|
Article Excerpt
Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the poor quality of education received by students in America's public schools has attracted widespread attention. Lack of school student achievement is often blamed on incompetent teachers, with teacher education programs ultimately being held responsible for failing to prepare teacher candidates to meet the diverse needs of students in today's education system. As a result of these perceived shortcomings in higher education, an unprecedented demand has been placed on universities to reform teacher education, thereby improving the quality of schools and, ultimately, raising the achievement levels of school students. To back up these demands for improved teacher education, a variety of pencil-and-paper tests has been devised. Ostensibly, these tests measure the competence of teacher candidates by assessing their knowledge of best teaching practices and their knowledge of the skills necessary for being an effective teacher Unfortunately, they are unable to evaluate the extent to which teacher candidates actually exhibit best practices in applied contexts (Darling-Hammond, 2000). They are also unable to assess the candidate's teaching dispositions. Nevertheless, both of these attributes are thought to be important aspects of teaching effectiveness, because effective teachers must not only know what to do; they must also be willing and able to do it.
Inherent in the rationale for requiring teachers to pass high-stakes minimum-competency tests is the assumption that these tests will serve as a valid indication of effective teacher preparation. In this regard, universities can be held accountable for the quality of teachers they produce. The rationale also implies that improved teacher preparation as measured by the tests will ultimately result in school students who demonstrate increased academic achievement. In a thorough review of the professional literature in this area, however, studies examining the relation between teacher scores on state-mandated tests and school student achievement could not be found. In addition, some authors speculate (e.g., Podgursky, 2005) that raising the bar for teacher licensure in ways like this will not have the desired long-term effects on school student achievement and may actually serve to lower the quality and effectiveness of teachers.
Although little is known regarding the relation between state tests and school student achievement, a seminal study was conducted that evaluated the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs in relation to school student achievement. In this study, researchers (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005) found that teacher education programs do make a positive difference. Among other variables, the study examined the achievement of school students who were taught by teachers prepared in various ways. The study found that school students of teachers who had completed university-based, teacher preparation programs achieve at a higher level than school students of teachers who had been certified without preparation. If high-stakes tests are to be used for certifying teachers with little or no teacher education, similar studies are needed that attest to their validity. Of particular importance is determining that teacher scores on these state-mandated tests do, in fact, predict higher school student achievement as well as other measures of teaching effectiveness.
Concerns regarding school student achievement are not new to teacher educators; even before the increased demands imposed on education by the passage of NCLB, the Holmes Group was formed in response to similar concerns over student achievement and the quality of teacher education in general. This group, which began meeting more than 20 years ago, included a consortium of teacher educators drafted from 100 of the nation's top universities. The first report of the group was issued in 1986. This report (Holmes Group, 1986) introduced the concept of professional development schools (PDSs). The Holmes Group's work culminated in 1990 with the release of its final report, Tomorrow's Schools: Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools. This report recommended PDSs as a vehicle for educating teacher candidates (Holmes Group, 1990). Specifically, PDSs were designed to improve the teaching profession by maximizing student achievement and well-being; educating preservice, novice, and experienced teachers; and researching methods for improving the knowledge and practice of teaching (Abdal-Haqq, 1999). Although the Holmes Group intentionally omitted education reform from its agenda, its objectives reflect a belief that teacher education can have a major, positive impact on improving the educational system in this country.
Since the publication of the Holmes Group report, teacher education programs have undergone major changes in the ways they educate teacher candidates. Many programs have implemented field-based, performance-oriented components that are situated in schools or other learning venues. More than 600 PDSs alone have been established since the issuance of the Holmes Group (1990) report (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2007). The curriculum in teacher education programs has also changed. A great emphasis is now placed on knowledge, skills, and dispositions that rely on situativity (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1998; Lave, 1993) and constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Nicaise & Barnes, 1996). Learning is perceived to involve problem solving and the application of best practices in authentic settings. As previously mentioned, the effectiveness of these teacher education programs was recently substantiated by Darling-Hammond et al. (2005), whose report was issued by Stanford University's School Redesign Center.
Along with changes of venue and curriculum, teacher education has also changed the way it evaluates teacher candidates. Recognizing for many years that pencil-and-paper tests like the National Teachers Examination rely primarily on the assessment of knowledge and, as such, are not a particularly valid means of assessing teacher competence (Quirk, Witten, & Weinberg, 1973), many teacher education programs have adapted more authentic measures such as performance assessment. These more authentic measures are generally favored in programs striving to effect reform in teacher education (Madaus, 1994). In addition to providing evidence of knowledge, these techniques rely on the teacher candidate's ability to exhibit the skills and dispositions necessary for being a successful teacher. They include such elements as problem solving in applied settings, demonstrating effective teaching and assessment practices, and/or constructing performance portfolios that typify standards deemed important by the profession. Because they require that teacher candidates exhibit effective teacher behaviors in applied venues, they are generally considered more valid (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000) than pencil-and-paper measures that tend to rely on academic knowledge and knowledge of teaching skills. In general, pencil-and-paper tests tend to be highly related to aptitude measures like the SAT and may not measure actual teaching skills and dispositions (Pool, Dittrich, Longwell, Pool, & Hausfather, 2004).
In fact, most educators and psychologists recommend, as does the American Psychological Association (APA), against the use of standardized tests as the sole measure of aptitude or achievement. The APA's (2005) Code of Fair Testing (sec. C.5) echoes this sentiment and stresses the importance of interpreting test scores in conjunction with other performance indicators. The National Council of Accreditation in Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002), in its most recent edition of standards for accrediting teacher education programs, also emphasizes the importance of providing field-based experiences and obtaining multiple measures of teacher candidate achievement based on instructional products. These components are reflected in the standards identified by this group as necessary for universities offering NCATE accredited programs in teacher education. This sentiment is echoed in Assessing Education Candidate Performance: A Look at Changing Practices (Elliott, 2003), another NCATE publication that addresses the issue of evaluating teacher competence.
Despite the reforms recommended by teacher educators and the results of empirical studies that contraindicate their usefulness (Blue & O'Grady, 2002; Rice, 2004; Wakefield, 2003), there still seems to be a growing tendency at the state as well as at the national level to evaluate teacher competence on the basis of traditional pencil-and-paper tests. For example, in 1990, 31 states required teachers to pass an examination of this type before awarding them certification. In 1999, the number had risen to 37. During this same time period, the number of states requiring an observational assessment of teaching performance dropped from 18 to 11 (see Digest of Education Statistics, 2000 [U.S. Department of Education, 2001]). Most recent statistics from the Educational Testing Service (2005) indicate that all but 8 states require teacher candidates to pass some form of pencil-and-paper test prior to obtaining teacher certification. In some cases, a pencil-and-paper test along with other minimal requirements, such as a college degree, are all that is necessary to obtain certification. In fact, in his annual report on the quality of teaching, the secretary of education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) argued in favor of dismantling teacher certification programs and certifying teachers with very little, if any, preparation in the pedagogy of teaching.
The increased reliance of states on high-stakes, minimum-competency test scores as essential criteria for awarding certification creates concern over their validity. If these test results are not valid with respect to evaluating teacher candidates, they create the potential...
|
