Search News


Browse Archives

News

Raising the Bar on Teacher Ed

June 23, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Teacher education programs are now required to meet higher standards or increase their emphasis on classroom training in order to achieve accreditation, according to new guidelines being announced today by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

One of the organization's new requirements asks teacher education programs to "demonstrate continuous improvement toward excellence." This means they must meet NCATE's highest -- not just "acceptable" -- levels of achievement in six areas, ranging from candidate knowledge and diversity to faculty qualifications. For instance, whereas the acceptable level requires professional education faculty to have "earned doctorates or exceptional expertise that qualifies them for their assignments," the superior level additionally requires that they "have earned doctorates or exceptional expertise, have contemporary professional experiences in school settings at the levels that they supervise, and are meaningfully engaged in related scholarship."

With regard to the program's finances, NCATE's "acceptable" level calls for a budget that "adequately supports on-campus and clinical work,"
whereas the target level requires that "budgetary allocations permit faculty teaching, scholarship, and service that extend beyond the unit
to P-12 education and other programs in the institution."

Alternatively, institutions can establish programs that foster real-world classroom training or research about teacher education.

NCATE President James Cibulka said the revisions mark the "biggest change in NCATE's accreditation process in the last 10 years."

"We need to recruit a diverse and talented teaching force," he said. "We need to induct novice teachers to their profession and to retain them once they are highly functional teachers, we need to raise achievements, we need to prepare teachers who can work with a more diverse student population. There are a whole host of challenges there and we believe the institutions that prepare teachers should be addressing those needs."

The majority of NCATE's 632 accredited colleges of education do not currently meet the "target" level of achievement,according to Cibulka. They have until 2012 to either raise their curriculum to that level or develop a new training or research program.

Larry Johnson, dean of the University of Cincinnati College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services, said that meeting the NCATE requirements is "critical" for American education, but may be difficult to measure in concrete terms. "It's really hard, any time, to hold people accountable to the impact of something they're doing," he said, adding, "You can't have 'highly trained' teachers unless you can demonstrate they impact the students they can teach."

In the past, supporters of a traditional curriculum have criticized NCATE for being too ideological. In 2005, the National Association of Scholars filed a complaint with the U.S. Education Department regarding the organization's "dispositions" requirement, which NCATE expects education programs to use to measure students' teaching capability. At the time, "social justice" was listed as a quality that students should have; the phase was removed soon after.

Glenn Ricketts, a spokesman for the National Association of Scholars, said the new NCATE requirements sounded "encouraging," based on a description provided before the document's release.

"We'd like to see far more content-based education for teachers of history or English than simply pedagogy (and) things like service learning or community activism," he said. "We're hoping that this is an improvement."

The new requirements ultimately aim to dispel the notion that "what happens in a university is kind of an ivory tower perspective," said David Burgin, an economics teacher at Science Hill High School in Tennessee. He advised NCATE on forming its new standards after helping develop a local teacher-training program.

"In the past it's sort of been, 'What can we do to get approval? Check check check, OK, we're done,' " he said. "Whereas I feel like what we're asking NCATE to do ... is to develop relationships and see a product, not a finished work."

Frank B. Murray, president of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council -- a group formed as a rival to NCATE, but which has, more recently, been working with it -- praised the changes being announced today. "The changes NCATE is proposing are very much in line with TEAC's principles," he said.

"We are eager to see how the field responds to NCATE's ambitious plans because they fit so well with TEAC's approach. We have nothing but applause for this effort."



See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Raising the Bar on Teacher Ed

  • Why not address existing problems first?
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on June 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • .
    It seems foolhardy to move ahead with upgrading standards without better understanding how efficacious the existing "guidelines" are. How do we know that the guidelines now aren't being ignored? Observers are liable to mistake these new proposals as just another decennial dance.

    One of the safeguards for ensuring high quality instructors are minimum accreditation standards for faculty, but without understanding how the existing standards do or do not work, guideline improvements run the risk of failing, and further undermining the legitimacy of the association proposing them.

    No study that I know of has examined the causal links between accreditation standards and faculty quality in existing teacher education programs. How effective are the present "guidelines," and doesn't upgrading them without having objective minimum standards in place make improvement unlikely?

    Part of the problem in addressing this is that the “black box” of hiring practices at the institutional level is poorly understood, especially by scholars. What actually happens — how high quality instructors are hired and retained — deserves at least some attention before venturing off. Why not first address the problems and obstacles for the existing guidelines?

  • Raising content knowledge is not enough
  • Posted by Betzi Bateman on June 23, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • In teacher education programs, there is a tendency to separate content and pedagogical knowledge. Different programs tend to be focused on one or the other.

    Here's a quote from the article above:

    "We'd like to see far more content-based education for teachers of history or English than simply pedagogy (and) things like service learning or community activism," he said. "We're hoping that this is an improvement."

    How about teaching future teachers how to TEACH history or English. Combining the two domains, as Shulman (1986) calls for in his model, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), will enable teachers to focus on the subject matter itself and find ways to make it accessible to learners.

    Mishra and Koehler (2006) call for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as a model for advancing the use of educational technologies. Again, this is one area in which teacher education programs slap a technology course or two onto a licensure or Master's program, teachers learn how to use Word processing software or spreadsheets, and are left with little understanding of how that technology can be used to advance their teaching practices.

    Yes, an advanced level of content knowledge is important for teachers to have. But, it is shortsighted to think it is that simple.

    Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

    Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

  • Blending content and pedagogy
  • Posted by Monica Poole on June 23, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • This sounds very interesting. In response to the thought that there are particular content needs for teachers of history and English--I agree. I also agree that content is not enough: you have to present the content carefully to get any kind of retention, and in my view, I have a responsibility as a teacher of history and English to teach not "just" poetry and prose or names and dates, but also--and sometimes more importantly--skills of critical thinking, source analysis, and written and oral communication. I'm in higher ed, not secondary ed, but I think many similar pedagogy challenges are happening at the CC and the high school level alike. Betzi Bateman's recommendation, above, seems to me on target and reflective of the very best training I've encountered: blend the 'pedagogy education' and the 'content education'. Here's an example of that kind of training. Primary Source (primarysource.org), an organization where I am in MA, seems to have a really compelling approach to teacher training that blends content and pedagogy--they do training aimed at the secondary school level. I haven't been trained by them, but I do admire their work.

  • Here's an Idea!
  • Posted by DFS on June 25, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Perhaps only those knowledgeable should be allowed to teach.

    Note that this statement does not mean that all of those with knowledge be allowed to teach, only that teachers be recruited only from the ranks of those who actually know something!

    In other words, let only mathematicians teach mathematics, sociologists teach sociology, physicists teach physics, medical doctors teach medicine, jurists teach law, etc.

    Or, perhaps, we should just instead diminish the sum of any total knowledge in the world? After all, this would satisfy the education majors and their 'establishment.' Perhaps that should be the way to go. After all, we could then elect those only beholding to such 'unions.'

  • How to teach
  • Posted by Lynda Lambert , Adjunct, English & World Languages at Howard Community College on June 26, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • As someone above suggested, knowing a subject well does not, necessarily, mean one can teach it. Even doing something well, as DHS mentions, does not guarantee one can teach it-- though it does often guarantee a passion for the subject.
    Teaching is an art. And it is hard to teach art; just ask any painting or sculpting teacher. It is also hard to define art; just ask any art critic.

    Teaching is also craft. But those in practical crafts know the giant disparities that exist. One plumber is not, necessarily, as good as the next, even though both may have had the same training and both are performing the same tasks. We are individuals and must approach the art and craft of teaching with, and from, the talents we have.

    My own belief is that until teachers at all levels are recognized for their innate, as well as learned, knowledge and ability, there will be no improvement in teaching-- or, more importantly, learning. Until those in power stop attempting to create a mold for the perfect teacher and trying to turn them out on an assembly line, teachers will continue to fail at their task and/or leave the profession.

    What is needed in teaching teachers is to find each prospective teacher's talents for teaching and seek ways to tap those talents. Or, if they have the desire to teach but no real talent for teaching, then to find ways to help them learn them.

    Some talents that make teachers artists as well as excellent craftsmen, in my book at least, include a tendancy toward the dramatic, excellent speaking skills, excellent story telling skills, overall knowledge of the world around them. Within the context of these skills, they also need to be able to awake these in their students. What good is it, for instance, knowing how to write well if one has nothing to write about.

    I have students come to me from high school who say they have "never" been asked for their opinions, never been asked to choose a topic for a paper, never taken part in a discussion. I have students who have never read The Declaration of Independence, and, when we do, have trouble discerning the concepts within it. Certainly the archaic language causes some problems, but those can be overcome; it is their inability to formulate thoughts that gives me the most concern.

    What we need to teach teachers is how to use their innate creative abilities to provoke thought. All else is window dressing.