Quality programs?

In a recent Perspective commentary, Bill McComas and Chris Goering disparage the quality and value of alternative teacher-education programs while touting traditional university-based teacher-education programs. They, however, largely rely on generalizations and provide virtually no empirical evidence that supports their contention that the latter are any better, stronger or more efficacious in developing “superior” (their term) teachers than alternative programs.

Ultimately, what McComas and Goering offer is little more than smoke and mirrors, and a blatant effort to sell what they have to offer.

The authors’ primary criticism of Teach for America teachers is that “they don’t stay long in the profession,” that “[s]uch programs … create a revolving door that moves people in and out of our schools, ultimately undermining the stability of the educational system.” What they fail to divulge is that, according to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, nearly half of all new teachers leave within their first five years.

Questioning the quality of teachers graduating from alternative teacher-preparation programs, they assert: “It is likely that these inexperienced and hastily prepared teachers will be hired in parts of the state where students could most benefit from superior educators.” They fail to define or describe what they mean by “superior educators.” Furthermore, they fail to provide hard evidence that anyone coming out of any teacher education program is automatically a superior educator or destined to become one.

Mentioning Finland’s acclaimed public education program, the authors assert: “We should move teacher preparation here toward such a model.” What they fail to mention is what is likely to militate against doing so: First, while Finland has some 5.4 million citizens, the U.S. has 315 million. Second, Finland roughly has the same number of teachers as New York City.

Third, in Finland teachers are selected from the top 10 percent of college graduates. That is far from the case in the United States. While so called conventional wisdom suggests that teachers in the U.S. come from the bottom third of their university classes, the actual situation may not be that bleak, but it is still far from sanguine. In an article that contests such bleak assessments, Matthew Di Carlo, a senior fellow at the Albert Shanker Institute, asserts, in part, that “Overall, the blanket assertion that teachers are coming from the ‘bottom third’ of graduates is, at best, an incomplete picture. [However,] it’s certainly true that, when the terciles are defined in terms of SAT/ACT scores, there is consistent evidence that new teachers are disproportionately represented in this group.”

Finally, Business Insider reports that in Finland, “high school teachers with 15 years of experience make 102 percent of what other college graduates make.” Do McComas and Goering really think that the U.S. could match that?

The authors repeatedly mention “high-quality” teacher-education programs, but they fail to mention what criteria is used to deem a program high-quality. Second, sans evidence, the authors suggest the program at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville constitutes a high-quality program. Third, again sans evidence, the authors suggest there are other high-quality traditional programs in the state. (There, in fact, may be one or possibly more outstanding teacher-education programs in the state, but evidence is needed to corroborate the claim.)

In part, I raise these issues for the following reasons: First, I recently retired, after 25 years, from the College of Education and Health Professions at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and I, who for years on end gave my all to the college, was constantly frustrated by what I believe are its low admission requirements to various teacher-education programs, the low expectations of many professors vis-à-vis the quality of student work, rampant grade inflation in many courses, and the college’s lack of a true vision of what an exemplary school of education could and should be.

Second, McComas and Goering infer that there are many high-quality traditional, university-based programs in the United States despite hard evidence that says otherwise. Relatively recently, The National Council on Teacher Quality issued a report that asserted: “Three quarters of teacher education programs were ranked ‘weak’ or ‘poor.’” McComas and Goering suggest that U of A’s program is one of the notable exceptions. Where’s the evidence?

Third, the Education Schools Project, headed by Arthur Levine (former president of Teachers College at Columbia University) found that “the vast majority of the nation’s teachers are prepared in programs that have low admission and graduation standards and to an outdated vision of teacher education.”

I believe there is a dire need for as much innovation as educators and others in the United States can come up with, including outstanding, cutting-edge alternative programs that are totally antithetical to the often mindless and outdated curricular programs offered by far too many current traditional, university-based teacher-education programs.

———◊———

Samuel Totten is professor emeritus at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and continues to write on issues related to higher education and public school education.