Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership

Inspire. Empower. Transform. For All.

Join Us MTEP Newsletter

MTEP 2.0 logo

About MTEP 2.0

The Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership (MTEP) is a networked improvement community (NIC) of secondary mathematics teacher preparation programs across the country – working collaboratively to redesign secondary mathematics teacher preparation programs based on its Updated Guiding Principles for Secondary Mathematics Teacher Preparation and the Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics.

First organized in 2011, MTEP has produced a substantial body of knowledge addressing common problems of practice in secondary mathematics teacher preparation. In 2020, a new iteration of the network titled MTEP 2.0 was launched, with a focus on supporting the efforts of local secondary mathematics teacher preparation programs to transform their efforts using the NIC design.

MTEP 2.0 welcomes all institutions involved in preparing secondary mathematics teachers; interested people may join an existing MTEP 2.0 team or form a new team (see below for more details about how to get involved). Local teams include a broad range of stakeholders in their improvement efforts, including mathematics teacher educators, mathematicians, K-12 school partners, and others with a stake in well-prepared mathematics teachers.

A grant from the National Science Foundation titled Collaborative Research: Using Networked Improvement Communities to Scale Up Program Transformation for Secondary Mathematics Teacher Preparation (NIC-Transform Scale Up; DUE-2141737, 2141730), was awarded to Auburn University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in October 2022 to scale up and study the emerging MTEP 2.0 network. MTEP 2.0 currently consists of 10 teams encompassing 46 programs across the nation.

View Past Findings and Publications

Membership and Leadership

MTEP 2.0 is a national network of 20 teams encompassing 46 programs and their partners, including mathematics teacher educators, mathematicians, K-12 school partners, and others with a stake in well-prepared mathematics teachers.

List of Teams
Team Institution
Central Alabama Auburn University
Central Alabama Tuskegee University
Columbus State University Columbus State University
CSU Fullerton CSU Fullerton
Florida International University Florida International University
Iowa Iowa Depart of Education
Iowa Iowa State University
Kennesaw State University Kennesaw State University
Kentucky University of Kentucky
Kentucky University of Central Florida
Middle Tennessee Middle Tennessee State University
Middle Tennessee Tennessee Tech University
Middle Tennessee Tennessee State University
Mississippi State Mississippi State University
Montana University of Montana
Montana Montana State University
MTEP Hui University of Hawaiʻi Hilo
MTEP Hui University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
MTEP Hui University of Hawaiʻi West Oʻahu
Nebraska University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Nebraska University of Nebraska at Omaha
Nebraska University of Nebraska Kearney
North Carolina Appalachian State University
North Carolina North Carolina A&T University
North Carolina North Carolina Central University
North Carolina North Carolina State University
North Carolina East Carolina University
North Carolina University of North Carolina at Greensboro
North Carolina University of North Carolina at Pembroke
North Carolina University of North Carolina at Wilmington
North Carolina University of North Carolina at Charlotte
North Carolina Western Carolina University
Northern Arizona Northern Arizona University
TEMME Eastern Michigan University
Texas Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas Texas A&M University
The University of Alabama The University of Alabama
University of South Carolina University of South Carolina
Utah Utah State
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin – Platteville
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin – River Falls
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin – La Crosse
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point
Wisconsin University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

W. Gary Martin, Auburn University

Wendy Smith, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Marilyn Strutchens, Auburn University
Outreach Leader

Alyson Lischka, Middle Tennessee State University
Research Leader

John Sutton, ResultED
Project Evaluator

Dana Pomykal Franz, Mississippi State University

Yvonne Lai, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Margaret Mohr-Schroeder, University of Kentucky

Mohammed Qazi, Tuskegee University

Yvonne Lai, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Diane Barrett, University of Hawaiʻi-Hilo

Basil Conway, Columbus State University

Cyndi Edginton, North Carolina State University

April Pforts, Iowa Department of Education

Meghan Leadabrand, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Driver diagram for MTEP

Design of MTEP 2.0

MTEP 2.0 uses a networked improvement community (NIC) design, championed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, at multiple levels, from guiding local improvement efforts to guiding cross-team collaborations to guiding the network as a whole. A description of the overall MTEP 2.0 design, organized by key features of a NIC, follows:

  1. NICs are guided by a common aim: By 2025, 65 MTEP 2.0 programs (including 11 under-resourced institutions and/or minority-serving institutions) will be actively engaged in an explicit, localized, prioritized improvement process towards alignment with the AMTE Standards and MTEP Guiding Principles in order to increase the number of well-prepared beginning secondary mathematics teachers, foregrounding issues of equity and access both in the objectives and practices of the programs.
  2. NICs are guided by a deep understanding of the problem and underlying system. The driver diagram in this section illustrates MTEP 2.0’s theory of action in achieving its aims.
  3. NICs engage in improvement efforts disciplined by the rigor of improvement science. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles are used to guide the development, testing, and refinement of interventions.
  4. NICs are networked to accelerate progress across varied educational contexts.
David Webb and Wendy Smith lead a discussion at the 2019 MTEP Conference in St. Louis

How to Get Involved

All mathematics teacher preparation programs from any type of institution are welcome to become part of MTEP. Programs and their partners interested in becoming an MTEP 2.0 Team should contact Marilyn Strutchens, leader of the Outreach Hub. To learn more about the application process, see the Membership Toolkit.

Organizations and other institutions interested in working with MTEP 2.0 on policy issues and other concerns related to Secondary Mathematics Teacher education should contact Marilyn Strutchens, leader of the Outreach Hub.

Individuals interested in learning about the work of one of MTEP’s Research Action Clusters should see the following section, Learning From and With MTEP, on this webpage.

Learning from and with MTEP

Past Findings from MTEP

Work in the early years of MTEP was structured around Research Action Clusters (RACs), which focused on developing knowledge related to particular challenges in the preparation of secondary mathematics teachers.


See Full MTEP Bibliography

Future Research for MTEP 2.0

MTEP 2.0 is committed to learning about how the networked improvement community structure can support, accelerate, and sustain secondary mathematics teacher preparation program transformation efforts locally, regionally, and nationally toward a goal of achieving more inclusive and equity-oriented teacher preparation programs that align with the AMTE Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of Mathematics.

We seek to understand both how to support transformation and how to overcome challenges to transformation across varied contexts with attention to the networked improvement communities as entities and the change agents that work within them.

History of MTEP 2.0

The first iteration of MTEP was convened by the Science and Mathematics Teaching Imperative of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities in early 2012 and worked to address the significant national shortage of well-prepared secondary mathematics teachers through a coordinated research, development, and implementation effort. The partnership took a comprehensive approach to tackling this challenge, convening community colleges, universities, and university systems, as well as K-12 schools, state departments of education, and other education-focused organizations.

The partnership aimed to support the improvement of secondary mathematics programs; promote partnerships among all sectors throughout the teacher development process, with a focus on promoting program transformation; develop and coordinate a networked research and development agenda; serve as a clearinghouse for model programs and practices; and advocate for change at university, state and national levels.

Over its initial years, MTEP focused largely on the work of research action clusters (RACs). Individuals within each RAC developed, tested, and refined solutions in their areas of work, generally following the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model. As they demonstrated success, solutions developed by each RAC were made available to additional teams for extended testing, noting any adaptations that may be necessary to address the local context. Based on improvement science techniques, utilizing the power of the network, this development model followed the NIC design.

MTEP 2.0 launched in October 2020 with 19 partnership teams encompassing 43 secondary mathematics teacher preparation programs across 17 states. Since its inception, MTEP has hosted annual national conferences to organize the work of MTEP and MTEP 2.0. Multiple funded projects have supported various aspects of the work of the partnership, including its RACs and Working Groups, and launching and studying the MTEP 2.0 network.

nsf logo The work of the Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership has been funded by grants from multiple funding agencies (National Science Foundation DUE-1624643, 1624610, 1624628, 1624639, 1834551, 1834539, 1726998, 1726853, 1726362, 1726744, 1726707, 1726098, 1726252, 1726723, 1726804, 2141146, 2141737, 2141730; Helmsley Charitable Trust). All findings are those of the authors, and not necessarily of the funding agencies.