NCTQ Report Misleading and Inaccurate

There has been increasing scrutiny of teacher education programs across the country.  My colleagues and I at the Feinstein School of Education and Human Development (FSEHD) at Rhode Island College welcome feedback that leads to improvement of our programs.  Toward that end, we participate in rigorous state (RIDE) and national (NCATE—soon to be CAEP, or Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation) accreditation processes.   

Recently, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released a report excoriating schools of education throughout the country. The FSEHD was scored on only two out of 15+ teacher education undergraduate and graduate programs, with the assessments based on erroneous and limited data.  As such, we find the NCTQ Report’s broad generalizations and inaccuracies troubling, particularly when the Providence Journal publishes results and opinion pieces (6/18/13 “RI’s teacher prep programs receive C grade” and 7/11 “Teachers should learn their subjects”) without providing critiques offered by such nationally recognized and respected researchers as Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Ravitch.  It is important that citizens have an understanding of the troubling aspects of this report, particularly in regard to local institutions.

First, the NCTQ authors base their ratings on limited data, which they admit, writing, “we were unable to apply all relevant standards to all programs…but it should not make our findings any less meaningful or representative”  (p. 13).  These data were based on syllabi only, which do not provide a clear or comprehensive picture of programs.   As researchers ourselves, we believe that making claims based on “limited data” renders all findings questionable, as opposed to “meaningful or representative.”  

In addition to the lack of data, the information they do provide on the FSEHD contains many errors.  For example, the authors claim that admission requirements “do not exploit the potential for...(grade point average and/or standardized tests).”  In actuality, candidates in the FSEHD must fulfill multiple and varied requirements to be admitted and retained:

·         maintaining a specific GPA (2.5 or higher) as determined by the program;

·         completing college-wide math and writing requirements;

·         passing the PRAXIS I and II exams, standardized tests designed by the Educational Testing Service and used by many states.  At Education Commissioner Gist’s behest, the cut scores for these exams have risen over the past several years; 

·         fulfilling the requirements of the Preparing to Teach portfolio, which includes lesson, unit and assessment plans; and

·         practice teaching in real-world classrooms, assessed by cooperating teachers and college supervisors.

Furthermore, candidates in the FSEHD have an average GPA of 3.35.  The rest of the RIC student body averages 3.07.  63% of FSEHD candidates graduate with honors, compared with 39% among the general population.  

The NCTQ authors also argue that teacher education programs do not provide appropriate training in teaching methods.  In the FSEHD, candidates in Elementary Education take five courses in teaching methods, in Reading, Language Arts, Science, Math, and Social Studies.  Candidates in Secondary Education take 3-4 different methods courses, including how to teach effectively with technology, incorporate literacy in the candidate’s discipline, and the capstone content-based methods course(s).   Throughout their educational coursework, candidates learn theories, practices, and specific skills and strategies for teaching students who vary greatly in background, familiarity with the subject, and motivation.  

In these courses, both elementary and secondary candidates spend over 90 hours in public school classrooms.   All of this happens before the student teaching semester, which is a full-time, semester-long internship.  The NCTQ Report does not address time spent in real-world classrooms, something we, along with state and national accreditation agencies, feel is essential to teacher preparation.

Our programs are aligned with state and national curricular, accreditation, and licensure standards, which the NCTQ ignores, having developed their own arbitrary set of standards.  We also continually revise these programs to meet the changing needs of students, employer expectations, and requirements of the field using empirical research and feedback from NCATE, RIDE, cooperating teachers, school districts, local business leaders, and graduates. 

Becoming a teacher is a complex process that involves not only education schools, but state departments, school districts, and communities.  These dynamic and collaborative relationships are essential to quality teacher education.  When organizations such as NCTQ fix the blame for low student achievement on one group, such as teachers or schools of education, they are oversimplifying and misrepresenting the issue.  We welcome valid, comprehensive reviews of our teacher education programs.  The NCTQ Report is neither.