Have you seen the JTE Insider blog managed by the Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) editorial team? Check out the following interview with the author of a recent article. This blog is available to the public, and AACTE members have free access to the articles themselves in the full JTE archives online—just log in with your AACTE profile here.
This interview features insights from the article "Predictive Validity and Impact of CAEP Standard 3.2: Results From One Master’s-Level Teacher Preparation Program," written by Carla Evans of the University of New Hampshire. The article, which appears in the September/October issue of JTE, is summarized in the following abstract:
Have you read the September/October 2017 issue of the Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) yet? It is now available online and hitting desks around the country. See what Volume 68 Number 4 has to offer!
- In this month’s editorial, “How Teacher Education Can Elevate Teacher Quality: Evidence From Research,” members of the JTE editorial team at Michigan State University highlight the issue’s four articles. Robert E. Floden, Gail Richmond, Corey Drake, and Emery Petchauer note the papers’ findings and the significance of their topics to various stakeholders in teacher preparation.
A new report released this week by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) calls for stronger admissions standards for teacher preparation programs. Casting blame for “a low bar for entry” on states, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), and individual programs, NCTQ claims that raising admissions requirements (such as minimum GPA and ACT or SAT scores) would increase not only the quality but also the number of candidates entering the profession.
At the recent National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Legislative Summit, the organization’s International Education Study Group released the report No Time to Lose: How to Build a World-Class Education System State by State. This report culminates a 2-year study by a bipartisan group of state legislators and legislative staff examining the highest performing countries on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to discover common themes across their policies and practices.
Editor’s note: This is the last blog in our series exploring data on program entry and exit requirements from the 2014 federal collection mandated by Title II of the Higher Education Act. The data include 1,497 providers of “traditional” programs based in institutions of higher education (IHEs), 472 providers of IHE-based alternative programs, and 201 providers of non-IHE-based alternative programs.
Despite the questionable validity of using students’ grade-point averages (GPAs) to predict their future success on the job as classroom teachers, GPA is one of the most common requirements for admission to and graduation from many colleges and professional schools.
Last month, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race in admissions in its Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin decision. In our contemporary policy context of expanded civil rights—and their accompanying backlash—this ruling prompts reflection on the fundamental value of cultivating a diverse community, especially in educational settings, that includes but also extends beyond race.
Why is it important to give college students the opportunity to learn with peers from both similar and different backgrounds? For all students, having at least a “critical mass” of peers with shared characteristics boosts self-efficacy and academic success. Meanwhile, being situated in a heterogeneous learning community, particularly one that supports interaction both within and across groups, builds students’ interdependence, empathy, and fluency with “otherness.”
At its biannual meeting this month, the Board of Directors of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) adopted language to clarify and refine the academic achievement component required in Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity. Other board action included approving revisions to the CAEP Standards for Advanced Programs, bylaw updates, budgetary work, and other business.
For Standard 3, Component 2—which addresses candidates’ academic achievement—the following actions were approved, according to a statement from the CAEP board:
Editor’s note: This is the second of six blog articles exploring data on program entry and exit requirements from the latest available (2014) federal collection mandated by Title II of the Higher Education Act. The data include 1,497 providers of “traditional” programs based in institutions of higher education (IHEs), 472 providers of IHE-based alternative programs, and 201 providers of non-IHE-based alternative programs.
This is the second of six blog articles that explore federal data on educator preparation program entry and exit requirements. Taking a different angle from the last blog, this article looks at admissions requirements by frequency to identify which ones are most common.
The annual Title II collection asks providers about 15 common admission requirements, including the applicant’s subject area, transcript, overall grade-point average (GPA), content GPA, professional GPA, credits, scores on ACT/SAT/basic-skills tests, essays, interviews, recommendations, fingerprint and background checks, and “other.”
Editor’s note: As AACTE moves from collecting information through the Professional Education Data System (PEDS) to tapping other nationally available data sources on educator preparation, we will be providing periodic data snapshots from these sources. The following article presents data from the latest available (2014) federal collection mandated by Title II of the Higher Education Act, which includes 1,497 providers of “traditional” programs based in institutions of higher education (IHEs), 472 providers of IHE-based alternative programs, and 201 providers of non-IHE-based alternative programs.
This is the first of six blog articles that will explore the Title II data on educator preparation program admission and completion requirements. Teacher quality is an ongoing concern, and the field of teacher preparation plays an important role as the profession’s entry point. Contrary to some beliefs that preparation programs have few or no requirements for entry and exit, the data show that most providers have many and varied criteria for prospective educators at the beginning and end of their preparation programs. This blog series aims to help affirm the common criteria and explore others that are not as well-known.
Sometimes the story is as good as the headlines, and sometimes it’s even better. The New York Times op-ed “Teachers Aren’t Dumb” (Sept. 8) by Psychologist Daniel T. Willingham is a case in point. As Willingham notes, contrary to popular belief, new teachers are solid academic performers. And as his article asserts, they can benefit from the research on effective teaching that is being conducted in the schools of education that prepare them. Willingham also points out—with rhetorical hyberbole—that not all preparation programs are using the latest research. While program quality varies, the excellent preparation provided by the universities whose researchers he cites illustrates that teacher education has strong exemplars. Unfortunately, Willingham does not acknowledge the widespread change within the education preparation community.
The direction of today’s preparation programs is truly good news. Willingham accurately identifies two guiding principles for improving teacher preparation and program accountability: evaluate programs based on graduates’ performance on a rigorous, credible culminating assessment, and base that assessment (and programs’ content) on evidence of what works best for student learning.