This message was posted by a reader. Note that the states cited by Secretary Arne Duncan as exemplars are controlled by very conservative legislatures and governors, who have taken many steps to reduce the status of the teaching profession: Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Florida. Note that he singles out for praise the “Relay Graduate School of Education,” staffed by current and former charter school teachers, not by scholars, researchers, or people holding doctorates. The stated curriculum of this “graduate school” includes no courses on cognitive development, psychometrics, urban sociology, or courses other than teaching for high test scores.
This is the reader’s comment:
Please excuse the long comment but I received this from the Council for Exceptional Children, Teacher Education Division. We need to flood the comments:
Dear TED Board:
After two years of anticipation, the Department of Education held a press
conference this afternoon to announce the release of the teacher preparation
regulations. Today, a variety of materials were posted on the website at
http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep, including the press release, fact sheet, and
detailed powerpoint presentation regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which has been sent to the Federal Register and will be published in the next several days. Also at this link is a draft of the NPRM which I have now printed (405 pages) but not yet read!
I listened in to the press conference this afternoon which featured Sec.
Duncan, Asst. Sec. Ted Mitchell, Jim Cibulka President of CAEP, Mari
Koerner, Dean of Education at Arizona State University and Governor Bill
Haslam of Tennessee. Tomorrow an audio link to the press conference will be available. Below is the press statement sent out by the Department of Education.
Comments on the proposed regs have been rolling in. Those supporting the
regs include outgoing ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, George Miller, the Center for American Progress, Education Trust, Teach for America and Educators 4 Excellence. Those raising concerns about the regs so far include the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, The American Council on Education, the NEA and the AFT.
More dialogue is assured to follow.
The regs appear to be essentially the same as what was proposed at
negotiated rulemaking in 2012. This includes a mandate that every state
rate every preparation program and only the highest rated programs will be
eligibile to use TEACH grants. The metrics that must be used to determine
the ratings include: student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, new
teacher and employer feedback and accreditation by CAEP or state program
approval with specific requirements.
There is a 60 day public comment period for the regulations.
I will be sharing additional informatio n when it is available.
Happy reading and Happy Thanksgiving!
Let me know if you have questions.
Jane
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
FOR RELEASE:
Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014
Contact: Press Office
(202) 401-1576 or press@ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education Proposes Plan to Strengthen Teacher Preparation
New Rules Build on Reforms and Innovation Efforts to Ensure Educators are Classroom-Ready
The U.S. Department of Education today announced proposed regulations that help ensure teacher training programs are preparing educators who are ready to succeed in the classroom.
The proposal builds on the reforms and innovations already happening at the
state and program level across the country and by national organizations
like the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation and the
Council of Chief State School Officers. The new rule shifts the focus for
currently required sta te reporting on teacher preparation programs from
mostly inputs to outcomes – such as how graduates are doing in the classroom – while giving states much flexibility to determine how they will use the new measures and how program performance is measured.
“It has long been clear that as a nation, we could do a far better job of
preparing teachers for the classroom. It’s not just something that studies
show – I hear it in my conversations with teachers, principals and pare nts,”
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said. “New teachers want to do a great
job for their kids, but often, they struggle at the beginning of their
careers and have to figure out too much for themselves. Teachers deserve
better, and our students do too. This proposal, along with our other key
initiatives in supporting flexibility, equity and leadership, will help get
us closer to President Obama’s goal of putting a great teacher in every
classroom, and especially in our high-need schools.”
The proposal would create transparency and create a much-needed feedback
loop among aspiring teachers, preparation programs, principals, schools and states. This information will help prospective educators choose effective programs to train in high-demand teaching fields, assist schools in identifying the most effective programs to recruit from, recognize
excellence t o build on best practices, and help programs target their
improvement efforts.
Specifically, the proposed regulations would refocus institutional data
reporting already required under federal law on meaningful data at the
program level, support states in developing systems that differentiate
programs by performance on outcomes, provide feedback to programs about graduates’ performance and satisfaction, and hold programs accountable for
how well they prepare teachers to succeed in today’s classrooms and
throughout their careers. In addition, by requiring data on new teacher
employment outcomes (placement and retention), it will shine a light on
high-need schools and fields and help facilitate a better match of supply
and demand.
Already, numerous states, institutions and other organizations are
demonstrating vital leadership in improving teacher p reparation. The
proposed rule aims to ensure that these innovative practices are taken to
scale and can be replicated in programs that are struggling.
For example:
* North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, and Florida were among
the first states to collect and report information about teacher preparation
programs and their graduates to the public.
*& nbsp; Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Rhode Island
all recently raised admissions requirements to get into teacher prep
programs.
* The University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s College of Education
benefited from data provided by Louisiana about the results their teachers were getting in the classroom. The University used the results to improve the university’s curriculum by including clinical experience and innovative coursework. And you know what happened? The performance of graduates improved.
* Colleges and universities across the country are also matching supply of teachers to the demand in the field.
* At the University of Texas at Austin, the program, UTeach, is
drawing undergraduates with STEM majors into teaching. Nearly 90 percent of the graduates from the UTeach Austin program become teachers, and about half teach in high-need schools. What’s more, roughly 80% of graduates who become teachers are retained after 5 years.
* Arizona State University and Urban Teacher Residencies United are
enriching the clinical experiences they provide, so their teacher candidates
can learn in real schools with the help of master teachers. Additionally,
these programs use the same teaching standards in preparation that teachers
will use on the job later. Eighty-five percent of Urban Teacher Residencies
graduates remain in the classroom after three years, compared to the 50
percent national average.
* Relay Graduate School of Education, founded by three charter
management organizations in New York City, measures and holds itself
accountable for both program graduate and employer satisfaction, as well as
requires that teachers meet high goals for student learning growth before
they can complete their degrees. Students of Relay teachers grew 1.3 years in reading performance in one year.
* Fayetteville State University in North Carolina incorporates the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction competencies and standards as well as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards into its curriculum for master’s degree students in education. Of its recent
graduates, 87 percent of new teachers met or exceeded expectations for
student learning growth, compared to the 75 percent state average.
“We know how important strong teaching is to students’ education and life outcomes – especially for our most vulnerable kids,” Duncan said. “Leaders
in this field are already moving in the direction of our proposal, and our
regulations try to align with their best thinking on how to prepare
effective educators who are ready to hit the ground running on day one. If
we are going to improve teaching and learning in America, we have to improve
the training and support that we give our teachers.”
Other changes in the proposed regulations include requiring performance data reporting at the program – rather than the institutional – level and requiring states to engage with a broad range of stakeholders – including teacher preparation programs, school leaders and teachers – in designing their systems. The proposal also changes eligibility for TEACH Grants
(teach-ats.ed.gov/ats/index.action) so that the money only goes to graduates
of programs rated effective or higher for at least two of the previous three
years. States must provide technical assistance to any teacher preparation
programs rated as low-performing.
The proposal would require states to report annually on the performance of
teacher preparation programs – including alternative certification programs- based on a combination of:
* Employment outcomes: New teacher placement and three-year
retention rates in high-need schools and in all schools.
* New teacher and employer feedback: Surveys on the effectiveness of preparation.
* Student learning outcomes: Impact of new teachers as measured by
student growth, teacher evaluation, or both.
* Assurance of specialized accreditation or evidence that a program
produces high-quality candidates.
The proposed regulations will undergo a 60-day comment period where the
public can submit suggestions. The final rule will be published in mid-2015.
A fact sheet on the proposed regulation can be found on http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep, along with a version of the draft regulations, which
will publish in Federal Register in coming days.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Obama’s SOCIAL REVOLUTION!
Get rid of scholars & the intelligencia of our Nation – teachers, professors, researchers, universities, etc. Next, they’ll have public book burnings of everything not published by Pearson. Sound familiar? How many more DOTS do we need before the American People connect them?
Arne has the gaul, the nerve, the sociopathic mindset to utter these words: “Teachers deserve better”.
No telling, what else they are capable of. They accomplish little of anything else that needs urgent attention…infrastructure, climate, poverty, crime, prisons, hunger, etc.
But, they work 24/7 to destroy EDUCATION in this country. Working at a fever-pitch, non-stop! It’s for the children! Hogwash! It’s for BILLIONAIRES and their bottom-feeders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AGREE!!!!!! How long will it take before people see what is happening to them?
ON another note, after a few security updates took place this weekend, this blog is now considered ‘unsecure’ at my school. I’m a tech director so these are updates from outside security settings…like AVG or Norton…weird eh?
LikeLike
More evidence that the poll on Julian Vasquez Heilig’s blog “Winner, Winner, Turkey Dinner” was entirely correct. Educational Policy Turkey of the Year Award should go to Arne for the shout out to Relay alone.
LikeLike
Worse than Arne’s shout-out is this from the WH in April 2014.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/25/fact-sheet-taking-action-improve-teacher-preparation
LikeLike
I completely agree. Here’s my blog piece addressing this, which went up on The Answer Sheet this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/12/02/the-concept-education-secretary-duncan-has-entirely-missed/
My conclusion (with thanks to my husband, who first made this point to me after reading an earlier draft of this piece):
So here’s my modest proposal: Arne Duncan has been secretary of education for six years, and in that role he is ultimately responsible for the educational progress of all U.S. students. According to the most recent PISA results, U.S. students’ scores haven’t improved on Duncan’s watch. Therefore, by Duncan’s own logic, I propose that we deprive his alma mater — Harvard University — of some federal funding for its current students because Duncan’s failure to improve U.S. PISA scores demonstrates that Harvard (which educated Duncan) is responsible for U.S. students’ flat scores on the PISA exam. If Duncan and Harvard don’t like the logic of my modest proposal, then Duncan should withdraw his proposed scheme for rating teacher preparation programs based on the educational outcomes of their alumni’s students, as my logic simply tracks his own.
LikeLike
Makes sense.
LikeLike
Excellent janalysis. I commented on the Washington Post, but think that the language in this is not just about evaluating programs based on the performance of new teachers (the jobs they seek and the jobs they secure) but tracking these graduates for the rest of their careers.
The rationale for massive federal intervention is phrased as helping to:
“prepare teachers to succeed in today’s classrooms and throughout their careers. In addition, by requiring data on new teacher employment outcomes (placement and retention), it will shine a light on high-need schools and fields and help facilitate a better match of supply and demand.”
So teacher education is really just job training and cuts should be made in programs that are not preparing teachers in the current “high -needs fields” ( state? regional? national?). In addition, programs will be penalized if teachers are not employed in “high-needs schools” a code phrase for those schools with longstanding problems.
This sure sounds like Soviet Style” supply-demand thinking, with USDE trying to control just-in-time training for anticipated labor demands plus some messing around with which schools should have first dibs for teachers.
Teachers are widgets.
Then you look across the data longitudinally. You can blame the teacher education programs for failing to turn on a dime in response to labor market projections and manage the placement of their students in “priority” one, high-needs schools.
No more freedom of action for the education of teachers, or teachers, just respond to supply and demand.
LikeLike
Corporate “reformers” and their political lackeys are creating the demand themselves, and they want to control the supply as well. They control the demand by shutting down neighborhood schools and giving parents no other choice but privatized charters, as we are seeing in low income urban communities in cities like Chicago.
“Reformers” want a supply of a very specific type of teacher, the kind that will implement the draconian Behavioral strategies which are common in no-excuses military style charters. By controlling teacher education, they hope to get compliant teachers that will do whatever they are told without question, because they will not have learned other more appropriate methods for working with students.
It’s bad enough that “reformers” are allowed to have employee training centers that are affiliated with graduate schools which award degrees for students who have learned only one, very extreme pedagogical approach. But permitting Duncan, NCTQ and other “reformers” to control all other colleges of education is truly tyranny.
LikeLike
Let’s not forget, while we show solidarity with our college and university teacher brothers and sisters, that this is one of those “First they came for…” moments. Not all of the college and university people — just the VAST MAJORITY — went along with all the teacher bashing, privatization promoting, and union busting agendas of the ruling class for the past 30 years (launched by, in my opinion “A Nation at Risk” and then, same decade, “Chicago’s Schools — Worst in America”). Not all the professors were cluck clucking and lining up to be apologists for the ruling class’s attacks on us PreK – 12 teachers. Just the majority. So now while we move to defend them, let’s hope they take a step back, reread Manufactured Crisis and a dozen other books from the 1990s, and then join the Resistance. Better late than never. As the career of Diane Ravitch shows nicely.
LikeLike
I concur. Too many higher education faculty walked away from k-12 education or earned reputations and grants from opportunities to make teachers look incompetent.
The singular focus on math and ELA test scores in research has also contributed to a severely warped portrayal of schools, and education which depends on conveying content. Education is not just about acquiring skills.
The truncated curriculum has given students fewer reasons to read and write and learn mathematical concepts. The teacher education programs cited as exemplary offer teacher education LITE.
The USDE proposal is the product of profound arrogance. It assumes that VAM can and should be used to evaluate outcomes, and that state and national standardized tests are perfected measures of all that matters in learning.
There is also an assumption that states should focus on training (not educating ) teachers for their own foreseeable workforce needs, and that teacher education programs should Be graded on employer satisfaction.
LikeLike
Can anyone identify a profession in which those beginning their careers do not deal with a certain amount of uneasiness and uncertainty? How many wunderkind are there who have taken their professions by storm? I don’t think teachers are any different than other people beginning their careers. I suspect that the amount of struggle, rather than being a lack in training, is dependent on “on the job” support. A newly minted professional is dealing with demonstrating their professional ability while at the same time they are learning to navigate the culture of their job. A teacher is no different. She/he must apply what they have learned during their degree program and also navigate the culture of the district and school in which they are employed. I would not be surprised to find that it is more likely an “on-the-job” issue and not the result of poor or inadequate training. I am waiting to see the VAM proposal the next wunderkind economist proposes in this situation.
LikeLike
“Students of Relay teachers grew 1.3 years in reading performance in one year.”
Where did Arne get his data on Relay? According to EduShyster’s interview of Ken Zeichner from U of Wash., there is no research that shows Relay’s approaches are working:
http://edushyster.com/?p=5105
“Zeichner: I actually contacted the research director at Relay and asked *is there something I’m missing because I see all these references to ‘ground-breaking studies’ but I don’t seem to be able to find any actual studies.’* But when you press them, they’ll admit that there isn’t any research.”
Arne is starting a Relay echo chamber for his future employers. 1%ers need K-12, pre-K and higher-ed to guarantee the promised $225 trillion ROI in edu-investments.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2014/12/01/heres-a-plan-to-turn-around-u-s-education-and-generate-225-trillion
LikeLike
“Relay …see all these references to ‘ground-breaking studies’ but I don’t seem to be able to find any actual studies.”
Relay’s ‘ground breaking studies’ reminds me of this: “One of the most seminal studies in teacher quality, The New Teacher Project’s…”
Seems that nothing changes with these EdClowns
LikeLike
The Republicans are also trying to “fix” and reauthorize NCLB. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/republicans-no-child-left-behind_n_6246362.html?icid=maing-grid7|aol20-ns|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D574001
LikeLike
Arne Duncan is more obsessed with RATINGS than a Hollywood television producer. Blech.
LikeLike
They should know better: Center for American Progress. If they turned around and saw the other ‘supporters’ they’ve associated with they should run like heck. The only thing ‘progressive” about them at the moment is that if we follow their lead and ‘friends’…we’ll get progressively worse and the ED schools…well. I’ll be opening up my own online shortly.
LikeLike
As awful as this is, it’s not entirely new to colleges of education because, ever since NCLB, ed schools have been hamstrung by requirements that they meet NCATE standards, due to “partnerships” which 48 states (plus DC & Puerto Rico) formed with NCATE, the forerunner of CAEP.
That effectively made NCATE standards law in “partnership” states, whether schools wanted to be individually accredited by NCATE or not. NCATE requirements included meeting the standards of specialized professional associations (spas), which was seen as positive since those standards had been established by experts in different areas of education. Considering many of those standards are now at odds with the priorities of NCTQ, whose influence dominates the DoE and CAEP, I have to wonder where ed school standards are headed. (While I still teach at an ed school, my particular program does not lead to teacher certification, so I’m out of the loop now.)
Additionally, the NCATE requirements had included a lot of data collection, such as regarding the performance of students of teacher candidates while in their student teaching placements, as well as the appointment of a manager in charge of data warehousing. Now that FERPA has been significantly altered, this leads me to wonder what will be happening with all that student and teacher data which goes back 12+ years.
LikeLike
With all due respect, I kindly ask that you please verify you facts. Your statements about Relay GSE are absolutely false. I teach at Relay GSE and i taught at a district school for some years. Many of my collegues have more teaching experience at district schools than I do. Unfortunately, you are very wrong – I mean that repesctfully. I would hope that you’d celebrate the only institution of teacher eduction where teachers are taught by teachers, as in those who have ACTUALLY done the work! PhD’s are great (i look forward to earning one, myself and several of my Relay GSE colleagues have them contrary to your second false statement), but they are not any indication of how effective a teacher of teachers one will be. PhD doesn’t equal “a great k-12 educator.”
By the way, Relay grads teach both at district and charter schools making it the only institution where real and honest collaboration between district and charter teachers is actually happening – at least to my knowledge. I wish you were more respectful of young men and women who are woking hard together to educate children.
LikeLike
With all due respect, What you’ve said is false. Your statements about Relay GSE are untrue. I teach at Relay GSE and i taught at a district school. Many of my colleagues have more experience teaching in district schools than I do – several have PhD’s if that’s an indicator of good teaching and one’s ability to teach teachers; apparently having a “PhD” is more important than actually knowing how to teach in real K-12 classrooms-which every single Relay professor has done. Also, our graduate students teach at district schools and charters and actually collaborate, learn together, and share their pratices with one another – this I’d like to think you’d want to celebrate. It’s sad and very disappointing to read such allegations that make sweeping judgments about passionate educators who work tirelessly for children.
LikeLike
MrMaxood, I read the Relay catalogue and saw nothing that looked like a graduate school of education. The faculty consisted of charter teachers. When last I looked, none had a Ph.D., there were no courses in cognitive development, or sociology of education, or history of education, or economics of education, nothing that involved serious research in any field. It was all about teaching and testing, no scholarship.
LikeLike
MrMaxood, graduate schools of education typically have many Ph.D. scholars and teachers. Relay does not. It is a joke to call it a “graduate school of education.” It is a “teachers’ college.” Nothing wrong with that. Just nomenclature.
LikeLike
It is not a “teachers’ college” if they prepare teachers to use only ONE approach to instruction, classroom management, student discipline, etc. It’s an employees’ training center, like McDonald’s Hamburger University, and its purpose is to ensure fidelity to approved company policies and practices.
LikeLike
Sweet and so succinct!
“It’s an employees’ training center, like McDonald’s Hamburger University, and its purpose is to ensure fidelity to approved company policies and practices.”
LikeLike
I’m sorry you’ve been misinformed. Relay has never claimed that it is a “typical” graduate school. But again, there are PhD’s here. There is also a research team full of PhD’s. There is also a design team that develops graduate curricula that includes courses in domains you mentioned. Not all of those courses are available for grad students just yet because they’re being developed; contrary to what seems to be popular belief here, a lot of research is reviewed and used for curriculum development. Some folks on the thread seem to think that teachers learn military-style discipline techniques. This is another ridiculously ignorant claim. I just got done (as in 20 minutes ago) teaching a session to district school teachers on engaging students through the use od strategies like think, write, shares, turn and talks, think time, etc. i also modeled a lesson to show how one might introduce a new unit to students through unit trailers(video) to engage everyone. I’ll stop there. There’s nothing i can say that will make anyone here believe anything. Again, it’s extremely disappointing that educators such as many that follow this blog would make assumptions without just honestly and respectfully asking questions. I wish this were not the case.
Thanks for responding, Diane. I really do appreciate it.
LikeLike
You are the one who is making assumptions, Many of us have read Doug Lemov, watched Relay videos, seen what former teachers, parents and students have had to say and found your employer’s method to be very dogmatic, rigid and an extremely disturbing approach to working with low income children of color.
LikeLike
You are fooling only yourself if you think that training teachers in scripted instructional methods is not still a Behavioral approach.
LikeLike
MrMaxood, Please describe the methods that you and others prepare teachers to implement which are alternatives to the Behavioral approach used at military style charter schools like KIPP, Uncommon Schools and Yes Prep.
LikeLike
Louisiana is gearing up to make big changes in teacher and principal prep. Already they have granted money to districts to create their own teacher prep programs.
A timetable for the changes, including the fake focus groups and comment period, has been released. My money is on the scenario of them going wherever ALEC legislation leads them. Why do they continue to pretend they listen to the public? ALEC has a template for this and the LA Legislature will follow right along.
What is the motivation behind this latest churn? How will this put a “high-quality, effective” teacher in every classroom?
LikeLike
Mr. Maxood,
It is a hint for you to pick up that your image shows that you are not confident, and you are hiding some true facts. It is just psychological image in your picture.
There is no short cut to bring us glory. Especially, in educational field, teaching college aims to provide teachers with knowledge and compassion to bring out humanity in young people besides teach them liberal arts and stem. Back2basic
LikeLike
These federal regulations are closely aligned to CAEP’s recent release of Building an Evidence-Based System for Teacher Preparation (http://caepnet.org/resources/building-an-evidence-based-system-for-teacher-preparation/). Both the federal recommendation and CAEP’s report read like manifestos to create teacher prep factories to run “21st Century School” factories. CAEP’s report essentially mandates at least five (likely more) nationally norm-referenced exams for teacher candidates (all linked to federal mandates) — and that’s all you need. There’s really no need for any teacher preparation as we know it. The report cites NCTQ and Kate Walsh numerous times, and appears to be modeling itself after Kate Walsh’s ill-conceived ABCTE program (abcte.org) — notice how close it is to AACTE (aacte.org). ABCTE requires only a mere 60 hours of contact with real students prior to graduation. Unfortunately, this 60 hours will probably be sufficient for 21st Century, norm-referenced-MicroPearson-soft-robo teachers. We need to stand up against this corporate take over, subsidized by the federal government, and heed the advice of Yong Zhao (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/myth-chinese-super-schools/?insrc=toc) or risk turning our entire system into edufactories modeled after China and other test-prep nations. In addition to being critical of the federal regulations, maybe it’s also time for teacher preparation programs to support a vote of “No Confidence” in CAEP.
LikeLike
Sorry I don’t have time to read all these comments and to craft an intelligent message. You say we need to flood the Comments. Is this of the ed.gov website? Can you please suggest (very succinctly for those of us with limited time) what to say? I feel a little outraged and would like to send comments.
LikeLike
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 612 and 686 RIN 1840-AD07 [Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0057] Teacher Preparation Issues AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes new regulations to implement requirements for the teacher preparation program accountability system under title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), that would result in the development and distribution of more meaningful data on teacher preparation program quality (title II reporting system). The Secretary also proposes to amend the regulations governing the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program under title IV of the HEA so as to condition TEACH Grant program funding on teacher preparation program quality and to update, clarify, and improve the current regulations and align them with title II reporting system data.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 2 REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by e-mail. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site.
A version in PDF has numbered paragraphs for use in tying your comments to specific paragraphs in the document. It is probable that these comments will be given more attention than a blog-type blast.
LikeLike
Here’s a link to the study that produced these recommendations, or rather the summary (the study runs to 155 pages):
Click to access tpa_report_highlights.pdf
Here a couple of proposals that are somewhat disturbing:
ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND BEHAVIORS
SCREEN
Percent of accepted program candidates whose score on a rigorous and validated
“fitness for teaching” assessment demonstrates a strong promise for teaching.
STUDENT SURVEYS ON TEACHING PRACTICE
K-12 student surveys about completers’ or alternate route candidates’ teaching
practice during first three years of full-time teaching, using valid and reliable statewide instruments
(Valid and reliable Kindergarten student surveys? about teachers’ practice???)
And, of course standardized tests:
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE TEST
Program completer mean score, tercile distribution, and pass rate on rigorous and validated nationally normed assessment of college-level content knowledge used for initial licensure
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE TEST
Program completer mean score, tercile distribution, and pass rate on rigorous and validated nationally normed assessment of comprehensive pedagogical content knowledge used for initial licensure
TEACHING SKILL PERFORMANCE TEST
Program completer mean score, tercile distribution, and pass rate on rigorous and
validated nationally normed assessment of demonstrated teaching skill used for initial licensure
(Yeah, like there’s a test for that! Will Pearson own all these tests? How much will each test cost the prospective teacher?)
LikeLike