Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States: An NRC Study A presentation for CADREI Annual Fall Meeting October 9, 2005 Monterey, CA Michael B. Allen, Ph.D. Study Director
AERA & NAEd Studies vs. NRC Study Difference in Imprimatur Difference in Purpose Difference in Scope Difference in Process and Method Difference in Committee
NRC Study Congressionally Mandated Intended to provide Congress a picture of what goes on in teacher preparation in the U.S. Study period is 30 months Report scheduled to be released November 2007 Funding from IES is $1.5 million
Asked to Address Four Specific Questions Adequacy of education research (AERA study) not focus but background NRC study will revisit issue of adequacy of research and especially demographic research Knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of a teacher (NAEd study) also background –NRC study will revisit evidence base for requirements of beginning teachers –Adequacy of content knowledge could be most prominent, but not only, concern
1.Who enters teacher preparation programs (undergraduate, graduate, and alternative)? What is their academic preparation and their educational background?
2.What type of instruction and experiences do participants receive in the preparation programs? Who delivers it? To what extent is there commonality in content and experiences? Will focus on all subjects, but more deeply on reading, science, and mathematics
3.To what extent are the required course work and experiences in reading (and mathematics?) across teacher preparation programs consistent with converging scientific evidence?
4. What model for data collection would provide valid and reliable information about the content knowledge, pedagogical competence, and graduates from the various kinds of teacher preparation programs?
The NRC Study Process Committee findings and recommendations based on objective assessment of empirical evidence Committee will assess adequacy of existing research, research syntheses and data and note their limitations in stating the report’s findings Final report draft given external review requiring approved point-by-point response Full committee consensus required on all findings and recommendations Study process completely autonomous and committee deliberations strictly confidential
New Data Collection? Recognized by Congress as potentially valuable Allowed for in contract with IES Cannot be funded in time to be useful for committee report Possible as a later addendum
The Study Committee: Individuals carefully chosen and vetted in consultation with many people Accomplished researchers and professionals with appropriate expertise and perspectives that are neutral or balanced
Ellen Lagemann, Co-Chair Charles Warren Professor of the History of American Education, Harvard University Kenneth Shine, Co-Chair Executive Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs University of Texas System Herbert Brunkhorst Professor of Science Education and Biology California State University at San Bernadino Margarita Calderon Senior Research Scientist Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education John Hopkins University Marilyn Cochran-Smith John E. Cawthorne Chair for Teacher Education in Urban Schools, Boston College Janice Dole Associate Professor Reading Education University of Utah Donald Langenberg Chancellor Emeritus, University of Maryland System Ronald Latanision Professor of Materials Science and Nuclear Engineering, MIT James Lewis Professor of Mathematics, University of Nebraska David Monk Dean of Education, Pennsylvania State University Annemarie Palincsar Jean and Charles Walgreen Professor of Literacy University of Michigan Michael Podgursky Middlebush Professor of Economics University of Missouri Andrew Porter Patricia and Rodes Hart Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy, Vanderbilt University Edward Silver William A. Brownell Collegiate Professor in Education, University of Michigan Dorothy Strickland Samuel DeWitt Proctor Professor of Education Rutgers University Suzanne Wilson Professor of Teacher Education Michigan State University Hung-Hsi Wu Professor of Mathematics University of California-Berkeley James Wyckoff Associate Professor of Public Administration, Public Policy and Economics, SUNY-Albany
A “Flexner II” Report? What, if any, evidence-based assessment can be given of the adequacy of the content and experiences in teacher preparation programs to enable graduates to teach effectively – particularly in core subjects like reading, mathematics, and science?
Comparison with the Flexner Report (Martin Orland) Context Analytic Approach Impact
Comparison with Flexner: Similarities in Context Period of ferment and questioning regarding the quality of education and training for the profession Belief that professional school requirements for program entry and exit frequently too low Belief that professional school program offerings vary greatly and are frequently inadequate to ensure high quality professional practice Belief that these conditions lead to serious deficiencies and inequities in the quality of professional services rendered
Comparison with Flexner: Differences in Context 1910 vs. 2005 Flexner Era characterized by: –Relatively closed system where professional elites could drive reform agenda –Fewer competing interests –Hierarchical vs. pluralistic model of change Medicine vs. education Differences in: –Acceptance of scientific culture and its relevance as a principal guide for professional practice (scientific vs. socio-cultural ethic) –Existence of professional consensus on what constitutes effective practice –Public/political nature of the enterprise (degree of clarity, unity, conflict regarding objectives of service provision)
Flexner Study vs. NRC Study: Analytic Approach Comprehensive vs. targeted examination 150 medical vs. 1300 teacher preparation programs Single “expert” vs. consensus panel Similarities in descriptive emphasis but not in data collection New vs. mostly extant data Differences in rendering of arguments, conclusions, and recommendations Subjective vs. evidence-based judgments
Comparison with Flexner: Impact Key Factors in Impact of Flexner –Timing –Urgency of the concern (life and death) –Clear exemplars and scandals in program quality –Credibility –Relation with elites (during era when elite orchestration of professional reform was easier to accomplish than today) Carnegie Foundation a driving force for change NRC Report –Timing? –Urgency? –Unequivocal program exemplars and scandals? –Credibility? –Relation with elites? Who can drive professional reform?
NRC Study Challenges Defining a workable study scope Making the most out of limited research and data Reaching a consensus that is significant and goes beyond the lowest common denominator Controlling the urge to overreach the findings in order to make the recommendations compelling
Study Committee Meetings Six meetings between December 2005 and June 2007 First meeting December 7-8, at the NRC’s Keck Center in Washington, DC Open portion December 7, 1:00-5:00 p.m. Second meeting February or March 2006
Proposed Committee Briefing Topics 1.Differing Views of the Nature of Teaching and the Role of the Teacher 2.Differing Visions of Teacher Education 3.Teaching Minority Students 4.Teacher Certification and Licensure 5.Institutional Accountability and Accreditation 6.Status of Data and Research on Teaching and Teacher Preparation
Contact Information Michael Allen 202-334-3571 email@example.com www.nas.edu Behavorial and Social Sciences and Education Center for Education