|
t
h e N
E T |
|
NCLB LETTER from COMMITTEE on TEACHER PREPARATION and ASSESSMENT |
|
Dear (name of political
figure): 1.
Support PK-12 curriculum and assessment that focuses on 21st
century skills and higher order thinking and problem-solving, including
the development of performance assessments and an approach to
accountability that takes multiple measures into account.
Teacher preparation should support high quality teaching at
the PK-12 levels, equipping teachers with powerful teaching strategies,
such as those consistent with the Learner-Centered Principles of the
American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp2/lcp14.html).
Currently in the U.S., many
teacher educators feel compelled to jettison learner centered teacher
preparation because of test-driven, scripted curricula being used in
schools, particularly urban schools. In her September 10, 2007 testimony
before the House Education and Labor Committee, Darling-Hammond pointed
out that “high-achieving nations focus their curriculum on critical
thinking and problem solving, using examinations that require students
to conduct research and scientific investigations, solve complex
real-world problems in mathematics, and defend their ideas orally and in
writing. In most cases,
their assessment systems combine centralized (state or national)
assessments that use mostly open-ended and essay questions and local
assessments given by teachers, which are factored into the final
examination scores. These
local assessments – which include research papers, applied science
experiments, presentations of various kinds, and projects and products
that students construct -- are mapped to the syllabus and the standards
for the subject and are selected because they represent critical skills,
topics, and concepts. They are often suggested and outlined in the curriculum, but
they are generally designed, administered, and scored locally.” In
addition to the high-achieving countries Darling-Hammond cited, in an
effort to upgrade its education, in 2001 China launched a shift from a
knowledge-based curriculum to be delivered didactically, to an
inquiry-based curriculum. Although our recommendations below focus
directly on teacher professional development, this cannot be considered
in isolation of PK-12 schooling. Creating
a globally competitive curriculum will require incentives for the
development and use of state and local performance assessments and the
use of a multiple measures framework for assessing school progress in No
Child Left Behind. 2.
Invest in professional
knowledge and the capacity of schools and universities to provide high
quality preparation and professional development. In her testimony
to the House Education and Labor Committee, Darling-Hammond recommended
that, “Once we develop a strong curriculum that focuses on 21st
century skills, . . .we must also ensure that we have well-prepared and
well-supported teachers who know and can teach challenging content
extremely well to the very diverse group of students in our schools.”
Although conservative think tanks have denigrated the value of
professional pedagogical knowledge, there is growing research showing
the strong influence of teacher education and certification on
teachers’ effectiveness in promoting student learning, especially for
our most school-dependent students. Indeed, a considerable professional
knowledge base for teaching challenging content to diverse students
exists. A National Academy of Education report summarizing the
implications of this knowledge for teacher education (Preparing Teachers
for a Changing World) described three kinds of knowledge teachers need
to have: · Knowledge of learners and the learning process, including how learning is prompted, guided, and transferred; understanding the child developmental process; and understanding the language development process, including accessing and building on linguistic skills and non-standard English usage students may bring to the classroom. · Knowledge of subject matter and curriculum, including not only developing a repertoire of skills for designing day-to-day curriculum for one’s students, but also envisioning curriculum in relationship to broad societal goals for schools. ·
Knowledge of teaching,
including how to organize learning, how to teach specific aspects of
subject matter, how to build on students’ cultural repertoires and
prior knowledge, how to assess learning to guide everyday instruction,
how to manage classrooms productively, and how to collaborate with other
professionals and parents. The
National Academy review noted that powerful teacher education programs
generally have a cohesive curriculum that includes these areas of
knowledge and that involves strong clinical learning opportunities in
collaboration with schools and communities.
Students deserve teachers who are well-prepared to use
professional knowledge that enables them to teach diverse students. Creating
access to this kind of knowledge for all teachers will require
investments in more comprehensive teacher education and development,
with a priority focus on the teaching of diverse learners – especially
students with special needs and English language learners -- in both
pre- and in-service programs. It
will also require subsidies in the form of service scholarships and
forgivable loans to enable students to become prepared for high-need
fields and high-need locations. 3.
Help states fund initiatives that strengthen teacher education,
particularly field-based teacher education that links development of
practice with professional knowledge in high-needs areas.
Ironically, during a time in which student diversity grew rapidly,
preservice teacher education programs have been shortened due largely to
financial pressures on colleges and universities. Preservice programs
had gradually lengthened between the 1970s and the early the 1990s as
they developed more intentional series of field experiences and added
coursework that reflected changes in schools, such as mainstreaming
exceptional children, working with technology, and teaching diverse
learners. In the early 1990s, programs began to shrink; for example,
between 1983 and 1999, professional studies coursework in elementary
education programs dropped from an average of 36 credits to 31 credits,
and clinical experiences dropped from 17 to 15 credits (Feistritzer,
1999). Most reduction resulted from financial pressures on university
budgets due to reductions in taxes and rising costs of public services
in most states (Lyall &
Sell, 2006). Yet extensive clinical preparation – for example, a full
year of practice teaching under the wing of an expert teacher, tightly
interwoven with coursework on teaching – has been linked to more
competent and confident practice and to stronger retention in teaching
for novice teachers. For
example, a growing number of urban teacher residency programs and
professional development school partnerships have created new schools or
staffed existing schools with highly expert mentor teachers, and placed
new or mid-career recruits in the classrooms of these mentor teachers
while they complete coursework in curriculum, teaching, and learning at
partner universities. Rather
than trying to teach without seeing good teaching in a sink or swim
model, these recruits watch experts in action and are tutored into
accomplished practice. Furthermore,
many of these novice teachers continue to receive mentoring in the next
two years. A critical
component these types of programs is that they decrease the high
attrition rate in urban, high poverty schools by providing strong
training and requiring recruits to spend at least four years in the
school districts where they were trained. The federal government should fund or help states
fund high quality teacher education programs (such as residency
programs) that offer intensive clinical training in strong
collaborations among school districts, higher education institutions,
and community organizations. 4.
Help states invest in
on-going professional development of teachers, particularly beginning
teachers. With 30% of new teachers leaving within 5 years (and more
in urban areas), the revolving door cannot be slowed until the needs for
beginning teacher support are addressed.
Other high-achieving countries invest heavily in structured
induction for beginning teachers: they fund schools to provide released
time for expert mentors and they fund other learning opportunities for
beginners, such as seminars, visits to other teachers’ classrooms, and
joint planning time. Such
strategies have also been found effective in reducing beginning teacher
attrition in the U.S., with rates of leaving reduced from more than 30%
of beginning teachers to as low as 5% in some districts that have
introduced high-quality induction programs.
A critical component is strong mentoring, which includes
on-the-job observations and coaching in the classroom as well as support
for teacher planning by expert veterans. Although requirements for beginning teacher induction have
proliferated, with more than 30 states now requiring some kind of
induction program, many are not funded and do not provide the kind of
mentoring and coaching that are needed. We do not believe that the locus
of primary responsibility should be shifted away from school districts
and states, but we do see an important support fold the federal
government can play. The federal government
should provide matching grants to states to ensure that every beginning
teacher receives high-quality coaching from an expert mentor in his or
her teaching fields. 5.
Fund research on teacher education, particularly features that
have promise for preparing teachers for diverse and historically
underserved learners. Strengthening teacher professional development
should be guided by sound research. Research on teacher education has
never been well funded in the U.S. Between 1965 and 1995, there were two
federally funded national centers for research on teacher education
(first in Texas, then in Michigan), and private foundations have
supported a few large-scale studies, as well. But because of limited
funding, most teacher education research consists of small-scale,
short-term studies, a situation that has led to a highly fragmented
research base about the preparation of teachers (Cochran-Smith &
Zeichner, 2005). Many significant problems could be fruitfully addressed
through large-scale, long-term programs of research that connect
specific aspects of teacher education or program configurations with not
only improved classroom teaching, but also improved student learning.
For example, while case studies of cross-cultural community-based
learning, although not part of most teacher education programs,
demonstrate tremendous potential for preparing teachers to work in
communities that are culturally different from their own, impacts of
cross-cultural community-based learning have not been systematically
studied across sites and programs. There are programs that recruit and
prepare teachers of color who live in the communities in which they will
teach, but fairly little research following up on such programs or
exploring their implications for teacher education at large. We are
concerned that in the absence of significant funding, decisions about
improvement of teacher professional development will rest on opinion,
politics, and inadequate knowledge. The federal government
should launch a major line of research to evaluate and document the
effects of teacher education approaches, programs, and pathways on
teacher practices, retention, and effectiveness, to guide significant
investments in the quality of preparation and professional development. The
N.E.T. Committee on Teacher Preparation and Assessment Chair: Members: Signatories Name
Address |