teachers, teaching, and curriculum and (2) recommendations for improving teacher education from national organizations (see Figure 3-1). Activities sponsored by the partnership also might include research involving teacher educators and teachers that explores ways to (1) implement and assess the efficacy of new approaches to teaching, curricula, and learning tools and (2) understand the systemic implications of implementing such changes (e.g., Confrey et al., in press). Partnerships that involve schools or districts and research universities could sponsor studies that focused on ways to improve teaching and learning of science, mathematics, and technology for people of all ages (e.g., AAU, 1999).

Perhaps most importantly, a partnership’s programs for teacher education would be evaluated continually and modified when necessary. Ongoing feedback would come from two primary sources:

1. Evaluation of the science and mathematics activities in local schools and districts that participate in the partnership. Graduate students might undertake these evaluations as theses or district personnel or external evaluators could conduct such evaluations.

2. Collection of data about teachers who complete education and professional development programs sponsored by the partnership, as well as collection of data about the differences in levels of achievement of the students of those teachers.¹ Included would be student teachers who had moved to other parts of the state or country after graduation. Collection of such data would be a stimulus to colleges and universities to maintain contact with their graduates and to acknowledge the effectiveness of their teaching programs.

As illustrated in Figure 6-1, partnerships also would engage other resources in the community to contribute to planning and implementation of programs and to provide opportunities for future and practicing teachers to gain hands-on experience with local applications of science, mathematics, and technology. The community re-