NCATE sponsored a panel discussion entitled Transforming Teacher Preparation at its General Assembly, an annual gathering of NCATE’s four policy boards and member organization representatives.

Sharon Robinson, President and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education posed the questions: “What do panel members see as the future of teacher education in America? How will we get there? What does this mean for NCATE?”

Panelists included Barnett Berry, President, Center for Teaching Quality; Tom Carroll, President, National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future; Rick Hess, Director of Education Policy, American Enterprise Institute; Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School Officers; and Susan Tave Zelman, State Superintendent, State Department of Education, Ohio. James Cibulka, President, NCATE, responded to the panel, and then opened up to responses from the audience.

Following is a summary of the ideas presented. The summary is offered as a contribution to stimulate further discussion at the local and state levels among teacher preparation institutions, states, and interested education stakeholders. The panel’s ideas are important and reflect new thinking and policy directions for teacher preparation. They may enable us to glimpse into the future of teacher preparation and thus better prepare NCATE and teacher preparation institutions to be a part of the change process and indeed, help provide research, direction, and focus for new preparation models.

A “Disruptive Agenda:” Action at the State Level

Susan Zelman noted the global marketplace that is driving the change. “Policymakers are looking at international student achievement” and are concerned that American student performance is lagging behind that of other developed nations. “Policymakers are searching for new ways” to gain answers to perennial problems, including recruitment of qualified teachers in shortage areas; increasing P-12 student achievement in low-performing/high needs schools, and teacher retention. Zelman notes that states must succeed in building accountability into alternative providers as well as traditional providers “to ensure not only universal access, but success for all.”

Gene Wilhoit summarized changes taking place in education at the state level. “The assumptions of how we deliver education have changed. Every chief is under a mandate for setting an accountability structure in place and measuring student achievement. All states are now setting new standards, creating assessment systems, and establishing exit criteria.”

Wilhoit noted that state agencies are engaging in redesign to focus on P-12 student learning. “States are redefining the role of state education agencies. We are about transforming systems to get results. The statistics that we have lived with for several decades—a 30 percent national high school dropout rate; a 50 percent high school dropout rate in inner cities---are unacceptable. The teacher education providers that can demonstrate that they are increasing P-12 student learning are the places where the financial and human capital resources will reside in the future. Competitors to higher education institutions are gaining in credibility. All providers must demonstrate results [in order to retain support].”

The Teaching Profession Must Claim Its Own Ground—Research on Effective Practice is Critical

“In order for the teaching profession to gain the respect of policymakers and the public, teacher educators must develop and use research on content pedagogy” in a systematic way, said Zelman. Master teachers must be able to implement best practice according to the research on the effective teaching of each discipline at different grade levels. For example, what are best practices in teaching literature---Shakespeare as well as Toni Morrison---to high school students in high needs schools? Can the field identify and disseminate best practice in teaching geometry and algebra to ESL students? This is the “key to success” for the teacher preparation enterprise, says Zelman. Teaching will engender the respect it deserves when best and appropriate effective practice is disseminated, articulated, and used within the profession. Too many schools of education in higher education institutions have avoided research on teaching and learning and the linkage with P-12 student achievement—a contribution that is sorely needed. States, institutions and school systems must work together to make this research and development a reality.

 Redefining the Teaching Profession for the 21 st Century

The teaching profession “has not succeeded in redefining itself for the 21 st century,” said Zelman. As technological innovations have changed the way Americans work, schooling still looks the way it did in the early part of the 20 th century—one teacher in front of a class of 25 to 30 students. That model is not working well anymore, as a result of a shortage of qualified personnel, the increasing diversity of the P-12 school population, and federal regulation relating to students with disabilities which trigger Individual Education Plans for large numbers of students.

Rick Hess added: “Our assumption when we massively expanded schooling in the first two-thirds of the 20 th century was that we had access to a captive workforce of college-educated women---that is no longer the case. We must rethink the entire teaching profession with new assumptions.” Several panel members noted that many individuals who enter teaching today may only stay five to seven years---and that is the 50 percent who do not leave the first three years. However, Hess said that the NCES Schools and Staffing Survey reports that the number of teachers entering after age 35 and 45 is increasing dramatically—so who comes in and when needs rethinking in terms of the type of preparation provided.

Moving from an Industrial Preparation Model to a Workforce Development Model

Accordingly, Tom Carroll said that “we must transform our concept of teacher preparation from an industrial preparation model to a workforce development model” in order to meet the demands of a less stable teacher workforce than that of the early to mid-20 th century.

“By that I mean that we must change the business model of schools from teaching organizations to learning organizations. Now our attention must shift to build quality learning environments staffed with teams who can make those environments effective for student learning. We must be able to design learning experiences in a distributed learning environment and use technology to be able to repackage learning opportunities,” said Carroll.

Carroll cited stark statistics on teacher retirements. “We have a serious personnel shortage looming. There are 3.2 million teachers; 1.7 million are baby boomers who are on the cusp of retiring in the next five to ten years.” How will we replace half of the teaching workforce? Teachers no longer select teaching as a 30 year career. However, Carroll notes, there is a silver lining to these statistics. With the current economic exigencies which are likely to last for some time, “50 percent or more of baby boomers will choose to work after retirement.” We can engage these individuals who may retire from other careers and use their human capital and subject matter expertise in the P-12 classroom.

Hess noted that education must find ways to accommodate part-time specialists. He agreed with Carroll that “part-time employees can play a valued role. Teacher preparation can occur in P-12 schools and higher education can be brought into the P-12 schools” to help educate teachers. Training can be segmented into different tracks for different school roles. “There should be just-in-time preparation for individuals who are content specialists such as retired NASA engineers” who may want to teach a class or two classes of physics, for example. Hess and Carroll believe one answer to the shortage of science and mathematics teachers is for schools to take advantage of the expertise among retired individuals.

Assuming districts change their staffing models, more teacher preparation programs need to be developed which are geared specifically to these types of individuals with years of specialist experience. Hess advocates for more on-site preparation in P-12 schools using higher education as an adjunct or partner. ¹

States to Districts: More Flexibility Needed in Staffing Models

Zelman focused on needed policy changes in districts that will help bring about changes in schools. “We must focus on moving from the concept of the ‘school day’ to the ‘learning day’ and how the learning day needs to be resourced. We must provide districts with tools they can use to assess what human resources they need, and give them the wherewithal to implement those tools.” Schools currently have entrenched roles for personnel in the classroom. Zelman advocates that these roles must be made more flexible in order to permit individuals with differing capacities to enter the classroom to aid master and novice teachers. Likewise, Zelman notes that high quality alternate providers, such as urban teacher residencies, “are tools which districts can use,” but the districts and states must rearrange funding to encourage these developments. Berry agreed, and noted that institutions of higher education must partner “in earnest” with districts to create high quality preparation devoted to the needs of districts and states. If higher education does not respond, Berry noted, districts will proceed to develop their own preparation programs, such as the residency programs. Berry has co-authored a paper entitled Urban Teacher Residency Models and Institutes of Higher Education: Implications for Teacher Preparation, ² which describes the challenges and opportunities for higher education institutions as they navigate a landscape in which higher education institutions are but one provider of teacher preparation programs.

1 Hess, Frederick M. Schools, tools, and rules: Creating an entrepreneurial future (2008). 225-246. In The Future of Educational Entrepreneurship: Possibilities for School Reform, Frederick M. Hess, Ed. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

2 Berry , B., Montgomery, D., and Snyder, J. Urban Teacher Residency Models and Institutes of Higher Education: Implications for Teacher Preparation . August 2008. Commissioned by NCATE with funding from the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and the MetLife Foundation. http://www.ncate.org/public/HighlyQualifiedTeachersUrbanSchools.asp

Creating Differentiated Roles and Levels of Responsibility and Changing District Policies Accordingly

Hess believes education should take a page from the professionalization of medicine during the 20 th century--specialization. “We must think of staffing education in terms of a grid—with different jobs, specializations, and then adjust preparation to fit these different roles.” There should be a variety of jobs at different levels—some as highly educated specialists, others able to function in narrower roles, or with appropriate supervision. He continued, “highly trained educators should be used for diagnostic and analytic tasks; other personnel must be used for hall duty, lunch duty,” etc. Instruction must be differentiated in order to utilize the expertise of highly proficient master teachers with more than 25 students at a time in one classroom. Teachers must be able to ascend a career ladder to serve as coaches and mentors for novice teachers. Collaboration among teachers must be built into the school week so that highly proficient teachers can provide examples of instructional pedagogy for upcoming units of instruction. We must be able to bring in community resources that can assist in substantive ways with instruction and also with technical/administrative support to teachers. Only when this is accomplished on a broad scale will the teaching profession escape legislation created with a hammer.

Barnett Berry and Rick Hess both emphasized that “the teaching profession must develop differentiated roles and responsibilities” so that schools can utilize the talent of master teachers to help supervise and develop novice teachers who may enter without appropriate preparation. They noted that the concept of ‘spreading the wealth’ of human capital is key in this part of the 21 st century.

Berry noted that teacher preparation and P-12 professional development funding need to be reallocated for new uses. Too many education schools prepare any kind of teacher for any school district – irrespective of the needs of the labor market. In the future, education schools and other providers should be rewarded for producing teachers in content areas in the most demand, and who are able and willing to teach in high need schools. He believes that “we must rethink the use of human capital in our districts and universities.”  

Berry also believes that “the highest paid person in any school district should be a master teacher – the very best. They should teach students – but also prepare a new generation of educators and spread their expertise. We must elevate the role of teachers who use best practices to improve student learning to the highest level. We need to use far better student assessments to determine effective teaching and learning. Universities can and must help us lead the way. We must develop recognition for schools that help prepare teachers for high needs schools—perhaps by identifying the 100 best places that prepare these teachers. They could be universities, school districts, and community-based organizations. We must bridge higher education money with P-12 funding to further develop urban teacher residencies. No longer can these public sectors be pitted against each other in efforts to recruit, prepare, and support the next generation of teachers.”

What does this mean for NCATE?

Tom Carroll, referring to teacher preparation institutions, asked the question: “What should you stop doing?” He notes that sometimes organizations need to stop doing what they have been doing in order to draw on new models, and mentioned the teacher residency model (Urban Teacher Residency, or UTR) as one such new approach. He observed that when institutions reinvent themselves, they often look much as they did before the ‘change.’ Carroll noted that 21 st century learning skills focus on working in teams, and suggested the teaching hospital model as an approach which would foster those skills.

His suggestion is a tall order for teacher preparation institutions. However, Wilhoit suggests change will continue to occur in teacher preparation, with “choice among providers who can demonstrate results” as a key factor.

Importance of Partnerships

Zelman, like Carroll, discussed urban teacher residencies as a promising new model that Ohio intends to develop. The approach may save districts considerable money in the long run. A very high percentage of teachers prepared in residencies thus far remain in high needs schools, saving districts the cost of hiring and processing large numbers of new teachers every year. In addition, teacher candidates in residencies are supported by a cadre approach, a team approach at the P-12 school, and support during their first years of teaching.

Wilhoit recognized that “there are two systems of quality assurance: one is heavily regulated, for institutions of higher education, and one is much looser, for alternative providers.” He indicated that this bifurcation will fade as states act to put results of providers’ programs front and center. Those programs that produce candidates who help students achieve will be the ones that survive and thrive. He acknowledged that state policy is an important determinant of the steps that teacher preparation institutions can take and indicated that all parties must work together to accomplish the change.

What Teacher Educators Can Do Now

What can teacher educators work on now? Hess and Zelman indicated that teacher education needs to reflect preparation for differentiated staffing in P-12 schools. Teacher preparation should not be and will not emerge as a ‘one size fits all’ preparation process in the future. Preparation will need to operate on separate tracks—one for career teachers, one for mentor/master teachers who help train novice teachers, and one for ‘just-in-time’ training of individuals with special expertise which teachers in some shortage areas may not possess. Institutions must work closely with school districts to determine needs and respond accordingly.

Likewise, regarding promising new models for teacher preparation for high needs schools, the implication for teacher preparation institutions is clear. Partnerships between universities and districts are crucial in 21 st century teacher preparation. Higher education institutions must reach out to districts and to states to indicate interest and initiate renegotiation of roles and funding for preparation.

What States Can Do

Likewise, states and districts must loosen rules and regulations relating to staffing requirements, and they must “reconfigure funding models” (Berry) so that robust university-school partnerships with heavy emphasis on clinical experience are the coin of the realm—not on the margin of preparation. In addition, states should include higher education representatives in the formulation of policy changes.

A Challenge to NCATE from the Chiefs

Wilhoit asked, “is this an afternoon of talk, or will there be follow-up action and change in teacher preparation?”

Jim Cibulka, NCATE’s New President, Cites Future Directions

As the panel closed, Jim Cibulka stated that he came to NCATE to make a positive difference, and offered his vision for future directions for teacher education accreditation.

Cibulka noted that in his many visits with teacher education groups, NCATE accreditation is cited as not providing added value to the institution. He has set forth four principles to guide changes to the NCATE process as NCATE responds to higher education institution needs and the larger policy environment. Cibulka is committed to the following:

• Change NCATE accreditation to ensure the process has value for institutions and helps them improve their programs.
• Make accreditation cost-effective for institutions in terms of outlays, time, and human capital, and consider the costs to NCATE as well
• Ensure that accreditation serves as a lever for reform. Cibulka would like to offer options for continuous improvement. Teacher preparation must be aligned with the needs of states and districts, and accreditation can and should foster this alignment. This will help provide value to the accreditation process.
• Help NCATE and institutions adapt to a mixed market of education providers. The mixed market includes providers of varying quality. NCATE must find a way to distinguish itself from mediocre providers and must establish a floor while raising the ceiling and the rigor of the accreditation process. The new Administration in Washington in 2009 is likely to look favorably on those providers which respond to the nation’s education needs and are helping to solve perennial problems. Those providers will gain federal and state support, while funding for others may be reduced.

Sharon Robinson opened the panel discussion to the audience of NCATE board members and guests. Two comments helped to crystallize the thoughts of the panel during the afternoon.

Jon Engelhardt, Dean, School of Education, Baylor University, and NCATE Executive Board member, led the institution response, saying that currently, “NCATE is about what we [institutions] do, not about what happens in P-12 schools. That needs to change, so that NCATE encourages institutions to work in and with the community.”

Zelman closed with an overarching goal for NCATE: “NCATE must reflect a new vision of the profession for the 21 st century—one that attracts the best and the brightest candidates to education. Its procedures should encourage organizational development of accredited providers.”

  Afterward

 NCATE’s Executive Board meets the day after the NCATE General Assembly. Following is the major action taken by the NCATE Executive Board in response to the discussion on ‘Transforming Teacher Preparation.’

NCATE Executive Board Meeting
October 18

 Follow Up from the NCATE General Assembly: NCATE Takes Action

The NCATE Executive Board passed a unanimous motion to transform and redesign the NCATE processes at its meeting the day after the NCATE General Assembly.

The motion passed by the NCATE Executive Board is as follows: “The Executive Board asks the NCATE President to return in Spring 2009 (after consultation with all NCATE quadrants) with a comprehensive set of recommendations for transformation and redesign of the NCATE [unit] accreditation and program review process including focused, rigorous, developmental, cost-effective options and an estimate of additional costs and/or cost savings. The Board encourages the President to initiate pilots and other measures as appropriate and to move forward as expeditiously as possible.”

Jim Cibulka, NCATE president, is leading the execution of plans to develop new processes for and new options within teacher education accreditation. He sees a future for the NCATE/State partnerships in focusing specifically on the alignment of the needs of P-12 schools and the delivery of preparation around those needs.