Search News


Browse Archives

News

Mediocre? Not Us!

October 23, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

All colleges and graduate schools of education must do a better job of preparing future teachers for the classroom, Arne Duncan, secretary of education, said in a speech Thursday. Many leaders of teacher education programs said they agreed with his comments, but it was hard to find any who said they thought his criticisms applied to their institutions.

“By almost any standard, many if not most of the nation's 1,450 schools, colleges and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom,” he told an audience of faculty members, students and teachers at Teachers College of Columbia University. “America’s university-based teacher preparation programs need revolutionary change -- not evolutionary tinkering.”

Duncan’s speech bore down on the colleges and graduate schools that prepare more than half the teachers in U.S. primary and secondary schools -- 60 percent of whom, by one count, entered the classroom feeling unprepared for the challenges that lay ahead -- and called on those programs to introduce more in-the-classroom training and better tracking of teacher performance and student outcomes.

Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and former dean of Teachers College, said the speech “threw a lifeline to university-based teacher education programs” as more states and school districts are turning to other kinds of teacher certification programs to get bodies to the blackboard.

Though some might see the speech “only as a negative, with the secretary carping on schools of education, I see it as an opportunity schools are being given and should take advantage of,” Levine said. “It’s an extraordinary gift coming from Secretary Duncan.”

Many of Duncan’s observations piggybacked off Levine’s 2006 controversial report, “Educating School Teachers” (the source of the statistic that three of five teachers felt unprepared for their jobs), which accused schools of education of being “the Dodge City of the education world ... unruly and disordered.”

The controversy, to some degree, seems to have cooled down and turned into agreement that education schools need vast reforms, at least based on the reactions of a few teacher education experts who listened to Duncan’s speech.

Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), said she thought there was “a degree of criticism in what he’s saying and a degree of reality in what he’s saying, too -- plenty of these teacher education programs aren’t functioning as they need to be.”

Robinson had panned Duncan’s October 9 speech at the University of Virginia, "A Call to Teaching," calling it a rehashing of “shopworn criticisms of teacher preparation programs” and asking him to do a more thorough examination of programs in advance of Thursday’s speech.

Duncan on Thursday applauded AACTE and its 800 member institutions for trying to do a better job preparing teachers, something he didn’t do in his Virginia speech. He said that group and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) “are firmly behind the new drive to link teacher preparation programs to better student outcomes.”

Duncan didn't just list Columbia and Harvard among the institutions doing a good job preparing teachers. He also mentioned Emporia State University in Kansas, Alverno College in Wisconsin and Black Hills State University in South Dakota. To Robertson, that signaled he was "more willing to look at good programs rather than just focusing on the bad."

Robinson shrugged off Duncan’s assertion that “for decades, schools of education have been renowned for being cash cows for universities,” divisions that brought in money that was then reinvested into other parts of universities. Kenyon S. Chan, chancellor of the University of Washington Bothell, said education programs at his institution “actually cost us a lot of money.”

Brad Portin, director of Bothell’s education program, said Duncan’s speech didn’t reveal any “new news for us” and echoed many of the tropes from Levine’s study. His institution and the other two campuses in the University of Washington system, he stressed “are already doing a lot of the good things discussed in the speech.” The programs he oversees put future teachers into the classroom early on in their time as students and prepares them to work with children who are socioeconomically, racially and developmentally diverse.

Nonetheless, he said, “Duncan’s speech affirmed the ideas out there about preparing all our teachers to work with a very diverse student community” and bridged the “disconnect between what has traditionally happened on university campuses to prepare teachers and the field portion of the experience.”

Margaret A. Noe, dean of the College of Education at Southeast Missouri State University, said her institution was also doing a good job of preparing teachers for the classroom but conceded that there are plenty of teachers in schools across the country who were “ill-prepared for the classroom experience.”

Patrick Riccards -- CEO of Exemplar Strategic Consulting, which advises education groups, and author of the blog Eduflack -- said he thought schools of education needed to work on improving their self-awareness as Duncan and the Department of Education begin their charge to reshape American teacher education. “You’re not going to find a college of education that’s going to say 'we’re part of the problem,' ” he said. “People enter the field to try to help people and everyone wants to believe they’re part of the solution. You’d be hard pressed to find a dean who will stand up and say 'I’m not doing my job.' ”

But, he said, all institutions need to acknowledge there’s room for improvement. “We’re heard now for more than a decade about this looming teacher shortage as Baby Boomers retire – obviously the economy’s thrown that off a bit – but we still need to think about training more teachers and training them better.”

Robinson said the same.“We need to acknowledge all that’s required to meet the needs of the future,” she said, “and those programs that can’t do that need to close.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Mediocre? Not Us!

  • More time in classrooms
  • Posted by Sean Lancaster , Associate Professor / Education at Grand Valley State University on October 23, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • first, i doubt any department, school or college of education would disagree that more time in k-12 classrooms would be beneficial. we just revamped our teacher education program and our students do a student assisting semester where they are in a k-12 classroom just as they enter the college of education. the students aren't student teaching; rather, they are experiencing the classroom and have other objectives to help them get a feel for teaching from a perspective other than being a student. this provides much value as students progress through other education courses. this way, students have actual experiences to draw on when they are learning strategies, methods and content for becoming teachers. by the time they get to student teaching, they hopefully have a better grasp of the experience so they can dive right in and apply what they've learned.

    also, i graduated from the University of Kansas, which is mentioned in the article above. i know that in the early 90s, KU revamped their teacher prep program and made it a 5 year program . . . sort of following more of a medical model for preservice education. students graduate from KU with much coursework already completed towards their master's degree, but also much more prepared to be teachers. i really appreciated that model from a student perspective so it's nice to see it getting some praise.

  • the many advantages of 5 year programs and problems too...
  • Posted by Sam Minner , Dean at Truman State University on October 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Five year teacher education programs do address many of the shortcomings of traditional teacher education. In 5 year models, students can earn legitimate degrees in the disciplines they will teach (e.g., mathematics, biology, history, etc.) and still have enough time to gain deep applied experiences in functioning schools. This, plus high admissions standards (good grades and high ACT scores)is basically the model we have adopted at my institution. However, I am doubtful that these kinds of models will ever become the norm. Requiring students to spend five (or more) years at university to earn what teachers earn and to work in the conditions so many of them experience will probably never attract large numbers of students. Like Kansas, we have adopted a medical school inspired model of teacher education. However, unlike medical students, the KU and our students do not experience the life and lifestyle enjoyed by many physicians. Our students (teacher education students in general) do what they do for other reasons---and bless them for that.

  • About time
  • Posted by J.J. on October 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • The current administration knows it has to do something about the tax dollars going to public K-12.

    When you have hundreds of parents in Cleveland and D.C. POUNDING on doors for vouchers -- something is seriously wrong.

    And to do nothing is to invite a riot by parents.

    Finally! About time! What took so long?

  • Use KU as an example of a great program
  • Posted by Anonymous on October 23, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I graduated from KU with my BSEd in the '90s and I can vouch for the fact that their 5-year program is absolutely outstanding. The courses are excellent, you finish halfway to a master's degree, and you get two full student teaching experiences. One is six weeks long and includes the very beginning of the school year, including in-services and the first weeks of school, and the other is fourteen weeks in the spring. As a result, I was able to "try out" teaching at the middle and high school levels. Their career placement services led me to my "ideal job," and at a higher pay level than my first-year colleagues who hadn't yet started a master's degree. I was able to start my first year of teaching with confidence, all the while watching some of my colleagues who attended other universities flounder through their first few years (often leaving the profession out of frustration because they simply didn't have the skills to do the job well). Other universities should look to KU as an example... the program is top-notch.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on October 23, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • As long as the inmates (pupils) run the asylum (the high schools), nothing will improve. Get the lawyers out of the schools when the poor darlings assault the teachers or bring illegal drugs to school and we might make some progress. Education is a privilege, not a right - so let's educate those that want an education and make it easier to go back to school when those that want to drop out can drop out and find out what it takes to make a good life.

  • Hmmmmmmm?
  • Posted by Faculty Member , Associate Professor at Michigan State University on October 23, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Given that Duncan is seemingly part of the crowd looking to get rid of collegiate teacher preparation programs altogether, and appears to want all teachers to enter the workforce with only a bachelors degree in their content area (math, science), it seems odd that "early field experiences" in schools are getting so much credit here. Students in science and math degree programs won't be getting any time in schools in those programs--that's what happens in education degree programs. Hmmm. . .

  • Shoot first, aim later
  • Posted by Stu on October 23, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • In other articles I noticed Duncan's emphasis on managing "unruly children" and direct reference to "low-income neighborhoods." Why do I have the sinking feeling that this is yet another movement that focuses solely on educational outcomes in metropolitan areas? Given Duncan's experience at CPS, and even his undergraduate thesis topic, I think schools of education are becoming scapegoats to draw attention away from failing public systems such as Chicago.

    To use derogatory terms such as "cash cow" when referring to schools of education reaffirms that Duncan is yet another poor selection for the position of Secretary. Fortunately his alma mater, Harvard, has no need for cash cow programs. After living through our previous Secretary and this one, what is the chance we'll at least get someone with a graduate degree in education, public policy, or even management. At the very least, can we have a person who extends minimal professional courtesy to colleges and universities?

    Until then, prepare to suffer through leadership from yet another painfully incompetent and short-sighted Chicago product. Take a look at CPS and tell me what supported his nomination in the first place.

  • Posted by Ed Ph.D on October 23, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • While I was completing a Ph.D. in educational policy at a large public university in the Midwest with a highly rated (top 10) education school, my roommate entered the recently revamped M.A./certification program in a different department of the same school. While I was happy to see higher admissions standards for the program, I was also dismayed to see that: (a) 98% of the cadre was white, and (b) the only options for student teaching were in the high-income, heavily white suburban schools. Those who requested to be placed in the city's huge urban district schools were told that the school did not have an agreement to place students there. So after 12 months, not one of these newly minted teachers was prepared to teach in the exact schools that need good teachers the most, and many were shut out of jobs upon graduation because there were so few jobs in the suburban schools that formed their only exposure to teaching.

    Talk about a lack of self-awareness, on the part of both the teacher education program and the district, as well as a disconnect between preparation and reality.

  • Angry parents
  • Posted by R. on October 23, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • " .. Given that Duncan is seemingly part of the crowd looking to get rid of collegiate teacher preparation programs altogether .."

    How odd. That's not what he said on CNN today. He said (1) more in-classroom practicals and less [B.S.] theory and (2) higher test scores.

    See previous, "riots by angry parents." Even the teacher unions are worried -- this is one of the few areas that there is immediate bi-partisanship on, viz. vouchers and charters.

    Less navel-gazing -- more reality. Get to it, Mr. Duncan.

  • Proof of bi-partisanship on TE being mediocre
  • Posted by R. on October 23, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/opinion/23brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

    "A few weeks ago, “Saturday Night Live” teased President Obama for delivering great speeches but not actually bringing change. There’s at least one area where that jibe is unfair: education.

    "When Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan came to office, they created a $4.3 billion Race to the Top fund. The idea was to use money to leverage change. The administration would put a pile of federal money on the table and award it to a few states that most aggressively embraced reform.

    "Their ideas were good, and their speeches were beautiful. But that was never the problem. The real challenge was going to be standing up to the teachers’ unions and the other groups that have undermined nearly every other reform effort."

    When David Brooks sends Mr. Obama a love letter -- you know parents are angry at the B.S. flowing from mainstream TE.

    Believe it.

  • The right to a quality education
  • Posted by GTKarnezis on October 23, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • "Education is a privilege, not a right" - so says a"adjunct George", and I can't imagine a better statement of narrow and self-centered Ayn Randish thinking that is so out of whack with the spirit in which public education has been envisioned. As long as we hold on to that neandertal thinking, we're doomed. Instead, let's try: "Education is a rightful privilege which we give as a gift to our progeny; it's what the American Dream promises."

    I do fear that Duncanish thinking risks blaming the victims. It's always about the virtues (or lack of) the individual teacher and never about the less than positive conditions under which many are forced to work. What's gruesome are responses like NYTimes Kristof who assures us that the "really good" teachers can overcome these crappy conditions, thus making those conditions into legitimate and valuable obstacles which serve to weed out the "bad" teachers. What rubbish.

    And as long as we run to vouchers and charter schools (my kid's school sucks; give me an alternative: too bad if your kid loses out in the lottery) and are blind to the responsibility of making all schools desireable, our selfish attitude will continue to infect public educatiojn.

  • lifeline or wake-up call
  • Posted by Craig Calhoun , President at Social Science Research Council on October 23, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Yes, Arne Duncan threw a life-line to university-based teacher education programs - as Arthur Levine said. But it was also a wake-up call. Fundamentally, the county, the states, the cities, and the teacher-education programs have not gotten serious about this.

    It's partly about education, and teacher-certification programs are too much about feeling good and not enough about doing good. But that is nothing compared to the lack of support for teachers themselves as they try to make careers and struggle to make ends meet on salaries that reflect the fact that no one else is serious about education.

    We cannot have first-rate education on the expectation that talented young people will deny themselves other opportunities. Amazingly, they do, but only for so long. Teacher training programs need to raise their standards - but the biggest obstacle to doing so is teacher pay. Anyone heard lately of MBA programs having trouble raising their standards? Changing their focus, that's another matter. Taking ethics and social responsibility seriously - good idea. I wonder when anyone will try. But competitive admissions tells the story. And the story with education is that we can tell teachers to do better. We can call for tests to judge them. But if we aren't willing to pay for quality we will only get it on occasion and when people are willing to exploit themselves.

    The issue for teacher education programs is truly one of taking intellectual quality seriously - but this issue arises only against the background of what realistic career opportunities the larger society makes available. The training programs are not what they should be because they have adapted to social support that is not what it should be.

     

  • duncan
  • Posted by guido stempel , istinguished professor emeritus of journalism at ohio university on October 23, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • There's an old line in journalism about editorial writers who take onthe whiole country or the whole world--"he or she is hell on distance. Generalizations about all tacher education in the U.S. are necessarily oversimplifications, to say the least. You don't solve problems this way. And you can't speak about the whole country from New York City and Washington.
    I am weary of the complaint that education programs do not attract the best students. The don't offer the most schoalrships and the field does not have the msot promising oportunities.

  • A Real Problem Overlooked
  • Posted by CC Prof on October 23, 2009 at 11:00pm EDT
  • I don't understand why nearly all discussions of education reform in America focus on the teachers and the quality or lack of quality of the teachers. I especially don't understand the blanket complaint that teachers' unions are the problem. Many southern states, including the one that I live in, are right to work states with weak or non-existent unions. The teachers in my state are not in a union, and they aren't any better than the teachers in states with unions. We have the same problems with some bad teachers, some drunk teachers, some teachers sleeping with students, etc.

    But those teachers are a small minority and not the real problem. The teachers at the elementary school that my children attend try hard and are, for the most part, competent. The real problem that I see is the curriculum, especially in mathematics. My children are simply not doing enough math problems at school. They don't get enough practice, and the curriculum seems to jump around and follow no logical progression. This is not the fault of the teachers. The problem is that the math curriculum for K-12 in the US is not determined by experts in math. It is determined by experts in math education.

    I know that the experts in math education believe that they have set the right curriculum, but I teach at a community college where so many of our students have horrible math skills. I'm very positive that my math skills in 5th or even 4th grade were superior to the majority of my students at the community college.

    Simply put, our children need to do some more math in school. I read recently that the state of Minnesota has had a significant improvement in math test scores after it added more math instruction to its curriculum. Imagine that studying math and doing math problems will actually make kids better at math.

    So, instead of whining endlessly about teachers, why don't we just add some days to the school year and spend a bit more time on math, reading, and writing. If the K-12 system could just send more students to my community college who had passed Algebra II, can read a somewhat complicated text, and can write a decent sentence, then I can teach those students. But students who haven't or can't do those things are lost in a college classroom.

    Some might complain that this doesn't really address the issues in inter-city schools, but lengthening the school years would definitely help those children. The long summer break is not good, in the academic sense, for children who do not have an academically nurturing home life. These children would benefit by staying in school.

  • "The REAL Problem...?"
  • Posted by James on October 24, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Berliner's Educational Reform: An Impoverished View capture the complex SOCIAL problems facing educational reform efforts at the K-12 level: http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/Berliner.pdf. The problems with schools and teachers, and teacher educational initiatives, represent a small piece of the global problems in education. Berliner, in my opinion, does an exceptional job of presenting the overarching challenges associated with any attempt to link student outcomes to teacher colleges, educators, and school systems. For example, take a look at the outcomes for the SEED Foundation: A boarding school devised to address a myriad of sociocultural problems facing many inner-city schools (http://www.seedfoundation.com/).

    The need for educational reform is a salient problem facing our nation: If our current educational practices remain unchanged we will find ourselves living in a third-world country. We need to start somewhere, and addressing teacher educational programs is a good place to start. This area needs reform, and it is tragically overdue. For example, on the issue of incorporating evidence-based practices. Do contemporary educators even know the difference between experimental and correlational evidence? Do educators know the limitations of correlational evidence in explaining differences in learning and outcomes? In my experience, the answer to these two questions is NO! Rather, based on my extensive review of educational issues, educators tend to derive erroneous and causal conclusions from simple relationships between academic performance outcomes and other variables. For example, if educators did have the ability to accurately evaluate statistical research the concept of "learning styles," and similar pseudoscientific myths related to the "art" or "magic" of teaching, would have disappeared from the educational literature years ago.

    The recently released Higher Education Act addressed this disparity in schools of education, and universities need to take a hard look at their curricula in this regard. Indeed, there is an enormous body of scholarly research available that can inform educational policy and research. Neverthless, individuals need to possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities (and motivation) necessary to evaluate the evidence. Current educational practices reveal an overarching problem in this area, and linking funding to evidence-based practices is a sound decision. Further, educational and developmental psychology, in addition to advanced research methods and statistics, testing and assessment, should be the foundation of teacher education programs: Currently these subjects are either not required, or merely represent basic general classes to be checked off a degree plan. Schools of education also need to evaluate the qualification of the educators who are currently educating our future teachers. There is ample room for improvement in this domain as well.

    Moreover, student of education should be required to adopt a dual-major: Education and the discipline they intend to teach. And, these programs need to be academically rigorous! I have taught undergraduate courses for more than 10 years, and the lack of rigor in the K-12 system is evident in the lack of academic preparation among incoming college students. Five years for an undergraduate degree in education? Personally, I think middle and high school teachers should possess a Master’s degree in their area of expertise, and advanced training in the previously described foundation of education. Moreover, much has been said about the education of front-line teachers. The REAL problem is with the people who run these schools, and Arne Duncan would be well advised to review the curriculum of Ed.D. programs. In addition, communities also need to evaluate the qualifications of school board members, and (better yet) consider whether these political bodies are even necessary. In my region, the school board is comprised of a group of people who collectively lack the intellectual ability to pass the standardized tests necessary for college admission. Yet their salaries and benefits consume over one million dollars of the school budget.

    Teachers at all levels of education, particularly those teaching middle and high school students, need to “raise the bar” significantly concerning academic expectations, and parents need to get out of the way and let them do so! With respect to the latter, parents need to hold themselves, their children, teachers, and administrators equally accountable for their children’s academic development; the government and billions of dollars will not fix these problems. Teachers are only one source of academic development, and they can do better. Parents are a key resource as well, and many can enhance academic outcomes for their children. However, and notably, this may require some parents to return to the classroom and supplement their personal knowledge, skills, and abilities.

  • Arne's cure is probably worse than the disease
  • Posted by Michael McIntyre , Associate Professor and Director, International Studies at DePaul University on October 24, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Two of my children attend public schools in Chicago, so I see on a daily basis how pitifully inadequate Arne Duncan's vision of public schools is. And anyone teaching in college or university who has drunk the measuring student outcomes kool-aid has no part in this conversation. The fact is that we all know what the problem with teacher education is. Schools of education are an academic wasteland. They attract the worst students, largely because better students flee from these programs in search of something resembling intellectual engagement. Students who emerge from these programs are half-educated or worse, and therefore will be unprepared to teach no matter how much time they've spent hanging around a classroom or learning the arcane rites of assessment. We would be far better off hiring liberal arts grads to teach and letting them skin their knees in the classroom. They'll learn the practical skills of work in the classroom far faster than ed school graduates will learn the content they're supposed to be teaching.

  • To Michael McIntyre....
  • Posted by James on October 26, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • You summed the issue up nicely, and thank you for your succinct evaluation of the issues (and some especially good quotes I intend to share!)

  • GTKarnezis
  • Posted by DFS on October 27, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • But what about Adjunct George's point about the students -- enabled by their parents' lawyers -- running the schools?

    And CC Prof: why, I could have written your post myself! I agree, absolutely.