Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States: An NRC Study

A presentation forCADREI Annual Fall Meeting

October 9, 2005Monterey, CA

Michael B. Allen, Ph.D.Study Director

AERA & NAEd Studiesvs.

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 monthsReport scheduled to be released November 2007

• Funding from IES is $1.5 million

Asked to Address FourSpecific 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. 2005Flexner Era characterized by:

– Relatively closed system where professional elites could drive reform agenda

– Fewer competing interests– Hierarchical vs. pluralistic model of change

• Medicine vs. educationDifferences 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 examination150 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 Education3. Teaching Minority Students4. Teacher Certification and Licensure5. Institutional Accountability and Accreditation6. Status of Data and Research on Teaching and

Teacher Preparation

Contact Information

Michael Allen202-334-3571

mallen@nas.edu

www.nas.edu Behavorial and Social Sciences and Education

Center for Education