The Review uncovers early evidence that teacher preparation
programs are beginning to make changes. It arrives at a time of heightened,
unprecedented activity across the nation to improve teacher preparation:
·
33 states have recently made significant changes in their accountability
policies over teacher preparation programs and another 7 have taken positive
steps forward;
·
a new consortium of seven states organized by the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) is working together to beef up their approval of programs;
·
the Obama Administration has signaled it intends to strengthen accountability
measures for teacher preparation and that it will restrict millions of dollars
in federal grants to only high-performing programs;
·
a new professional organization, Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP), is beginning to accredit programs under considerably
tougher standards; and
· a growing number of districts
are pledging to make use of program data, including the NCTQ findings, to
improve their hiring of new teachers and pressure programs to provide the
training needed to successfully begin teaching in public schools.
For the first time, NCTQ
provides a numeric ranking of the programs that prepare the nation’s teachers.
Most states (33) have at least one ‘Top Ranked’ program, leaving 17 states and
the District of Columbia without a Top Ranked program in either elementary or
secondary education. This finding suggests state and school district leaders in
these states need to demand programs change to better meet their needs and, if
necessary, look across their state borders for the best sources of well-trained
teachers. Of the 1,612 programs ranked in the Review—an increase of over a third from last year’s Review—NCTQ conferred Top Ranked status to 26 elementary and
81 secondary programs, accounting for only 7 percent of all programs.
Fortunately, nearly two-thirds of the Top Ranked programs (68) are public,
ensuring that aspiring teachers have high-quality, low cost pathways into
teaching.
“With
only 1 in 15 programs providing first-year teachers with solid preparation, it
is clear we, as a nation, have a long way to go if we are going to do right by
teachers as well as their students,” noted Kate Walsh, President of the
National Council on Teacher Quality, a policy and research organization
dedicated to ensuring every classroom is led by a quality teacher.
The top 10 national programs
for elementary and secondary teaching are as follows:
Elementary
1. Dallas
Baptist University (TX) (undergraduate)
2. Texas
A&M University (undergraduate)
3. Ohio State
University (graduate)
4.
Northwestern State University of Louisiana (undergraduate)
4. University
of Dayton (OH) (undergraduate)
6. Louisiana
State University (undergraduate)
7. University
of Houston (TX) (undergraduate)
8. Miami
University of Ohio (tie; undergraduate)
8. Eastern
Connecticut State University (tie; undergraduate)
10. University
of Texas at Austin (undergraduate)
Secondary
1. Western
Governors University (UT) (undergraduate)
2. Lipscomb
University (TN) (undergraduate)
3. Fort Hays
State University (KS) (undergraduate)
4. College of
William and Mary (VA) (graduate)
5. Furman
University (SC) (tie; undergraduate)
5. Henderson
State University (AR) (tie; undergraduate)
5. Miami
University of Ohio (tie; undergraduate)
8. University
of California San Diego (tie; graduate)
8. University
of California Irvine (tie; undergraduate)
8. CUNY -
Hunter College (NY) (tie; graduate)
8. Miami
University of Ohio (tie; graduate)
Walsh added,
“These Top Ranked programs deserve tremendous credit. It is our hope that by
honoring them in this way, more institutions will take the steps needed to
improve teacher preparation.”
Key findings
from the 2014 Review include:
· 94
institutions have a Top Ranked elementary or secondary program. Three
institutions can boast three Top Ranked programs: CUNY – Hunter College, Miami
University of Ohio and the University of Houston. Seven others have two Top
Ranked programs: Arizona State University, Dallas Baptist University, Eastern
Connecticut University, Fort Hays State University, Lipscomb University, Ohio
State University and Western Governors University. States with the largest
number of Top Ranked institutions include Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.
· In their
admissions processes, three out of four programs fail to insist that applicants
meet even modest academic standards (a 3.0 GPA or scoring above the 50th percentile on the ACT or SAT). There are encouraging signs
since last year’s Review:
nine institutions moved swiftly to raise their admissions standards to meet the
NCTQ recommendations. In the absence of institutions voluntarily raising
standards, a number of states such as Rhode Island and Delaware are moving to
impose higher admissions standards on their institutions. Importantly, nearly
100 institutions were commended by NCTQ for not only being appropriately
selective, but also for achieving strong diversity among admitted students.
· While the
second-year results still paint a grim picture of programs providing poor
guidance to teacher candidates on reading instruction, there is some positive
movement. Of programs choosing to submit materials to NCTQ for the second
edition, 38 percent improved their score on this standard. Still, overall,
almost all programs (83 percent) do not provide even a basic orientation in
effective reading methods to elementary and special education teacher
candidates, helping to explain why such a large percentage of American school
children (30 percent) never learn how to read beyond a basic level.
· The nation's
push to improve American performance in STEM areas remains at risk by the
ongoing failure of 93 percent of all programs to ensure that elementary teacher
candidates receive the math preparation they need, as well as by programs'
scattershot approach in science, with over 70 percent of undergraduate programs
failing to ensure that elementary teachers take a single basic science course.
· The 2014
findings also suggest that the push for stronger student learning standards by
states, notably the Common Core State Standards and various state facsimiles,
is imperiled by what NCTQ terms a "capacity gap," that is, the low
expectations institutions have about what teachers must learn, and the broad
subject matter knowledge public schools need teachers to have in order to teach
to these new, higher levels. For example, only 20 percent of undergraduate
elementary programs require a world history course; only 14 percent require
candidates to develop deep knowledge of a subject by means of a concentration.
· More
institutions fare much better in the preparation of secondary teachers,
particularly in the preparation of English and mathematics teachers, but
they—and many of the states which regulate them—struggle to make sure
candidates have sufficient preparation in "multi-subject" majors such
as social studies and science, with only 35 percent of programs ensuring that
teachers aren't sent into classrooms with significant weaknesses in specific
disciplines.
In addition to
analyzing colleges and universities providing traditional teacher preparation,
NCTQ rated, for the first time, secondary alternative certification providers.
The results in this pilot study of some of the largest providers—almost half of
which are located in Texas where alternative certification is particularly
popular—were even weaker than for traditional programs. NCTQ found their
admissions standards to be too low; that efforts to assess subject matter
knowledge are inadequate; and that there is too little training or support
provided to candidates who are asked to hit the ground running in the
classroom. Only one provider out of 85 earned high marks (Teach For America,
Massachusetts). Nine programs earned a B.
Since 2005,
NCTQ has been working with states to help improve accountability systems for
their teacher preparation programs, an effort that has gained traction in the
last few years. Most of the new regulations raise admissions standards and
require better, more rigorous licensing tests of teacher candidates. In
addition, numerous districts are using NCTQ’s data to make hiring decisions.
“While we are encouraged by the action that has been taken by
the federal government, states, and the field itself through the new
accrediting body (CAEP), we believe the greatest lever for change will be
school districts,” added Walsh. “They have the power to turn this system
around. For too long, they have allowed higher education to unilaterally decide
how to prepare a new teacher. At the very least, school districts need to have
a seat at that table.”
No comments:
Post a Comment