AACTE held its second Quality Support Workshop August 10-12 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, convening educator preparation professionals for a highly interactive, expert-facilitated event focused on quality assurance, assessment, accreditation, and more. More than 150 faculty, administrators, assessment and accreditation coordinators, and other educators engaged in the workshop, continuing the momentum established in the inaugural AACTE Quality Support Workshop in Texas last spring.
On March 4, AACTE convened representatives from organizations working with different stages of the educator pipeline to speak at the major forum “Acting as One to Support Educator Development.” The forum, one of six held during the 69th Annual Meeting, covered issues such as student recruitment, candidate support across the continuum of preparation through induction, the role of school-university partnerships, and ensuring novice teachers are prepared to engage their students in deeper learning. In the interest of collaborating as one across this continuum, panelists discussed how their roles intertwine by sharing their perspectives on the best way to achieve a national, cohesive effort supporting high-quality educator preparation.
The forum was moderated by Michael Dennehy, director of college access and completion at Boston University (MA). Panelists included Dan Brown of Educators Rising, Kimberly Tobey of the National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs (NACCTEP), and Linda Darling-Hammond and Maria Hyler of the Learning Policy Institute.
How can state policy makers, education agencies, and school officials work together more cohesively to address critical teacher pipeline issues? Leaders from three states discussed strategies and obstacles to this shared goal during a major forum, “Acting as Systems: A Pipeline Approach to Educator Preparation Policy,” held March 2 at AACTE’s 69th Annual Meeting in Tampa, Florida.
The forum, moderated by AACTE Senior Vice President Mark LaCelle-Peterson, featured discussions among the following policy leaders:
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.
Editor’s note: This is the fourth of six blogs 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.
In this article, we look at the frequency of various program completion requirements among three types of providers at the undergraduate and graduate levels. (See our recent blogs about the number and frequency of various entry criteria and the number of exit criteria used by these three categories of providers.)
Editor’s note: This is the third of six blogs 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.
Although critics sometimes claim that educator preparation programs have few or no requirements for admission and completion, federal Title II data say otherwise. In this article, we explore the number of exit requirements reported by different types of providers at the undergraduate and graduate levels. (See our recent blogs about the number and frequency of various entry requirements.)
As noted in the first blog of our series, the Title II survey provides 15 options for providers to indicate their entry and exit criteria:
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.
AACTE congratulates 2016 National Teacher of the Year Jahana Hayes, who teaches history at John F. Kennedy High School in Waterbury, Connecticut.
The Council of Chief State School Officers announced Hayes’ selection last week following a rigorous selection process. She will be honored Tuesday, along with the other three finalists and all of the state teachers of the year, by President Barack Obama in a ceremony at the White House.
Hayes, who has been in the classroom for more than 12 years, earned her bachelor’s degree in history and social science from Southern Connecticut State University and her master’s degree in curriculum and instruction from the University of Saint Joseph (CT).
A new study from the National Network of State Teachers of the Year (NNSTOY) introduces compelling research on the characteristics of teacher leaders and factors that challenge or support them. The report, Great to Influential: Teacher Leaders’ Roles in Supporting Instruction, follows up on the 2014 study From Good to Great: Exemplary Teachers Share Perspectives on Increasing Teacher Effectiveness Across the Career Continuum. In light of the new study’s findings, the report suggests strategies for school districts to capitalize on the assets presented by teacher leaders, ranging from providing broader career path options to increasing their interaction with preservice and novice educators.
AACTE’s 2016 Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, addressed the demands of professional practice and the tough questions that face educators on a variety of fronts. On February 24, the editors of the Journal of Teacher Education (JTE)chose to focus their major forum on “Equity, Access, and the Digital Divide: Challenges for Teacher Education,” bringing together panelists from around the country who are working to close opportunity gaps for young people relative to—and through—the use of technology.
After JTE Coeditor Gail Richmond of Michigan State University introduced the panelists, the discussion started with Hardin Coleman, dean and professor in the School of Education at Boston University (MA). He spoke about shared characteristics of gap-closing schools, accreditation standards, and the steps he sees as necessary to close the technological gap. Coleman suggested focusing on the role of educators in the gap-closing process, deep engagement with educational partners, and supporting the systems of data that will inform progress. He championed efforts to create education systems that will provide a high-quality learning experience for all children.
On January 12, the Council of Chief State School Officers announced the finalists for the 2016 National Teacher of the Year award. The finalists are state teachers of the year from Washington, Connecticut, California, and Oklahoma.
A new video in AACTE’s Research-to-Practice Spotlight Series focuses on a thriving partnership in Colorado from the perspectives of novice teachers prepared in a professional development school model. This blog highlights one teacher’s experience and offers insights from his assistant principal about the program’s success.
The forward-thinking partnership between Colorado State University (CSU) and the local Poudre School District employs a professional development school (PDS) model to prepare teachers who are ready to teach on Day 1. Their classroom is the classroom: Instead of taking their classes off site at the university, prospective teachers receive their lessons and then put them into practice in the same school building—with real kids and under the tutelage of a real teacher. While the program’s elements are fairly typical, its particular success comes from each course’s clinical component and support from a robust professional community.
AACTE’s Washington Week kicked off with diverse perspectives, enlightening anecdotes, and compelling conversations at the special conference “Progress and Factors That Contribute to Closing the STEM Achievement Gap,” sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Five presenters joined AACTE leaders on two panels discussing ways to improve learning outcomes of underrepresented populations in the STEM fields.
The conference began with presenters Armando Sanchez-Martinez, manager of Editorial Santillana in Mexico, and Vasanta Akondy, co-manager of the Verizon Innovative Learning Program (VILP), who together provided a global perspective on innovative solutions to increase access to STEM education in Mexico and India.
Sanchez-Martinez presented a comprehensive look into Mexico’s educational landscape, including a detailed explanation of sociocultural factors that contribute to local achievement gaps and of the current educational movements and solutions to closing the gap. Akondy highlighted the importance of VILP and its efforts to recruit more girls in India into the STEM fields. The aim of this program is to provide a community network of support while focusing on student engagement and providing technological resources to underfunded schools.
Earlier this month, we were excited and honored to attend the symposium “Closing the Gaps: A Policy and Practice Conversation to Advance an Opportunity Agenda,” presented by the National Education Association at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. It was a thought-provoking event, filled with great speakers and compelling strategies for closing gaps in student achievement and opportunity.
Panelists included Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford University), Robert Balfanz (Johns Hopkins University), Kisha Davis-Caldwell (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards), Ron Ferguson (Harvard University), and many others. These speakers discussed gap-closing strategies, policy levers to support effective practices, and directions the education field will (and should) take in the future. They also consistently emphasized the importance of community engagement.