• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Faculty Members' Perceptions of Teacher Preparation Programs

Posted on: Thursday, 20 October 2005, 06:00 CDT

By McFadden, Cheryl; Sheerer, Marilyn

Abstract

This research study examined faculty members' reaction to criticisms about the quality and design of teacher preparation programs at schools and colleges of education. The researchers found that there is confusion among teacher preparation professionals about their programs and research. The study also showed that, in general, teacher educators are resistant to change.

Blackwell, Futrell, and Imig (2003), in their article "Burnt Water Paradoxes of Schools of Education," presented a rather dismal picture of the challenges and inconsistencies facing schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) in the United States. The authors (2003, 360) noted that criticisms of SCDEs have accelerated within the past few years and "reflect the paradox of change without any actual'change." Such criticisms have been fueled by the current federal government's position on institutions that prepare future teachers. For example, in a statement to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Lyon (2000) asserted:

While research trustworthiness and teacher preparation play significant roles in determining how well research accurately informs educational policies, a critical problem lies in our failure to identify and understand the conditions under which the results of trustworthy research can be implemented and sustained in complex,- 'real-life'school systems and classrooms.

Blackwell et al. (2003) delineated these criticisms into five basic areas. First, teacher preparation programs have an inadequate or weak knowledge base, and there is an inability among school of education faculty members to agree on a professional knowledge base. second, teacher education faculty members conduct research that is related to academic discipline issues, rather than research that is related to pedagogy. Third, education faculty members fail to engage in school and teacher education reform in significant ways. Fourth, schools of education have structural design flaws, such as courses without a public school component and a lack of sufficient time for preservice teachers to learn about student learning. Finally, teacher education courses lack relevance in the real work of teachers because the curriculum does not cover the complexities of teaching in depth.

The research study described here focused on these five areas in an attempt to discern the attitudes of SCDE faculty members, specifically their perceptions about the criticisms levied against them. Citings from relevant literature are provided in support or challenge of each of the five claims.

Professional Knowledge Base

Though the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE 2000) has established standards related to an accepted knowledge base in professional education, teacher preparation programs have been criticized severely over the past decade for their inadequate or weak knowledge base (Darling-Hammond 1996). Further, faculty members in these programs have been criticized for their inability to agree on a professional knowledge base even though they "continually assess their students, their programs, their graduates, and themselves to guide instructional decision making and program development" (International Reading Association 2003, 3).

Teacher preparation programs have been labeled academically unchallenging and inadequate in their ability to prepare teachers for the classroom (Keller 2003). These programs often are seen as merely providing technical and managerial skills to preservice teachers (Romanowski and Oldenski 1998). Preservice teachers learn how to "manage" a classroom, but often fail to grasp how students learn and how to teach so that students do learn.

Labaree (1994) maintained that the market drives teacher education programs. According to this author (1994), SCDEs are forced to choose between providing a rigorous and challenging curriculum and having fewer graduates or a curriculum that is superficial, concise, simple, and accessible to many students and produces more graduates. Teacher preparation programs traditionally have been moneymakers for higher education and have enabled smaller or more prominent programs to exist (Howard, Hitz, and Baker 1999).

Research

The second criticism delineated by Blackwell et al. (2003) centered on the type of research that teacher education faculty members conduct. According to the authors (2003), critics noted that faculty members conduct research related to academic discipline issues, rather than to pedagogy. As a result, there is a lack of alignment between what is taught in teacher preparation programs and what actually makes a difference in Pre-K-12 instruction. In a comprehensive study, Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2002) conducted a review of high-quality research on five questions concerning teacher preparation. These questions were related to subject matter, pedagogical preparation of preservice teachers, the content and character of highquality field experiences, alternative certification routes, and the effects of policies on the enhancement of teacher preparation. Wilson et al. (2002,201) concluded that there were "gaps between claims we, as teacher educators, would like to make and evidence that those outside our field would find persuasive."

Wilson et al. (2002) identified five changes that researchers must make to substantiate educational practices or cause them to rethink these practices. First, researchers need to publish more often in peer-reviewed journals, particularly in journals with a broader audience than teacher education professionals. Teacher education is a highly debated topic in society, and researchers need to reach the general public to be more credible. Conversely, Shulman (2002) argued that peer-reviewed journals are no longer the benchmarks for determining a study's value. He argued that new mechanisms need to be developed to assure quality research in teaching and teacher education.

second, according to Wilson et al. (2002), researchers need to make public their research practices. Many research articles fail to include a complete description of the research methods. As a result, the validity of the conclusions is questionable. Shulman (2002, 252) agreed with the need for "good instrumentation, careful measurement, scrupulously faithful ethnographic accounts, and carefully reasoned inferences and arguments."

Third, researchers need to exercise greater care in selecting and using citations. Wilson et al. (2002) found that researchers often cite an article because it substantiates the research, but the claim itself was not analyzed and judged for its validity. The authors also found many research articles without empirical evidence or with unproven claims. Graue and Grant (2002, 271) claimed that "instead of research being a window of the world, it is a mirror to the researchers' intentions and commitments."

Fourth, Wilson et al. (2002) discovered a dearth of research on impact measures and concluded that teacher preparation programs need to be accountable for what preservice teachers learn. Finally, they (2002,202) found that most scholarship was "limited to small-scale interpretivist research," and the large-scale quantitative research included in their review was "almost entirely done (with the exception of Darling-Hammond's 1996 work) by outsiders to the teacher education community." Shulman (2002) agreed that a single study is not an appropriate means for determining reliability and validity.

Florio-Ruane (2002) made several recommendations and observations for education researchers. She felt that researchers need to proceed at a faster pace to combat the negative scrutiny of teacher education by various publics. According to Florio-Ruane (2002, 214), researchers need to "synthesize our work and apply what we have learned to problems of practice" and engage in more conversations about the current issues facing teacher education. Teaching and teacher education research should not be driven by crisis or political agendas. These conversations will help to solve the current problems facing education and determine new areas for research. Florio-Ruane (2002) argued that teaching and teacher education research need to be carefully analyzed; otherwise educators will compare research in terms of rigor, preferring natural sciencebased approaches, and fail to recognize the limitations of all research.

School and Teacher Education Reform

Blackwell et al. (2003) criticized teacher preparation faculty members for failing to engage in reform efforts in both public schools and teacher education. Faculty members in SCDEs do not conduct research that substantiates their practices in teacher education nor do they actively participate in reform efforts initiated by public schools (Wilson et al. 2002). Though many higher- education faculty members value service to the public schools, they are not rewarded for such work. Despite the efforts of educators like Boyer (1990) and Glassick et al. (1997), who provided frameworks for rewarding scholarship of application or engagement that would encompass school-based work, SCDEs have not, in any real way, adopted these models (Blackwell et al. 2003).

Structural Design

The fourth criticism by Blackwell et al. (2003) involved the organizational structure of teacher education studyprograms. SCDEs (Blackwell et al. 2003,360) have been criticized for offering programs that are "only tangentially related to schooling, or have virtually nothing to do with K-12 schools." The authors (2003) cited the large number of subfields of study within schools of education and the low percentage of faculty members who teach in teacher education. Reviews of the structures of schools and colleges of education show separate areas for the study of library science, instructional technology, counselor education, foundations, reading, and research. Often, these areas play to their own journals and audiences, rather than seeing themselves as participants in the broader agenda of preparing school personnel.

Curriculum

The last criticism involved the relevance of course work to the real work of teachers and the "superficiality" of the curriculum. Blackwell (2003,363) advocated that the "core of the teacher education curriculum should be a rigorous, research-based curriculum that asks teachers to understand how different students learn in different content areas, not just a once-over-lightly, disconnected course that is so often the only exposure preservice teachers get on how students learn." According to Blackwell (2003), teacher preparation has focused on teaching rather than on students and learning.

The authors (2003) outlined four reasons why a paradigm shift in teacher education is needed. First, the traditional model for teacher education has not produced the desired results. Policy makers and other critics often have publicized the shortcomings of teacher education programs and demanded a new and improved model. second, there has been an abundance of solid research on student learning across disciplines. This research should be the basis for preservice teachers' professional knowledge base. Third, there isn't a consensus on what the professional knowledge base should be, and much of the research that exists on a required knowledge base does not meet the rigorous standards demanded by other researchers and the public. Finally, state licensure agencies cannot document with certainty that certified teachers are more effective than noncertified teachers. If these agencies cannot prove this hypothesis, their very existence is questionable. Blackwell (2003) concluded that the failure of teacher education programs to make this paradigm shift puts both teacher education and entire schools of education at risk.

Though the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and SCDEs, along with NCATE, work continuously to link a knowledge base and practices to K-12 student learning, there isn't enough solid information to counter the criticisms made against the education profession. As public schools and politicians seek to explain the low performance of students, they continue to look at SCDEs as one source of the problem.

The Problem

A growing body of research has suggested that the key to a child's success in school is the teacher (Manzo 2003; Westhaver 2003; Strahan 2003), and that teacher preparation programs ultimately are responsible for producing highly qualified teachers. Though many teacher preparation programs have improved in recent years, the literature reflects the need for more substantative upgrades. A first step in the improvement process is to glean the perceptions of people engaged actively in teacher education. In this study, the perceptions of teacher education faculty members at public and private institutions in North Carolina regarding the criticisms being made against their profession were elicited.

Research Question

The survey focused on one key question: How do faculty members in teacher preparation programs at public and private institutions in North Carolina view the criticisms made against their programs? Specifically, how do faculty members react to criticisms about the professional knowledge base, research, change efforts, structural design, and curriculum?

Methodology

The researchers used the article by Blackwell et al. (2003) as a frame of reference in constructing a survey instrument. The categories of questions on the survey paralleled the article and the specifically identified criticisms.

A pilot survey was conducted in April 2003. The online survey was sent to 125 faculty members in the College of Education at East Carolina University. Based on the feedback from the pilot survey, the researchers made revisions in the survey instrument.

The deans of education at 15 public and 30 private SCDEs in North Carolina then were sent the address of the Web site where the survey was located, www.ecu.edu/itcs/ survey/mcfadden. The deans were asked to forward the site to their faculty members and encourage them to complete the online survey during a three-week period. The deans were sent a follow-up e-mail at the end of the second week asking them to remind faculty members to complete the survey during the allotted time period.

Instrumentation

Respondents were asked to complete five sections: section I- personal data, education, certification, employment status, and experience; section II-perceptions of professional knowledge base; section III-perceptions of research; section IV-perceptions of structural design; and section V-perceptions of curriculum. Demographic information on the participants also was collected, and items related to change were interwoven into the sections. The survey consisted of 20 questions followed by a Likert scale with four categories: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. There also was an open box for comments.

Participants

SCDE faculty members from eight public and eight private institutions completed the survey for a total of 84 respondents. These respondents represented approximately 20 percent of the total number of SCDE faculty members in these institutions. Though the response rate was low, the researchers believe the results are indicative of the views of education faculty members in North Carolina.

Results

Table 1 shows the age, highest degree earned, rank, and promotion and tenure status of the respondents in the study. Sixty-three percent of the respondents were over 50 years of age, and 20 percent were between the ages of 40 and 49. Ninety-two percent of the respondents had earned a doctoral degree. The percentages of respondents who held the ranks of assistant and associate professor were equal (30 percent). Only 24 percent of the respondents held the rank of professor. Forty-six percent of the respondents had fixed- term status, while 39 percent had tenure-track status.

Table 2 identifies the respondents' licensure areas. Forty-two percent of the respondents were licensed in secondary education, while 34 percent and 33 percent were licensed in elementary (K-6) and middle grades, respectively. Thirty-five percent of the respondents were licensed also as special services personnel (nonteaching).

Table 3 identifies the number of years faculty members had been at their current institution. Forty-four percent of the respondents had been employed five years or less at their current institution and 28 percent had been employed between 13 and 20 years. Forty- eight percent of the respondents had between one and five years of public school teaching experience, and 80 percent had no private school teaching experience.

Table 1: Demographic Information

Table 2: Licensure Areas

Table 3: Years of Experience

Data Analysis and Results

The researchers used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to run descriptive statistics on the 84 participants' responses to each of the 20 questions. Strongly agree and agree responses were reported together, as were disagree and strongly disagree responses. Bar graphs were constructed from this data to facilitate the researchers' analysis of the responses.

Professional Knowledge Base

Eighty-one percent of the faculty members who responded agreed that there is an adequate knowledge base. In the comments section of the survey, one response reflected the majority's opinion: "I do believe that a knowledge base exists relative to how children learn and the knowledge and skills required of teachers in order to promote learning." Other comments, however, indicated confusion about the presence or absence of a knowledge base. One respondent said, "The knowledge base we think we have is incredibly inadequate relative to the needs of teachers entering the workforce today." Another stated, "Teacher education lacks academic rigor."

Respondents were concerned that the question of whether learning to teach is more of a craft than a knowledge-driven profession was constructed as a forced-choice question. The data showed that 34 percent of the respondents thought that teaching is more of a craft. Forty-six percent of the respondents disagreed with the statement. Most respondents answered that "teaching is both craft and knowledge."

Alternative licensure is a change that education faculty members have had to address over the past five years. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that alternative routes to licensure contribute to the de-professionalism of the field. Forty-two percent of the respondents did not believe that alternative curriculum models can adequately address the professional knowledge base. Several comments reflected the respondents' overall opinion: "These shortcuts often minimize the importance of knowing how to teach," and "Alternative short-cut routes to licensure add less qualified people to the teaching field."

Some comments revealed that faculty members were not totally cognizant of the meaning of alternative licensure. "We put a lot of money and energy into these programs, but get very little return" and "I don't understand this question; however, I have heard teachers discuss taking courses where they were supposed to be learning the equivalent of a semester-long course in a very short period of time. How could that be?" were some of th\e respondents' remarks.

The majority of respondents, or 52 percent, agreed that SCDEs should promote alternative licensure programs. Their comments included: "We must or else we die,""If we do not offer some alternative, we will be out of business,""We are being forced by legislative mandate to support such programs," and "It's abdication if we don't participate."

Research

Fifty percent of the respondents did not feel that educational research addresses academic discipline issues more than the scholarship of teaching and learning. Through their comments, respondents demonstrated ambivalence: "This is simply not true" to "We appear to have limited research that directly addresses the connection between the teacher and student." One aspect of this issue did seem to generate consensus. Respondents stated, "Researching in schools is time and labor intensive. We do not have the time it takes to do this type of research and do it well."

The majority of the respondents-69 percent-strongly agreed that educational professionals in higher education should conduct more extensive, clinically based research on applied issues related to schooling, teaching, and learning. Supportive comments included, "I think that schoolbased research is essential to establishing best practices," and "I think there are issues around schooling, teaching, and learning that have not been addressed by educational professionals."

In answer to why more clinically based research is not being conducted, the respondents cited the current tenure structure: "It is not possible to conduct long-term research when a mass of publications are needed within a short time frame." Respondents' comments about the established priorities in higher education included: "We do what we can to get published and frequently build upon our dissertations" and "I would love to do it, but would need to be released from teaching. Most universities don't give that flexibility and individuals can only do so much."

Respondents were split evenly on whether or not educational research has a direct impact on critical issues in today's schools. One respondent said, "Although it takes a while, we can certainly see the impact of research on practice and teacher development." Many respondents included references about the influence of politics. Their comments included: "Critical issues in today's schools are identified, driven, and prolonged by many things other than educational research,""Schools are dominated by politics," and "What research impacts schools is too political."

In response to whether or not traditional preparation programs needed significant revision, 36 percent of the respondents felt that they did. Their comments, which reflected divergent positions, included: "I believe our programs are sound and current" and "Some need to be thrown out and start anew." When this question was cross- tabulated by age, the results were fairly consistent. Fifty-five percent of the respondents between the ages of 30 and 39 years disagreed; 44 percent of the respondents between 40 and 49 years of age disagreed, and 58 percent of the respondents over 50 years of age disagreed. Respondents generally noted a need for tweaking, but not reinvention.

Sixty-eight percent of the respondents were supportive of public school personnel being involved in helping higher education faculty members revise the professional education curriculum. Supportive comments included: "To exclude our public school partners in this effort is foolhardy," and "We need to work as a team to provide the best experiences for preservice teachers."

Structural Designs

Seventy-one percent of the respondents agreed that most courses in professional preparation programs should be linked directly to school settings. One statement that reflected the opinions of most respondents was, "The more direct linkage, the better." Respondents commented on the value of collaborating and partnering with public schools in the delivery of courses.

The survey contained several questions that addressed distance education. Fiftythree percent of the respondents felt that online formats are inappropriate for preparing educational professionals, and 77 percent of the respondents answered that every faceto-face course should have an online version available. One respondent said, "Online methods will NEVER come close to face-to-face methods."

Less than half of the respondents, 46 percent, believed that SCDEs will continue to be competitive, even if they do not offer online or mixed-delivery courses. One respondent stated, "There will always be students who prefer to enroll in the university full- time. The face-to-face experience will always be better." Opposing respondents' comments included: "We need to be a part of the online movement," and "I think it will be hard to stay in the educational marketplace without effective use of mixed-delivery systems."

Curriculum

Questions related to curriculum issues, such as student motivation, assessment, and problems of practice received more positive responses than negative ones. Forty-nine percent of the respondents agreed that professional education programs devoted adequate attention to what motivates students to learn. The same percentage of respondents agreed that programs devote adequate attention to assessment. Forty-five percent of those who answered agreed that programs devote adequate attention to the real problems of practice. Respondents generally defended current practice, though those who disagreed offered statements such as, "This is a poorly addressed area" and "This is why on-site learning needs to be conducted in schools."

The majority of respondents, or 54 percent, disagreed that professional education programs adequately offer strategies and approaches for handling conflict and violence in P-12 schools. "Conflict mediation, compromise, and nonviolent behavior need to be addressed more and in more ways" was a representative comment.

Forty-nine percent of the respondents did not feel that teacher education curriculum continues to be based largely on the deconstruction of teaching into its component parts. Comments indicated confusion about behaviorism and constructivism, and whether or not both were discussed in teacher education curriculums. Respondents defended their programs with statements such as, "I think there is a strong model of integration that we give our students."

Forty-five percent of the respondents agreed that professional education programs should limit admissions to raise candidate quality. Some respondents indicated that "we need the best and the brightest," while others said that "With the current teacher shortage, this isn't practical."

One respondent's comment summed up apparent confusion over the need for quantity (enough teachers for classrooms), quality (standards of state licensure), and efficiency (low cost at high speed). She said, "Other professions maintain the quality of their practitioners, in part, through the quality of entering students. The reality, however, is that we do not truly know what the characteristics of excellent teaching candidates are. So, how would the profession set these limitations?"

Discussion

Given the small sample size and low rate of return, caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from the data. However, the study provides a beginning point for further investigation.

Respondents demonstrated uncertainty in their comments about the professional knowledge base, though 81 percent agreed that an adequate knowledge base exists in professional education. This uncertainty is reflected in Blackwell et al.'s (2003, 360) statement on this issue: "Faculty members... lack consensus across programs about such basic issues as the knowledge base." The variety of comments offered by respondents indicated that there were as many and varied interpretations of the term 'knowledge base' as there were points of view on the subject.

Questions on alternative licensure programs and online discussion were included to elicit faculty perceptions of changes occurring in professional education. Respondents saw both approaches as inappropriate options to traditional preparation programs. Few comments supported exploring new models or testing alternative approaches through research. Rather, the responses tended to defend current practice and emphasis.

Blackwell et al. (2003, 359) took the position that "schools of education speak the language of change while holding close to models of the past." Further, they acknowledged that faculty members in higher education work in structures that inhibit change rather than encourage it. It was not surprising to find that a majority of the respondents did not feel a need to change the status quo, particularly regarding teacher preparation programs.

Responses about research also varied. On one hand, many respondents indicated that research does address the scholarship of teaching and learning. Conversely, others noted that there is limited research that directly addresses the connection between the teacher and student. Wilson et al. (2002), in their review of research on five questions concerning teacher preparation, found an absence of high-quality studies. These researchers (2002, 200) stated that they "were surprised at the lack of attention to the kinds of evidence used to support researchers' arguments." They found a limited number of research studies related to subject matter preparation, pedagogical preparation, or student teaching. They also found that research on policies that improve the quality of preservice teacher education or that validate high-quality alternative certification programs was lacking also.

Yet, the respondents readily agreed that educational professionals in higher education should conduct more extensive, clinically based research on applied issues related to schooling, teaching, and learning. They recognized that the time and labor required for thi\s type of research is extensive, which often is a deterrent for many individuals to conduct it. Brabeck and Shirley (2003,170) agreed with this assessment: "This is difficult and time- consuming work. It requires faculty members who are engaged in schools over long periods of time as partners in the complex enterprise of teaching, research, and learning."

Several questions elicited respondents' views on whether teacher education programs needed revision. Faculty members generally defended the quality and design of their programs, and noted a need for "tweaking" rather than reinvention. These responses reflect the stance of many writers and researchers, who like Blackwell et al. (2003), view teacher educators as resistors rather than promoters of change.

Respondents agreed that professional preparation programs should be linked directly to school settings. They also indicated that public school personnel should be involved substantially in curriculum revision. These positions mostlikely reflect the emphasis on university and school teacher-education partnerships over the past 10 years.

Respondents defended their current curriculum practices, with the exception of the preparation candidates receive for handling conflict and violence in schools. The literature that addresses the relevance of most teacher preparation programs does not support this position. Holm and Horn (2003), for example, saw the need for schools of education to bridge the gap between teacher preparation curriculum and the needs of 21st-century teachers. They wrote (2003, 376), "If teaching is to become a recognized profession, teachers need a model of preparation that is in line with the demands and realities of teaching, and schools of education have a critical role to play."

Conclusion

The responses of higher education faculty members to the questions in this survey showed that there is confusion among teacher preparation professionals about the existence and quality of the knowledge base, research, and curriculum in their programs. The majority of respondents defended their programs and seemed to resist new approaches to curriculum design and delivery. Concurrently, respondents acknowledged that more clinical research is needed and that teacher educators need to work closely with school personnel in conducting research and improving teaching and learning.

This study provides an entry point for further investigation of SCDEs, their challenges, and their viewpoints. The authors currently are analyzing data from superintendents in North Carolina who responded to the same survey, and intend to continue to generate additional data from higher education institutions.

Teacher preparation programs have been criticized severely over the past decade for their inadequate or weak knowledge base.

Teaching and teacher education research should not be driven by crisis or political agendas.

As public schools and politicians seek to explain the low performance of students, they continue to look at SCDEs as one source of the problem.

Though many teacher preparation programs have improved in recent years, the literature reflects the need for more substantative upgrades.

There is confusion among teacher preparation professionals about the existence and quality of the knowledge lip base, research, and curriculum in their programs.

Preservice teachers learn how to manage a classroom, but often fail to grasp how students learn and how to teach so that students do learn.

Respondents acknowledged that more clinical research is needed and that teacher educators need to work closely with school personnel in conducting research and improving teaching and learning.

There is a lack of alignment between what is taught in teacher preparation programs and what actually makes a difference in Pre-K- 12 instruction.

Teacher educators need to work closely with school personnel in conducting research and improving teaching and learning.

References

Blackwell, P. J. 2003. Student learning: Education's field of dreams. Phi Delta Kappan 84(5): 362-67.

Blackwell, P. J., M. H. Futrell, and D. G. Imig. 2003. Burnt water paradoxes of schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan 84(5): 356- 61.

Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brabeck, M. M., and D. Shirley. 2003. Excellence in schools of education: An oxymoron? Phi Delta Kappan 84(5): 368-72.

Darling-Hammond, L. 1996. What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan 78(3): 193-200.

Florio-Ruane, S. 2002. More light: An argument for complexity in studies of teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3): 205-15.

Glassick, C. E., M. T. Huber, and G. I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graue, E., and C. Grant. 2002. Questions, calls, and conversations for researchers in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3): 268-72.

Holm, L., and C. Horn. 2003. Bridging the gap between schools of education and the needs of 21st-century teachers. Phi Delta Kappan 84(5): 376-80.

Howard, R. D., R. Hitz, and L. J. Baker. 1999. A national study comparing expenditures of teacher education programs by Carnegie classification with other disciplines. Action in Teacher Education 20(3): 1-14.

International Reading Association. 2003. Teacher prep deemed crucial; Results of IRA Commission study provide 'compelling evidence/ Reading Today 20(6): 1-3.

Keller, B. 2003. Education school courses faulted as intellectually thin. Education Week, November 12.

Labaree, D. F. 1994. An unlovely legacy: The disabling impact of the market on American teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan 75(8): 591-95.

Lyon, G. R. Education research and evaluation and student achievement: Quality counts, statement before the Committee on Education and Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, May 4, 2000.

Manzo, K. K. 2003. Teacher prep, reading skills tied together. Education Week, May 14.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 2000. Change in program review process effective fall 2004. Available at: www.ncate.org/institutions/standards.asp?ch=8.

Romanowski, M. H., and T. E. Oldenski. 1998. Challenging the status quo of teacher education programs. Clearing House 72(2): 111- 14.

Shulman, L. S. 2002. Truth and consequences? Inquiry and policy in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3): 248-53.

Strahan, D. 2003. General patterns and particular pictures: Lessons learned from reports from 'beating the odds' schools. Journal of Curriculum & Instruction 18(4): 296-305.

Westhaver, M. 2003. Learning to learn: The best strategy for overall student achievement. T.H.E. Journal 30(11): 46-48.

Wilson, S. M., R. E. FIoden, and J. Fcrrini-Mundy. 2002. Teacher preparation research: An insiders' view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3): 190-204.

Cheryl McFadden is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at East Carolina University. She has consulted for the Georgia Department of Education and is currently the coordinator of a principal induction program in a local district. Her research interests include leadership, teacher preparation, and organizational change.

Marilyn Sheerer has served as a faculty member at four institutions, a department chair at two, and is currently the Dean of Education at East Carolina University. Her research interests are in the areas of leadership, change in higher education, and teacher professional development.

Copyright Kappa Delta Pi Fall 2005

Source: Educational Forum, The

More News in this Category