Eric.ed.gov – 2014 Teacher Prep Review: A Review of the Nation’s Teacher Preparation Programs. Revised

Ever so slowly, the United States is taking a harder look at how its teacher preparation schools are improving the quality of the teachers they produce. The signs are everywhere–from proposed federal action to state legislatures and school boards passing new oversight laws and regulations, to a newly marshaled push for stronger accreditation by the institutions themselves. The country is finally waking up to the critical importance of improving teacher preparation quality to produce more classroom-ready teachers. But as “NCTQ Teacher Prep Review 2014” shows, far more needs to be done to expand the pool of teachers properly prepared to meet the challenges of the contemporary American classroom. Still, an upsurge in quality has begun. It is good news indeed to be able to report some movement, however spotty, given the many attempts to improve teacher preparation that never even got off the ground. Among the key findings are: (1) Of the 1,668 programs (housed in 836 institutions) ranked in the “Review,” only 26 elementary programs and 81 secondary programs make NCTQ’s lists of Top Ranked programs; (2) Elementary programs continue to be far weaker than their secondary counterparts, with 1.7 times as many elementary programs as secondary programs found to be failing; (3) The field also maintains a scattershot approach to mathematics preparation: 23 states cannot boast a single program that provides solid math preparation resembling the practices of high-performing nations; (4) District superintendents tell us that elementary teachers simply do not know the core subjects of the elementary curriculum; (5) Three out of four programs fail even to insist that applicants be in the top half of the college-going population, a modest academic standard; (6) 17 institutions had “both” an elementary and a secondary program on the lists of Top Ranked programs: Arizona State University, CUNY-Hunter College (NY), Dallas Baptist University (TX), Eastern Connecticut State University, Fort Hays State University (KS), Gordon College (MA), Lipscomb University (TN), Miami University of Ohio, Montclair State University (NJ), Northwest Nazarene University (ID), Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Ohio State University, Southeastern Louisiana University, the University of Arkansas at Monticello, the University of Houston (TX), the University of Montana and Western Governors University (UT); and (7) The most promising sign of progress is in the training teacher candidates receive in how to manage classrooms–an area that new teachers perennially describe as their most difficult challenge. Of the institutions that submitted new materials and asked to be rescored for this edition, 15 percent made important improvements to the guidance they give to their student teachers about how to set rules, how to minimize classroom disruption, and how to apply consequences to misbehavior fairly and effectively. [Listed appendices are not included in this report: (1) Rankings for all programs in “NCTQ Teacher Prep Review 2014”; (2) Methodology; (3) Background and Methodology for Alternative Certification Pilot; and (4) Next steps for aspiring teachers. For the June 2014 edition, see ED545343.]