Last week, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released a new study on teacher education programs, and determined that three-fourths of all student teaching programs, including those at top universities, are inadequate.
NCTQ named 19 standards that they believe each program must meet in order to be successful, but only five were considered “critical standards”:
1. Five of the ten weeks of student teaching should be conducted full-time at a single school site.
2. The teacher preparation program must select the mentor teacher for each placement (rather than allowing the schools or districts to select the mentor).
3. The mentor teacher must have at least three years teaching experience.
4. The mentor teacher must have the capacity to have a positive impact on student learning.
5. The mentor teacher must be capable of mentoring an adult, with skills in observation, feedback, holding professional conversations, and working collaboratively.
Overall, the nineteen student teaching standards selected by NCTQ “actually highlight efforts that many teacher education groups have emphasized: a focus on clinical practice…partnerships between colleges and school districts, and serving special-needs schools.”
However, the report has caused significant controversy. Recently, U.S. News & World Report adopted standards for evaluating teacher education programs developed by NCTQ. Many educators have said that the standards are too narrow, and they often don’t go far enough or go in the wrong direction. Sharon P. Robinson, CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education cites NCTQ’s assertion that the college itself should select each mentor teacher for every student. Robinson argues that placement should be a cooperative effort between colleges and districts, with colleges reviewing schools for appropriateness but allowing school personnel to select teachers. Conversely, NCTQ calculates that only “one of every 25 teachers is willing and qualified” to mentor, making for an annual shortage of 40,000 qualified mentor teachers.
Robinson claims that NCTQ has once again started out with a methodology, asked an interesting question, proceeded to conduct a study that is not transparent in any way and then present findings, regardless of the completeness of the data. One very troubling issue with the study is that institutions cannot opt out—they are ranked regardless of cooperation, and evaluations are based on whatever data is available, leaving some holes in the research. Kate Walsh, NCTQ president, retorts that Robinson and others should be using the findings to identify room for improvement in teacher education programs, not just waving them off. She admits that NCTQ is critical of teacher preparation programs, but “not unreasonably. We have laid out a very clear set of standards that can only lead to one conclusion when you read them. That teacher preparation does matter, and it matters most when it’s done well.”
To read the full story and access a copy of NCTQ’s report, visit http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/21/council_on_teacher_quality_student_teaching_report_finds_college_education_programs_largely_weak
