UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — As Pennsylvania continues to face persistent shortages of qualified science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers, policymakers and educators are seeking innovative solutions that go beyond quick fixes. Gerry LeTendre, Harry L. Batschelet Chair of Educational Administration in the Penn State College of Education, co-edited “Transforming Teacher Preparation Across Nations: Policies and Practices,” which discusses the global model of the iSTEP Network.
The book details the iSTEP Network, which originated in the yearly international institutes hosted by the Stanford Teacher Education Program. The model is a research-based network that reimagines teacher education through locally embedded partnerships between universities and K-12 schools. It incorporates principles of effective teacher education developed by scholars over years of implementation and evaluation. By treating teachers as researchers and co-creators of knowledge, iSTEP challenges the traditional top-down dynamics of teacher training and reform, LeTendre said.
In this Q&A, LeTendre shared insights on the iSTEP model’s global impact, its potential relevance for Pennsylvania, and what system-level changes could make teacher preparation more sustainable and responsive to local needs.
Q: What is the core philosophy behind the iSTEP model, and how does it differ from traditional teacher preparation approaches?
LeTendre: The iSTEP model is grounded in the idea that teachers are not just passive recipients of expert knowledge from universities — they are professionals capable of generating and evaluating knowledge themselves. Instead of prescribing a uniform set of best practices, iSTEP helps educators investigate what works for their students in their contexts. It emphasizes pedagogical content knowledge, encourages classroom-based research, and fosters collaborative partnerships between teachers, researchers and policymakers. The iSTEP network was developed over many years at Stanford through multiple workshops which engaged teacher educators from around the world.
Q: How has iSTEP been implemented globally, and what conditions have helped it succeed in countries like Sweden, Brazil and Hungary?
LeTendre: iSTEP has proven adaptable across diverse education systems because it prioritizes local ownership. In Sweden, for example, universities and municipalities collaborated to create new structures that gave teachers a voice in shaping their own professional development. What makes iSTEP successful is its long-term vision — one that builds consensus across stakeholders, supports teachers in inquiry-based practice, and strengthens the relationship between academic institutions and local schools.
Q: Considering Pennsylvania’s ongoing STEM teacher shortages, which elements of the iSTEP model are most feasible to adapt at the state or district level?
LeTendre: The most immediately actionable aspect is integrating pedagogical content knowledge with teacher-led inquiry. Encouraging teachers to engage in research about their own classrooms — what methods work, for whom and under what conditions — can enhance both professional engagement and student outcomes. Districts could pilot programs that support this kind of work through professional development days or local research networks.
Q: What policy lessons from Sweden’s iSTEP implementation might inform Pennsylvania’s strategies for building stronger university-school partnerships?
LeTendre: One of the biggest lessons is that policy cannot be handed down from the top — it must involve sense-making and consensus-building from the ground up. In Sweden, universities began to recognize and compensate faculty for work done in schools as part of their official duties. This kind of shift in incentives is crucial. If universities in Pennsylvania could similarly recognize fieldwork as part of tenure and promotion criteria, we’d see much deeper, more meaningful engagement with local districts.
Q: Beyond recruitment, what system-level supports should Pennsylvania prioritize to reduce attrition among new STEM teachers?
LeTendre: Retention is key. Many teachers leave not because they aren’t prepared, but because they don’t get enough support during their early years. Mentoring and induction programs are critical. Policymakers should prioritize funding for mentor teacher release time and build infrastructure for long-term university-district partnerships. These relationships should focus not just on initial preparation but also on helping new teachers deepen their instructional skills and content knowledge over time.