teacher residency programs in
California: Financial sustainability challenges and opportunities. WestEd.
https://www.wested.org/resources/ca-teacher-residency-programs-financial-sustainability-
challenges-and-
opportunities/?utm_source=CA+Teacher+Residency+Lab&utm_campaign=49c0e2a851-
99

EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_01_13_06_55_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_14a0c83
f31-49c0e2a851-327919453#
Hirschboeck, K., Hannan, M., Brannegan, A., & White, M. (2022). Learning from the CA Teacher
Residency Grant partnership interviews: Building strong residency partnerships. WestEd.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aLSKGmwGjyRZXk_e-9tL8shDrHVyA4wy
Kerby, S. (2012). How Student Debt Impacts Students of Color: An Interest Rate Hike Will
Disproportionally Hurt These Students. Center for American Progress.
http://www.americanprogress. org/issues/higher-education/news/2012/04/26/11375/ how-
student-debt-impacts-students-of-color/
Klopfenstein, K. (2005). Beyond test scores: The impact of Black teacher role models on rigorous math
taking. Contemporary Economic Policy; Contemporary Economic Policy, 23(3), 416-428.
La Torre, D., Leon, S., Ong, C., Sloan, T., & Smith, T. (2021). Diversifying California's teaching force: How
teachers enter the classroom, who they serve, and if they stay. California Teacher Research and
Improvement Network. cterin.ucop.edu
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Lambert, Diana. “What you need to know to become a teacher in California- A quick guide.” EdSource,
14 Sept. 2022, https://edsource.org/2022/what-you-need-to-know-to-become-a-teacher-in-
california-quick-guide/677959
LiBetti, A., & Trinidad, J. (2018). Trading coursework for classroom: Realizing the potential of teacher
residencies.Bellwether Education Partners.
Lindsay, C. A., & Hart, C. M. D. (2017a). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary
outcomes for black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3),
485-510. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44983402
100

Lindsay, C. A., & Hart, C. M. D. (2017b). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary
outcomes for black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3),
485-510.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting methods to
practice. Sage Publications.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Teacher Residencies. (2021). Levers for equitable teacher residencies.
NCTR. (2019). National center for teacher residencies spring impact report 2019. National Center for
Teacher Residencies.
Oakland Unified School District Strategic Plan, LCAP (2021-2024). https://www.ousd.org/strategicplan
Ollison, J., Dickstein-Staub, S., Taylor, M., & Cohen, S. (2022). The California teacher residency lab:
Building a statewide teacher residency support system. CDE Foundation.
https://cdefoundation.org/staging/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Building-a-Statewide-Teacher-
Residency-Support-System-The-Lab-UPDATED.pdf
Ouazad, A. (2014). Assessed by a teacher like me: Race and teacher assessments. Education Finance
and Policy, 9(3), 334-372.
Papageorge, N. W., Lindsay, C. A., Hyman, J. M., Gershenson, S., & Hart, C. (2018). The long-run impacts
of same-race teachers National Bureau of Economic Research.
Papay, J. P., West, M. R., Fullerton, J. B., & Kane, T. J. (2012). Does an urban teacher residency increase
student achievement? Early evidence from Boston. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
34(4), 413-434.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
101

Philip, T. M., & Brown, A. L. (2020). We all want more teachers of color, right?: Concerns about the
emergent consensus. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling.
Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 485-528.
Rasheed, D. S., Brown, J. L., Doyle, S. L., & Jennings, P. A. (2020). The effect of Teacher–Child
race/ethnicity matching and classroom diversity on children's socioemotional and academic
skills. Child Development; Child Dev, 91(3), e597-e618.
Redding, C. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of Student–Teacher racial/ethnic matching
on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 89(4), 499-535.
Reparations for Black Students- Resolution No. 2021-0037 (2021). Oakland Unified School District.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knTRaGliW06LnPCATRmaILnwrgViLgsC/view
Rogers-Ard, R., Knaus, C., Bianco, M., Brandehoff, R., & Gist, C. D. (2019). The grow your own collective.
Teacher Education Quarterly (Claremont, Calif.), 46(1), 23-34.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26558180
Rothstein, R. (2017). Chapter 1. The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright Publishing.
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Section 39: Article 16. teacher recruitment, retention, and support grant programs, EDUCATION
CODEU.S.C. (2019).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum
=44415.
Solomon, J. (2009). The Boston teacher residency: District-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education; Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 478-488.
102

Tadayton, Ali. “How California districts seek to recruit, retain, Black teachers amid shortage: Experts
blame shortages on underrepresentation in colleges and discrimination on the job.” Edsource,
21 Jan. 2022, https://edsource.org/2022/how-california-districts-seek-to-recruit-retain-black-
teachers-amid-shortage/665097
Tan, G. (2001). "I want my teachers to like me": Multiculturalism and school dropout rates among
Mexican Americans. Equity & Excellence in Education, 34(2), 35-42.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers' expectations different for racial minority than
for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2),
253-273.
The Education Trust. (2022, February 9). Teacher diversity & equity Policy Scan. Is Your State Prioritizing
Teacher Diversity and Equity? https://edtrust.org/educator-
diversity/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=customblast&utm_campaign=educatorequity&em
ci=44a4073e-0e29-eb11-9fb4-00155d03affc&emdi=4fa7edf8-d129-eb11-9fb4-
00155d03affc&ceid=405050#CA
Villegas, A. M., & Irvine, J. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major
arguments. The Urban Review, 42(3), 175-192.
Wagoner, C. V. (2022). National center for teacher residencies. https://nctresidencies.org/
WestEd. (2022, September 6). Teacher Residency Dashboard.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/westedimprovementscience/viz/CaliforniaTeacherResid
encyGrantProgramDashboard/TeacherResidencyPipeline
Wright, A., Gottfried, M. A., & Le, V. (2017). A kindergarten teacher like me: The role of student-teacher
race in social-emotional development. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl),
78S-101S.
103

Yarnell, L. M., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (2018). Student-teacher racial match and its association with Black
student achievement: An exploration using multilevel structural equation modeling. American
Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 287-324.
Yun, C., Demoss, K., & Street, B. (2020, Nov 13,). Learning policy institute: Sustainable strategies for
funding teacher residencies - lessons from California. Targeted News Service.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2460037703
Vera, Z. (2021, November 1). Oakland teacher residency, OUSD program dedicated to bringing more
people of color into the classroom as teachers, receives $120,000 grant to support black
educators. ParentSquare. https://www.parentsquare.com/feeds/9601873
Vera, Z. (2020, April 7). Great Teachers are Made: Oakland Teacher Residency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M77kHHt44p8
Vera, Z. (2019). Home. Oakland Unified School District / Homepage. http://www.ousd.org/otr

104

Appendix A: Indicator Crosswalk Between the 10 Characteristics and the 8 Levers Chart
10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
1. Equity and justice is defined and advanced at all
levels of residency work.
100 Mission, vision, and theory of change
make explicit commitments to equity and
justice.
100 Short- and long-term residency goals
include evidence of equity and justice.
100 Recruitment and retention targets include
specific numbers of mentors and teachers
reflecting the LEA’s and community's unique
diversity.
200 Formal, consistent, and institutionalized
spaces to discuss equity and justice work
200 Institutionalized affinity spaces created
and led by and for residency community
members
300 Action research centered on addressing
equity focused opportunities of practice
Lever I: Partnering and designing for equity
1.1.1 Partners establish and share clear roles
and responsibilities.
1.1.2 Partners make adequate time and human
capital commitments in order to meet their
mission of preparing equitable Day 1 ready
teachers.
1.1.3 Partners engage in difficult conversations
about antiracism, social justice, and/or
equity as part of their shared commitment
to developing effective teachers from
historically marginalized groups as well as
meeting the needs of students from
historically marginalized groups.
1.1.4 Partners establish informal or formal
governance structures to facilitate effective
communication, collaboration, and decision-
making.
1.2.1 Community and organizational partners
work collaboratively to problem solve to
achieve their impact goals.
1.2.2 Organizational partners make decisions
with significant community input and
engagement.
1.3.1 Partners use an equity lens to identify the
problem, co-design the solution, and
communicate with, engage, and empower
the community being served.
1.3.2 Partners utilize change management
strategies to manage change within the
organization as they work to disrupt the
status quo.
2. Authentic partnerships between local
educational agencies (LEAs), accredited
Lever II: Residency leadership
2.1.1 Program has identified leaders across the
105

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
credentialing institutions, Institutes of Higher
Education (IHEs) such as CSUs, and other
organizations exist.
100 Residency teams include leaders and
decision-makers from IHEs, LEAs, schools,
collective bargaining entities, and local
communities.
100 MOU or Partnership agreements between
or among all residency partners
100 Shared mission, vision, and theory of
change for the residency
100 Entire residency team– especially decision-
makers– reflect the LEA’s and community's
unique diversity
100 IHEs have the capacity (or a clear plan to
develop the capacity) to meet LEA’s hiring
needs.
100 Staffing, roles, and responsibilities are
delineated across the residency.
100 Established norms for collaboration and
decision-making
200 Collaboratively defined and data-based
residency goals and milestones that are
revisited over time
partnership who have adequate capacity,
commitment to the mission and vision, and
the skill set to lead. Leaders reflect the
diversity of the community they serve.
2.1.2 Program leadership makes clear and
decisive decisions that are appropriately
deliberative, reflect an ongoing
collaboration with all stakeholders, elevate
the voices of the most marginalized in
decision making, and are focused on
executing program mission and vision in the
service of disrupting inequities.
2.1.3 Program leadership uses a change
management process in order to achieve
impact and sustainability goals.
2.2.1 Program leadership builds relationships
with diverse stakeholders in order to
effectively and creatively leverage existing
resources, marshal new resources, and
mobilize support.
2.2.2 Program leadership advocates locally, at
the state level, and nationally, for the
program’s interests and in service of
disrupting inequities within the profession.
3. The residency system is financially sustainable.
100 Program costs include resources and
personnel necessary for effective
implementation.
100 Incentives (i.e., resident, mentor stipends)
are defined and tied to the value of the
residency program to the LEA
200 3–5-year strategic plan exists, tied to
mission, vision, theory of change, and long-
term budget.
200 Long-term budget projection is defined,
including increasing cost savings to the LEA.
200 Long-term commitment by all partners to
contribute the necessary resources to
Lever IV: Financial sustainability
4.1.1 Program has sufficient funds to operate
with quality (e.g., effectively prepare
residents, appropriately compensate
mentor teachers through stipends, etc.).
4.1.2 Financial model includes diverse and
dependable revenue streams.
4.1.3 All partners commit and are held
accountable to ensuring long-term financial
sustainability of the program.
4.1.4 Program leverages existing resources to
reduce program costs while maintaining
quality (e.g., staffing, systems, etc.).
4.1.5 The financial model allows the program
106

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
operationalize the program.
300 All available funding sources are examined
and accessed.
300 Revenue sources are diverse.
to achieve economies of scale.
4.2.1. Program addresses the unique barriers
to entry and long-term success for high
quality and diverse candidates through its
financial model (e.g., living-wage stipends,
appropriate testing supports, funds for
tests, emergency funds, tuition deferment,
reduced tuition).
4.2.2 Program balances and prioritizes funds
such that a candidate’s cost-benefit
analysis of the residency makes it
competitive with other opportunities and
successfully attracts high-quality and
diverse candidates.
4. Formative and outcome data are collected,
analyzed, and used for continuous
improvement.
100 Data-sharing agreement between
stakeholders
200 Program assessment and evaluation plan
with multiple measures that are all tied to
the Characteristics and Evidence of an
Effective California Teacher Residency
Program
200 Protocols to communicate about and
share data
200 Regular meetings scheduled to analyze
data across stakeholder groups
200 Data used in real-time to revise residency
program as needed
300 Mentors model how to collect,
disaggregate, and make evidence-based
analyses that inform their teaching
practice.
Lever I: Partnering and designing for equity
1.4.1 Partners set impact goals, collect data
that measure program impact and identify
disproportionalities, and monitor progress
towards these goals.
1.4.2 Partners collect and analyze data for the
purpose of continuous improvement with
attention to identifying and analyzing
disproportionalities and inequities.
1.4.3 Induction years data, including formative
assessments and student voices, are used
to inform program improvement and allow
for links between pre-service and in-service
data to me made in order to make causal
claims.
5. Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each
year with the recruitment of resident candidates
who reflect the LEA’s and community's unique
Lever V: Resident recruitment and selection
5.1.1 Marketing and recruitment plans reach
high-potential, diverse candidates and
107

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
diversity.
100 Resident recruitment targets set based on
LEA need and student demographics.
100 Recruitment efforts target and prioritize
candidates who reflect the students they
will serve.
100 Resident recruitment strategy includes
explicit tactics to recruit candidates who
reflect the students they will serve.
100 Resident and program expectations
shared with candidates.
200 Recruitment processes include
differentiated support for candidates who
reflect the students they will serve (e.g.,
testing support or waivers, flexible
deadlines to apply).
200 Resident selection strategy screens and
vets’ potential residents using multiple
measures (e.g., paper application,
interview, model lesson, group tasks).
200 Resident selection strategy includes
assessment of candidate awareness of the
impact of identity and institutionalized
racism on teaching and learning in
California.
300 Resident recruitment and selection utilize
and lifts up the work of current residents,
mentors, principals, and partners.
allows program to achieve impact goals for
recruitment (e.g., POC, content focus,
community-focused).
5.1.2 The program’s commitment to diversity,
equity, and inclusion is explicit in resident
recruitment materials, including honoring
the voice and perspectives of the
communities being served by the
residency.
5.1.3 Recruitment process explicitly and
deliberately includes culturally responsive
strategies (e.g., high touch, personalized
and targeted outreach), including testing
supports, to overcome potential barriers to
entry.
5.2.1 Program identifies and communicates
equitable, asset-based, and inclusive
selection criteria that will predict fit with
the program and the district’s/CMO’s
needs.
5.2.2 The selection process is designed to
eliminate systemic barriers to entry and
include a range of inclusive and accessible
activities that makes it possible to select
candidates based on identified selection
criteria.
5.2.3 The stakeholders involved in the
selection process continually examine and
refine it to ensure equity and reduce bias in
order to attract and select candidates from
historically marginalized groups (e.g., bias
training for program staff, examining
conversion rates, etc.).
5.3.1 Residents clearly understand their roles
and responsibilities as well as the role and
responsibilities of the mentor and training
site.
5.3.2 Residents have the opportunity to
108

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
engage in a range of onboarding strategies,
including but not limited to learning the
program’s vision for clinical teacher
preparation, the plan for gradual release,
and affinity groups, that prepares all
residents to start the residency year,
particularly those from historically
marginalized backgrounds.
5.3.3 Residents have opportunities to
strategically build productive, respectful,
and supportive relationships with program
staff, other residents, and teacher
educators.
6. Residents engage in a full year of clinical practice
teaching alongside an accomplished mentor
teacher.
200 Resident co-teaches alongside a mentor
teacher for no less than one full school
year.
200 Resident gradually takes on teaching
responsibilities throughout the school year.
200 Resident has consistent opportunities to
observe other mentors and debrief
observations at the school site.
200 Residents are coached, assessed, and
given regular feedback by mentors, teacher
educators, and program staff.
300 IHE coursework and other professional
learning opportunities are designed or
adjusted to support and align with clinical
practice.
Lever III: Residency year experience
3.1.1 Residency program collaboratively
identifies high priority resident practices
that align with the districts’ framework for
teacher effectiveness.
3.1.1a Resident program’s high priority
resident practices are culturally and
linguistically sustaining teaching and
designed to affirm and engage all students.
3.1.1b Residency program’s high priority
resident practices are aligned with college
and career ready standards.
3.1.1c Residency program’s high priority
resident practices are aligned with closing
opportunity gaps in the district’s context.
3.2.1 Residents experience alignment between
clinical experience and coursework.
7. Coursework and professional learning
opportunities are tightly integrated with clinical
practice.
200 Coursework, professional learning
opportunities, and clinical experiences are
Lever III: Residency year experience
3.2.2 Residency program utilizes a gradual
release plan focused on improving resident
performance and increasing complexity
over the course of the residency year.
109

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
aligned through a set of prioritized skills or
day 1 ready skills.
200 A shared observation rubric/framework is
used to assess residents on agreed-upon
performance benchmarks.
300 Scope and sequence of coursework and
professional opportunities allows residents
to practice and receive feedback on skills
before being applied and assessed.
300 All teacher educators and mentors (across
coursework, professional learning
opportunities, and clinical practice)
effectively employ the shared observation
rubric/framework to support and track
resident growth.
300 Residents understand that teaching is an
act of social justice and that examining
(in)justices must inform their teaching
practice.
300 Residents reflect on the growth and
impact of their teaching practice.
3.2.3 Residents receive ongoing culturally
responsive feedback and support from
teacher educators to ensure that they are
Day 1 ready.
3.3.1 Course instructors implement
coursework that is aligned to high priority
resident practices.
3.3.2 Residency coursework is aligned with the
gradual release calendar and includes
regular opportunities to learn, rehearse,
enact and reflect on high priority resident
practices.
3.3.3 Instructors are provided with relevant
data and use it to inform the design and
improvement of coursework and the
integration of coursework within the
clinical experience.
3.4.1 Program uses a performance-based
assessment system to promote continuous
improvement and understand residents’
learning of high priority resident practices;
system includes pathways for remediation
and, if necessary, exiting the program.
3.4.2 Program has clear training and
calibration protocols for each performance-
based assessment in order to reduce bias,
increase inter-rater reliability and
agreement, identify inequities or disparate
impact.
8. All residents are mentored by accomplished
mentor teachers who reflect their LEA’s and
community's unique diversity.
100 Mentors have at least 3 years of teaching
experience and a clear credential.
100 Mentors have a record of successful
teaching, growth mindset, receptiveness to
Lever VI: Mentor recruitment, selection, and
support
6.1.1 Program establishes research-based
mentor selection criteria including the
knowledge and skills to create culturally
and linguistically sustaining classroom
environments, enact culturally and
110

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
feedback, and willingness to disrupt
problematic and racist actions.
200 Mentors reflect the teachers and students
they serve.
200 Mentor selection strategy screens and
vets’ potential mentors using multiple
measures (e.g., paper application,
interview, model lesson and debrief
session, colleague recommendation, etc.).
200 Mentor selection strategy includes
assessment of a potential mentor's
awareness of the impact of identity and
institutionalized racism on teaching and
learning in California.
200 Mentors receive specific training for the
mentor teacher role.
200 Mentors receive ongoing professional
development tied to resident learning and
need.
Professional development builds capacity to
mentor during and around TK–12
instructional time.
300 Mentors use knowledge of equity
principles and culturally responsive
pedagogy to support their resident to
address issues of equity, bias, and access to
standards-based curriculum.
300 Mentors use mentoring stances
strategically to engage their resident in
collaborative problem-solving and
reflection.
300 Mentors develop the resident’s abilities to
self-assess and co-assess practice based on
evidence, to set professional goals, and
monitor progress.
300 Mentors support residents to ground the
critical analysis of teaching practice in
student experience and learning.
linguistically sustaining teaching and
learning practices, coach adult learners,
and make teaching visible for teacher
residents.
6.1.2 Mentor recruitment strategy is culturally
responsive, aligned with the selection
criteria, and clearly articulates the value
proposition of being a mentor.
6.2.1 Program designs and implements a
mentor selection process to vet for
research-based selection criteria (e.g.,
nomination, application, interview,
observation).
6.3.1 The expectations for mentor teachers
are clearly defined and are aligned to the
expectations of residents and training sites.
6.3.2 Mentor teachers have the opportunity to
learn about the program’s vision for clinical
teacher preparation and the plan for
gradual release of responsibility throughout
the residency year.
6.3.3 Mentors and residents have
opportunities to build mutual respect and
authentic relationships.
6.4.1 Mentor teachers receive a range of
support to be effective in their role aligned
with a scope and sequence of professional
learning.
6.4.2 Program supports mentor teachers to be
able to make visible the high priority
resident practices that are emphasized in
the residency year curriculum.
6.4.3 Program facilitates mentor teacher
collaboration with course instructors to
ensure alignment of coursework and the
clinical experience.
6.5.1 District articulates the mentor teacher
role as part of its teacher leadership
111

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
pathway.
6.5.2 Mentor teachers are supported by the
residency and district to enhance their
teaching effectiveness, elevating their
professional skills and making them more
effective practitioners in the long-term.
6.5.3 Mentor teachers are rewarded for the
dual responsibility of being an equitable
classroom teacher and an equitable teacher
educator in a way that increases teacher
satisfaction and self-efficacy.
9. Clusters of mentors and residents support and
learn from one another at residency partner
Teaching Schools.
100 Recruitment or tactical outreach plan for
potential Teaching Schools
100 Teaching School administrators prioritize
residents in hiring processes.
200 Teaching School selection criteria and
process defined and prioritizes schools
whose students reflect the LEA’s and
community's diversity.
200 Some/all coursework and professional
learning opportunities take place on site in
Teaching School classrooms.
300 Professional learning communities at each
Teaching School include administrators,
mentors, and residents.
300 Administrators, mentors, residency
graduates and residents examine ways in
which white supremacy shows up in
grading systems, perpetuates and masks
inequities, and discredits improvements
made by students over time.
Lever VII: Training site recruitment, selection, and
support
7.1.1 Program identifies training site selection
criteria that are aligned with program
impact and sustainability goals, prioritizing
high needs schools as training sites.
7.1.2 Training sites are cultivated and
recruited because they promote an
equitable and inclusive working
environment in which teachers, teacher
educators, and students from historically
marginalized communities can thrive, learn,
and grow, aligned with identified selection
criteria.
7.2.1 Program designs and implements a
training site selection process to vet for
selection criteria.
7.3.1 Program provides effective onboarding
for principals and staff involved with
residents focused on how to be an effective
training site, including (a) understanding
how to empower mentors, residents, and
students from historically marginalized
communities, (b) the vision and
expectations of the program, and (c) the
roles and responsibilities of all
stakeholders.
112

10 Characteristics and evidence of an effective
California teacher residency:
Research-based evidence and indicators
8 NCTR levers for high quality teacher residencies:
Key practices of quality indicators
7.4.1 Program provides ongoing support to
training sites as they work to establish a
school culture in which residents and
mentors are able to engage in calculated
risk-taking and implement culturally and
linguistically sustaining pedagogy to meet
the needs of students from historically
marginalized communities.
10. Residency graduates are supported to continue
their professional learning and develop as
leaders.
100 Residents are prioritized in partner LEA
hiring.
200 Formal induction support is provided to all
graduates.
200 Professional learning includes guaranteed
and opt-in opportunities for graduates to
continue to learn, grow and develop as
leaders.
300 Apprentice mentor opportunities
300 Post-induction professional opportunities
(e.g., master's degree, National Board
Certification)
Lever VIII: Graduate support
8.1.1 Program creates and implements a job
placement strategy aligned to district
needs.
8.1.2 Graduates are supported in finding a
teaching position in the partner district that
aligns with their career goals.
8.2.1 Post-graduation professional
development, mentoring, and coaching
continues to develop residents’
instructional skill and is cost-efficient to the
program by aligning with induction
supports already in place in the district.
8.2.2 Post-graduate support meets the holistic
needs of teachers from historically
marginalized backgrounds, and sustains
their commitment to grow and learn as
professionals.
8.2.3 Graduates have the opportunity to join a
variety of affinity groups, including race-
based groups and groups specifically for
beginning teachers.

113

Appendix B: Survey Protocol Chart
Table B1
Teacher Residency Characteristics Self-Assessment Survey Items and Concept Alignment Chart
Survey item Response choices Measurement,
concept
Section 1 of 5: Residency background
1. What is the name of
your residency?
Open ended Nominal
2. Who is the local
education agency
(LEA) partner?
Bakersfield City School District
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Ceres Unified School District
Davis Joint Unified
Del Norte County Office of Education
El Dorado County Office of Ed
Elk Grove Unified School District
Fresno County Office of Education
Humboldt County Office of Education
Inglewood Unified School District
Kern High School District
Merced County Office of Education
Monterey County Office of Education
Mount Diablo Unified School District
Mount Pleasant Elementary School District
Napa Valley Unified School District
Northern Humboldt Union HS
Oak Grove School District
Oakland Unified School District
Oxnard School District and Rio School District (Ventura
County Consortium)
Palm Springs Unified School District
Petaluma City Schools
Sacramento City Unified School District
Sacramento County Office of Education
San Diego Unified School District
San Francisco Unified School District
San Joaquin County Office of Education
San Marcos Unified School District
San Mateo County Office of Education
San Rafael City Schools
Santa Barbara County Education Office
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Drop down box,
nominal
114

Survey item Response choices Measurement,
concept
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Santa Paula Unified School District
Santa Rosa City Schools
Simi Valley Unified School District
Torrance Unified School District
Tulare County Office of Education
West Contra Costa Unified School District
West San Gabriel Valley Special Education Local Plan
Area
Wonderful College Prep Academy
3. Who is the
institution of higher
education (IHE)
partner(s)?
Alder GSE
Cal Poly Humboldt
Cal State Teach
California Lutheran University
CSU Bakersfield
CSU Channel Islands
CSU Dominguez Hills
CSU East Bay
CSU Fresno
CSU Monterey Bay
CSU Sacramento
CSU San Marcos
CSU Stanislaus
Holy Names University
Loyola Marymount University
National University
Pacific Oaks College
Reedley College
San Francisco State University
San Jose State University
San Mateo Community College District
Sonoma State University
St. Mary's College of California
Stanford University
Teachers College of San Joaquin
UC Berkeley
UC LA
UC Merced Extension
UC San Diego
UC Santa Barbara
University of San Diego
University of the Pacific
West Hills College Coalinga
multiple choices,
nominal
115

Survey item Response choices Measurement,
concept
4. Who are the other
organization
partner(s)?
Open ended nominal
5. What population
does your teacher
residency primarily
serve?
Select all that apply:
Urban
Suburban
Rural
nominal
6. What are your
teacher residency
focus areas?
Select all that apply:
Bilingual Education
Diversity
Special Education
STEM
TK/K
nominal, funding
Section 2 of 5: Goals
7. Why is this Teacher
Residency program
being developed?
Open nominal, funding
8. What are some
specific action steps
outlined in the
teacher residency
grant proposal?
Open nominal, funding
9. What would you
hope to achieve with
a partnership?
Open nominal,
implementing

116

Table B2
Teacher Residency: Section 3 of 5: Implementation of 10 Characteristics
To what extent are the following statements true of your
teacher residency program?

Response choices:
completely true
moderately true
a little true
not at all true
unsure
Ordinal,
implementing
10. Equity and justice are defined and advanced at all levels of residency work.
11. Mission, vision, and theory of change make explicit commitments to equity and justice.
12. Short- and long-term residency goals include evidence of equity and justice.
13. Recruitment and retention targets include specific numbers of mentors and teachers reflecting the
LEA’s and community's unique diversity.
14. Authentic partnerships exist between local educational agencies (LEAs), accredited credentialing
institutions, Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs) such as CSUs, and other organizations.
15. Residency teams include leaders and decision-makers from IHEs, LEAs, schools, collective
bargaining entities, and local communities.
16. MOU or partnership agreements among all residency partners exist.
17. Residency system is financially sustainable.
18. Program costs include resources and personnel necessary for effective implementation.
19. Incentives (i.e., resident, mentor stipends) are defined and tied to the value of the residency
program to the LEA.
20. Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and used for continuous improvement.
21. Data-sharing agreement between stakeholders exists.
22. Program assessment and evaluation plan with multiple measures are all tied to the Characteristics
and Evidence of an Effective California Teacher Residency Program.
23. Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the recruitment of resident candidates
who reflect the LEA’s and community's unique diversity.
117

To what extent are the following statements true of your
teacher residency program?

Response choices:
completely true
moderately true
a little true
not at all true
unsure
Ordinal,
implementing
24. Resident recruitment targets are set based on LEA need and student demographics.
25. Recruitment efforts target and prioritize candidates who reflect the students they will serve.
26. Residents are engaged in a full year of clinical practice teaching alongside an accomplished mentor
teacher.
27. Residents co-teach alongside a mentor teacher for no less than one full school year.
28. Residents gradually take on teaching responsibilities throughout the school year.
29. Coursework and professional learning opportunities are tightly integrated with clinical practice.
30. Coursework, professional learning opportunities, and clinical experiences are aligned through a set
of prioritized skills or day 1 ready skills.
31. A shared observation rubric/framework is used to assess residents on agreed-upon performance
benchmarks.
32. All residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers who reflect their LEA’s and
community's unique diversity.
33. Mentors have at least 3 years of teaching experience and a clear credential.
34. Mentors have a record of successful teaching, growth mindset, receptiveness to feedback, and
willingness to disrupt problematic and racist actions.
35. Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from one another at residency partner
Teaching Schools.
36. Recruitment or tactical outreach plan exists for potential Teaching Schools.
37. Teaching School administrators prioritize residents in hiring processes.
38. Residency graduates are supported to continue their professional learning and develop as leaders.
39. Residents are prioritized in partner LEA hiring.

118

Table B3
Teacher Residency: Section 4 of 5: Focal Areas to Develop
Survey item Response
choices
Measurement,
concept
40. What are one or two focal areas your residency team would
like to develop?
Open ended Nominal,
implementing

119

Table B4
Teacher Residency: Section 5 of 5: Demographics
Survey item

Response choices Measurement,
concept
41. What is your role on the team? Select all that apply:
Institution of Higher Education (IHE)
leader or staff member
Local Education Agency (LEA) leader
or staff member
Other partner member
Nominal
42. How long have you been in this
role?
Options:
0–1
2–3
4–5
More than 5 years
Ratio
43. What is your gender? Select all that apply:
Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer not to say

Nominal
44. How do you identify, racially
and/or ethnically?
Select all that apply:
Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian,
Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong)
Black or African American
Hispanic/Latinx (of any race)
White
Other
Prefer not to say
Nominal

This concludes the survey. Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. If you
would like to know more about CA teacher residencies and CA Lab support, feel free to reach out to me
directly at: zvera@usc.edu. Also, feel free to leave any comments or questions below. Thank you!
120

Appendix C: Interview Protocol Chart
Let’s begin. I am going to start with some general questions about your teacher residency
program and why it is being developed. Then, I will ask specific questions related to the characteristics
and support needed. And finally, I will ask you some demographic questions. We will start with a few
general questions. Ready? These questions are general background questions about your school district,
IHE and teacher residency program.

Table C1
Interview Protocol Questions With Transitions Chart
Question Concept Type of question
1. What is the name of your residency? Context,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
2. Who is the local education agency (LEA) partner(s)? Context,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
3. Who is the institution of higher education (IHE) partner(s)? Context,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
4. Who are the other organization partner(s)? Context,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
5. What population does your teacher residency primarily
serve? Options:
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Context,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
6. What are your teacher residency focus areas? Options:
Bilingual education
Diversity
Special education
STEM
TK/K
Context,
background,
funding
Neutral/
descriptive
7. How long has your residency been around? Options:
0–1
2–3
Context,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
121

Question Concept Type of question
4–5
More than 5 years
Transition: These next few questions will ask about why the residency program is being developed.
8. Why is this teacher residency program being developed? Context,
background,
funding
Opinion/value
9. What are some specific action steps outlined in the teacher
residency grant proposal?

Follow up: Is there a specific FTE devoted to residency work?
Context,
background,
funding
Neutral/
descriptive
10. In one year from now, describe what your teacher residency
program would ideally be like.

Follow up: What would be potential barriers to make this a
reality?
Open Ideal position
Transition: These next few questions will ask about specific characteristics of an effective teacher
residency and support needed. The first question will ask how you are implementing or planning to
implement the characteristic, and the second question will ask what support is needed to develop
it. You can refer to the hand out.
11. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
1. Equity and justice are defined and advanced at all levels of
residency work?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value

12. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
2. Authentic partnerships exist between local educational
agencies (LEAs), accredited credentialing institutions,
Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs) such as CSUs, and other
organizations?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
13. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
3. Residency system is financially sustainable?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
122

Question Concept Type of question
14. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
4. Formative and outcome data are collected, analyzed, and
used for continuous improvement?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
15. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
5. Specific hiring needs are defined and filled each year with the
recruitment of resident candidates who reflect the LEA’s and
community's unique diversity?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
16. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
6. Residents are engaged in a full year of clinical practice
teaching alongside an accomplished mentor teacher?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
17. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
7. Coursework and professional learning opportunities are
tightly integrated with clinical practice?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
18. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
8. All residents are mentored by accomplished mentor teachers
who reflect their LEA’s and community's unique diversity?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
19. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
9. Clusters of mentors and residents support and learn from
one another at residency partner Teaching Schools?

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
needed
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
20. How are you implementing or planning to implement
characteristic
10. Residency graduates are supported to continue their
professional learning and develop as leaders?
Implementing
characteristics

Support
Neutral/
descriptive

Opinion/value
123

Question Concept Type of question

What support do you anticipate needing to develop this area?
needed
21. What do you hope to achieve from this CA Lab partnership? Support
needed
Ideal position
These next questions are demographic/background questions.
22. What is your role on the team?
Options:
Institution of higher education (IHE) leader or staff member
Local education agency (LEA) leader or staff member
Other partner member
Demographic,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
23. How long have you been in this role?
Options:
0–1
2–3
4–5
More than 5 years
Demographic,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
24. What is your gender?
Options:
Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer not to say
Demographic,
background
Neutral/
descriptive
25. How do you identify, racially and/or ethnically?
Options:
Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian
Indian, Laotian, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong)
Black or African American
Hispanic/Latinx (of any race)
White
Other
Prefer not to say
Demographic,
background
Neutral/
descriptive

This concludes the interview. Is there anything else that I haven’t asked that you think I should
know about your teacher residency program development? If you would like to know more about CA
Teacher Residencies funding, or the CA Lab, feel free to explore the information provided on the
124

consent form, or reach out to me directly at: zvera@usc.edu. Thank you very much for taking the time
to speak with me about your experiences. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank
you again.

125

Appendix D: Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned in the Survey Open Items
Table D1
Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for Why Is This Teacher Residency Being Developed?
Theme mentioned n %
Resident hiring: All 29 78
Fill subject area needs 20 54
Teacher retention and hiring 17 46
Residency for a specific context 13 35
Professional advancement, pipelines 7 19
Clinical: All 15 41
Strong teacher preparation 15 41
High quality instruction and academic growth 3 8
Equity, justice: All 14 38
Teacher diversity 12 32
Equity and social justice 2 5
Authentic partnerships: All 7 19
Collaborative partnerships, coherence, streamlining 7 19
Mentors: All 4 11
Mentor development 4 11

Note. N = 37. The n represents the number of mentions a theme received in
each response to the survey questions: Why is the teacher residency being
developed?

126

Table D2
Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for What Are Some Specific Action Steps Outlined in the
Teacher Residency Grant Proposal?
Theme mentioned n %
Resident hiring: All 21 57
Resident recruitment, pipelines 21 57
Retention 4 11
Mentors: All 20 54
Mentor preparation and matching 15 41
Ongoing professional learning and development 12 32
Mentor recruitment 9 24
Authentic partnerships: All 18 49
Partnerships, MOU 17 46
Shared vision, mission 5 14
Capacity building 3 8
Hiring residency leaders 2 5
Strategic plan 1 3
Clinical: All 13 35
High quality teacher preparation, support 7 19
Clinical practice 6 16
Equity, justice: All 12 32
Equity actions, student achievement, serving student
population, culturally relevant strategies
9 24
Diversity 7 19
Coursework: All 11 30
Coursework curriculum and design 11 30
Data: All 7 19
Program evaluation, data usage 5 14
Needs assessments, audits 2 5
Resident completer 2 5
Cycles of inquiry 1 3
Financial sustainability: All 3 8
Financial sustainability 3 8

Note. N = 37. The n represents the number of mentions a theme received in
each response to the survey questions: What are some specific action steps
outlined in the teacher residency grant proposal?

127

Table D3
Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for What Would You Hope to Achieve With a Residency
Partnership?
Theme mentioned n %
Resident hiring: all 23 62
Local pathway 15 41
Recruitment and retention of local educators 8 22
Teacher fulfillment and commitment 2 5
Employment 1 3
Clinical: all 19 51
Highly qualified teachers, preparation 14 38
Equip teachers with skills, strategies to meet student
needs
12 32
Equity, Justice: all 18 49
Credentialing quality, diverse candidates 17 46
Equity centered 3 8
Authentic Partnerships: all 9 24
Partnerships, Collaboration 6 16
Capacity building 2 5
Practices and policies 1 3
Mentors: all 5 14
Prepare mentors to support residents 5 14
Financial sustainability: All 4 11
Financial sustainability 2 5
Low cost, low financial burden 2 5

Note. N = 37. The n represents the number of mentions a theme received in
each response to the survey questions: What would you hope to achieve with a
residency partnership?

128

Table D4
Number and Percentage of Themes Mentioned for What Are One or Two Focal Areas Your Residency
Team Would Like to Develop?
Theme mentioned n %
Resident hiring: All 15 44
Recruitment of teachers of color 6 18
Recruitment for specific content areas 3 9
Hiring systems, needs 3 9
Recruitment 2 6
Teacher pipeline 1 3
Hiring teachers for specific student populations 1 3
Meet the needs of residents 1 3
Mentors: All 11 32
Mentor skills, professional development 11 32
Equity, Justice: All 10 29
Equity and justice 6 18
Meet the needs of students, increase achievement 4 12
Curriculum centering BIPOC voices 1 3
Clinical: All 10 29
Clinical practice 6 18
Quality teachers 2 6
Teaching a specific content areas 2 6
Data: All 9 26
Data collection and evaluation 7 21
Cycles of inquiry, improvement science 1 3
Alignment to CA characteristics of an effective residency 1 3
Authentic partnerships: All 7 21
Authentic partnerships 7 21
Financial sustainability: All 4 12
Financial sustainability 4 12
Coursework: All 4 12
Coursework and clinical alignment 4 12
Graduate Support 1 3
Network of support for educators 1 3

Note. N = 34. The n represents the number of mentions a theme received in each
response to the survey questions: What are one or two focal areas your
residency team would like to develop?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The state of California has invested $425 million dollars over the past 4 years to create and expand teacher residencies. California is in a perpetual teacher shortage and teacher residencies are a promising alternative teacher credentialing pathway. Teacher residencies tend to draw in a more diverse teaching workforce than the traditional pathway and retain teachers at higher rates than other alternative pathways. The 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency is a framework to guide teacher residency leaders in developing residency programs. The present study uses a mixed methods approach to understand the following: To what extent do California teacher residency leaders understand and implement, or plan to implement, the 10 characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency? What supports do leaders need to implement the characteristics to build their programs? Leaders from the 41 teacher residencies who received 2022 CA teacher residency capacity grant funding were invited to participate in a self-assessment survey and opt into an interview about the characteristics and evidence of an effective California teacher residency. Eighty-five percent of the 41 residency programs responded to the survey, and seven residency leaders were interviewed. The results highlight specific areas of technical and adaptive supports needed. The discussion includes next steps to create a statewide system of support for teacher residency leaders. The characteristics can be revisited to consider California’s nuanced context and to center student voice and outcomes. By supporting robust and effective teacher residency programs, California students can enjoy a prepared and dedicated teacher workforce that reflects their diversity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

The importance of Black and Latino teachers in BIPOC student achievement and the importance of continuous teacher professional development for BIPOC student achievement

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Urban teacher residencies and their impact on teacher retention in high-needs school settings

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

Examining how teacher pre-service/credential programs prepare teachers to teach BIPOC students

PDF

Racial equity and educational excellence: challenges and successes in Twin Cities educational reforms

PDF

Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 and how teachers can intervene to improve student learning

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Black@: using student voices to dismantle colorblindness and inspire culturally relevant pedagogy in southern independent schools

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Teacher curriculum supplementation as phenomenon and process

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Vera, Zaia (author)

Core Title California teacher residency leaders’ understanding and implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 02/03/2023

Defense Date 01/12/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adaptive assistance,BIPOC teachers,mixed methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,residency characteristics,statewide system of support,teacher preparation,teacher residency,teacher residency implementation,teacher residency leaders,technical assistance

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Polikoff, Morgan (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Torres, Marthaa (committee member)

Creator Email zaiaveraz@gmail.com,zvera@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112724695

Unique identifier UC112724695

Identifier etd-VeraZaia-11467.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-VeraZaia-11467

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Vera, Zaia

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230206-usctheses-batch-1006 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu