|
|
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
![]() |
![]() |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Education > | Add to MyNCSL |
Education Program
Teacher PreparationBecause programs that offer prospective initial preparation for classroom work constitute the major gateway into the profession, and because the lessons learned in preparation programs are powerfully reinforced (or contradicted) in first teaching assignments, states have directed considerable attention recently to these aspects of the teacher quality challenge. Among state actions to enhance and expand teacher preparation are the development of program standards and systems of accountability, the design of alternative routes to certification, and the creation of beginning teacher induction programs. Historically, state legislatures have been reluctant to impose regulations on teacher preparation programs, relying instead on altering certification and licensure requirements. Nonetheless, there are numerous examples of legislative action requiring teacher preparation programs to address a particular need, such as child abuse or drug abuse prevention. By mandating specific course requirements, states can leverage teacher preparation programs at least to offer courses in areas policymakers deem important; many such topics bear directly on classroom teaching, including instructional uses of technology, approaches to reading instruction, and the education of at-risk children. The Maryland State Board of Education, for example, now requires that all new teachers and all practicing teachers seeking recertification complete 12 semester hours in reading instruction. Indiana passed similar legislation in 2000. In this and other ways, states have begun to address the tensions that often exist between state legislative directives and the historical program independence of colleges and universities that prepare teachers. Paralleling their efforts to hold K-12 schools accountable for results while leaving decisions about how to achieve results up to local educators, legislatures are attempting to leverage change without micromanaging through the creation of performance-based standards. New policies now in place in at least 24 states encourage teacher education institutions to focus less on inputs-such as the number of courses teacher candidates are required to complete-and more on outcomes-demonstrations of teaching competence. Accordingly, a sizable number of colleges and universities have undertaken major reforms of their education programs, adding fifth years of study, extensive internships and participating in professional development schools. And there is increasing emphasis on subject matter preparation as well. For example, under a ten-principle plan to improve teacher preparation approved by the Georgia State Regents, all education majors will now be required to take additional coursework in areas they expect to teach. Further, the system offers a guarantee on behalf of its graduates, by providing additional training for those unable to demonstrate effective teaching skills within their first two years in the classroom. Currently, all states have some sort of approval mechanism in place for teacher education institutions, often based on either regional or national standards such as those of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) or National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Forty-six states, including the District of Columbia, now have partnerships with NCATE, and 18 states use NCATE professional standards as the basis for state program decisions. NCATE's new standards are performance-based, furthering the movement of states in using performance-based criteria to assess teacher preparation. Maryland became one of several states to rely on NCATE accreditation when in 1998 it required institutions of higher education that offer teacher training programs to receive national accreditation, or, under certain specified circumstances, a waiver from the requirement through state legislation Further reform in teacher education across the states is likely to be spurred by recent congressional action. Provisions in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) target schools of education by requiring report cards on teacher colleges as well as parental access to teachers' professional qualifications. In this legislation, a dozen federal programs affecting teacher preparation were replaced with state block grants targeted at more rigorous certification requirements and incentives for teachers to study, while in college, the subjects they intend to teach. As part of the HEA, a competitive grant program for states was created that provides resources for states to improve teacher quality. To date 31 states have received state teacher quality enhancement grants, almost all of which focus on creating performance-based standards for teacher preparation and licensure. Legislation in Colorado is typical of the new performance-based approach to teacher preparation. In 1999, the state passed SB 154, creating new program approval standards based on performance-based standards adopted by the State Board of Education. Programs must meet system-wide goals of high quality, access, diversity, efficiency and accountability to gain approval. The legislature, however, did not leave program design entirely to preparation programs. Students must have an academic major and be able to graduate within four academic years, despite requiring all candidates to have at least 800 hours of clinical time. The state further revised the program in 2000 by defining professional competencies and applying the 800-hour rule to nonpublic schools educating teacher candidates. Policies from 2000 include the following:
A recent study by the American Council on Education's (ACE) Presidents' Task Force on Teacher Education identified several characteristics of successful teacher preparation programs. These include: Arts and sciences faculty and education faculty work together; the central administration of university and school leaders work together; there is an effective process of admission to teacher candidacy; there is an induction process; program elements are well articulated; and there is an evaluation process for program quality and outcomes. While these recommendations and some research have encouraged institutions of higher education to engage in Professional Development School partnerships and other reforms, states have largely left these reforms to preparation programs themselves. States have worked to establish standards-sometimes performance-based, sometimes related to coursework and licensure exam scores-and have left preparation design largely to higher education. This information is part of the report, "Revisiting What States are Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching: An Update on Patterns and Trends," written by Eric Hirsch, Julie Koppich and Michael Knapp, published by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy in collaboration with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Additional information on the web: American Association of College's of Teacher Education (AACTE) Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy
|
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001