The just-released NCTQ report on teacher education gives an F to the nation’s colleges of education. It was published in association with U.S. News & World Report.
But the report itself deserves an F.
To begin with, there are professional associations that rate the nation’s education schools, based on site visits and clear criteria.
NCTQ is not a professional association. It did not make site visits. It made its harsh judgments by reviewing course syllabi and catalogs. The criteria that it rated as most important was the institution’s fidelity to the Common Core standards.
As Rutgers’ Bruce Baker pointed out in his response, NCTQ boasts of its regard for teachers but its review of the nation’s teacher-training institutions says nothing about faculty. They don’t matter. They are irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the course catalog.
There are many reasons not to trust the NCTQ report on teacher education. Most important is that it lacks credibility. Not only is it not a professional association. It lacks independence. It has an agenda.
NCTQ was founded by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in 2000 with the explicit purpose of harassing institutions of teacher education and urging alternative arrangements. I was on the board of TBF at the time. Initially, the new organization floundered but was saved by a $5 million grant from U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige. Just lucky.
So, knowing NCTQ’s history, and reading Mercedes Schneider’s posts about the organization, I conclude that NCTQ cannot be considered a fair, credible, independent judge of the quality of teacher training institutions.
I certainly agree that some such institutions are weak and inadequate, though I don’t think NCTQ’s superficial methodology identifies them.
I also agree with the report’s recommendation that teacher education institutions should have higher standards for admission.
But I don’t agree that the mark of a great education school is how many courses it offers on the Common Core standards or how attentive it is to raising test scores..
The great Robert Hutchins once wrote that the purpose of a professional school is to teach students to criticize the profession. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the profession would prepare them to make it stronger. The NCTQ report–looking at education schools from a mountain top–would have them conform to the status quo, to the conventional wisdom. This is not a prescription for the future, nor for the creation of a profession of strong teachers. It is a prescription for docility and conformity. Robert Hutchins would not approve.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Also, keep in mind that NCTQ would not accept our revised syllabi when they made their request. Given the time frame in which they requested the documents, I would think most programs were in the midst of learning about — and therefore revising syllabi to address — the Common Core.
And, you’re right…faculty clearly don’t matter.
I saw it on MSNBC’s front page and wondered why in the h@#$ they get to have their report trumpeted across the nation.
“I would think most programs were in the midst of learning about — and therefore revising syllabi to address — the Common Core.”
If that is the case my heart is greatly saddened for the future of teacher education and the harm that will eventually come to the children of this country due to the no so “Common Core”. (Not that the harm is that much less with all this educational standards and standardized testing crap as it is.)
“not so”
Well, that is the tension of teacher preparation. To “address” the Common Core is not the same thing as adopting them. But, when I am teaching those who will enter the profession in the midst of CCSS, I can’t simply ignore that they exist. My courses are still based on what the research tells us is appropriate reading instruction. I must give my students the language to address how those (actual) research-based instructional strategies address CCSS.
Danielle,
Have you read Wilson’s ““Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 ?
In my opinion, anyone involved in public education, whether at the K-12 level or the university level, should read and understand what Wilson is saying. He gets to the heart of the epistemological and ontological problems associated with educational standards and standardized testing and proves the absurdity of thinking that they are good educational practices. If you are teaching the Common Core and not denouncing the educational malpractice that it is (and I can understand teaching the concepts of it so that your students will learn to recognize and fight against it) then you are doing a disservice to the ones who are most harmed by these nefarious practices, the innocent children. (I do not mean that to be an accusation but a statement of fact as I don’t know how you teach about the Common Core. I’d love to hear that you are condemning them to your students.)
Duane
See my very short summary of Wilson’s thoughts:
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking. The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. This is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms shit-in shit out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures NOTHING as the whole process is error ridden and therefore invalid. And the whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
Duane, I am familiar with Wilson’s work, though your summary is one I will direct students to read! And, I agree that part of my role is not only informing my students what they will be asked to teach from — both in terms of standards and programs (which are another conversation…) — but also providing them with the policy background necessary to teach within a very flawed system. I do let them know my thoughts about CCSS. We read positions on both sides of the argument, as well as research demonstrating the ineffectiveness of standards and standardized assessment. My students walk away with a very clear understanding of my position. But, that is juxtaposed with the fact they see those very things I denounce being implemented in schools, and not seeing those instructional practices in which I believe. It is often an uphill battle.
Danielle,
You just made my evening with your response. Very few are familiar with Wilson’s work. Applause to you for teaching the way you teach. There are probably some of your students who might think that what you teach is too theoretical and not practical, but it really is very practical to be able to understand why some educational practices actually do cause harm to students even though those practices have been embedded in educational discourse and practices for decades.
Again, thanks for your efforts. I consider you a member of my Quixotic Quest for sanity in educational practices. Perhaps your nom de plume would be Didactic Danielle, eh!
Duane
Some years ago I wrote a critique of one of the first NCTQ reports noting shoddy conceptualization and shoddier methodology. But the NCTQ obviously makes some one happy with the drivel they produce!
What education schools, maybe, aren’t teaching about reading….: Or maybe not. Journal of Reading Education, 32(2), 5-9.
Thank you, Diane. The report is a shameless, destructive piece of propaganda filled with self-contradictory statements and glittering generalities.
I am curious about the emphasis on program quality. Other than a matter of personal preferences, is there any reason for a teacher to prefer a high quality graduate program (no matter how it is measured) to a low quality graduate program?
No different reasons than would be the case for an economics graduate student deciding between a high-quality graduate program over a low-quality graduate program in economics.
I don’t think that is the case. Program quality might be important to a teacher when the teachers initially hired, but after that it is the fact the teacher holds an advanced degree that matters for their career, not the quality of the training they received.
The graduate student in economics knows that the quality of the program is not only going to have an impact on the initial hire, but also have an impact on productivity on the job that will determine annual salaries and the chances of promotion to associate, full, and possibly distinguished professor as well as the graduate students annual salary.
We will have to disagree on this. I’m not sure where you are located but in TN having any degree beyond the BS degree is rare for teachers. Most systems do not advance teacher pay here just because they have an advanced degree. And in TN teachers earn 60% of what the average graduate with a BA/BS degree earn. Here teachers come for a graduate degree because they want to be better teachers. In my case, I teach courses in a graduate program that leads to certification as a reading specialist. So our graduate students depart knowing much about effective reading instruction and effective reading programs. The evidence also suggests that their students benefit in that they become better readers. The handful of doctoral students we graduate each year take Research I university jobs and get tenure at those institutions where they also develop the expertise of teachers in the area of reading instruction.
My impression is that most jurisdictions pay higher salaries based on degrees earned. Like everything else about public education, however, there seems to some differences between states.
TE,
“. . . not the quality of the training they received.? Yep that’s why the proliferation of online degrees continues. Who needs to learn anything when I can buy my credential online?
At my university it is the Ed school that is going full steam ahead on an online MA. They expect it to be a cash cow.
TE,
If you don’t mind my asking: what is your university?
And no matter where you teach, to hear that fact is quite disheartening. Educational malpractice from those who supposedly know education the best. Sad, so sad!
No doubt you will be getting a marketing email from them soon enough. In any case, every education school will be in the business soon enough. There is just too much money to split between the education schools and the teachers.
I don’t know why people would think that Teacher Educators, most of whom have experience as P-12 classroom teachers themselves, would abandon their commitment to the best interests of children and just give away free grades and degrees merely because they teach courses online. Are you accusing professors at all colleges that provide online courses in different disciplines of being so cavalier and irresponsible or just Teacher Educators?
It doesn’t matter if I am teaching in a brick and mortar class or online, I have no doubt that my students are never under the impression that they will be getting an easy A.
Before or after implementation of merit-based pay?
Are you asking if unionization of public school teachers is consistent with the educational goals implicit in state constitutions?
Duh. My earlier comment missed an underlying issue.
How often do these reform issues ultimately come to the principal agent problem (dilemma?)?
No wonder economists support privatization when such a core problem goes unexplored and unaddressed!
Certainly principle agent problems underly many of the issues in any organization, including public education. That is often a problem in contract design.
What is the “principal agent” problem?
The principal agent problem occurs when you (the principal) hire an agent to do something on your behalf, but the agent has a different set of interests. The classic examples are car mechanics or physicians, but it includes any possible employees. In this case the problem is that the principal (society) would like to have the best trained teachers and seeks to encourage that by offering higher pay, but the agent (the teacher in his case), would like to qualify for the higher salary at the lowest possible cost. Hence the on line MA or PhD offered by schools of education.
Thank you, TE. I can imagine that analysis applies to classroom teachers too. My car mechanic charges high prices but he fixes it right the first time, so I continue to go to him rather than looking for the cheapest price. The English Department I chaired for 33 years actually taught its students how to write, so their parents paid through the nose for their younger siblings to get the same. This never tenured teacher had to align his interests with those of his principals or croak. Fortunately, I actually knew how to write well and how to teach others to do the same. But what if a teacher can’t do very well what he is being paid to teach? Does teacher education thus perhaps focus on the wrong thing? Can one be a Navy Seal instructor without first being a Seal? The hidden assumption in teacher education seems to be that content will take care of itself. Arithmetic is trickier than it looks. Likewise reading. To know enough to teach, you need to know way more than you need to know to get a teaching certificate.
“Does teacher education thus perhaps focus on the wrong thing? Can one be a Navy Seal instructor without first being a Seal? The hidden assumption in teacher education seems to be that content will take care of itself.”
No, it is not assumed that content will take care of itself. There are content requirements, as well as pedagogical content requirements in Teacher Education programs.
You seem to be assuming that Teacher Educators have never been classroom teachers themselves and lack expertise in content areas. I’ve taught at several colleges and virtually all Teacher Educators with whom I’ve worked were P-12 classroom teachers and have expertise in content areas.
For example, English is one of my content area strengths, so I’ve spent a lot of time teaching writing to students, too. I can tell you that, even though you have an expansive vocabulary and are creative and very articulate, I would correct your writing because you don’t use paragraphing to separate topics and make your writing readable to an audience.
Lack of paragraphing is a huge pet peeve of mine, because I often get papers from students that are several pages long and consist of a single paragraph. I have to wonder why so many teachers have been letting that slide in elementary and secondary ed that I have to teach it so frequently in college, including to graduate level English teachers like you.
My posts are talk written down, first drafts, not finished papers. I try to find my idea. As for content requirements, I’m talking mainly about reading the literature. A current teach told me just recently that her English major at the University of Michigan had required her to read all the modern multicultural books, but that after she began teaching she had to go back and read all the classics that had been omitted in her content requirements for certification. She’s only one person, of course, but I found her report credible. One should have a basis for teaching high school English in the great books plus all the modern stuff too.
I’m somewhat amused to see you thinking you can teach me anything about writing. But, “Gladly wolde he learn and gladly teach” is my motto. Spot quote quiz.
“I’m somewhat amused to see you thinking you can teach me anything about writing”
Well, you did finally add a second paragraph. And props to you for it!
Considering that, as teachers, we are models to the community and this blog is out there for the world to see, including students and parents, I think it’s in everyone’s best interests to put forth the effort to write well here and promote communication, not treat it as if this is some kind of personal draft.
I’ll try to lift my game.
“I also agree with the report’s recommendation that teacher education institutions should have higher standards for admission.”
Is the demand for new teachers low enough (or, conversely, is the supply of new teacher graduates high enough) to permit tighter admissions standards?
FLERP – Yes. We could certainly use higher admissions standards. The trouble is that Colleges of Education often bring in a lot of money for the University, so higher admissions standards = fewer students = impact on the bottom line. But, in terms of supply and demand, the teaching profession can handle higher admissions and would benefit from them.
Some of this depends on the budgeting model of the university. Certainly some schools will subsidize other schools, but you could use a budgeting model that allocates resources to the school that generates the revenue. In that case it is only e school of education that gains or looses from changes in admission requirements.
Very true. Only, I am not the “you” who makes the budgeting decisions! Our revenue goes into a pot that is dispersed across colleges.
Different universities use different budgeting models. I think the phrase each ship on its own bottom is usually attributed to Harvard, but the University of Michigan has much the same philosophy.
I honestly don’t think it would matter. The culture in the US has a different view of authority figures than in other countries. I really don’t think it would raise student performance much and I don’t really believe it would raise the level of respect for the profession. I just think it is a reflection of the American culture. As long as the current conditions exist, high achieving students will look for another career.
I don’t think this is a new problem. I ran across this quote from 2003 by Sandra Feldman: “You have in the schools right now, among the teachers who are going to be retiring, very smart people,” she said in an interview. “We’re not getting in now the same kinds of people. It’s disastrous. We’ve been saying for years now that we’re attracting from the bottom third.”
Quoted in a Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100802741.html
The St. Paul Minnesota Federation of Teachers is actively encouraging talented high performing students to consider teaching. I think they are having some success (will need to check on this)
Some of the most talented students at some KIPP and Yes PREP schools have graduated fro those schools and returned to be teachers there.
I have no studies to support this but think if some of us (I include myself) encourage talented young people to enter the profession, some will. Recently a university chapter of the state teachers’ union asked me to speak on a panel. I strongly encouraged them to be teachers…and a number of them (including several who said they had high gpa’s – one but not the only measure of a person) told me afterward they appreciate the encouragement because they were hearing a lot of educators not encouraging them to enter the profession. Again, this is not a statistically valid sample – just some personal experiences.
I will check with people at the St. Paul Federation to see how the encouragement strategy is going for them.
I have several very bright students interested in becoming teachers. I don’t exactly encourage that any more because of the demeaning attitude of the nation towards teachers. It will be a horribly stressful profession, and I just can’t wish than on these great kids.
Sandra Feldman should know better. The old saw that “teachers come from the bottom third” of their class was disproven by Gerald Bracey. Bill Bennett issued that quote and he attributed it to the Gov, of Pennsylvania. But as Bracey investigated it became clear that the PA governor had not said such a thing and that there were no data to support the assertion. In fact, the closest bit of data that could be used to support such a conclusion was that many kids who earned low scores on their ACT exams indicated they wanted to be teachers. Whether any of them actually completed college and completed a teacher ed program is unknown. Nonetheless, there are still folks as dumb as Feldman who raise that old and inaccurate assertion. What we do know is that teacher ed candidates scores as well as business school grads and that their verbal scores match those of engineering grads (math scores are lower). About the only areas where teachers fall short of other college grads is autonomy and salaries. So take smart kids, strip them of authority with lots of state, federal, and district mandates and then pay them less and the next thing you know they go off to work for an education publisher where they both greater autonomy and a larger salary.
It is true, at least at my institution, that the average grade awarded in the school of education is the highest of all the schools at the university and the average grade awarded in he school of engineering is the lowest of all the schools. This may reflect the higher abilities of students in the education school relative to the engineering school.
Though, I also want to point out that the NCTQ report did not bring the issue of higher admissions standards to light. We’ve been talking about this for years – decades, even – they simply reiterated what we already know.
this is ridiculous. I’m about to start at LMU, and I laugh at this report. No merit whatsoever.
I certainly agree that some such institutions are weak and inadequate, though I don’t think NCTQ’s superficial methodology identifies them. … The great Robert Hutchins once wrote that the purpose of a professional school is to teach students to criticize the profession.
Which teacher prep programs took Hutchins advice to heart? Which programs listened to Dr. Ravitch when she asserted that critical theorists would fail to engender critical thought among their students and the predictable result would be Disneyfication?
I greatly appreciate your blog postings, Diane, but sometimes I find that there are acronyms used as if everyone understood what they are….I don’t know what NCTQ stands for without further “clicks.” I would find it helpful if at least once the acronyms were spelled out–to save those of us with limited time that extra click!
Sorry, NCTQ is the National Council on Teacher Quality.
Recently union and charter leaders in St. Paul Mn came together to talk about various issues. One of the things people agreed on was that too many young people are coming out of colleges of education here not well prepared to be an urban teacher.
Virtually no one starts off as a great teacher but people agreed that people could and should be better prepared.
I won’t get into this particular report’s recommendations – but I’ve heard similar concerns all over the country.
Yes, mentoring is vital for all new teachers.too many people coming out of traditional teacher prep programs not well enough prepared.
This came up on Merrow’s blog this week and I really like what Richard Allington (who also posts here) wrote about it:
“All new employees in any profession feel like they were undertrained in college. That’s because college isn’t and shouldn’t be about “training” for a job. College should be about developing the expertise you will need to do well in the profession you choose. Think of all the business majors who have no idea how to create a company or even how to input data into the mechanized payroll system. Or the number of aviation engineers who cannot fly a 757 airliner.
Education’s biggest problem is taking new graduates and dropping them into classrooms with new apprenticeship period, with no high-quality professional development, with no back-up support system. Half of our new teachers don’t quit because they were ill-prepared, they quit because their work lives went unsupported.”
Cosmic Tinkerer, you would think what you posted on Richard Allington’s thoughts would be considered common sense. I do not know anyone who marched off into their first job in any field who felt fully prepared by college. Whether we label it as such or not, all jobs have a period of apprenticeship or adjustment as we advance in our chosen careers/jobs. To put it simply, we get better with (supported) practice.
THANK YOU DIANE!!!!! NCTQ provides an excellent example for how to assess poorly. I refuse to make our program fit to NCTQ boilerplate when I know that doing so would not be in the best interest of future teachers. If NCTQ would bother to come to our institution– as other accreditation agencies do, they MIGHT be better able to assess our excellent program. Until then, I’ll wear their F as a badge of honor and hope that others do the same.
Diana, do you have a publicly available evaluation of your program that includes a systematic survey of principals and teachers whose schools have hired your recent graduates? If so, where does one find it?
Do the colleges that you graduated from do that, Joe? “If so, where does one find it?”
Sadly, no. However, a group of parents and educators created a district k-12 option some years ago where there was a yearly survey of graduates. It was public and distributed throughout the community and placed in libraries. (This was well before internet).
This school benefitted immensely from graduates’ recommendations. For example, while graduates liked many aspects of the school, they urged that the school require more writing in preparation for jobs and for some form of higher education. The school followed this recommendation.
Our Center also did a report recommending several key features of accountability systems some years ago. It included advice from the then president of the American Education Research Association. The “What Should We Do report includes this recommendation about surveying graduates and making results public. The report also includes examples of district and charter public schools that are carrying out a number of the recommendations:
I’ve spent about half of my 42 year career in K-12 and about half in post-secondary institutions.
In both cases, I think institutions should survey graduates and sharing the results.
Mortimer Zuckerman, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief for U.S. New & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News is on the Board of a leading corporate reform organization, The Broad Foundation.
See the Broad Foundation Annual Report 2011-2012 – Page 41
http://tinyurl.com/9wqv9um
Yep, follow the money and connections. Thanks, philaken!
I think seeing who in included in the technical panel provides a clue as to why the research was completed the way it was.
I’d like to see them use their same criteria with TFA.
The fact that NCTQ did not visit the schools or interview students and faculty, but relied instead on documents such as syllabi, textbooks and course requirements, tells us all we need to know. Imagine how long a restaurant critic would last if s/he bestowed rankings on eateries without actually visiting or sampling the food (“But I looked carefully at the menus! And I inspected their cookbooks AND the reservation policies!”).
Here’s also a more detailed critique: http://etcjournal.com/2013/06/18/a-quality-check-on-the-nctq-teacher-prep-review/
Great Point
John Sener: sounds much like many critiques of high stakes standardized testing. Such tests are very limited in what they measure, are inherently imprecise, and need to be supplemented by many many other types of data in order to be useful. Yet they have been used in the fight against public schools as the be-all and end-all of evaluation.The NCTQ did the same: based its ratings on data that has severe limitations, is imprecise and would require much greater amounts of info, time and effort to be any where near as useful as they claim it is.
In other words, a lazy and superficial way of dealing with something as important as accurately judging the quality of teacher preparation—that is trumpeted as the be-all and end-all of evaluating.
Our era is dominated in part by those who are both rancorously loud and studiously incompetent. Reminds me of something I read long ago:
“I fled from the tigers. I fled from the fleas. What got me at last? Mediocrities.” [Bertolt Brecht]
While not discounting the harm the edubullies do, it is amazing that they don’t realize how they caricature themselves.
Which is why “laughter is poison to the pompous.”
Thank you for your posting.
🙂
I get really ticked off whenever people who know nothing about our backgrounds claim that formally trained teachers are unprepared and effectively discount our professionalism.
I received a very valuable education at both my undergraduate and my graduate Ed Schools. I studied for years, conducted many observations in the field, was involved in a wide variety of clinical experiences, completed two different practicums that were EACH a FULL year long (without pay), and I was taught a wide variety of effective strategies in order to reach diverse learners. I have spoken with many teachers who feel the same way about their preparation, too,
Did my BA mean that I was an expert? Of course not; there are no fast tracks to expertise. Expert-novice comparison research has demonstrated that it takes about ten years of experience, with a concerted effort towards self-improvement, to become an expert in virtually all fields. Due to my years of formal training and field experiences though, I was competent. That’s a whole lot more than can be said for the 5 week trained novice Teach for America (TFA) “teachers.” And TFA is on the NCTQ board, as if they know best about how teachers should be prepared?.I don’t think so.
The attacks on Teacher Education are not just external anymore. Corporate “reformers,” including Teach for America, have infiltrated the organization that accredits Teacher Education programs. The two previous accrediting bodies for Teacher Ed, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) have been combined and reconstituted into the newly established Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and their Commission is filled with corporate “reformers,” including the New Schools Venture Fund and TFA. Thus, the CAEP Commission Statement reads like the typical corporate “reform” “failing schools” narrative:
“America’s students are graduating unprepared for college and career, lagging behind other industrialized countries in knowledge and skills demanded in a today’s global economy. Decades of research shows that great teaching is the single most important factor on student achievement in the classroom, yet many students do not have access to effective teachers….”
A major component of CAEP’s standards involves data driven evaluation, linking the standardized test scores of teachers’ students to the colleges that prepared each teacher. There will be severe consequences for the low tests scores of students’ students, too, including the publication of Ed School ratings and the denial of Title IV federal Financial Aid for students wanting to enroll in low scoring colleges based on VAM.
Otherwise, the CAEP standards are so nebulous that virtually anyone can open a teacher prep program and train teachers in ONE pedagogical approach, like Relay and Match, that train teachers to become military style drill sergeants who focus on 100% student compliance, as implemented at KIPP and other “no excuses” charter schools, and which is effective with a very limited population of students. The Teacher Ed programs and the schools their students teach in which have a narrow curriculum and focus heavily on test prep are most likely to be rated high, so we are very likely to see broad expansion of military style charters and the Ed Schools that train such teachers. (This is sure to expand the number of compliant workers for corporations seeking a compliant low-income workforce.)
So much for everyone else, including kids who are creative, children with disabilities, English Language Learners and gifted students, who do not fare well with a one-size-fits-all approach to education.
One other issue that everyone overlooks when discussing achievement of students from low-income families is what we know as “summer reading setback.” Simply put, while the evidence indicates that students from low-income families grow as much as middle class kids every year they are in school every year they also fall further behind. The problem here is summer reading setback. Again, what we know is that students from low-income families lose 2 to 3 months of reading achievement every summer while middle class kids add about a months growth. This stems, it seems, from the simple fact that low-income kids own few books and live in neighborhoods where you will find 1 book for every 10 books you locate in a middle class community. We demonstrated that simply running a book fair every spring and allowing low-income students to self-select 12-15 books for summer reading was as effective or more effective than attending summer school when it comes to enhancing reading achievement. Our study received a top ranking from the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy but we still see poor kids without any books to read as summer approaches.
Richard, PLEASE PLEASE post a link to your study on this point! Thanks in advance.
CitizensArrest–you can purchase the book about Summer Reading… http://www.amazon.com/Summer-Reading-Achievement-Language-Literacy/dp/0807753742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371598050&sr=8-1&keywords=summer+reading
Here are the studies demonstrating that students from low-income families make as much progress as middle class kids during the school year but fall behind every summer when school is not in session.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 167-180.
“Prior research has demonstrated that summer learning rooted in family and community influences widens the achievement gap across social lines, while schooling offsets those family and community influences. In this article, we examine the long-term educational consequences of summer learning differences by family socioeconomic level. Using data from the Baltimore Beginning School Study youth panel, we decompose achievement scores at the start of high school into their developmental precursors, back to the time of school entry in 1st grade. We find that cumulative achievement gains over the first nine years of children’s schooling mainly reflect school-year learning, whereas the high SES-low SES achievement gap at 9th grade mainly traces to differential summer learning over the elementary years. These early out-of-school summer learning differences, in turn, substantially account for achievement-related differences by family SES in high school track placements (college preparatory or not), high school noncompletion, and four-year college attendance. We discuss implications for understanding the bases of educational stratification, as well as educational policy and practice. ” p. 167
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, schools, and inequality. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.
790 Ss randomly selected from 20 Baltimore schools for longitudinal study beginning Fall of grade 1, this reports findings through grade 6. Half the Ss from low-income neighborhoods/schools, half from more advantaged neighborhoods/schools. Ss given achievement test every Spring and Fall.
“Pooling test gains over all 5 summers shows that the low-socioeconomic status students gained a total of less then one point in reading comprehension and they lost 8 points in math in the periods when schools were closed. By contrast, over the same 5 summers high socioeconomic status children gained a total of 47 points in reading and 25 points in math when schools were closed.” p. 35
Though losing ground in the summer, the poor Ss had comparable achievement gains during the school year across the period of study. In fact when comparing achievement gains between Ss in the poor schools and the advantaged schools, the lower SES Ss actually out gained the higher SES Ss 41.3 v. 37.9 on average over the 5 year period.
For addressing summer reading setback effectively our study:
Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A. M., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., et al. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411-427.
Glad to hear that you had 2 year long practicums. I don’t know how usual that is, but it is impressive. In those practicums did the college of ed make sure you had a terrific teacher or teachers to observe? Did you have to work with students when you were in charge, setting a tone in the beginning of the year and developing a strong positive classroom environment?
Were you in charge of classrooms for an extended period (like weeks) where students started out as disruptive and you learned how to help them behave better?
Per your comments on KIPP:
Having spent time at about 20 KIPP schools around the country, I saw
* Considerable interest in the arts: music, drawing, painting, to name a few
* Considerable interest in helping students think for themselves
I have not been to all the KIPP schools but I have been to some of them in 5 states.
My understanding is that specials are added on at the end of their extended day. For most kids, those are the kinds of activities that bring joy to being in school. Who would not be interested in the Arts after being required to be at attention all day long?
KIPP “helping students think for themselves” is a good one! I can just imagine the zombie chant that requires compliance and encourages breaking out of the box at the same time.
You just don’t give up on selling charter schools to the masses.
I don’t have to sell anyone anything. Families are seeking them out.
As has been mentioned (and often ignored), we also work with, and have praised a number of district public schools.
Here’s a good example:
http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_23076316/homeroom-collaborative-effort-gives-high-school-students-better
Here’s another:
http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2011/06/what-did-cincinnati-public-schools-do-close-high-school-graduation-gap
How many KIPP schools have you visited for a day?
The two year long practicum experiences were required in my master’s program. I already had many years of experience as a classroom teacher by then, so I was able to get the kinds of placements that would expand and refine my skills.
You are constantly selling charter schools on this blog, which is why Diane wrote the other day,
“Joe Nathan, you are truly Joe One Note. You say the same thing over and over and never tire of explaining that segregated charter schools are a wonderful innovation. Or that anything charters do is wonderful. or that if a charter operator stole $2 million, you know of a public school principal who stole $2,000. You know every possible excuse for charters.your faith is touching. If there were an award for persistence and indefatigability, you would get it.”
Enough already. We get that you love charter schools no matter what. Neighborhood schools are being shut down at alarming rates across the country, so that public education can be privatized and those schools replaced with charters, such as in Chicago, where 50 schools are being closed and 60 charters are going to be opened. It appears that you enjoy pouring salt in the wounds of the people here who are concerned about preserving public education. Knock it off.
Actually, I don’t “love charter schools no matter what.” Some folks here understand that. We love terrific public schools and terrific public school teachers, and make that clear in weekly newspaper columns that reach hundreds of thousands of people. A few examples:
http://hometownsource.com/2013/05/08/joe-nathan-column-national-coalition-honors-outstanding-district-and-charter-public-schools/
http://hometownsource.com/2013/03/28/new-high-schoolcollege-collaborations-are-win-win-win/
I am writing this note while attending a meeting at the Mn Dept of Education. MDE has asked us to coordinate an effort to increase collaboration between colleges/universities and eight district schools and one charter public school.
I am not surprised at your request for Joe Nathan to “knock it off” because his posts are rubbing salt in the wounds of teachers experiencing the defunding of public education. Of course it hurts when one’s raison d’etre is losing support. Communists in the 30s were astonished at the Hitler-Stalin pact, even if Stalin was doing it to buy time. It made it difficult for American communists to hold up their heads. But the REAL question was whether one should be supporting the communists at all.
Now from my perspective, not the perspective of most people on this blog, the real question is should unionized teachers be supported. I think participation in a public sector union is tantamount to being an American communist in the 30’s, a betrayal of the nation. You won’t accept that, of course. I know that. Public sector union membership is, in my view, prima facia evidence of acceptance of an unAmerican value system.
I don’t mean to rub salt in the wounds, but I do think it is legitimate to register one’s different opinion, even on this blog. The title purpose, “better education for all” does not say “exclusively through public education systems” although that is what most posters here believe. No one really wants to be hurtful, but these are matters of principal, and those suffering might want to know why people are not supporting them. If the public sector unions could be gotten out of education in some other way, I’d be satisfied, personally, but the only way to do that SEEMS to be privatizing education. Judging by the abuses in so many charters, I wish it were otherwise. I personally know of two charters which have many satisfied parents. They are doing much of what good public schools did in the past. So, I know that charters are not universally “bad.”
I found this comment about the NCTQ methodology quite apt:
“The fact that NCTQ did not visit the schools or interview students and faculty, but relied instead on documents such as syllabi, textbooks and course requirements, tells us all we need to know. Imagine how long a restaurant critic would last if s/he bestowed rankings on eateries without actually visiting or sampling the food (“But I looked carefully at the menus! And I inspected their cookbooks AND the reservation policies!”).”
I will also note that the three NCTQ “reading experts” are three folks with degrees in other fields and none are practicing teachers of reading. In addition, all three seem to work for Louisa Moats who has a number of books on their “approved” list of college texts. Nothing like nepotism in “research.”
From Diane Ravitch’s blog.
I have never been employed as a public school teacher and I’ve never been a member of a teacher’s union.
I have, however, worked in many communities where schools are being closed and I am thinking not just about educators, but about all of the children and parents who are being impacted by privatization across the nation. Many communities have come together to develop plans for saving schools in their neighborhoods, including this one: http://pureparents.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/North-Lawndale-Alternative-Plan.pdf.
However, most community members were ignored and the schools are being shut down TODAY.
Have some empathy. And be alert to Godwin’s Law. It’s generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the “Hitler card” has lost the argument, as well as any trace of respect.
“The Hitler card”??? what is this…I happen to be Jewish but regardless of my religion, I am wondering what you mean “the Hitler card.”
Take a look at how kids at one school shuttered today in Chicago chose to show that they are not giving up: https://twitter.com/OccupyCPS/status/347451177606189056/photo/1
Read what HU wrote. I was replying to him. And I am Jewish, too.
I am not Jewish, but I have appealed to Godwin’s law several times on this blog.
Ok, now I understand. Thanks
“Those who major in education in college tend to have below average grades in high school and lower scores on their SATs than the already depressed national average …”
http://books.google.ca/books?id=s81zqkSIo-oC&lpg=PP1&dq=diane%20ravitch%20teacher%20education&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=diane%20ravitch%20teacher%20education&f=false
– The Schools We Deserve: Reflections on the Educational Crises of Our Times
By Diane Ravitch
So has this changed significantly in the past 30 years?
The director of teacher education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Katherine Merseth, told a conference in March that of the nation’s 1,300 graduate teacher training programs, only about 100 were doing a competent job and “the others could be shut down tomorrow.”
Would the Harvard Graduate School of Education be one of them?
I could not find Harvard on the NCTQ list of schools. Makes me wonder if Merseth’s comment served as an immunization from being evaluated by them.
Dolly: I am just plain shocked…
SHOCKED I tell you, that someone would even imply that narrow self-interest and pandering would buy someone’s opinion. And that this surrender of integrity would pay off in being immunized from legitimate criticism.
😦
Ok, I’m not surprised.
“The virtues are lost in self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea.” [FDR]
dianerav
June 19, 2013 at 11:21 am
Would the Harvard Graduate School of Education be one of them?
–It could be, but these schools which admit students with shamefully low GRE scores (or hide their scores like Miami OH) are putting into the system teachers (and sadly, ultimately) administrators who never had respect for intellectual rigor, academic focus, and serious mental discipline. Harvard, for some reason, seems to have pretty high expectations of GRE scores (while folks quibble over the value of such standardized tests they still show that the kid did some reading in university.) Most of the folks with low scores did not take rigorous courses and would have trouble reading a NYRB article as an adult.
Teacher Ed students are required to fulfill the same General Education course requirements for graduation as students in other programs at universities, in addition to courses in their major. So saying that those students “did not take rigorous courses and would have trouble reading a NYRB article as an adult” would be an indictment of the entire university, not of Ed Schools, if it was true.
It is not true, in my experience teaching at over a half dozen colleges. In fact, I have yet to work at an Ed School that did not require both undergraduate and graduate students to read and analyze articles from peer-reviewed scholarly journals. NY Times book reviews are child’s play compared to those.
It took a lot of hunting because NCTQ does not list Harvard in their report, but I finally found it listed on the state page for MA. Harvard received only two stars (“Partly meets standard”), for each of two components of their grad program in Secondary Ed; other components were not rated.
The teacher training darlings of corporate “reformers” (who sit on the NCTQ boards) which prepare teachers to be military style drill sergeants at “no excuses” charters, Relay Graduate School of Education in NY and Match at Sposato Grad School of Ed in MA, are another story and a curious one at that:
Match was nowhere to be found –not in the report itself nor on the state page listing colleges that were and were not rated.
Relay was also not listed in the report or on the state page. However, Hunter College, where Relay originated, was listed and was one of the highest rated programs.
Curiouser and curiouser…
You are the one who has referred to teachers as “bumbling idiots”. I never, and I see this tactic as the usual and customary red herring proffered by the Ed Schools. It is not “right-wing” or “left wing” to suggest that while you claim teachers are “intrinsically motivated life-long learners” the ones that have come through the Ed Schools in the past 40 years actually do not have long-standing commitment to the intellect and rigorous academic focus.
Anyone with a proper rigorous education could not morally accept a degree in education. The classes are rubbish, not even of the caliber of a decent high school. Heck I’ve even been in conferences where teachers are introduced with recognition of “having a real degree, a Masters in English” for example this intro was done by folks with Ed school degrees. Note also that the ed schools are not forthcoming with the GRE scores of their students (in order to claim that they did not cooperate with NCTQ.)
BTW, NYRB has nothing at all to do with the New York Times.
I’m not interested in quibbling about definitions of IQ. Suffice it to say, there is a correlation between how much one reads and how well one does on those three exams, and a correlation between those scores and IQ. Let’s agree to step aside from a pointless semantic argument.
I detect that you are at a flagship state institution, and there I would give you the probability you are correct in stating the students there have (especially over the past 12 years) had to have more competitive ACT/SAT schools. Sadly for every flagship states school there are a half dozen other which have shamefully low ACT/SAT scores. But what makes it worse is that the graduate schools in Ed are taking in students with deplorably low GRE scores. That is the real reason advocates like Merseth say they should be closed down.
Those low scores also indicate students did not take rigorous and challenging courses, that they benefited from the post-Vietnam era grade inflation, and that they really did not read much in college. It’s a joke to think that those are the folks who can help other people’s children do well when it comes their turn to take SAT/ACTs and GREs.
Piffle: “low-IQ teachers” clearly implies that teachers are bumbling idiots, since you did not describe teachers as having even “average” IQs. And college aptitude tests correlate most strongly with family income, not IQ.
Double Piffle: If NCTQ uses valid research methods, then why didn’t even Harvard hand over all of their documentation to them? Most universities saw the documentation review method that NCTQ used in the past to evaluate schools and were not willing to submit to this self-authorized organization that made many mistakes in their reports and has very few formally trained educators with classroom experience on their boards. They have a lot of representatives from the corporate “reform” movement though, including from Teach for America, which promotes a 5 week teacher training model that is apparently just fine to them: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/put-on-your-hip-boots-nctq-is-at-it-again/
Triple Piffle: “The classes are rubbish, not even of the caliber of a decent high school.” Granted the New York Review of Books differs from the NY Times Book Reviews. However, neither have articles that look anything like those concerning quantitative research studies in peer-reviewed scholarly journals that Ed School students are required to critique. And, as I said before, I have taught at over a half dozen colleges and that’s been required at every one of them.
In my personal experience working in education over the past 40+ years, as an intellectual, I would never be able to associate socially with other educators if they did not have similar, expansive intellectual interests. I have had no trouble finding colleagues in this field who are also intellectuals, either when I was a P-12 classroom teacher or as college faculty in Ed Schools. Clearly, you have your own agenda and reasons for asserting this fallacious claptrap.
It may depend on where you go to school. In general Ravitch’s arguments from the “olden days” about education majors, for instance, are largely irrelevant today since almost no state now allows a manor or minor in education for undergraduates. That shift alone explains why so many universities use the model my university uses, the 5th year internship and MS degree model for earning teacher licensure. So our students have to first complete an undergraduate degree, get admitted to graduate school, then get admitted to the teacher ed program, then spend a year plus a summer working fulltime as an intern teacher while also completing graduate coursework that leads to the MS degree.
But aren’t they getting “admitted” to Graduate School with shamefully low GRE scores (after having obscenely low ACT and SAT scores in the first place?) And never having to take rigorous courses in University means that in their short lives so far they have never really understood what it means to be committed to discipline of the mind and intellectual challenge!
No they have ACT/SAT scores in the top 10% generally because no gets admitted to the university as teacher ed major (which does not exist). All complete a traditional BA//BS alongside their peers who become engineers, sales reps, nurses, and software developers. In other words, our teacher ed students are just as well prepared as other students at our research I institution. In fact, most teacher ed students at all universities are as well qualified as students with other majors. SAT verbal higher than many other majors with quantitative scores below math and chemistry majors but higher than business and arts majors. You have been drinking the right wing Koolaid for too long and obviously believe every fairy tale you hear about teacher ed students. Think about this also, if we looked just at the achievement of white high school students US kids would lead the world. Same is true if you look just at middle class kids. We don’t do as well educating poor kids as other countries do but then only Mexico has a higher proportion of poor kids than the US among all 32 “developed” nations. It may be that smarter teachers get jobs teaching middle class kids or it could be that poverty continues its long reach as Coleman noted some 40 years ago!
You promoted the idea that the Masters degree teachers were high quality, but noticeable avoided making the claim that they had high GRE scores. You claim that this is so for ACT/SATs and that may be true for highly-selective universities, even a few state schools of the caliber of Michigan, OSU and a few others. But, in Ohio for example, the others are jokes–Miami, UC, Kent State, not to mention the really low performers. These low-IQ teachers go on to become administrators, and that is when their lack of long-term, lifetime commitment to rigorous academic focus really starts to do damage to the public schools.
“low-IQ teachers”
College aptitude tests such as the ACT/SAT and GRE are not intelligence tests.
Your portrayal of teachers as bumbling idiots who cannot even read the NY Times is baseless and insulting. Of course teachers take rigorous courses in college, just like everyone else must. Every university requires that all students fulfill the same General Education course requirements, in Arts and Sciences, in addition to the required courses in their majors, in order to earn a degree. Many education courses are rigorous as well, such as child and adolescent development, assessment and evaluation, language and literacy development and research. Teachers must also pass a series of exams for certification.
Your continued bashing of the intelligence and academic commitment of teachers is outrageous and cruel. A lot of teachers are intrinsically motivated lifelong learners, with many interests, and consider themselves to be intellectuals.
Take a look at what Gates funded NCTQ for over the years. By far the majority of funds were about (undermining) collective bargaining: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=national%20council%20on%20teacher%20quality
The director of teacher education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Katherine Merseth, told a conference in March that of the nation’s 1,300 graduate teacher training programs, only about 100 were doing a competent job and “the others could be shut down tomorrow.”
Teachers are the most publicly abused professionals out there! Release a report basically saying they are all ill-prepared, and then Arne pulls back on the teacher evaluation pressure…definitely a cycle of abuse going on.
Interesting point. The timing is certainly suspicous, “Education Department listens to (some) reason” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/18/education-department-listens-to-some-reason/
In reading each of your own campus reports, you are already well aware of how inaccurate the NCTQ “findings” are. In reading the report in full, I can assure you that it does not improve in the aggregate. It is almost unbelievable how wrong they have managed to be. It is after reading their full conclusions and assertions that it becomes obvious that presenting NCTQ with additional data or evidence regarding programs will not result in true and objective evaluations of program operation or quality.
As for now, we have decided that our programs will NOT respond to NCTQ. We do not wish to engage them in any exchange about what constitutes program quality, or any back and forth about our programs. We feel that to do so would serve to legitimize their standing as an appropriate judge of such things–our position is that, as a biased organization with a political agenda, they have should have no role in weighing in on program quality.
The real problem with NCTQ is their starting bias–if they had been a legitimate organization at the start, universities would have cooperated. They are still not legitimate, and we don’t want to help them formalize a role for themselves.
Please do NOT go to the NCTQ website and provide any correction or additional information about your program. Instead, just provide public statements that reaffirm the quality of your programs and what you do well, ideally without mentioning NCTQ.
We need to be commenting on Saturday’s Chicago Tribune editorial page. Despite Darling-Hammond’s criticisms four days ago, today the paper ran an editorial stating:
“The NCTQ met fierce resistance from many education schools that refused to turn over materials to researchers. Hmm. Sounds like they have something to hide.”
NOTHING was mentioned about the possibility that the schools thought the methodology was flawed.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-edschool-20130622,0,2235261.story