New Activity on the Education of Teachers

A Forum — July 27, 2000

A diverse group of policymakers from national associations, consultant groups, and university, the U.S. Department of Education, and congressional offices gathered to discuss new developments in teacher preparation. The discussion was moderated by Patricia Maloney from the American Council on Education, and focused on recent changes made in Federal and state governments that affect teacher preparation, and major reports and action plans, from several key policymaking organizations, calling for the improvement of teacher preparation.

This salon provided an opportunity to informally review and discuss promising developments and possible pitfalls. Questions raised as a result of the discussion will lay the foundation for further discussions and possible future policy forums.

Questions that facilitated the discussion included:

• What are the "next steps" past rhetoric in improving the education of teachers?
• Who is engaged in this area, and what are they doing?
• What kinds of collaborations among organizations, if any, are emerging?

Teacher preparation is a popular topic among education organizations, spurring a number of reports. Recent reports have been issued by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher preparation (AACTE), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). Some research shows a high correlation between teacher training and student achievement, and other research is being conducted on how teacher preparation affects student learning. The group felt that these reports provide statistics and helpful insight from different angles, but they do not offer a comprehensive view on the improvement of teacher preparation.

The group discussed the need to organize resources and focus broad goals toward improving teacher preparation. Among concerns shared by participants were:

1. The need for national organizations to combine their resources and influence for strong teacher preparation reform. Key policymaking organizations like the ones mentioned have not collaborated efforts to address this issue. "We really need someone to speak to this idea." It was mentioned that the National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training (NCTET) meets regularly; this is a good model for facilitating an efficient briefing and discussion. Without clear leadership, as seen at NCTET, the commencement of a full and meaningful discussion on teacher preparation would be difficult and tenuous. The only organization mentioned that funds the study of teacher preparation reform was the Carnegie Corporation. Who are some others?

1. Politics and teacher preparation. The political climate in the United States keeps changing, making continuous strategic reform efforts and evaluation of teacher preparation, which take considerable time and effort, a frustrating process. One participant indicated that George Mason University has partnered its new teacher program with Fairfax County Public Schools and other local school systems that have contributing support from the state school office, but the question: "How can you show that students are achieving?" became a political issue, overriding how well the new teachers were teaching. "George Mason graduates worked hard and made progress in leadership roles but nobody cared."

   One participant sees nothing wrong with sharing the impact on student learning but saw little point in doing so. "The problem is, there is little control over many variables. Boundaries change. There needs to be established, realistic measures for assessing teachers." The discussion revealed that building partnerships between colleges of arts and sciences and teacher preparation, and between higher education and K-12 schools is crucial and it must be done, although politics may impede some progress.

2. Improving the reputation of schools of education. "Education schools have bad reputations. Is this true?" asked a participant. "What makes them so looked down upon?" One participant felt that it’s not the fault of the education school, but the principle that so many teachers are teaching out of their field. The perception on the Hill is that many teachers do not have strong academic content skills. "What about Title II funds?" [Title II funds are used to hold institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers who have the necessary teaching skills and are highly competent in the academic content areas in which the teachers plan to teach, such as mathematics, science, English, foreign languages, history, economics, art, civics, Government, and geography.] "If high school students can achieve to higher standards, why can’t education school students do that too? What you expect of high school students you must expect of education students. This expectation should be discussed with university and district people," said one participant.

The group seemed to agree that there must be the development or agreement of a set core knowledge in teacher preparation. It was noted that the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards have laid out criteria for teacher skills. There was a concern voiced that there is a lack of a good body of research available that gives a strong picture of what goes on in the classroom. College professors with doctorates have little or no teacher preparation experience. The education profession needs to look at existing strategies that evaluate teacher quality.

Another criticism of education schools is the perception that they have built up a cultural belief that no one should be a teacher unless they have gone through "the fire of that first year of teaching." Also, colleges of education and professionals in education use terminology that other professions do not recognize (e.g., norm-referenced, cooperative learning). To achieve more credibility for the teaching profession, it is critical that bridges be built between teacher preparation and other professions. Some teacher colleges are experimenting with strategies to initiate other career professionals into the education system, but there is a lot of work ahead to bring this initiative into the mainstream.

The good news about teacher preparation is that when educators enter teaching from different professions, they bring skills and knowledge that help build a bridge between the practical world and the teaching world. George Mason University has introduced a program that fast-tracks interested individuals from other professions through the their teacher preparation program. The Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia has turned its four-year teacher preparation degree into a mandatory five-year master’s program, increasing student knowledge before graduation.

The conversation ended with a brief discussion on the need for more visible figures in education. People involved in teacher preparation who are making a positive difference include: Linda Darling Hammond, William F. Russell, Professor of Education and Co-Director of the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching at Teacher's College, Columbia University; and Betty Castor, President of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Who are some others?

Summary

This informal conversation raised more than a few critical issues in teacher preparation, including: 1) a lack of leadership dedicated to galvanizing unity among organizations and teacher colleges; 2) the frustration felt by schools of education regarding the caprice of politics; 3) the challenge of transitioning individuals from other professional careers to education; 4) the public perception that the quality of education in schools of education is lacking; 5) the limited knowledge of accomplishments by outstanding leaders in education and successful graduates of schools of education; and 6) the lack of practical classroom knowledge and research among professors of education. There is no question that this conversation should continue with leaders involved in or with the education of America’s teachers.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org