Rob Powers is a high school teacher of social studies in Massachusetts.
He read the report of the National Council on Teacher Quality and saw that it gave a low rating to his alma mater, Plymouth State University in New Hampshire, and he was shocked.
PSU, he wrote, “has been preparing teachers since 1871, a tradition that few schools can match. The institution is fully accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, which holds incredibly high standards for its member schools. In fact, PSU has held continuous accreditation since 1954, when it was a member of the first cohort of schools to receive such status.
“Beyond ratings and labels, I can say without a doubt that I have been a successful social studies teacher because I received a top-notch education at Plymouth State. When I entered the classroom, I was completely prepared for all the challenges I faced because I took many practical courses and participated in hundreds of hours of supervised pre-service practicum work at PSU.
“My professors were highly respected experts in the field of education and they work tirelessly with practicing teachers and administrators to make sure that what we learned in our program was directly addressing the ever-changing needs of our K-12 students.”
What Rob doesn’t realize is that NCTQ didn’t visit any of the campuses it ranked, and that only about 10% of the campuses agreed to cooperate with their survey by voluntarily supplying their reading lists and course descriptions. But Rob makes an important point: NCTQ knows nothing about the quality of the faculty at any of the teacher preparation programs. Despite their rhetoric about great teachers, they acted on the assumption that the printed courses were an adequate way of judging the whole institution.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They gave an accredited school a low ranking? It sounds like they are trying to erode the efficacy of accrediting agencies for academic programs. These are high standards everyone has to meet and everyone prepares and sweats over them. It can also erode any sense of community all accredited schools have with one another, reducing everyone to mere business competitors. Oh wait, I get it, yuck.
It gets a lot worse than this. NCTQ is made up of corporate “reformers” aiming to take charge of Teacher Education, in order to make way for more fast track alternate certification programs and military style drill sergeant teacher preparation (programs that focus on drill for skill test prep –and which were not rated by NCTQ). The two accrediting bodies of Teacher Ed recently combined to form a new accrediting body and the “reformers” have infiltrated that organization.
However, accreditation is voluntary, so the “reformers” have a cut-throat business plan aimed at crushing the traditional Teacher Ed competition. I’ve read that the way they plan to do that (which is supported by Duncan et al.), is by rating traditional Ed Schools according to the test scores of their students’ students, denying Federal Financial Aid to college students seeking to attend Ed Schools with low ratings and by denying funding to school districts that hire teachers who come from low rated Ed Schools. Check mate.
Off subject a little, but: when I get annoyed that I am still paying on loans to get certified to be a teacher (after I already had a BA), I comfort myself knowing that every day I am making up for anything that my teacher training might have lacked by interacting on this blog. I learn a ton on this blog every day.
I wonder if we can get CEUs for reading and responding each day (kidding)—but honestly I get more out of this than more than a handful of “education” classes or courses I have done.
I need to see how my teacher training was ranked by the study.
My teacher training place, Appalachian State (don’t judge just on the name) got 2 stars. But it did get four in selection criteria.
In case you didn’t know, there are many teacher educators on this blog from whom you may be learning.
And I hope they are learning too. 😉
Really great teachers can’t help but have an abiding passion for learning.
NCTQ’s alleged “study” has been thoroughly discredited by nationally respected Stanford scholar Linda Darling-Hammond and others. But in the world of ed “reform” commentary, that doesn’t matter in the slightest — what matters is its PR and what the elite think of it.
But my prediction is that members of the elite are going to view this study with extreme revulsion. They don’t care about validity when K-12 public schools and teachers are debased with inaccuracies, but the elite went to these colleges and are loyal to them.
That’s not going to help U.S. News win points for promoting this “study” either. So I have a feeling that the “reform” sector and U.S. News are going to rapidly de facto disown this “study” by pretending they never heard of it.
And today, my local newspaper brought up NCTQ AGAIN: this time stating that this “organization” says that there are not enough “highly qualified” STEM teachers. I have no idea where they would even get this information. But I’m SO tired of these “studies” being presented as fact.
I posted the following to the Concord Monitor, where Rob Powers’ commentary appeared.
Rob, I read your commentary on Diane Ravitch’s blog.
I am a retired Wash, DC Public Schools social studies teacher. I have concerns about the focus of many teacher prep programs as well as the destructive role of the current education reform movement, which NCTQ supports.
As social studies teachers, we teach content courses, mostly U.S. History, world history (sometimes called area studies), global studies or world cultures, government/civics and, less commonly, sociology, anthropology.
It would be helpful for my understanding, if you could list the content courses you were required to take as well as content electives for your BA at Plymouth. For history courses, what were the time periods and content focus (survey, social history, etc.)?
Thanks
Hi Erich,
I just came across this post, and subsequently your comment. I replied on the Monitor’s page. Feel free to reach out with any other questions!
Rob
Take a look at Bank Street’s rating (one of the outstanding education universtiez) and you will see how bogus the ratings are.
Is there some way to limit the blog to one per day? The gold nuggets are getting lost in a bunch of repetitious posts and sarcastic articles that don’t really help provide better information.
Sent from my iPad
Tammy,
There is far too much news to limit the blog to one per day.
American public education faces an existential threat to its survival. I post articles from everywhere so readers understand that the attacks are not unrelated.
Sorry.
Though I agree that NCTQ knows nothing about the quality of faculty, and this is probably not why they gave it such a rating, one of the biggest faults in Higher Ed today, and one of the things missing everywhere –from mainstream media papers onward– is the fact that 75% of Higher Ed instructors are now contingent and therefore have no security in the workforce. We do not know if we will have our jobs tomorrow. Of this number, too, more than 50% are paid, on average, $2700/course and have no healthcare. We have nowhere to meet our students, or we’re crowded into offices serving 6 or more adjuncts at times. How can we teach our students well if we cannot meet with them, or if we have to run around to make ends meet and have no time to give them, in order to merely survive?
Teacher working conditions become student learning conditions. So when we speak of poverty in the lowest stratum of students, we must see its correlative: in Higher Ed, most of those lower-income students are taught by adjuncts who have no time to dedicate to them– the most vulnerable taught by the most vulnerable. Talk about a vicious cycle!
Please sign my petition for Adjunct Justice: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/better-pay-for-adjuncts.fb1?source=c.fb&r_by=426534. Join me in the fight for equity in Higher Ed. Like Diane Ravitch’s fight for K-12, we are fighting for the future of our students, our society. Join us!
Ana M. Fores Tamayo
Adjunct Justice
Petition: http://signon.org/sign/better-pay-for-adjuncts.fb1?source=c.fb&r_by=426534
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/AdjunctJustice
Been there, done that…signed the petition and sent to other colleagues.
the NCTQ report doesn’t meet the most basic research standards. It should be met only with derision.
Robert Shepherd: agreed. I humbly add two general comments.
1), I think [perhaps this is presumptuous] that we should all assume that new viewers are coming to this blog every day. Hence sometimes certain basic things need to be explained over and over and over again. That’s a good thing. It means that this blog and the discussions on it are reaching larger and larger numbers of people and are increasingly influencing the ed debates.
2), In the interests of the above, I would suggest that anyone who feels Robert Shepherd’s terse characterization of the NCTQ report is out of line should read:
a), Joel Best, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS: UNTANGLING NUMBERS FROM THE MEDIA, POLITICIANS, AND AND ACTIVISTS (2012, updated edition);
b), Daniel Koretz, MEASURING UP: WHAT EDUCATIONAL TESTING REALLY TELLS US (2009, paperback edition);
c), Gerald W. Bracey, READING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: HOW TO AVOID GETTING STATISTICALLY SNOOKERED (2006).
The NCTQ report on teacher prep programs fails to meet even minimal professional and ethical standards of researchers in general and numbers/stats folks in particular.
Don’t take my word for it. Read the above. Make up your own minds.
A couple of other things I found while perusing the NCTQ website. First, their reason for this review is to attempt to bring about consumer led reform of teacher preparation programs. Both their website and the Review openly admit to the project being modeled after the Flexner Report of 1910 for the medical field. Which by the way Abraham Flexner visited each of the schools that were listed in his report whereas the NCTQ did not visit any schools. As I can see NCTQ is unbelievably considering themselves to be the superheroes of the education field out to make history and save the teaching profession. Please check out Arthur McKee page and video. They are actually comparing their Review with the Flexner report. Considering NCTQ is neither a research organization nor an association of any sorts those are mighty lofty and erroneous goals!
Next, I also found they sought out to partner with US News simply because their ratings were reliable in the public’s view. NCTQ thought that with US News endorsing their review the public would automatically give it credence and validity. Which would then lead to a mass upsurge from the public. They also believed that since universities had participated with US News in previous rankings they would participate with them as well. (Please see the Data Collection section in the Review) In my opinion they must think very little of the public if they actually thought by rating universities and colleges without having set foot on a campus the public would take them seriously. Wrong!
Third, NCTQ was shocked to find SO many universities did not want to take part is such a foolish endeavor disguised as research. I read all of the letters from the institutions to NCTQ in response to their request for participation and they all basically stated to NCTQ – since we are actually held to rigorous standards by the actual accrediting agencies such as NCATE and others we do to feel that we have to participate in what amounts to be a fishing expedition. What truly amazed me are the responses that NCTQ sent back to the universities basically threatening them with low ratings and litigations if they did not cooperate. Now that’s what I call motivation!
NCTQ actually admits to this Review not being actual research but more an investigation or survey at best. Per the NCTQ Review’s Methodology:
It is not the intention of the Teacher Prep Review to substitute for high-quality, on-the-ground inspections as one might expect an accrediting body or government authority to perform. The intention is to provide an in-depth examination of program policy and design, down to the course level, which in itself is something that has never been accomplished for any field within higher education. We restrict our evaluation to only program elements that can be reliably and validly assessed by readily obtained program documents (p97).
That’s just it NCTQ, you can’t reliably and validly assess a program by documents alone!!!! This is NOT research! Here’s the thing, NCTQ. If you authentically wanted to reform teacher preparation programs then you would acquaint yourself with the governing bodies that accredit the schools and universities. That is their purpose in being. Swooping in as a modern day Superman is not the answer and certainly does not benefit the field of education.
A couple of other things I found while perusing the NCTQ website. First, their reason for this review is to attempt to bring about consumer led reform of teacher preparation programs. Both their website and the Review openly admit to the project being modeled after the Flexner Report of 1910 for the medical field. Which by the way Abraham Flexner visited each of the schools that were listed in his report whereas the NCTQ did not visit any schools. As I can see NCTQ is unbelievably considering themselves to be the superheroes of the education field out to make history and save the teaching profession. Please check out Arthur McKee page and video at (http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/18/national-council-teacher-quality-training-standards) Considering NCTQ is neither a research organization nor an association of any sorts those are mighty lofty and erroneous goals!
Next, I also found they sought out to partner with US News simply because their ratings were reliable in the public’s view. NCTQ thought that with US News endorsing their review the public would automatically give it credence and validity, which would then lead to a mass upsurge from the public. They also believed that since universities had participated with US News in previous rankings they would participate with them as well on this endeavor. (Please see the Data Collection section in the Review) In my opinion they must think very little of the public if they actually thought by rating universities and colleges with only course descriptions and syllabi without having set foot on a campus the public would take them seriously. Wrong!
Third, NCTQ was shocked to find SO many universities did not want to take part is such a foolish endeavor disguised as research. I read all of the letters from the institutions to NCTQ in response to their request for participation and they all basically stated to NCTQ – since we are actually held to rigorous standards by the actual accrediting agencies such as NCATE and others we do to feel that we have to participate in what amounts to be a fishing expedition. What truly amazed me are the responses that NCTQ sent back to the universities basically threatening them with low ratings and litigations if they did not cooperate. Now that’s what I call motivation!
NCTQ actually admits to this Review not being actual research but more an investigation or survey at best. Per theNCTQ Review’s Methodology:
It is not the intention of the Teacher Prep Review to substitute for high-quality, on-the-ground inspections as one might expect an accrediting body or government authority to perform. The intention is to provide an in-depth examination of program policy and design, down to the course level, which in itself is something that has never been accomplished for any field within higher education. We restrict our evaluation to only program elements that can be reliably and validly assessed by readily obtained program documents (p97).
That’s just it NCTQ, you can’t reliably and validly assess a program by documents alone!!!! That is NOT research!!!
Here’s the thing, NCTQ. If you authentically wanted to reform teacher preparation programs then you would acquaint yourself with the governing bodies that accredit the schools and universities. That is their purpose in being. Swooping in as a modern day Superman is not the answer and certainly does not benefit the field of education.
NCTQ knows about accreditation. They don’t want to reform Teacher Education. They prefer alternate certification tracks –not necessarily affiliated with colleges– and they want to crush the competition in traditional Ed Schools. Kate Walsh, president of NCTQ, was previously on the board of the American Board of Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE). All their talk about gatekeeping and raising the bar but ABCTE actually has no academic entrance requirement beyond a BA –no minimum GPA or GRE. It’s an alternate certification program with self-directed online training focused on test prep. Explore their website and you’ll see what they think of as “excellence” in teacher preparation: http://abcte.org/
Now it begins to make sense.
Read Mercedes Schneider’s analysis of NCTQ and Kate Walsh here: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/nctqs-varicose-reform/
Criticism of Massachusetts State University
I notice that NCTQ gave the reading program only 3 stars??? Then they said
“not enough phonics”….. well that is an absolute joke. I assisted the person
preparing the reading graduate degree programs that passed NCATE (as an unpaid reviewer outside the faculty). The graduate reading program was
validated by NCATE and IRA standards. For NCTQ to tell the staff person
not enough phonics is idiocy. We trained in Massachusetts with Jeanne Chall and Blanche Serwer at Harvard (and BU) participated in the first grade reading studies and have advanced degrees in reading , learning disabiliy, special education etc. and the program does not need any more phonics. The reading wars have been going on for far too long; the professional standards in the university’s reading program are thorough and adequate. I think some reviewer looked at phonemic analysis in the graduate program and then decided that phonics was not being taught???? What an outrage that the media and US.News/World report disseminate this garbage.