By Theresa Montaño
The “Teacher Prep Review” by the National Council on Teacher Quality was only out for a few days before it was debunked for its inaccuracy and methodology by most respected education research experts.
Aside from the fact that we must consider the source – the National Council on Teacher Quality is a partisan organization founded by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation which promotes school vouchers and privatization – the report is badly flawed and in no way truly measures the effectiveness of teacher prep programs in California or nationally.
Last week, Stanford education professor Linda Darling Hammond, chair of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, noted most schools of education nationally declined to participate in the study once they learned about the organization’s methods, which involved “a paper review of published course requirements against a checklist that does not consider the actual quality of instruction that the programs offer.”
While the NCTQ checklist is based largely on the design of undergraduate programs, California moved long ago to strengthen teacher education by requiring graduate level programs, which require subject matter competency before entering preparation. California has also moved toward accountability based on stronger evidence of outcomes, including rigorous tests of basic skills, content knowledge, and pedagogy. These include California’s Teacher Performance Assessments, required under SB 2042, that have made the state the first in the nation to judge teachers’ skills and abilities in real K-12 classrooms with real students.
The NCTQ report failed to recognize the importance of adapting teacher preparation to meet the changing student demographics and the reality of the social conditions where our teachers teach. Both UCLA and Loyola Marymount University, which were heavily criticized in the report, have highly respected teacher training programs. Students in both programs spend countless hours in subject matter preparation, literacy development, assessing student learning and clinical practice, providing the best in university field supervision and in developing genuine partnerships with local school districts.
I also question the report’s assertion that graduate training programs in California are more likely to accept “lower achieving students.” Grade Point Averages and tests scores do not necessarily make the best teachers, although GPA is considered when accepting students into the program. There are myriad tests teacher candidates take both to get into and out of a teacher education program. It does a disservice to these candidates and to the schools to be labeled “low achieving. Furthermore, California’s diverse student population only serves to strengthen our teaching pool. Our teacher prep programs are drawing on these strengths to provide teachers that truly understand the unique characteristics of our students to bring out the best in them.
This is not to say that teacher preparation programs in California are perfect. We do need to focus on improving them, but in a thorough, thoughtful way that uses accurate data as well as evidence. The California Teachers Association has convened a representative group of educators, CSU faculty and students to engage in discussion and research on the topic. Working with education experts like Boston College Professor Andy Hargreaves, an internationally renowned leader on education reform, we will develop a set of comprehensive recommendations. Because we put the best interest of our diverse student population at the center of our union work, our recommendations will be not be at the expense of an authentic focus on closing the educational opportunity gap or culturally responsive teaching. And, these recommendations most definitely will include multiple measures for program evaluation – far beyond what was included in the NCTQ.
Theresa Montaño is a professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies at California State University, Northridge (CSUN). She serves as a CTA board member representing higher education faculty.