Collaborative Strategic Staffing Models

The practice was intentionally designed through early, collaborative conversations that included leadership from both the school district(s) and the Educator Preparation Program (EPP). A central design principle was ensuring that key decision makers were directly involved from the start so that expectations, commitments, and operational realities were clearly understood and mutually agreed upon.

District representation was determined by district size but generally included human resources leaders and superintendents/assistant superintendents, ensuring that staffing, certification, and instructional priorities were represented. From the College of Education (COE), initial involvement included the dean, associate dean, certification officer, and department chair. These roles brought together academic, operational, and certification expertise, allowing the practice to be grounded in both district needs and EPP requirements and supported by the appropriate institutional authority.

Implementation of the practice evolved intentionally as school‑level leadership was brought into the process. Principals were incorporated into ongoing discussions to ensure the practice could be carried out effectively within campus contexts and aligned with school operations. Their role includes supporting implementation within defined parameters, particularly as it relates to other assigned duties, which vary depending on the specific residency or partnership model being used. Leadership of the practice is shared and distributed. Principals provide campus‑level oversight, while selected Host Teachers (HTs) serve as the primary implementers in the classroom. HTs are intentionally chosen and trained to carry out the model with fidelity, specifically through structured co‑teaching and coaching practices embedded in daily instruction. Consistency is ensured through clear role expectations, targeted training for host teachers, and defined boundaries for implementation that are communicated across stakeholders. This structure allows flexibility to respond to varying district and campus needs while maintaining a consistent focus on high‑quality mentoring, instructional alignment, and effective preparation of future teachers.

The practice is monitored and evaluated through a coordinated effort between campus principals and site coordinators, who collectively oversee implementation at the school level. This shared responsibility ensures regular observation, communication, and responsiveness to instructional and mentoring practices within the classroom. Site coordinators are primarily responsible for collecting implementation data through structured Pre Conference Observation Post Conference (POPs) and routine walkthroughs, which provide ongoing evidence of co‑teaching, coaching, and alignment to program expectations. Principals conduct their own walkthroughs and, at times, participate jointly with site coordinators to gain a shared understanding of implementation and resident progress. Monitoring occurs on an ongoing basis throughout the placement, allowing for frequent review rather than isolated checkpoints. When either the principal, host teacher, or the site coordinator identifies an area of concern or a need for additional support, there is intentional communication between the three roles to ensure timely intervention and alignment in next steps. This collaborative oversight structure supports consistent execution of the practice while maintaining a strong focus on continuous improvement and effective teacher preparation.