Main

Training

The first teachers in this country had only basic skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Industrial expansion and the need to occupy jobless adolescents increased the priority placed on education. Horace Mann’s (1795-1859) efforts in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard’s (1811-1900) efforts in Rhode Island and Connecticut advocated intensified teacher training to help meet the new demands on education. States built schools of education called "normal" schools to train teachers. These schools soon had to lower their initially high standards in an effort to meet the growing demand for teachers. By the beginning of the 20th century, teacher colleges began diversifying and offering courses for students not intent on becoming teachers (Billiteri, 1987, 922-925).

The Current Situation
Most teacher education departments now have an affiliation with liberal arts colleges and universities. At these institutions, the high-volume, low-cost, teacher education programs are usually less of a priority than more prestigious programs for doctors and lawyers. Much of the money generated by teacher education programs goes to these other departments. In addition to a lack of commitment from the university administrations, David Imig, the executive director of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education blames the federal government for a lack of support for teacher training.

This neglect has caused significant problems for teacher preparation. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF)(http://www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcomm/what.htm) was highly critical of teacher training in its 1996 report "What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future." A recent survey of teachers by the Council for Basic Education (CBE) was even more critical. Particularly disappointing to the survey respondents were the ways in which schools of education taught teaching skills, the lack of emphasis on content knowledge, and the inadequate amount of school-based experience teacher candidates received (Rigden, 1996, 4).

Prospective teachers may have a problem grasping pedagogical skills because of the "fragmentation" of the education school curriculum. Many survey respondents observed that "Most teacher education programs taught theory separately from application…Students’ courses on subject matter were disconnected from their courses on teaching methods, which were in turn disconnected from their courses on learning and development"(Rigden, 1996, 6). Students would rather have less theory and more time spent linking teaching methods with the content they will eventually be teaching. Respondents of the survey also mentioned that many teacher candidates do not receive enough knowledge of classroom management (Rigden, 1996, 6-8).

One area of teacher education seen as particularly useful is the student-teaching experience. Real world teaching experiences are essential for a teacher to learn how to apply the knowledge they are receiving in their education courses. Unfortunately, schools of education give only marginal attention to practical experience. Many teacher candidates do not actually face a real classroom until their final year of school. Survey respondents complained that this limited experience does not allow them time to experiment with different teaching styles, or how to teach in diverse environments. One reason universities seem satisfied with giving their students limited practical experience is that university professors rarely go to cooperating schools to observe their students teaching (Rigden, 1996, 8-9).

While the country seems to be pushing for higher standards for student content knowledge, their teachers are able to graduate schools of education without mastering the subject areas they will be teaching. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (http://www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcomm/what.htm) found that 23 percent of secondary teachers have neither a major nor minor in the subject they teach. The statistics are even worse for math and science instructors. Apparently one education professor offered the advice that "…since the world is changing so quickly, don’t teach any content because we don’t know what content students will need in the future"(Rigden, 1996, 5). According to a recent survey of education professors (http://www.publicagenda.org/aboutpa/aboutpa3i.html), only 19% feel teachers should stress things like correct spelling and punctuation. Their theory is that the process of learning is more important than learning specific knowledge. While this theory may be defensible, many teachers find it hard to help students engage in learning any subject about which they are ignorant. Respondents saw strong content knowledge as particularly indispensable for math and science instructors (Rigden, 1996, 4-6).

Proposed Reforms
The most prominent organization trying to reform teacher education is the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (http://www.ncate.org/projects/pds/pdsdraft.html). The NCATE has devised a list of standards that it feels all schools of education should meet. These standards address a number of different areas including teacher candidate performance, the content knowledge required of prospective teachers and the amount of school-based experience provided while enrolled in a school of education. These standards are the basis for NCATE accreditation. In addition to addressing the major problems within schools of education, the NCATE reforms also seek to address the discontinuity that exists between teacher graduation requirements and state licensing requirements. The NCATE gears their reforms towards preparing teacher candidates for state licensing requirements as outlined by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (http://www.ccsso.org/intasc.html)

The NCATE standards place a significant emphasis on teacher candidate performance (http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/09ncate.h17) to make sure that education schools devote significant attention to effectively teaching pedagogical skills. In the past, accrediting bodies did not give much attention to teacher candidate performance. The NCATE feels teacher candidate performance is one of the most important measures of an education school’s effectiveness. An NCATE accredited school must take a number of different measures to determine the progress of its students. Some of these measures include observation of a teacher candidate’s classroom performance, examining student teaching portfolios, and graduate scores on state exams with performance components.
To determine reasonable content standards (http://www.edweek.org.ew/vol-13/36wise.h13) for teacher candidates, NCATE worked with the academic subject associations responsible for developing content standards for students in grades K-12. The two groups were able to devise specific content standards that NCATE expects its accredited schools to use in their programs. Courses for future math teachers should focus on preparing teacher candidates that will be able to teach students the skills embodied in standards devised by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The NCATE worked with 15 other academic subject associations to devise content standards in other subjects.

Finally, to insure that candidates gain a wide variety of quality, school-based experiences, the NCATE expects its schools to forge collaborative relationships with local schools (http://www.edweek.org. /ew/vol-13/36wise.h13). Teacher candidates would gain teaching experience under the guide of different, veteran teachers. This would allow teaching candidates to become acquainted with using a variety of different teaching styles. Also, professors would observe the students to evaluate their performance, and gain a sense of some of the problems faced by schools.

Most states do not require accreditation for schools of education. Currently approximately 500 of the 1300 schools of education in the U.S. are NCATE accredited (Billiteri, 1997, 916). The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF)(http://www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcomm/what.htm) believes in shutting down all schools of education that do not become NCATE certified by 2006. Some education school deans feel NCATE accreditation is unnecessary, and prohibitively expensive. Others support NCATE reforms, but feel the power for enforcement should remain in the hands of state agencies. The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/FIPSE/97ProgBk/cic.html) has presented itself as an alternative to the NCATE. The council plans to emphasize diversity in teacher education. NCATE president Arthur Wise feels uniform rigor (http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/38ncate.h16) in teacher training is necessary to make teaching comparable to professionalized fields. He also states that supporters of alternative certification are merely trying to avoid NCATE’s high standards.

It is unclear whether NCATE accreditation will become mandatory. There certainly seems to be a great deal of support for introducing the boards’ standards into schools of education. It would also be advantageous to have some coherence between the curriculum in schools of education and state licensing requirements. Given the ongoing dissatisfaction with teacher training, it is unlikely that the current state will continue much longer. Whatever measures reformers eventually adopt, they will no doubt incorporate a significant portion of the NCATE’s proposals in their reforms.