To much news fanfare, the National Council on Teacher Quality recently released their report on Teacher Preparation programs across the country. By analyzing 1000+ programs across the country, NCTQ determined that 3 out of 4 programs are failing our prospective teachers and not giving them the resources they need to succeed in the classroom. Major news outlets briefly explained its methodology and how people like Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, support its general mission.
But if you dig a bit deeper two major outcomes become evident when reading this report. The first is quite clear: this is not a peer-reviewed, journal-quality analysis of our country's teacher preparation programs. As mentioned in this article, the methods used here (reviewing syllabi and analyzing selectivity of recruits) is akin to a "professional restaurant reviewer judging eateries by looking at menus found online." A truly rigorous study would involve visits to universities and colleges across the country, interviews, focus groups, and more.
The second issue is a bit deeper in interpretation: if these teacher preparation programs are being criticized mercilessly for not providing adequate preparation, what about emergency certification programs like Teacher for America? Last Wednesday, Eli Broad of the conservative Broad Foundation, wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times explaining how we need better and deeper curriculum and selectivity in order to get the higher-quality teachers. He even mentions Finland as an example of a country that is doing better in this regard.
Taking his assertion to its logical conclusion, wouldn't he advocate for closing programs like Teach For America that only give 5 weeks of preparation and the majority of whose members don't stay more than 2-3 years in the classroom? I'd like to know his answer to that question soon.
But if you dig a bit deeper two major outcomes become evident when reading this report. The first is quite clear: this is not a peer-reviewed, journal-quality analysis of our country's teacher preparation programs. As mentioned in this article, the methods used here (reviewing syllabi and analyzing selectivity of recruits) is akin to a "professional restaurant reviewer judging eateries by looking at menus found online." A truly rigorous study would involve visits to universities and colleges across the country, interviews, focus groups, and more.
The second issue is a bit deeper in interpretation: if these teacher preparation programs are being criticized mercilessly for not providing adequate preparation, what about emergency certification programs like Teacher for America? Last Wednesday, Eli Broad of the conservative Broad Foundation, wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times explaining how we need better and deeper curriculum and selectivity in order to get the higher-quality teachers. He even mentions Finland as an example of a country that is doing better in this regard.
Taking his assertion to its logical conclusion, wouldn't he advocate for closing programs like Teach For America that only give 5 weeks of preparation and the majority of whose members don't stay more than 2-3 years in the classroom? I'd like to know his answer to that question soon.
RSS Feed