5 August, 2008

Colleagues,

I wrote last month asking that you contact the State Board on several issues. I am asking that you now seriously consider taking three actions to strongly express our concern over the proposal to remove standards and accreditation from the program approval process..

I. Write, call or visit the State Board Member in your area, and draw to their attention the problems with the proposed changes to the program approval process. To assist you with this I have included a link to the membership, a draft letter to send, and a summary of talking points if you make personal contact. I have also included a summary of relevant research prepared by Linda Darling Hammond.

http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/bd_members.html

II. Write to the Executive Director, Dr. Gary Nixon, and Dr. David Sevier, expressing your concerns with the changes.

Dr. Gary Nixon
Executive Director
State Board of Education
710 James Robertson Parkway, 9th Floor
Nashville, TN, 37243-1050

III. Plan to attend the meeting of the State Board on August 22. The work session begins at 10am and the actual meeting at 1:00pm, and is held at the address above. The more people who attend both sessions of this meeting the stronger message we will be sending to the Board. Please let me know if you plan to attend

Later this week I will be contacting some of you directly and ask you to contact Board members from your area.

Trevor Hutchins
TACTE President

Draft Letter

History, contemporary research, and common sense all support the view that students learn best in schools staffed by high quality, fully-prepared teachers. In an era increasingly characterized by test-based accountability for student performance and school success, all of us want to know that our public schools are staffed and equipped to assure student success and school improvement. Surely no one will question the premise that “better teachers equal better schools.” Tennessee’s economic survival and civic and cultural vitality depend on it.

Contemporary public education accountability goals are undermined presently by at least three major trends. First, the growing shortage of licensed teachers, particularly in the sciences and in math, and in under-resourced urban and rural schools, taxes our ability to staff every classroom in every Tennessee school with fully qualified teachers. Secondly, the current downturn in the national and state economy, coupled with sky-rocketing fuel and energy costs, taxes school boards and other local governments in providing the essential budgetary support our schools need to meet annual and long-term accountability objectives. Sadly, a third, mostly-under-the-radar trend further complicates the ability of Tennessee public schools to succeed.

The third troublesome trend? Actions by the Tennessee Board of Education in recent months, apparently either initiated or “encouraged” by the governor, undermine the ability of public schools to be assured an adequate supply of fully-prepared new teachers is available to them each school year. Two recent board-initiated policy changes, the “Fellowship License” (April, 2008) and the “Standards and Approval Process for Teacher Training Program Applicant” (sic) (June, 2008) substantially undermine quality teacher education and public education. Worse still, the process which has led to the development of these new policies (and several other recent board-driven policy initiatives) has effectively excluded the Tennessee members of the professional teacher education community and the Tennessee Education Agency from significant participation in the policy development process.

Research supports the view that college- and university-based teacher education programs prepare the best new teachers, and those who are most likely to remain in the profession over time. Fully funded and adequately staffed, nationally accredited, higher education-based teacher preparation programs produce the kinds of teachers Tennessee schools and communities need. On the other hand, teachers prepared by alternate routes, particularly the growing number today who are labeled “highly qualified” with no teacher preparation whatsoever, are most likely to (a) produce less-than-adequate student performance, (b) teach in Tennessee’s highest-need schools, and (c) leave the profession quickly.

The Tennessee Association of Colleges for Teacher Education strongly recommends defeat of the “Standards and Approval Process for Teacher Training Program Applicant” (sic) (June, 2008) proposal. We support high standards for all teacher preparation, which is why we undergo the rigorous professional review process required for accreditation by NCATE. Further, we note that the state requires us to maintain this accreditation (or state approval based on NCATE standards). Why the government of Tennessee would require the meeting of rigorous high standards for some teacher preparation programs and allow others to spring up with NO requirement to meet ANY meaningful standards is most puzzling.

TACTE supports high standards for all teacher preparation programs. If this proposal moves forward, it should incorporate review and approval based upon NCATE standards for any program considered for the preparation of teachers for the state of Tennessee. Policies that encourage short cuts in teacher preparation and ignore adherence to well-established state and national professional standards should not be approved by the Tennessee Board of Education. Board members are also encouraged to re-establish a policy approval process that keeps teacher education professionals at the table.

Talking Points
Traditionally prepared teachers, compared to those who enter thru short-cut alternative certification programs, are far more likely to stay in teaching and improve student achievement.

When alternative certification recruits produce comparable student achievement gains – it is usually after year 3, and by that time they had earned a master’s degree in education. However, most of the alternative certification recruits have already left teaching – leaving their students to face a revolving door of under-prepared, inexperienced teachers and their school districts the high cost of continuing to replace the stream of exiting of teachers.

A recent survey of new teachers revealed that those who were traditionally prepared, compared to those who entered thru Teach for America and the New Teacher Project (abbreviated training), reported that they were better prepared (especially in terms of managing classrooms, personalizing instruction, and working with special needs students. The differences were huge. Only 14 percent of the TFA/NTP and 6 percent of the traditionally-prepared recruits reported that “relying more heavily on alternative certification” was a very effective strategy for improving teacher quality.

The demands for 21st century learning require deeper preparation and support for teachers not less. While researchers reveal that lots of variation exists within both traditional and alternative programs, there is NO evidence to support that teachers should have less training before they begin to teach.

The Urban Teacher Residency model —which captures the best preparation found in university-based programs (e.g., Bank Street, Stanford, Alverno, UCLA, UT-Knoxville) and the best recruitment found in alternative certification programs (e.g. TFA) — offers a 3rd way to think about preparing teachers for the 21st century.
Relevant Research




High Quality Teachers
Research Documentation
July 2008

Teacher Characteristics

Teachers that make a difference in their students’ learning, according to research on teacher ratings and student achievement gains, have the following characteristics:

· strong general intelligence and verbal ability that help teachers organize and explain ideas as well as observe and think diagnostically;
· strong content knowledge up to a threshold level that relates to what is to be taught;
· knowledge of how to teach others in their content area (content pedagogy)—in using hands-on learning techniques and in developing higher-order thinking skills;
· an understanding of learners and their development, including how to assess and scaffold learning, how to assist students with learning differences, and how to support the learning of language and content for those not yet proficient in the language of instruction; and
· adaptive expertise that allows teachers to make judgments about what will likely work in a given context in response to students’ needs.[i]

Typical Teacher Qualifications

Teaching candidates typically must earn a minimum grade point average and/or achieve a minimum test score on tests of basic skills, general academic ability, or general knowledge in order to be admitted to teacher education or gain a credential. Generally, they must also secure a major or minor in the subject(s) to be taught and/or pass a subject matter test, take specified courses in education and, sometimes, pass a test of teaching knowledge and skill. In the course of preparation and student teaching, candidates are typically judged on their teaching skill, professional conduct, and the appropriateness of their interactions with children.

Links between Teacher Qualifications and Student Achievement

The preponderance of research evidence finds significant links between teacher education and licensure measures (including education coursework, credential status and scores on licensure tests) and their students’ achievement. These relationships have been found at the level of the individual teacher, [ii] the school,[iii] the school district,[iv] and the state.[v]

A Department of Education-commissioned review of fifty-seven rigorous studies found positive relationships between teacher education and teacher effectiveness.[vi] Empirical relationships between teacher qualifications and student achievement were found across studies using different units of analysis and different measures of preparation and in studies controlling for students’ socioeconomic status and prior academic performance. The effects of teachers’ certification on student achievement have been found to exceed those of a content major in the field, suggesting that what licensed teachers learn in the pedagogical portion of their training adds to what they gain from a strong subject matter background. [vii]


American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
1307 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 / 202.293.2450 / www.aacte.org
Alternative Route vs. Traditional Licensure

“Alternative certification” typically refers to a non-traditional program of teacher preparation—usually a non-course-based, shorter, and sometimes totally online experience that often includes verification of content knowledge by exam and a brief summer training program. The safeguards provided by state licensure requirements are typically altered or waived. Both alternative and traditional teacher preparation programs vary considerably from one to another. However, the preponderance of research evidence suggests the greater effectiveness of traditional preparation on multiple counts:

Teachers’ Students’ Learning Gains

+ Three recent, large, well-controlled studies, using longitudinal, individual-level student data from New York City and Houston, found that teachers who enter teaching without full preparation—as emergency hires or alternative route candidates—are less effective than fully-prepared beginning teachers with similar students. [viii]

+ In a study of multiple teacher qualifications in a large-scale North Carolina study of learning gains of high school students, the estimated combined effects of the formal qualifications measured revealed that teachers were more effective if they had: held a standard license (compared to those entering without completing training), a license in the specific field taught, higher licensing exam scores, taught for more than two years, graduated from a more competitive college, and completed National Board certification. Each of these variables was statistically significant.[ix]

+ A study of New York City Teaching Fellows on the effect of teacher qualifications on student achievement shows the effects of a teacher’s initial path into teaching on 4th and 5th graders’ math grades. The impact of being “college recommended” (i.e., a product of a collegiate preparation program) was statistically significant, whereas no significant effect was found on the part of the NYC Teaching Fellows or Teach for America (TFA) teachers on the students’ increased achievement in math. [x]

Teachers’ Sense of Preparedness

+ A survey by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality compares responses of new teachers from three alternative programs (Teach for America, New Teacher Project, and Troops for Teachers) with those of new traditionally prepared teachers also teaching in high-needs schools. Only 50% of the alternate route teachers said they were prepared for their first year of teaching, compared with 80% of the traditionally prepared teachers.[xi]

+ Over half (54%) of the alternative teachers in the above survey said they had too little time working with an actual public school teacher in a classroom environment, compared with only 20% of the traditionally prepared teachers. Whereas 94% of traditionally trained teachers in the above survey expressed confidence that their students are learning and responding to their teaching, only 74% of alternative route teachers so responded.[xii]

Teacher Retention

+ Research shows that traditionally prepared candidates stay in teaching longer than those who are alternatively prepared. Two New York longitudinal studies found that NY Teaching Fellows left at rates just over 50% by year 4, at which point 80% of TFA recruits, but only 37% of college-recommended teachers, had left teaching[xiii]. An average of 80% of TFA teachers left their jobs in Houston, Texas after two years; the Chicago Public Schools, which hires about 100 TFA teachers each year, found that fewer than half remained in teaching for a third year. [xiv] These figures compare negatively with the already high average attrition rates of teachers in high-needs schools of one-third after three years and one-half after five years.

Endnotes

[i] Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[ii] Goldhaber, D.D. & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.
Hawk, P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It does matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 13-15.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 237-274.

[iii] Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9). Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html.
Fuller, E. (1998). Do properly certified teachers matter? A comparison of elementary school performance on the TAAS in 1997 between schools with high and low percentages of properly certified regular education teachers. Austin: The Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin.
Fuller, E. (2000, February). Do properly certified teachers matter? Properly certified algebra teachers and Algebra I achievement in Texas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Goe, L. (2002, April). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42). Retrieved November 8, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n42.

[iv] Ferguson, R.F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465-498.
Strauss, R. P. & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5(1), 41-48.

[v] Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28-56.

[vi] Wilson, S., Floden, R., & J. Ferrini-Mundy. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

[vii] Goldhaber, D.D. & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145

[viii] Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176-216
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S.J., & Heilig, J.V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for america, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved July 23, 2008, http://epaa.asu.edu/epa//v13n42/.
Kane, T.E., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D.O. (2006, March). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. (Working Paper 11844). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

[ix] Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2007, November). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. (Working Paper 13617). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

[x] Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J. & Wyckoff, J. (2008, May). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. (Working Paper 14021). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

[xi] Immerwahr, J., Doble, J., Johnson, J., Rochkind, J., & Ott, A. (2007, December). Lessons learned: New teachers talk about their jobs, challenges and long-range plans. Washington, DC : National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda. Retrieved July 23, 2008, https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/5573/lessons_learned_2.pdf?sequence=1.

[xii] Ibid.


[xiii] Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176-216;
Kane, T.E., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D.O. (2006, March). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. (Working Paper 11844). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

[xiv] Glass, Gene. (2008, May). Alternative certification of teachers. Arizona State University: Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice. Retrieved July 23, 2008, http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Glass_AlternativeCert.pdf.