Summer 2003
|
|
Summer 2003 |
 |
 By
Richard EkmanAn important juncture was reached on June 10 for all those who care about the quality of America’s K-12 teachers, when the U.S. Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) unanimously approved the petition by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council for formal recognition as an accreditor of teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities. (See TEAC story.) Long-serving CIC presidents and CAOs will recall that in the mid-1990s the dissatisfaction with the existing mechanisms for obtaining approval for a college to offer a teacher preparation program became very widespread, and a number of CIC members determined to try to do something about the situation. Frank Murray, former dean of education at the University of Delaware, and former CIC president Allen Splete launched an effort to create an alternative approach to NCATE’s. Murray was able to interest several foundations in the idea of creating an approach to teacher education that shifted the basis of accreditation from the input-heavy and complicated requirements of NCATE, to evidence that the teacher education program’s graduates knew their subject matter and could actually teach. CIC members contributed to this pool of funds and TEAC set up a small office within CIC’s office suite in Washington. While TEAC was quickly recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, the Education Department’s recognition procedures focus on the very inputs TEAC was seeking to avoid in its accreditation system. Consequently the federal recognition process had to be carefully negotiated in a climate of opposition from NCATE and its members. At last, NACIQI has given its approval and the comments by committee members and staff during the hearing were extremely complimentary to Murray and to TEAC. We have been told that the Secretary of Education will formally accept NACIQI’s recommendation quickly, and TEAC will be accepted in states like New York, which require that accreditors be federally recognized. The natural affinity between CIC and TEAC has from the beginning rested on several key parallels. Many CIC colleges report that the new teachers they prepare are frequently the candidates most sought after by school districts in their regions. The ways in which small colleges prepare new teachers are generally regarded as highly successful. These attributes include, first, the fact that both CIC colleges and TEAC believe that new teachers should have a broad-based, general education in the liberal arts. Secondly, CIC colleges and TEAC both believe that mastery of subject matter is essential for a new teacher, and insist on completion of a rigorous major in a discipline of the arts and sciences. It’s worth noting that small colleges have played a critical role in training disproportionate numbers of scientists and science teachers, fields of urgent national need. As our recent analysis of the applicant pool for CIC’s Heuer Awards showed, CIC colleges have a great deal to contribute in this arena. TEAC’s approach raises the likelihood that more well-trained science teachers will enter America’s K-12 classrooms. CIC colleges are places where the teaching ethos is pervasive and where faculty members take their roles seriously as classroom teachers and mentors. Promotion and tenure decisions weigh teaching effectiveness heavily, and senior faculty, not graduate students, are in the front lines of teaching those who aspire to be K-12 teachers. In other words, small colleges and universities exemplify TEAC’s emphasis on continuous quality assurance. Faculty members are models, in their own professional conduct, of the values we hope all new K-12 teachers will cherish. Perhaps it is because small, private colleges are flexible and entrepreneurial—as well as resourceful and frugal—that they place more emphasis on the outcomes of teacher preparation programs than on procedures or inputs. Some 48 CIC members are already TEAC members, and dozens more will likely wish to join now that TEAC has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. It’s noteworthy that the 48 institutions include both bachelor’s and master’s level institutions, and a representative sampling of church-related colleges, historically black colleges, women’s colleges, urban and rural institutions, and universities that are in the vanguard nationally in their uses of technology, as well as those that are more traditional. This diversity suggests that TEAC’s approach can serve the needs of all colleges and universities. Indeed, at the NACIQI hearing on June 10, a strong endorsement of TEAC was provided by Peter McGrath, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Sandra Cohen of the University of Virginia described the contrasting experiences of going through the TEAC and NCATE accreditation processes during the same year. Abraham Lackman, president of the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities in New York, also spoke at the hearing of the importance of approving TEAC quickly so that the many private institutions in New York State can choose TEAC in time to comply with a new state law that requires a college to choose NCATE, TEAC, or a state board of regents process. I hope that other states will soon adopt similar legislation, and give to each college and university a choice among several means to gain approval for their teacher preparation programs. Earlier, statements of support for TEAC’s recognition by the Department of Education had been furnished by the Association of American Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. Of all the reasons for public dissatisfaction with K-12 education, it is the failure of so many new teachers to demonstrate mastery of the content that they are entrusted to teach that has been at the heart of most of the recent criticism. This sentiment has given rise to the “Ready to Teach” Act, recently approved by the House of Representatives. This piece of legislation is not perfect, but it is an important step in the right direction because it puts emphasis on the demonstrable results of teacher training and it focuses on the subject matter knowledge of new teachers. Congratulations are in order to Frank Murray and to all those at CIC member institutions who worked so hard to bring TEAC to this point. When the Secretary of Education gives final approval, CIC members will be notified. Independent |
