Mitchell Robinson, a professor of music education at Michigan State University has published an urgent warning about ill-considered legislation that Michigan is considering in an attempt to punish teacher education programs.
Ironically, only days after the conservative journal published an article debunking the idea that teacher education programs should be held accountable for the test scores of the students of their graduates, the GOP-dominated Michigan legislature wants to require teacher education programs to give a “warranty” that their teachers will be effective…or else.
As Professor Robinson points out, the irony in this legislation is that the legislature is simultaneously trying to open additional paths to alternative certification to teachers who have no professional education at all.
Highlights include…
• House Bill 5598: This bill would require all teacher ed faculty to complete 30 hours of subject-specific continuing education per year. “Faculty members must demonstrate completion of these requirements to the satisfaction of MDE”.
Collegiate faculty are typically the persons who provide this instruction, so it is unclear how this continuing education requirement would be implemented, and by whom. Further, collegiate faculty already engage in significant professional development by attending research conferences and other events throughout the year–it is unclear how this requirement would impact those events.
• House Bill 5599: would link teacher ed program approval to the effectiveness of their graduates in the schools by instituting a “warranty” program. While this may sound like a good idea in theory, it equates the process of education to that of a business transaction. A warranty may make sense when one purchases a car, but early career teachers are not commodities, and teacher prep programs are not automobile manufacturers, or car dealerships. Evidence suggest that most teachers who struggle in the classroom do so as a result of a lack of adequate administrative support and mentorship–not inadequate preparation.
Further, the MDE has stats that indicate fewer than 1% of MI teachers receive a rating of “ineffective” each year–suggesting that a “warranty” program like the one here may be a solution in search of a problem.
Finally, while it’s seductive to connect a young teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom to the quality of instruction that novice teacher receives in their undergraduate education program, the connection here is much more complicated and complex than that. Just as K-12 teachers should not be evaluated based on their students’ scores on standardized tests (https://theconversation.com/can-it-get-more-absurd-now-music-teachers-are-being-tested-based-on-math-and-reading-scores-47995), teacher educators should not be evaluated based on their students’ effectiveness upon entering the profession. Education is a relationship, not a business transaction–and conflating the two does a disservice to all involved.
• House Bill 5600: requires that all cooperating teachers who agree to work with a student teacher receive a stipend of $1000. Unfortunately, the bill does not mention where these funds would come from, and given the size of most higher education department budgets this requirement poses a significant challenge. For example, the program I teach in produces roughly 30 graduates per year, with a budget of around $3000. This bill would add an additional $30,000 per year to our responsibilities during a time when budgets across our university campuses are shrinking, not expanding. If the legislature wants to provide additional funding to meet this requirement, this would be a wonderful way to recognize the contributions of cooperating teachers. As it currently stands, this is simply another unfunded mandate.
Robinson concludes: If passed, this legislation will only hurry the division of the state’s teacher workforce into two castes–one, a group of hurriedly-prepared and hastily-certified edutourists for the state’s charter and private schools, and an increasingly small and dwindling number of hyper-scrutinized and continuously-monitored graduates of traditional teacher preparation programs. Neither is a pathway leading to a sustainable vision of professional success.
He urges everyone in Michigan to contact their legislators and tell them to oppose this effort to ruin the teaching profession.

“. . . to require teacher education programs to give a “warranty” that their teachers will be effective…”
I’m sure they’ll be coming up soon with some warranties for the med schools, law schools, police academies, etc. . . .
LikeLike
There is no irony, no conflicting motive. They have to break the system we have in order to sell us the crap they have in the wings.
LikeLike
There are too many think tanks that think they know it all, but they know nothing. This is another demeaning swipe at public schools and the institutions that train teachers.
LikeLike
Until educators are part of solving the problem, the problem will never be solved.
As educators, most of us know that the best solution is to let us do our jobs instead of constantly looking over our shoulders for some small detail to that is wrong so they can shout it to the masses.
LikeLike
Michigan republicans are owned by the DeVos Clan. They will do as they are told or they will be attacked by the DeVos money machine. End of story.
LikeLike
The idea of a warranty for teacher ed programs dates to at least 1999.
See this Report on teacher warranty programs in Tennessee and Louisiana http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Rakes,%20Glenda%20C%20Quality%20Assurance%20in%20Teacher%20Education%20Warrenty%20Programs.pdf
Here is a Report on efforts to get teacher warranty programs in California, funded by Teach for America California…. https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_TFA-CA.pdf
North Carolina State offers a brief description of how they act on a warranty “complaint” use the key word Warranty http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ihe/reports/2002-03/undergraduate/elizabethcitystate.pdf
This is not different from the Gates-funded programs to trim teacher education to “high value strategies,” so teachers are “classroom ready.” Gates funding went to the University of Michigan in October 2015. Purpose: to facilitate collaboration among teacher preparation transformation centers for the purpose of creating classroom-ready teachers and advancing learning and innovation in teacher preparation through technical support, design-based research and transparent use of data Amount: $6,406,505. That grant went to TeachingWorks.
The University of Michigan is host to TeachingWorks. Teaching Works is collaborating with the Educational Testing Service to develop a teaching test for “classroom readiness.” That program is ready to be marketed nationally by Teaching Works, likely with some continuing relationship with ETS.
Teachers are being trained to teach five or six avatars. The NOTE test will require them to teach these avatars for six or seven minutes. The teacher candidates are assessed on “ high value strategies:” These are listed in a video transcript from ETS and TeachingWorks.
[1. Leading a group discussion. 2. Explaining and modeling content, practices, and strategies. 3. Eliciting and interpreting individual students’ thinking. 4. Diagnosing particular common patterns of student thinking and development in a subject-matter domain. 5. Implementing norms and routines for classroom discourse and work. 6. Coordinating and adjusting instruction during a lesson. 7. Specifying and reinforcing productive student behavior. 8. Implementing organizational routines. 9. Setting up and managing small group work. 10. Building respectful relationships with students. Etc.]
Mitchell Robinson has written about the avatar training program on this blog http://www.eclectablog.com/2017/05/the-brave-new-world-of-teacher-evaluation.html
There can be no doubt that the objective of the legislation is to trim the number of teacher education programs and reduce the programs to tricks of the trade. TFA is a model for this. The content area professional development requirement in the legislation begins from the premise that faculty in teacher education are not sufficiently informed about the content to be delivered to students. The avatar training methodology comes from military training with standardized protocols. http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/note
LikeLike