I posted about the Department of Education’s plan to rate the teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities by the test scores of the children taught by their graduates–that’s a stretch, if you think about it. One reader saw the absurdity of it and wondered if others saw it too:
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.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The US Department of Education is overreaching in more than one area. This is why EPIC is suing US ED under APA. EPIC v US ED: http://educationnewyork.com/files/1-main.pdf EPIC v US ED motion: http://educationnewyork.com/files/11-main_epic_USED.pdf
I agree. If teachers are to be held accountable, then those up the chain should also be held accountable. Let’s start evaluating our state superintendents, governors and Mr. Duncan. When will their accountability start. Lets grade them on their job performance based on education outcomes for the children they are supposed to represent. Let’s tie their job security to student outcomes.
Of course, the people at the very top like Duncan are ultimately accountable to plutocrats. Their job performance is graded on how much wealth they can help generate. They get an A in that regard.
I agree. I’m also appalled by the lame, “it’s for the children and civil rights” pabulum, while condemning them to an inferior education and series of learning experiences that is less than first class.
You should begin your search with the astroturf group that calls itself the “National Council on Teacher Quality” which recently made headlines with its “study” of the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs.
This non-profit “think tank” demanded that schools of education hand over their syllabi for their “study”. Many refused to cooperate so they used other means to obtain the syllabi. Using only the syllabi they created a rating for each program based upon what was included in the syllabus and the textbook required for the course. No observations of classes, no survey of students, no survey of the professors. Just a “meta-analysis” of class syllabi.
This passed for “research” and was supposed to prove that the professors aren’t teaching proper test preparation and data analysis. The NCTQ has been posturing and threatening since its unholy inception.
It’s Board of Directors includes many rightwing conservatives such as Diane’s old Fordham colleague Checker Finn, several edupreneurs who have cashed in on the “reform” movement, and political ideologues from think tanks and republican state depts. of education, and many charter school operators. They have a few token neoliberal democrats so they can call themselves non-partisan.
Here is their own description of themselves:
“About Us
The National Council on Teacher Quality advocates for reforms in a broad range of teacher policies at the federal, state and local levels in order to increase the number of effective teachers. In particular, we recognize the absence of much of the evidence necessary to make a compelling case for change and seek to fill that void with a research agenda that has direct and practical implications for policy. We are committed to lending transparency and increasing public awareness about the four sets of institutions that have the greatest impact on teacher quality: states, teacher preparation programs, school districts and teachers unions.
Our Board of Directors and Advisory Board are composed of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, all of whom believe that the teaching profession is way overdue for significant reform in how we recruit, prepare, retain and compensate teachers.
Based in Washington, D.C., the National Council on Teacher Quality was founded in 2000 to provide an alternative national voice to existing teacher organizations and to build the case for a comprehensive reform agenda that would challenge the current structure and regulation of the profession.”
Anti-union, anti-professional organizations, backed by Gates and a host of other conservative and centrist foundations. Read their blog and you will find postings that celebrate loss-aversion merit pay, paeans to The Irreplaceables, and much other pro-reform propaganda.
These think tanks were created quite openly to produce research and propaganda to support the reform movement when the existing research didn’t support their crazy ideas. They are highly funded and very effective and much of the national press uses them as go-to sources.
Unsurprisingly, a number of the reformers in powerful positions here in CT have close ties with that outfit. Steven Adamowski comes to mind, who has applied the familiar play book to Cleveland, Hartford, Windham, and now New London.
Interesting point about NCTQ’s research methods to investigate the quality of teacher prep programs – particularly the piece about NCTQ only using syllabi as the basis of their critique.
Were you also troubled by the fact that Dr. Ravitch’s and Dr. Burris’ recent critiques of the Relay Graduate School of Education were based almost entirely on one 5 minute video of a teaching technique? Or their critique of the Match program that was based solely on an excerpt from one training manual and a review of their website? Or the recent critique of TNTP’s training that appeared on this blog and was based entirely on one student’s anecdotal experience?
I agree wholeheartedly with your point that in order to understand the efficacy of a teacher prep program, one must observe classes and survey both students and professors. I also imagine you would agree that there should be some type of evaluation of how graduates of these institutions perform in the classroom. I don’t think that evaluation should in any way be limited to how those teachers’ students perform on standardized tests, though that could be useful information to use in conjunction with other measures (e.g. input from peer or principal observations, student surveys, etc.).
My larger point here is this: let’s have a more nuanced discussion about the efficacy of ALL of these different approaches to the very complex and critical task of preparing our nation’s teachers.
John there is a huge difference between a well-funded Washington DC think tank publishing “research” and Diane making a blog posting on her personal blog.
A more “nuanced discussion” that includes peer-reviewed research as the starting point for every discussion doesn’t fit the blogging format, in my opinion. There are already nuanced, research-based discussions going on in very expensive professional journals and in academic fora all the time. Problem is that very few people are invited or able to attend these nuanced discussions and their voices are usually ignored. Classroom teachers especially are left out of most of these nuanced discussions and the fora are largely ignored by the public and policy makers. Diane’s blog is a must-read all around the world.
If you have other information on Relay, Match, or TNTP then share them in the comments and inject your point of view into the discussion. Diane has an open commenting policy. She has never, to my knowledge, said that she is providing the last word or scientific research on any posting she has made and I’ve been here from day one.
Diane’s blog is a quick, to-the-point public forum where she presents interesting things that she finds pertinent to the current educational debate and the readers read her posts, weigh in with comments, and, at least for me, do further research on things I find most interesting. If you want a more nuanced forum, start your own blog. I’ll certainly read it.
My critique stands: No real “graduate school of education” has not a single scholar on its faculty, not a single “faculty member” who holds an earned doctorate in any field of study.
No real “graduate school of education” fails to teach multiple disciplines, including history, sociology, economics and psychology.
No real “graduate school of education” has a “curriculum” consisting of nothing more than test prep and data analysis.
MATCH and Relay are programs, not “graduate schools of education,” and I find it shocking that they are allowed to award master’s degrees.
If you have a contrary understanding, please let me know.
Diane posted a draft of an article by David Berliner to read as “homework” as short time ago. If his well researched and well reasoned arguments have validity, then the notion of linking teacher performance (as measured by standardized assessments connected to a national curriculum) to certification program “profiles” (their term) cannot be taken seriously.
Many factors that affect profiles may not be within the sphere of influence of the institution or program. Job placement is affected by candidate preferences as well as administrative inclinations. It is also affected by preservice placements, which are being negatively affected by APPR mandates. Job retention is affected by administrative support and school culture. Student learning results are affected by numerous out-of-school factors (delineated at great length by David Berliner) that are not within the jurisdiction of teachers, much less of the programs which recommended them for certification.
Furthermore, Berliner affirms that “out-of-school factors affect school achievement three times more than do the inside-the-school factors.” And, if only 20% of test scores are related to “school effects,” of which teachers account for only a part, then student test scores cannot significantly be connected the effects of program graduates.