NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel Initiates a Mainstream Move to More Clinically
Based Preparation of Teachers
January 5, 2010
Contact: Marsha Levine, Jane Leibbrand (202) 466-7496
Washington, D.C. - The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) today announced the formation of an expert panel on
clinical preparation and partnerships, signaling the beginning of a sea
change in the preparation of the nation's teachers. The work of the Panel,
called the NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation, Partnerships
and Improved Student
Learning<http://www.ncate.org/public/010410_BRP1.asp>, will culminate in
recommendations for restructuring the preparation of teachers to reflect
teaching as a practice-based profession akin to medicine, nursing, or
clinical psychology. Practice-based professions require not only a solid
academic base, but strong clinical components, a supported induction
experience, and ongoing opportunities for learning. This redesign is
intended to bring educator preparation into better alignment with the
urgent needs of P-12 schools. Such changes in the way teachers and other
P-12 educators are prepared potentially have far-ranging effects on the
structure of schools of education.
Me here. Instead of creating a panel to investigate if the sea really has changed, NCATE accepts the change a priori. It pegs itself to whatever the administration has already decided. The independence of the organization ceases to exist, at least in terms of professors and educators of practice coming to their own conclusions about the state of schooling. Granted, a size-able organization (over 650 members!) needs an articulated management system. However, managing need not be iron-on application of central office. I am, it seems, so naive.
Dr Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor, State University of New York System, and Dr.
Dwight Jones, Commissioner of Education, Colorado, will co-chair the
panel. Other panel members include experts in education research, policy,
teaching and learning and leaders in higher education and P-12 schools at
the state and local level. The panel will establish a set of guiding
principles for the clinical preparation of teachers so that preparation
focuses more on building the expertise necessary for effective practice as
professionals. This includes the development of candidates' ability to
understand and relate to their students and their needs, development of
practical and evidence-based pedagogical skills, and the use of research
evidence and judgment in practice.
Me here. The outcomes are standard fare, but notice the implication. Teachers today do not understand their what their students need, nor can they relate to these kids. They do not teach according to any standards of evidence (they wing it, I suppose) or pedagogical thinking. And they lack judgment; well, good judgment, a skill based on theory and exemplars. Right. Now, some - many - might fit this portrait. Lord knows who they'll let into the profession. This, of course, from an organization made from schools who have been spending the previous four decades educating teachers to be exactly who they are. If these schools have done such a terrible job, should their membership of accreditation to NCATE be revoked? Would it not make better sense to assume that member schools in NCATE have previously been educating teachers exactly the way they here describe teachers to be educated? If so, then there is no sea change, since all these member programs have already instituted just these practices. Who then are the guilty programs? Cynical me: the administration as ventriloquist.
Teaching has become a vastly different job requiring a different set of
skills than it did 50 years ago. Greater diversity among students and the
tailored instruction that many of them need, make the clinical aspects of
teacher preparation ever more important. Minority students are now the
majority in some states. Students with special needs are mainstreamed as a
result of disabilities law. English language learners from various
countries are studying in classrooms across the nation, as well as
students with individual learning plans (IEPs) who need individual help.
In addition, some students are highly motivated while others dislike
school, are disengaged, and are at risk of failure. Teachers are faced
with more challenges than ever before in the history of the United States,
and they are now being held accountable in ways that their predecessors
were not.
Maybe. But is this evidence for changing practices, or evidence gathered because they have decided to change practice? These factors are descriptions, honest and profound that they are. Descriptions are not in themselves meaningful. The dispositive statement "Teachers are faced with more challenges than ever before in the history of the United States,and they are now being held accountable in ways that their predecessorswere not." is a political judgment, not fact. If anything in this press release reveals some underlying motivation, look at this here statement. It is the political process that has decided to take the shallow route in school critique: the teachers are the loci of needed reform. Politicians do not have time to develop sophisticated programs for urban renewal, tackling the economic, social/cultural and normative processes upon which a functioning polity operates. Instead, cite blame, and develop expedient reforms from there. Does NCATE really believe all this? And by NCATE, I mean the faculty and staff at all those member schools (over 650!).
Significantly enhanced clinical preparation may mean, for example, more
extensive use of simulations, case studies, analyses of teaching and other
approximations of teaching, as well as sustained, intense, mentored
school-embedded experiences. Enhanced clinical preparation should give
aspiring teachers the opportunity to integrate theory with practice;
develop and test classroom management and pedagogical skills; hone their
use of evidence in making professional decisions about practice; and
understand and integrate the standards of their professional community.
These clinical settings also provide the opportunity for evaluating not
only what candidates know, but importantly, what they are able to do.
Finally, the professional preparation of teachers cannot be achieved by
preparation programs acting alone. Intensive clinical preparation,
especially when it is school-embedded, requires the collaboration of all
the stakeholders represented on the Blue Ribbon Panel. The group will
issue a report of its findings and recommendations when its work is
completed, most likely near the end of 2010.
Some schools of education have already developed rich partnerships with
districts aimed at boosting P-12 achievement, especially in low-performing
schools. NCATE featured a few examples of these schools of education at a
June press briefing announcing a redesign of accreditation to help schools
of education<http://www.ncate.org/public/062309_TeacherEdRequirements.asp>
move to a target level of excellence on accreditation standards, and to
encourage institutions to create Transformation Initiatives which focus on
P-12 learning needs and improve the evidentiary base of the profession.
The Panel will examine characteristics and elements of clinical
preparation in exemplary programs, will review the research, and will make
recommendations as to how those characteristics and elements can be
supported in policy and through funding formulas at every level -- school,
district, state and federal. The aim is to move from islands of innovation
which are driving student achievement in certain schools or districts to a
culture in which excellence is the norm.
Me again. To translate: as bad as things are, we will find those programs that have figured out success, copy it, disseminate it and hold all you accountable to follow it. Because, well, who does not want to be excellent? Amazingly, we will find many of the programs in our organization the very programs that have figured out how to succeed. And by complete chance, the panel is made up of faculty from these very programs.
OK; that last point was unfair. What if the panel was empowered to review the field and decide for itself whether the problem really is teacher education? Granted, such findings would be dismissed as a confirmation bias. Where, then, will the commission find out what works? And, using the standards of quality in research, how will they determine that what works (in the place they find it) does work (in places with diverse conditions)? Is this something of a show?
In a follow-up phase, the Blue Ribbon Panel will form a working group to
guide changes in NCATE standards and accreditation processes to support
more clinically-based educator preparation and working partnerships
between preparation programs and P-12 schools. NCATE will pilot proposed
changes at sites currently supported by teacher quality grants located in
Race to the Top states. A second phase of the work will be guiding the
process through NCATE policy boards to implement changes in NCATE
accreditation standards to help support the Panel's recommendations and
vision.
Me here. Sad; NCATE admits collusion. What is to be is what is. At least now the politics can be seen in clear light.
Dr. James Cibulka, president of NCATE, said, "The Panel is jointly chaired
by leaders from higher education and the states. States, districts, and
colleges and universities must work in close collaboration and in new ways
to meet urgent P-12 learning needs."
Me here. To translate: whatever the Dept. of Ed says, we can say it louder, just as long as they say it first.
Cibulka commented on the Panel's
influence on accreditation: "The Panel's work will inform future changes
to the NCATE standards and process to support a focus on P-12 student
learning to maximum advantage, and to ensure the standards and process
truly measure quality in appropriate ways. Revised accreditation standards
will help establish new norms in educator preparation," Cibulka continued.
Dr. Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor of the State University of New York System
and co-chair of the panel, said, "I am confident that this panel will help
create new synergies at the local level, through collaborative
partnerships between school districts, states, and higher education
working to assess local needs. The operative phrase is 'joint work,' which
will entail new expectations and roles for all stakeholders."
Dr. Dwight Jones, Commissioner of Education, Colorado, and panel co-chair,
said, "NCATE has taken a bold step in creating this Panel, representative
of all stakeholders, to help move forward changes in educator preparation
which will better meet P-12 urgent needs. Raising P-12 student achievement
in America is an imperative; using our combined resources in new ways to
focus on urgent P-12 needs will help reach that goal. I see this Panel as
a major step forward in restructuring educator preparation throughout the
nation."
Me here. I guess quotes add a bit of humanity. The boundary between corporate speak and educational dialogue crests caverns. In comparison terms, will NCATE become the teachers' AMA? For homework, go interview your family doctor. Ask her how she feels about the government dictating her practices in just the way that Duncan seems to be dictating to NCATE.
To sum, I agree with all the language used here to describe quality teacher education programs. In fact, I would like to see all teachers be required to undergo a med-school approach to pre-service teaching: multiple years in graduate schooling; several years apprenticing to different practitioners in schools, like rotations; slow entry into the profession at first, with heavy mentoring and collaboration from experienced teachers; different lengths of internships, depending on the area of teaching, the age level and the community. I just do not see that NCATE, via the Duncan-Obama plan, envisions such a model. Rather, it will help establish hegemonic policies that punish, retard innovation, sap motivation and hand the task of teaching more progressively into the hands of technocratic script readers.
