does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4. Beginning Teachers in General Education (1995-1999): Logistic Regression Models for Predicting Teacher Judgments of Being Well-Prepared vs. Not Well-Prepared Using Teacher Qualification Variables Odds Ratios a from Regression Models for Six Dependent Variables b : Teacher Judgments of Being Well-Prepared vs. Not Well-Prepared To Teacher Qualification Teach Select Plan Use Variety Handle Predictor Variables c Assigned Curricular Lessons Instruct. Assess Classroom Name Level Subj. Matter Materials Effectively Methods Students Mangmt. I. Bivariate Models Teacher Preparation Extensive 1.78 *** 2.47 *** 5.90 *** 3.24 *** 2.63 *** 2.39 *** Some 1.11 1.16 1.95 *** 1.19 *** 1.27 * 1.25 * None c II. Multivariate Models Teacher Preparation Extensive 1.70 *** 2.57 *** 4.82 *** 3.57 *** 2.63 *** 2.47 *** Some 1.12 1.19 1.79 *** 1.44 *** 1.28 * 1.24 * None c Certification Fully 1.19 ** 0.92 1.33 * 1.08 0.98 0.89 * Partly c Assignment In-Field 1.80 *** 1.12 * 1.31 * 1.04 1.13 * 0.95 Out-of-Field c Degree Major Special Education 0.75 1.32 1.09 1.17 1.20 1.14 General Education 0.77 *** 0.92 1.20 ** 1.02 0.96 1.07 Other c Note: Data from the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics, USDE. a Ratio of the chances (i.e., odds) of being well-prepared to the chances of being not well-prepared in each of six teaching capabilities. The level of statistical significance computed is indicated by asterisks: *p
majors). Insofar as being prepared to teach subject matter, this finding is consistent with the policy of many states to prohibit teachers from earning professional education degrees (NASDTEC, 2003). No such disadvantage in earning a professional education degree was observed for beginning SETs. • By contrast with SETs, extensive teacher preparation for GETs was predictive of being well prepared to handle classroom management. In all other respects for beginning GETs, the three teacher qualification variables (i.e., certification, in-field assignment, and degree major field) were not substantial (though some were statistically significant) predictors of being well prepared in any of the five pedagogical skills. Overall, the results of our multivariate analyses demonstrated that extensive teacher preparation in pedagogy and supervised teaching mattered a great deal in terms of reports by SETs of being well prepared in four pedagogical skills (five for GETs), while lesser amounts of preparation mattered little. With respect to being well prepared to teach subject matter, extensive teacher preparation mattered most for beginning SETs. CONCLUSION The results of this research are directly relevant to federal policy represented in the concept of a HQT in NCLB that focuses “on preparation in content knowledge, as opposed to components such as pedagogy or teaching practicums” (USDOE, 2002, p. 21). Under the mandate of NCLB, all teachers of core academic subjects must be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. The federal position and mandate presents a major policy issue for teacher preparation programs and state teacher certification systems in how to invest resources in teacher preparation to produce the largest quantity of qualified teachers. Should subject matter preparation become the dominant emphasis in teacher preparation and certification, and instruction in pedagogy and supervised teaching downgraded? While there is much disagreement in the field about the relative emphasis in teacher preparation to be placed on developing subject matter expertise versus pedagogy and supervised teaching, as well as disagreement about teacher preparation strategies (i.e., traditional vs. ARC) and the value of state systems of teacher certification/licensure, there is no disagreement about one central fact—namely, that all teachers should complete some form of preparation. As the outcome of this preparation, NCLB specifies that all teachers of core academic subjects must be 23
Page 1 and 2: DOES TEACHER PREPARATION MATTER FOR
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Page Introduction ........
Page 5 and 6: INTRODUCTION There are two routes t
Page 7 and 8: district (Darling-Hammond, Chung, &
Page 9 and 10: Teacher Sample. The 1999-2000 PSTQ
Page 11 and 12: 1. Certification in Main Teaching A
Page 13 and 14: We classified teachers as “well p
Page 15 and 16: ARC, none), thereby precluding anal
Page 17 and 18: tion had majored in general educati
Page 19 and 20: teachers (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff
Page 21 and 22: The corresponding findings for GETs
Page 23 and 24: The results of these analyses for b
Page 25: • Three teacher qualification var
Page 29 and 30: the contrary, many have advanced vi
Page 31 and 32: REFERENCES Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H
Page 33 and 34: Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certifica
Page 35: Appendix B Standard Errors of Perce

does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?