The U.S. Department of Education is trying to compel institutions of higher education to accept regulations that judge the quality of teacher-training institutions by the test scores of students taught by their graduates. If Johnny gets a low score on standardized tests, Arne Duncan wants to punish his teacher, his principal, his school, and the university that prepared his teacher.
Is there no end to these dunder-headed policies?
Higher education associations are outraged. A group of major organizations representing higher education convened a task force to respond to pressure from the DOE to use standardized testing as the measure of teacher-preparation institutions. To find its statement, google “Higher Education Task Force on Teacher Preparation.” Its statement was signed by:
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education American Association of State Colleges and Universities American Council on Education
American Psychological Association
Association of American Universities
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
The Honorable Arne Duncan
Secretary of the U. S. Department of Education Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On behalf of the nation’s non-profit private colleges and universities, and the undersigned organizations that represent the broad diversity of private higher education, I write to share our concerns about the pending regulations on teacher preparation and TEACH Grants.
As you work on preparing the regulatory language to issue an NPRM for public comment, I hope you will take our concerns into consideration, since consensus was not reached during the negotiated rulemaking process earlier this year. Meredith College, a small women’s college in North Carolina, represented NAICU and private colleges as an alternate negotiator during the process, so we have first-hand knowledge of the discussions that took place around the negotiating table.
The draft regulations proposed by the Department during the final negotiated rule making session raise four major concerns for private colleges. The proposals circumvent current statute, apply the tenets of NCLB to higher education, prescribe an untested one-size-fits-all accountability model for teacher preparation, and set the precedent of awarding Title IV student financial aid based on program evaluation rather than student need.
No Child Left Behind for higher education: While Congress is trying to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and get states away from NCLB high stakes tests, the draft regulations would require states impose such high stakes test in higher education on teacher preparation programs. States would be required to rate every teacher preparation program on a four-point scale, using criteria that have not been determined to be valid and reliable for this purpose. These criteria represent a federal mandate on the state for quality control in a field governed by individual states. There is no statutory authority for either requirement.
One size fits all accountability: The draft criteria have not been documented by research to be valid and reliable measures of preparation program effectiveness. While value-added assessments are helpful for classroom evaluations, we are concerned that those scores, stretched beyond their intention, do not reflect the quality of a teacher preparation program. Job placement and job retention rates do not reflect the quality of a preparation program. Multiple factors outside of graduates’ preparation have an impact on their ability to find a job and their decisions to remain in the teaching workforce. Multiple factors influence K-12 student performance beyond the teacher’s preparation, such as school working conditions, school leadership, and school resources. It is unfair to the teacher candidates, the schools and the children in the classrooms to have so much riding on their outcomes.
Unprecedented link between Title IV student aid eligibility and program quality: We are greatly concerned that the draft regulations make an unprecedented link between need-based student aid and the rating of the teacher preparation program quality. Defining “high quality preparation program” for the purposes of TEACH Grant eligibility based on the state rating mandated from the federal government criteria is a complete change in the federal role in providing Title IV need-based student aid. Any changes to Title IV student aid should be made through the congressional reauthorization process. Student financial aid should be based on the students’ financial need and the quality of the institution (as determined through institutional accreditation), not on the programs in which they enroll.
States and colleges aren’t ready: While many states are building data systems, few of these systems are developed enough to follow graduates into the workforce, as would be required by the proposed regulations. The proposal adds multiple reporting requirements – not authorized by statute – to the current institutional and state teacher preparation report cards. There is no cost- estimate for state and college implementation of the increased regulatory burden, such as the cost for collecting the new data, conducting annual employer and graduate surveys, could be exorbitant.
With more than 1,000 members nationwide, NAICU reflects the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education in the United States. Members include traditional liberal arts colleges, major research universities, church- and faith-related institutions, historically black colleges and universities, women’s colleges, performing and visual arts institutions, two-year colleges, and schools of law, medicine, engineering, business, and other professions. NAICU is committed to celebrating and protecting this diversity of the nation’s private colleges and universities.
We would be happy to meet with you and your staff before the NPRM is issued this summer. We look forward to commenting on the proposed regulations once they are released.
Sincerely,
David L. Warren President
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“While value-added assessments are helpful for classroom evaluations…”
Very few scholars seem to be reading your work.
Of more concern is the way that so many try to gather credibility by saying things like “obviously schools are in decline” or “obviously value added is helpful.” Actually, the only thing that’s obvious is that these statements are false. But the reformers’ narrative is so wide spread that no one feels they can be credible saying it.
We will have to throw a monkey-wrench into the narrative by introducing facts, not ideology.
“. . . by introducing facts, not ideology.”
See Wilson! Revive Wilson! Understand Wilson rational and logical arguments against educational standards and standardized testing, grading and now VAM! Use the facts that Wilson so brilliantly lays out!
About a decade ago a few of us here and there wondered aloud why the institutions of higher education that granted us our teaching degrees stayed largely silent or acted as cheerleaders at the launch of NCLB. We warned that once the law had decimated public schools and crippled the profession of teaching that it would come after the colleges and universities who trained us. We were largely ignored.
In the interim teachers colleges and graduate schools of education simply went along with business as usual, adding course material about standards, testing, and the new law as just another facet of pedagogy. Many saw it as an opportunity to profit and worked to create new textbooks, new assessments, and training materials for textbook publishers that met the requirements of the new law.
I’m glad that the colleges and universities are finally joining the fight now that they are the target and the reformers have them in their sites but I hope it’s not too little too late. Better to have allies than enemies but I wish they had stood by us from the beginning. The ivory towers are being assailed. The public classroom has been under seige for a decade or more. Here’s to hoping that we can work together to save public education and defend our degree-granting programs before the whole system is brought down and destroyed. That’s the objective, you know.
Well stated, Brian. I think that arne’s attack on the universities will turn out to be a good thing for public education, because now, FINALLY, higher ed can feel the heat of the idiot deformer crowd on their collective necks – and they do not like it. How dare they be told what to do or how they will be evaluated! they are autonomous professionals! Well, no crap, Sherlock – this is why professors need to get off their perches and work WITH public education, rather than putting us down all the time for our “failings” in preparing students for university course work.
I am pleased that arne has overreached here. He has maybe, MAYBE, awakened the sleeping giant of UNiversity power which will now join public education in its efforts to survive. having hundreds, perhaps thousands of professors descending upon Congressional hearings armed with reams of research data disproving every single piece of the deformer agenda would be a dream come true for me, and for countless other teachers. I would bet that C-Span would become the # 1 network for educators during those hearings.
Touche Brian, It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Maybe – maybe now that their ‘livelihood’ and ‘way of life’ is threatened things might change. It should be interesting. Better now, then never.
First I would suggest that if anyone wants to be a teacher, they attend Hillsdale College.
I cannot support an evaluation of a teacher based on the students’ standardized test scores for various reasons. However I do know there is a problem with the amount of content knowledge a teacher receives while attending many of our schools of education.
My question is, how does one reform the schools of Ed. to the point where teachers are receiving a quality education??
I recently spoke to a local legislator who used to work as a Dept. Head for a School of Ed. She was frustrated at her lack of ability to make significant changes to improve the quality of education.
If she couldn’t do it as one of the Dept Heads, what can be done?
When I have teachers telling me that they graduated with a Bachelor’s degree but could not multiply/divide fractions, that’s a serious problem.
I, too, have long been troubled by the fact that in many states, one can become a teacher of Mathematics, or English, or History, or any subject, without possessing at least a BS or BA in the content area. There is a simple fix for that – simply require a BS or BA in the appropriate discipline, and i would suggest at a Masters in the discipline for secondary teachers.
I have often been shocked and disappointed to hear my former students comment on how their teachers in later grades were completely unable to explain the basic concepts of Algebra, trigonometry, Calculus, chemistry, physics – what have you – to the classes. The students would return to me for a full explanation after school – I eventual set up an after-school program to help the kids who wanted it (no pay of course – only coaches are worthy to receive stipends for additional hours – meh!). If the teacher does not understand the conceptual frameworks of a discipline, how can they possibly hope to convey the information to their students?
I would shout this from the roof tops. The lack of real content knowledge in science by a teachers ( who either were shoe horned into teaching the subject or wanted a STEMS class kind of teacher protection from being cut) is appalling. It should go down through the ranks of atleast middle school that real content knowledge is not something to just test out of with an education degree. Being inspired and being inspiring is half the battle. How many chorus, band, symphony, art or dance teachers would be allowed to teach if all they had was an ed degree, some classes and a pass score on a standardized licensing test. Maybe that is highly highly qualified in Louisiana but not enough to cut it in most middle and high schools. It should be likewise for other subjects as well- more so for the ones that are the focus misinformed testing. An enthusiastic and truly well rounded/knowledgeable teacher can hopefully mitigate some of the dangers of test prep drill while still being able to think significantly out of the box while still being in their comfort zone.
Yes- content knowledge majors and then masters of ed. Yes, Yes, Yes.
To answer Warren’s and MomwithABrain’s concerns, I advise and supervise secondary-level preservice science teachers at a land-grant university. Before they go out for their student teaching internship, each candidate in our program must earn a BA (or equivalent for returning graduate students) in their discipline, e.g. ELA, Math, Chemistry, etc, and pass a discipline-specific content test that is not required if they are just graduating in their science major.
That said, veteran science teachers will just smile at the idea that an undergraduate science major has sufficient knowledge to be a great teacher. The fact that teachers develop specialized content knowledge that allows them to diagnose and address their students’ misunderstandings is well-known. Teachers continue to learn their subject matter as they work with their students! The elimination of this learning period is one of the things that is tragic about districts’ efforts to trade veteran teachers in for “bright” newcomers.
I have no idea whether my program’s requirements are representative of teacher education programs nationally, but I suspect that the general idea that new teachers do not have a sufficient knowledge base to begin their development as a teacher is a misconception akin to the idea that American public schools are failing on a wide scale. If that is the case, then this extension of the use of high stakes testing for program evaluation is just another distraction from the real work needed to improve our schools.
See I read through all of this then wonder why the NEA is out there cheerleading for Obama?
I recently read about the NEA convention that was more like a re-election campaign for Obama. The delegates had to identify themselves as “Educators for Obama” or EFO’S.
It’s hard for me to ever take the union seriously when they are nothing but political hacks. They ignore the fact that this administration has done more to stab teachers in the back than any before.
I remember when Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I remember the lofty and aspirational goals and statements of Goals/America 2000. I remember my shock and horror when the party of limited government (the old GOP) got bipartisan support and signed NCLB. Imagine my surprise when the crew that promised us Hope and Change has now over- reached and attempted a takeover of all things educational in the U.S. (except private and parochial schools and private and for-profit colleges- for the moment) I don’t know what more I can say.
Perhaps this will wake the academy, now that their livelihood and revenue stream is threatened. I can only hope that this ‘educational fad ends soon. Because if it doesn’t we’ll end up paying billions to consultants and others to restore it to the pre NCLB & RttT era. We’ll also be paying for a second education for all those who came up and graduated through this system. This is just too Kafkaesque.
Jay, thank you for offering additional information.
As a parent (not a teacher) I assumed years ago that teachers knew the content area. It was shocking to find out that many teachers graduated with a degree and lacked knowledge in the core academic subjects.
My kids benefitted the most from the teachers who were experts in their subject.
They had a teacher in 7th and 8th grade who I referred to as the Grammar Nazi. I will forever be grateful for the foundation in grammar that she gave to my kids.
She not only used her knowledge she used one of the best books too. Voyages.
Too many schools do not teach grammar and I know many teachers simply do not have the knowledge she brought to her classroom.
I’m a product of the public schools from years ago. I did learn grammar, however when they were learning grammar from their teacher, I realized how much I never learned.
I can only imagine how much worse it is for kids in school now.
My kids attended Catholic schools where the core subjects were taught and mastered. However I now see fuzzy math, less emphasis on grammar and a focus on hands-on-science that, in my opinion, leaves out critical content knowledge in science too.
If a teacher is fully equipped in the core subjects, as their grammar teacher was, I think students would be at a HUGE advantage. If the materials the teacher is given has gaps of knowledge, the teacher would be equipped to fill in those gaps. However is a teacher lacks content knowledge and the materials are flawed, we have a recipe for disaster.
When I read that in Mass. teachers who took the basic math skills test, FAILED, I’m extremely concerned we are setting teachers up for failure.
We need to equip teachers with the knowledge they need. Otherwise we’ve given Bill Gates the excuse to replace them with a computer.
I personally do not want a computer teaching my kids. I like a teacher who knows the content teaching my kids. I like the feedback they get from a teacher that is not there with the computer.
I sense that the Schools of Ed have seriously contributed to the failures in public education. This now gives the Govt. and Bill Gates the excuse they need to interfere. Why on earth would anyone give them that excuse?
Who is really developing these inane no research based policies in the Department of Education? Who puts their name as being the author or authors on these policies? I have to imagine that Arne Duncan is the figure head and mouth piece. Arne Duncan has no educational experience as an educator apart from working in his mom’s after school tutoring service. After he got his Ivy League degree, he worked at the Chicago Public Schools central office. They did not know what to do with him, so he was an office “messenger boy” with an Ivy League degree. Some how Arne was named CEO of CPS by the late Mayor Daley. One of his legacies in Chicago, is that he ran the privatization program called Renaissance 2010, which has been the failed status quo policy in CPS to this day under Mayor Rahm. That Renaissance plan was written with the help of the local clouted Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago, who nominated themselves as education “experts”.
Back to my question, who are the authors of these policies?
I would hope the Higher Ed community can stand up to these hacks.
Why! Why is no one asking the “dunder head” to get on with the task of finding out what works in education so we can all benefit, nstead of having this inquisition style hunt for the “bad teachers” and the schools that gave birth to them.
My response emailed to Mr. Warren:
Dear Sir,
I appreciate that you have written to A. Duncan about his new proposals for higher education. I read your letter in Diane Ravitch’s blog. Somehow I think those of us in education are spitting into the wind when it comes to the Department of Education’s secretary and his destructive policies. But we can only continue the battle.
I was disappointed, however, by one thing that you said in your letter to the secretary: “While value-added assessments are helpful for classroom evaluations,. . . . ” Value-added methodologies (assessments) (VAM) is junk statistics all dolled up to appear having a scientific patina/imprimatur.
As Noel Wilson has stated concerning any conclusions drawn from invalid processes (educational standards, standardized tests, grading, VAM, etc. . . ) are “vain and illusory” as proven in his “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577 and “A Little Less than Valid: An Essay Review” found at: http://www.edrev.info/essays/v10n5index.html .
I invite you to read his studies and begin to understand why your statement is simply wrong. Please do not throw us “lowly” public school teachers under the bus in the future.
Thank you.
The state of Indiana is already in the process of developing this despite receiving an NCLB waiver. They’ve developed an A-F grading scale for K-12 schools and the next step is to apply that to the colleges – based solely on the percentage of graduates who’s students meet state expectations on ISTEP tests. In fact, they’re planning to use this information to determine whether to continue to “authorize” particular teacher ed programs, regardless of external accreditation.
Then again, it seems that they’d really prefer to do away with teacher education altogether… They’ve proposed allowing anyone with a bachelor’s degree in any field and a 3.0 GPA to earn a 5-year, renewable teaching license in any field (including Special Education) by passing a content-knowledge test. Within existing programs, they’re also continually pushing to eliminate pedagogy courses (which they view as worthless) – most recently with legislation limiting all undergraduate degrees to 120 credits.
What will those in power do when university teacher preparatory programs “don’t measure up” ?
Charter colleges and universities?
They have sure done it at every other level. Like your question.
readingexchange- you’re not far off
Here’s what’s happening in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. Haven’t heard much about it since this release. Not sure why, but maybe now that there is more at stake there will be more press. http://www.usd.edu/education/upload/Teacher_Effectiveness_Release_12-03-09_FINAL.pdf
Colleges of education often serve as “cash cows” for universities too. Maybe more than just the professors from ed. schools will come out of the woodwork to refute the craziness of the new assault on public education.
I read through some of the file and noted this:
Heegaard noted that delivering on that guarantee will require the universities to act on four fronts—recruiting those most likely to succeed as effective teachers, training them to be effective instructors, placing them in schools led by administrators who will support them in those first critical years in the classroom and then providing new teachers with ongoing support.
Again, where is the focus on making sure teachers know the academic content??
This is exactly what the Relay and Match Graduate Schools of Ed do…. award degrees and certification of teachers based in part on test scores, so they would be thrilled if this was adopted. They are trying to put Schools of Ed out of business, or at least prove their superiority.
Going after universities – Yowzer! I’ve heard rumors and have periodically seen articles and posts regarding this. I’m past ticked. This is asinine. What is the reasoning? Why should a professor who taught me, be responsible for me and my students? Who thinks dreams and rationalizes this horse mess?
Please, someone, share with me the thought process and decision trees that brought about this policy. This is like something out of the old Andy Hardy movies (I like classic films- I never saw them when they came out). When money was needed, Andy and Polly would put on show. This is similar. Let’s dictate policy. Cool. What do you think about…? Hey that sounds great. Problem solved. NOT!
When I ask will the grown-ups enter the room? What is going on? I thought the Department of Education was to provide support to the states. Not run the schools, colleges and universities of the United States.
I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you’re on- this is definitely overreach. I’m wondering who he’ll/they’ll go after next. The students or the parents? Shouldn’t they be held accountable? Eventually Arne should be held accountable. Who knows when; if ever.
Heads are rolling everywhere…
Though I don’t condone DOE’s tactics, I do believe that colleges and universities need to better prepare teachers. When I received my certification in the late 90s from a prestigious university, I was rather shocked how easy it was to earn a 3.90. Had it not been for the fact that I had children of my own to better understand childhood development, experience as a classroom volunteer, and sport coach, I would have struggled as a young 20 something year-old teacher. The timing of my teacher cert. also happened to coincide with NCLB. (Even then I questioned its ramifications as it unfolds today.) Obviously, the university I attended, others as well, were not prepared to prepare teachers for NCLB nor did they believe that had the responsibility to do so.
My point is that DOE (aka: Duncan) is experiencing repercussions from public outcry that he needs to find accountablity within higher education as his next victim. If he was thinking rationally, he would have began his investigation with higher-ed instead of his attack on teachers. His investigation could have been followed by supporting higher-ed in preparing teachers accordingly. During his investigations of teacher preparation, he would have encountered education researchers whom would have convinced him of the flaws of NCLB. This mess could have been avoided had he taken this approach. Instead of collaborating with people who know the education business, he got bought by Kopp, Gates, Rhee, and others. It is time he admits his mistakes and be accountable for his actions.
I certainly agree that teacher preparation programs should be far stronger. But nothing that Duncan is doing will make them stronger. He is eviscerating them, enabling shoddy alternate routes to proliferate. Anything to get scores up, no matter how empty. Test prep is not better education.
I’m certainly with you on Duncan’s intensions on test prep. I was reflecting on the alternate route he could have taken by starting with higher education instead of trying to create “effective” teachers through VAM. His priorities are irrational to say the least.
This is the discussion we were having recently with some legislators. How do you reform the Schools of Ed, as a Govt. institution without overstepping your boundaries?
I don’t trust Duncan or the Feds to do that successfully, but I do acknowledge something needs to be done.
I have one entering college in the fall. She is entering the nursing program and when we visited colleges, their selling point was how many passed the state exam.
This was important to us because we wanted to make sure the school fully prepared her to become a nurse and to obtain her certification.
If the certification is authentic and does a good job of testing her knowledge that is the first step.
Much of what she will do will be learned on the job. It’s hard to teach her everything she will encounter with patients while she is in college. However she needs the core academic base to be able to do her job well. THAT is what I expect when I pay her tuition.
Back to the Colleges of Ed. If the certification (and maybe I’m confusing the term here) is authentic and tests content knowledge, the teacher should be fully prepared to pass that test.
If students are graduating with a degree but unable to pass the test, it reflects poorly on the school of ed and their inability to prepare their students.
We need to be very cautious when expecting the Govt. to reform the colleges and universities. That’s a recipe for disaster in my opinion. That is a political machine and when you involve politicians you get politically motivated people tampering with higher ed. Since they can’t manage to run the country well, what makes anyone think they can manage the colleges and universities?
I think this is best left to the states to deal with. Let them raise the bar on certifying teachers. I believe that’s how Mass. handled it years ago.
By testing future teachers and expecting them to have the core academic content in order to get certification, you’ve now demanded the schools of ed fully educate them.
This puts the responsibility back on the colleges and universities to do their job. This keeps the govt. from micromanaging them too.
Ultimately it should fully prepare teachers in academic content which sets them up for success instead of failure.
Now would the unions support this?
The result is that the universities will try to get their new teachers placed in middle income and upper income neighborhoods. They’ll steer their teachers away from the impoverished schools where they are needed most. I guess the policy makers don’t think these things through. Sad.
If you read the research on value-added assessment, teachers will avoid the neediest schools because that’s what the gains are hardest to get. VAM is destructive.
Exactly. They do not think these things through. It’s like Pelosi said, you have to pass the healthcare bill to find out what’s in it. DUMB DUMB DUMB.
Why on earth we continue to look to the US DOE for any assistance in public education, boggles my mind.
I wonder how closely the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards is associated with this proposal… http://www.nbpts.org/policy_center/education_policy_higher/teacher_preparation_and