does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of the former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, in his first Annual Report on Teacher Quality [U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), 2002]. On the basis of his review of available “scientifically rigorous” evidence (from Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999; and Walsh, 2001), the Secretary stated that neither attendance at traditional schools of education nor teacher certification improved student achievement. Likewise with respect to ARC programs, the Secretary stated that “further research is required to provide evidence of their effectiveness” (p. 21). With respect to the production of qualified teachers, he concluded that the “best available research shows that solid verbal ability and content knowledge are what matters most” (p. 9). With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, the topic of teacher quality has been spotlighted. The former Secretary of Education’s perspective on what matters most is represented in NCLB’s definition of a “highly qualified teacher” (HQT). It focuses “on preparation in content knowledge, as opposed to components such as pedagogy or teaching practicums” (USDOE, 2002, p. 6). Accordingly, the emphases on improving teacher qualifications in NCLB have been on promoting academic preparation in each subject matter taught and professional development for practicing teachers that emphasizes subject matter (see also USDOE, 2003; USDOE, 2004; White House, 2002). Thus, the current USDOE position on teacher preparation emphasizes subject matter and deemphasizes training in pedagogy and supervised teaching. This represents a major policy issue regarding the design of both traditional and ARC programs in producing the certified teachers required by states to fill positions in public schools. This issue brings pressure on teacher preparation programs to reconsider the amount of preparation in subject matters versus pedagogy and supervised teaching to include in program design, and to produce objective evidence of program effectiveness. Yet, conclusions about the ineffectiveness of teacher preparation and certification have likewise been challenged (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002), and empirical research has demonstrated that the amount of preparation actually produces more qualified teachers. For example, two studies of special education teachers (SETs) in several school districts (Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005; Sindelar et al., 2004) compared the effectiveness of various types of teacher preparation (various traditional and ARC programs), in terms of instruction and classroom management, by observation of classroom teaching and by teacher self-reports of preparedness to teach. Similarly, two studies of general education teachers (GETs) in a large school 2
district (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Imbimbo & Silvernail, 1999) examined the effects of more extensively prepared teachers from traditional programs with unprepared teachers on the degree to which they reported being well prepared to enter the classroom in terms of teaching subject matter, developing curriculum, and handling classroom management. These studies have generally shown that extensive teacher preparation produced more positive outcomes than little or no preparation. Subsequent to his earlier statements about the ineffectiveness of teacher preparation (USDOE, 2003), the former Secretary of Education moderated his position in his Second Annual Report on Teacher Quality (USDOE, 2003), and offered the caveat that his Annual Reports did not “contend that attributes like training in pedagogy or time spent in field practice teaching are not valuable” (p. 3). Rather, he stated that the evidence on these aspects of teacher qualifications is weak, and recognized a need for continued research on teacher quality. Indeed, more research is needed about the teacher qualification outcomes of various amounts of preparation in pedagogy and supervised teaching. If such preparation is important, the amount of preparation should be related to better outcomes regardless of preparation route (i.e., traditional or ARC). If, on the other hand, the amount of instruction in pedagogy and supervised teaching is not important, the amount of preparation should not be related to better outcomes. Further study of teacher preparation effects on a wide range of outcomes is vital to understanding the full value of investments in different types of preparation in special education and general education. The narrow focus of USDE on student achievement, though fundamental, diverts attention from other outcomes of importance. Accordingly, the purpose of this research was to investigate a wide range of outcomes for beginning teachers in relation to amount of teacher preparation—extensive, some, and no preparation. Specifically, we used the most recent national data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) to perform analyses on large national probability samples of SETs and GETs in their first five years of employment as public school teachers. One analysis quantified the numbers of these beginning teachers produced by each of the three types of teacher preparation, and three analyses examined the effects of teacher preparation on teacher qualification variables, job placement variables, and dimensions of how well beginning teachers were prepared for their assignments. Two of the qualification variables (subject matter knowledge and full certification) are central to defining HQTs under NCLB. This broader 3
Page 1 and 2: DOES TEACHER PREPARATION MATTER FOR
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Page Introduction ........
Page 5: INTRODUCTION There are two routes t
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 and 26: • Three teacher qualification var
Page 27 and 28: majors). Insofar as being prepared
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?