Current Issues in Education > Volume 6, 2003 > Number 6

Citation Information

Davis M. L., Williams S. C., & Griffin H. (2003, March 20). Teacher education reform: A search for common ground. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(6). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number6/

Teacher Education Reform: A Search for Common Ground

Mary Lynne Davis
Sarah C. Williams
Harold Griffin
East Carolina University

Abstract

Numerous recommendations have been advanced for improving the quality and effectiveness of teacher preparation programs. This paper reviews and analyzes recommendations made by seven prominent organizations. It searches for common ground on which faculty in teacher preparation programs can build their reform efforts. The reports provide numerous suggestions and agree on the need for teacher preparation programs to assume responsibility for the impact of their graduates on K-12 student achievement. Faculty involved in reform efforts can build on these recommendations to support and advance a research agenda that validates effective practices.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Review of Recommendations
• Analysis
• Discussion
• References

Introduction

Since the 1996 release of What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future, by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), educational literature, research, conference presentations, and other professional publications have been brimming with recommendations for the reform of teacher education programs. The Commission set an ambitious goal of providing every student in the nation with, "access to competent, caring, qualified teaching" (p. 21). Their recommendations, which emphasized the influence of teacher quality on learner outcomes, were based in part on research that explored school district hiring practices, teacher qualifications, and student achievement. NCTAF recommendations to teacher preparation programs included the challenge to "get serious about standards for students and teachers", and to, "reinvent teacher education" (p. 64). These recommendations sparked debate among educators in the field of teacher education and served as the impetus for numerous other reports also recommending changes in teacher preparation programs. Assuming that What Matters Most and the ensuing reports might provide direction for reform efforts, this paper reviews the recommendations from NCTAF and six other prominent organizations to search for common ground in teacher education reform.

This review endeavors to identify commonalities in the recommendations that can be used by faculty and administrators who are responsible for the reform of their teacher education programs. Teacher educators who are concerned about the ability of their teacher candidates to impact K-12 learning, are seeking ways in which they can enhance their program outcomes. For those on the frontline, the teaching faculty, initiating reform in a degree program is an awesome task. Analyzing the curriculum, reviewing course content, evaluating the validity of practicum experiences, and initiating changes are all processes which require tremendous effort, commitment and time to process within university/college bureaucracies. Curricula review committees are faced with seemingly endless questions such as where to begin, what to examine, and which changes can be implemented most expediently. This review provides a starting point for those discussions by synthesizing the recommendations, highlighting the issues, and posing questions for further research in teacher education reform.

Review of the Recommendations

The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future (NCTAF) was established in 1994 as a nonprofit and nonpartisan group dedicated to improving the quality of teaching in America's schools. Its work is based on research that indicates that access to competent, qualified teachers is a crucial factor in determining student achievement. Based on a two-year study of educational conditions and achievement in the US, the Commission published, What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (NCTAF, 1996). In this report, the Commission highlighted major flaws in the preparation, recruitment and retention of teachers and concluded that public education reform depended on the restructuring of the teaching profession. It proposed five interrelated recommendations for systemic change:

• Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers.
• Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development.
• Fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom.
• Encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill.
• Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success (NCTAF, 1996).

Each of the five major recommendations included subgoals that more specifically defined the Commission's intent. These recommendations addressed actions that needed to be taken by school systems, state departments of education, institutions of higher education, and/or teacher education programs. The specific recommendations for teacher education were based on what the Commission defined as 'major flaws' in teacher preparation (NCTAF, 1996, p. 31). These included, a) inadequate time, b) fragmentation, c) uninspired teaching methods, d) superficial curricula, and d) traditional views of schooling. Within the five major recommendations, the following recommendations were most relevant to teacher preparation programs:

• Insist on accreditation for all schools of education.
• Close inadequate schools of education.
• License teachers based on demonstrated performance, including tests of subject matter, teaching knowledge, and teaching skill.
• Organize teacher education and professional development programs around standards for students and teachers.
• Develop extended, graduate-level teacher preparation programs that provide a year-long internship in a professional development school.

The Commission acknowledged the difficulty inherent in implementing the recommendations but suggested that they be pursued as an entire package; that fragmented implementation would not achieve the goals of school reform. They also highlighted successful initiatives already in place across the United States that encouraged professionals to build upon these works when reinventing their programs (NCTAF, 1996). The emphasis NCTAF placed on the role of teacher quality in improving K-12 achievement was echoed in the six organization reports that will be reviewed here.

In 1999 the U.S. Department of Education published, A talented, Dedicated, and Well-Prepared Teacher in Every Classroom: Information Kit (DOE, 1999). The report noted that, "Educators, policymakers and legislators have become increasingly aware that our nation's goals for student learning depend on good teaching in all our schools" (DOE, 1999, p. 2). In describing the current state of teaching in the United States, the report relied heavily on information contained in the 1996 NCTAF report. Within the report, the DOE cited "seriously flawed teacher preparation" and "unenforced standards for teachers" as two of the five major barriers to successful education reform. The report noted that teacher education programs were too focused on theory and frequently disconnected from Arts and Sciences and the public schools. It also cited the lack of rigor in the standards and examinations for entry-level teachers. The report restated the challenges presented to educators, states and school district by U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley. Specifically, the challenges to the higher education community included:

• "Make the preparation of teachers a university-wide priority.
• Develop stronger links between colleges of arts and sciences and colleges of education in order to ensure that teachers have strong content knowledge.
• Develop stronger links between institutions of higher education and local schools so that future teachers develop the strong skills needed to teach.
• Be accountable for high-quality teacher preparation." (p. 12)

These recommendations, as well as additional questions posed in the report, accentuate a shared responsibility between higher education institutions, their schools of education, and individual teacher preparation programs.

The 1996 NCTAF report referred to promising practices in teacher preparation that could serve as models when "reinventing" teacher education. In Teacher Quality and P-16 Reform: The state Policy Context, Zimpher (1999) reviewed the efforts of three states to align teacher education and professional development programs at the college/university level with the reform efforts at the P-12 level. This strategy brief published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) provided detailed descriptions of the efforts undertaken in Maryland, Ohio, and Georgia. Zimpher highlighted the degree of cooperation and commitment necessary to bring about systemic change and encouraged other states to pursue similar initiatives. The report offered the following suggestions to strengthen the preparation of quality teachers within the P-16 reform context (Zimpher, 1999, pp. 18-20):

1. "Develop policies that support state-level joint councils or partnerships." A group representing the shared interests of P-16 education should be formed to coordinate and enhance the activities so that implementation will have the greatest possible impact.
2. "Institutionalize partnerships at colleges, universities, and local schools." State strategies should be developed using resource allocation or restructuring faculty rewards and incentives to provide the legitimacy and/or leverage of full university and full district partnerships.
3. "Increase commitment to university-wide support for teacher education." Institutions should develop strategies that require real programmatic integration of colleges of arts and sciences, schools of education, and other programs serving the needs of children and their families.
4. "Align state policies on teacher quality with the needs and concerns of education constituency groups." State level strategies aligning the actions of these groups is needed to ensure that implementation is possible and policy goals are achieved across the various interest groups.

Many of the recommendations in the SHEEO strategy brief (Zimpher, 1999) resonated in the American Council in Education's report, To Touch the Future: Transforming the Way Teachers are Taught (ACE, 1999). The Council proposed an agenda to prepare the presidents of the nation's colleges and universities to influence improvements in the quality of teacher education. The report emphasized the important role higher education played in increasing the effectiveness of K-12 programs. It viewed the education provided to teacher candidates as a critical element determining the quality of the nation's schools. The report set forth an agenda that contained ten actions considered essential for higher education to fulfill its responsibilities (ACE, 1999, pp. 17-26):

1. "College and university presidents must take the lead in moving the education of teachers to the center of the institutional agenda."
2. "Presidents need to clarify and articulate the strategic connection of teacher education to the mission of the institution."
3. "Presidents should mandate a campus-wide review of the quality of their institutions' teacher education programs."
4. "Presidents and governing boards should commission rigorous, periodic, independent appraisals of the quality of their institutions' teacher education programs."
5. "Presidents must require that education faculty and courses are coordinated with Arts and Sciences faculty and courses."
6. "Presidents should ensure that their teacher education programs have the equipment, facilities, and personnel necessary to educate future teachers in the uses of technology."
7. "Presidents of Graduate and Research Universities have a special responsibility to be advocates for graduate education, scholarship and research in the education of teachers."
8. "College and university leaders should strengthen inter-institutional transfer and recruitment processes."
9. "Presidents should ensure that graduates of their teacher education programs are supported, monitored, and mentored."
10. "Presidents should speak out on issues associated with teachers and teaching and should join with other opinion leaders to shape public policy."

This action agenda was founded on the premise that college and university presidents were in a distinct leadership position to elevate the education of teachers to a position of prominence in the university (ACE, 1999).

While the American Council on Education was advancing the role of college and university presidents in improving teacher education and the success of K-12 students, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was exploring the union's role in assuring teacher quality. In 1998 an AFT task force had been charged with studying three interrelated issues relevant to teacher education: entry/exit standards for teacher candidates, the clinical experience, and the subject matter and pedagogical curriculum (AFT, 2000). At the center of the task force investigation was AFT's view that the "best way to bring an adequate supply of well-trained teachers into the classroom is not by avoiding collegiate teacher education, but rather by strengthening it…" (p. 14). The task force reviewed literature on teacher preparation, surveyed teacher education programs, and analyzed existing state policies. Their finding indicated that while some programs had taken measures to enhance their preparation of teachers, many other programs still had serious problems. The task force formulated a set of ten recommendations for "reshaping" teacher preparation and then directed specific challenges to other groups responsible for supporting those reform efforts. The following summarizes the recommendations made for initial teacher preparation (AFT, 2000, pp. 33-36)

1. "Require core liberal arts courses." Education and Arts and Sciences faculty should develop a set of courses that provide broad coverage and a solid foundation in subjects and information relevant to K-12 curriculum standards. These core courses would be required prior to admission to teacher education.
2. "Institute higher entry criteria." A 2.75 (phased up to 3.0) grade point average should be required at the end of the sophomore year as a requirement for admission to teacher education.
3. "Institute a national entry test." A national voluntary test which requires demonstration of college-level proficiency in the areas of mathematics, science, English language arts, and history/geography-social studies should be developed and administered as an admission requirement for teacher education.
4. "Require an academic major." An academic major should be required for all teacher education candidates. The major should be rigorous and comprehensive enough to enable candidates to understand their content and help their students meet K-12 education standards.
5. "Develop core curricula in pedagogy." Congressional funding should be provided to support the development of a rigorous core curriculum in pedagogy. This curriculum should be data-based and include research on how students learn and on effective content-specific teaching methods.
6. "Strengthen the clinical experience." Clinical experiences should build on successful models and incorporate the characteristics of those models.
7. "Institute a rigorous exit/licensure test." The teaching profession should develop examinations in subject matter and pedagogy that are as rigorous as entry-level teacher exams in other high-performing countries; these exams should be required prior to licensure in a teaching field.
8. "Take a five-year view." Teacher preparation should be structured as a five year process; an intensive clinical experience for which the candidate is compensated, should be instituted in collaboration with the public schools during the fifth year.

The AFT acknowledged the challenge presented by these recommendations and concluded that, "Strengthening teacher education requires political will, money, culture and attitude change both in the universities and in the public schools, and greater seriousness of purpose among all involved in the policies and practices related to teacher preparation" (p. 41).

In 2001, the National Alliance of Business (NAB) issued a similar challenge to business leaders, policy makers, governors, school boards and educators. Their report, Investing in Teaching (NAB, 2001), was prompted by efforts of business leaders who had helped to advocate for standards, assessment, and accountability in the nation's schools. They acknowledged that, "Our efforts are destined to fail without high quality teachers in every classroom" (p. 6). Noting that student achievement was "essential to individual well-being and the competitiveness of our workforce" (p. 6), the NAB undertook a yearlong investigation of the teaching profession. The outcome of their study was a set of recommendations that supported three key elements: a) a new model of teacher preparation and professional development, b) a new model of pay tied to performance, and c) a new environment that provides teachers with the freedom and flexibility to achieve results. The recommendations in the area of teacher preparation were supported by their findings that, "Critics for years have complained that the standards at schools of education are lax and should be raised" (p. 10). The NAB stressed that children in our nation's schools need teachers who can meet a "higher threshold" and proposed the following (NAB, 2001, pp. 11-15):

1. "Raise the bar for admission to teacher preparation." Applicants to teacher preparation programs should demonstrate at least a 3.0 in the first two years of a coherent core of liberal arts courses in college.
2. "Require that all teacher preparation programs be accredited." Teacher preparation programs should be accredited; states and school districts should hire teachers from accredited institutions.
3. "Require all teacher candidates to complete an academic major and at least one minor." Elementary teachers should select a subject taught in elementary school as a major and then minor in education. The subjects a secondary teacher plans to teach should be their major and minor.
4. "Establish a performance-based licensing system." Rigorous exams, aligned with professional standards, should be required of all prospective teachers. The exams should measure subject matter knowledge and content pedagogy.

In 2001, The Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY), a fervent supporter of education in the nation, challenged higher education to design "imaginative, dynamic new models for the preparation of effective teachers" (p. 2). This challenge was prompted by the Corporation's concern about the current crisis in teacher education. "Quality teachers make the difference in insuring student success, and daily we are reminded that such teachers are in short supply" (p. 3). The Corporation emphasized that raising the quality of teaching is critical to the success of the public schools and noted that, because American colleges and universities prepare the teachers, the responsibility for improving teacher education should rest with them. The Corporation proposed that plans for designing new teacher preparation models should be based on the following organizing principles (The Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2001, pp. 7-8):

1. "Arts and sciences faculty and education faculty must form active partnerships, committing their respective knowledge and resources - and above all their moral resolve - to designing teacher education models that will produce the highest quality teachers."
2. "University chief executive and provosts must develop university-wide policies that will insure that such partnerships are enjoined, supported, and monitored."
3. "Higher education institutions must expand these partnerships to include involvement in the local school districts and K-12 schools (particularly those in the inner cities and rural areas) in which teachers - their graduates - will ultimately practice their profession."
4. "Higher education must address teacher education as the clinical practice profession it is, with schools of education serving as "teaching hospitals." New teachers must be followed beyond certification for at least two years and be guaranteed the expert, formal support, supervision, and mentoring which are mandated for comparable clinical internships."
5. "Higher education must embrace accountability and employ it as an incentive to improve institutional efforts to find meaningful and productive ways to measure the quality of teacher education."
6. "Higher education must make a life-long commitment to the students they have trained as teachers. Professionals can only remain professional if they continue to learn, to hone their skills, and to have access to and participate in a dynamic professional community."

The Corporation acknowledged some of the initiatives already underway to address the crisis and restated its commitment to provide support to those institutions ready to assume leadership in meeting their challenge.

Analysis

The search for common ground in the seven reports began by analyzing the recommendations to determine if there were similarities or overlap in their content. Next, the recommendations were categorized based on the primary audience. The audience was identified by either noting the authors' comments or making a judgment about who would most likely be considered responsible for initiating or supporting the recommended change in teacher education. This analysis generated three primary audiences: Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), State Education Agencies (SEA) and Teacher Education programs (TE). Table 1 displays the listing of recommendations, the report in which the recommendation was contained, an indicator if a recommendation is cross-referenced to another report, and the intended audience.

Table 1. Cross Reference of Major Reports, Recommendations and Audience
(For an easy-to-read and printer friendly Adobe Acrobat pdf format of this table, please see table1.pdf.)

The seven reports presented a total of forty recommendations. Over half of the recommendations (22) were intended for university administrators; six for state policymakers, and twelve were directed to teacher preparation programs. Four of the seven reports (DOE, SHEEO, ACE, and CCNY) were addressed primarily to university administrators. Of the twenty-four recommendations contained within these four reports, twelve overlapped, or presented similar recommendations. Three of the four reports (DOE, SHEEO, ACE) emphasized the need for colleges and universities to make teacher education a priority on their campuses. Another group of three (DOE, ACE, CCNY) suggested the need to develop stronger linkages between arts and sciences and education faculty and three others emphasized relationships between the universities and public school systems (DOE, SHEEO, CCNY). The recommendations for state education agencies and policy makers focused on the importance of accreditation and performance based licensing.

The most specific recommendations for changes in the actual programs of teacher education were presented in the AFT and NAB reports. Within these reports, there were three common recommendations: a) increase the requirements for admission to teacher preparation programs; b) require an academic major of both elementary and secondary education candidates; and, c) institute a performance-based systems with some form of measurement (test, exam, skills) at exit from the program. Finally, a review of all the recommendations showed that one theme emerged in five of the seven reports. Whether it was defined as independent program appraisal, accreditation, or accountability, the majority of the reports emphasized the need for teacher preparation programs to assume responsibility for the outcomes of their efforts.

Discussion

This review began as a search for common ground in recommendations for "reinventing" teacher education. The reports that we reviewed represent nationally recognized and respected commissions and organizations that have legitimate concerns about the quality of teachers in our nation's schools. Differences in specific recommendations identified in the review are understandable given the distinctive roles of the target audiences in the reform effort. Although the recommendations presented in the reports reflect a diversity of viewpoints and professional agendas, the underlying theme, that teacher preparation programs need to be held accountable for the candidates they graduate and their impact on K-12 learner outcomes is unmistakable. How to use the results of this review to accomplish that goal presents many challenges.

The limited overlap of specific recommendations poses problems for faculty in teacher education that are attempting to initiate change in their programs. Only twenty-three of the forty recommendations could be cross-referenced to at least one other report. Although all reports express in some manner the need to reinvent teacher education, there are few specific recommendations, other than certification/licensure standards, in common. Which recommendation to follow depends on the current state of a given program. If a program is not accredited, does not adhere to state or national standards, has low admission requirements and no performance-based measure of outcomes, then these recommendations are very pertinent. The next step is less certain for those teacher preparation programs that already have these elements in place.

If faculties choose to focus their reform efforts on improving the candidate's impact on learner outcomes, they face the challenge of deciphering an incomplete research base. The reports in this review emphasized "quality teachers" as the most important variable in student learning. While a review of the research supporting this statement is beyond the scope of this paper, a "quality"' teacher can be generally summarized as one who has graduated from an accredited teacher education program, is fully certified in the licensure area in which he/she is teaching, and at the secondary level, holds an academic degree in their teaching field (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Fuller, 1999; Sanders & Rivers 1996; Weglinsky, 2000). Unfortunately, it is still unclear what, beyond accreditation and certification, contributes to the "quality teacher's" impact on student achievement. Implementing higher grade point averages, academic degree requirements, professional development school programs (PDSs), more clinical experiences, and longer internships may have intuitive appeal, but we need to avoid a rush to change based on little supporting evidence just to respond to the calls for teacher education reform. The recommendations presented in this review pose a number of questions that need further research:

1. Do different admission requirements result in differences in the quality of teachers? (i.e., Are there qualitative differences among teachers who completed programs that required a 2.5, 2.75 or 3.0 grade point average?)
2. Does an academic degree or an education degree have a greater influence on the quality of elementary teachers?
3. Does collaboration between the faculty of a teacher education program and the arts and sciences faculty influence the "quality" of a teacher?
4. How many, and what type of clinical experiences are needed to produce a "quality" teacher?
5. How do the qualifications of clinical teachers and university supervisors influence the development of a "quality" teacher?
6. Are professional development schools (PDSs) a significantly better environment in which to prepare a "quality" teacher?
7. Have all "quality teachers" had a year-long internship or graduated from a "fifth-year" experience?
8. Finally, do any of the characteristics investigated in items 1-7 translate into achievement gains for K-12 students?

The intricate process of improving a child's performance may prove to be far more complicated than a mere manipulation of courses, grade point averages and academic degrees. The results of research addressing these questions would provide a more elaborate description of a "quality" teacher and a set of research-validated strategies for improving program practices.

The common ground in the call for teacher education reform is the need for teacher preparation programs to graduate "quality teachers" who assume responsibility for their impact on K-12 student achievement. Accomplishing this goal will require more than a review of recommendations by professional organizations. It will require a concerted effort by teacher educators to identify those variables that positively influence the development of quality teachers. Zimpher (1999) stated that, "Among the challenges to the alignment of policies targeting P-16 education reform and teacher quality is the linkage with policies and practices of individual constituent groups. Teachers unions, school district administrators, local parent/teacher organizations, learned societies, and various other political entities strongly affect the conditions that either militate against or ameliorate the goals of achieving enhanced teacher quality" (p. 19). For teacher education faculty, a promising outcome of the reform movement is that university administrators are being encouraged to support, recognize and elevate the importance of teacher education in the university. Given this supportive climate, it is imperative that teacher education faculty seize this opportunity and act now to advance a research agenda that provides the data to validate their teacher preparation practices and informs the policies of these constituent groups.

Authors

Mary Lynne Davis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. She currently serves as the Assessment Coordinator for the School of Education. Her research interests include assessment, the critical/ reflective thinking of teacher candidates, and the effectiveness of online instruction. Professor Davis may be reached by email at davismar@mail.ecu.edu

Sarah C. Williams is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction At East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. Her research interests include effective teaching of students with LD in the areas of inclusion, assistive technology, and literacy and the effectiveness of portfolio models for performance-based teacher candidate assessment. Professor Williams may be reached by email at williamssar@mail.ecu.edu

Harold Griffin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. His research interests include technology applications for students with low vision and effective instruction for students with low-incidence disabilities. Professor Griffin may be reached by email at griffinh@mail.ecu.edu

References

American Council on Education (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, DC: Author.

American Federation of Teachers (2000). Building a profession: Strengthening teacher preparation and induction. Washington, DC: Author.

Carnegie Corporation of New York (2001). Higher education's challenge: New teacher education models for a new century. New York: Author.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis, 18 (1), 1-51.

Fuller, E. J. (1999). Does teacher certification matter? A comparison of TAAS performance in 1997 between schools with low and high percentage of certified teachers. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin.

National Alliance of Business (2001). Investing in teaching. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission of Teaching & America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). A talented, dedicated, and well-prepared teacher in every classroom: Information kit. (ED PUBS No. ). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Zimpher, N. (1999) Teacher quality and P-16 reform: The state policy context. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.