mmoirememeres.7----

ED 364 519

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

vaittper

SP 034 n53

Frazier, Calvin M.A Shared Vision: Policy Recommendations for LinkingTeacher Education to School Reiorm.Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.Rockefeller Bros. Fund, New York, N.Y.Jul 9338p.; For s related document, see SP 034 852.ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700,Denver, CO 80202-3427 (Publication No. TE-03-2, $7.50plus $2.50 postage and handling).Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Agency Cooperation; Beginning Teacher Induction;Elementary Secondary Education; Full State Funding;Higher Education; Leadership Responsibility; LinkingAgents; *Policy Formation; Public Schools; *SchoolRestructuring; Schools of Education; State Action;State Legislation; State Officials; State Standards;Teacher Certification; *Teacher Education Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Reform Efforts; *State Role

ABSTRACTThis publication presents recommendations for state

policy that are meant to promote the simultaneous reform of both K-12education and teacher education. The main body of the documentconsists of recommendations based on recurring themes gleaned frominterviews with state leaders: (1) the state legislature should adoptstatutory provisions declaring that the state expects cooperationfrom institutions of higher learning and public schools; (2) thestate legislature should designate the parties responsible fordirecting the simultaneous renewal of teacher education and schoolrestructuring; (3) the state should set standards for basic-skilllevels, teaching performance, and knowledge base expected forlicensure; (4) through standards, the state should indicate itsexpectation for critical conditions and programs to undergird allteacher education programs; (5) the state should view beginningteacher induction as an integral part of teacher preparation; (6) thestate should require recertification programs; (7) the state shouldadopt funding mechanisms for establishing the components of acomprehensive teacher education and school renewal program; and (8)the state should adopt a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of theteacher education system. (LL)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

SCOPE OF INTO NOTICE

The ERIC WNW EFSIIP*1trim iscootent Iv Imam@to

Cr 't In our , this deekettentloaf IA aim of Gttenet is the Clow.

,110114111/11 MOM to the oehtlmodeeme Meow! WW1 Woo

eow 001011 84W

Balky m

I

-4kkptegb'lrFdaAkYlrO*NOIIIMItt;X=PellhllraCZitr

7eacher Sthool Rearm

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION°Me* a Educalmnel Research and innenuernen!

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC(

r TM, &Acumenl has been oepoduced ASrCINvell norn int parson or meameauonunglneeng .1

C M.nOI mange, lane been matie to ,^0,0.motoduclIon !Wanly

0011$ 011041,14 34 °Inman, VI! ed .0 II,, docomane do nol 41000110.1y 10011.nt 0(fic,1OEM 00OrtrOn or ookoy

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

r;_kcelLiA.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

In

Tr *.t. 8

.4.14 N4,4

4L11- 1---7-- I

jialIPTNi

411

fty

MO

2.(41

1 WM, /I-11OrT

'a_ A

l'AtiliP610164eftalatMag011kile 3st.

A SHARED VISION:Policy Recommendations For LinkingTeacher Education to School Reform

Calvin M. Frazier

July 1993

Supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund

110 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iiDiscovering Higher Education and

Teacher Education 1

Recurring Themes From State Leaders 3A Word About Alternative Programs 5Critical Assumptions in Adopting

State Policies 7Legislative Policy Making 8Policy Recommendations

Organizing at the State Level 9Setting Standards for Licensing and Measuring

the Attainment of These Standards 13Setting Program Standards and Evaluating

Programs for Compliance 15The Induction Period 19Continuing Education and Recertification 21Financing the "Simultaneous Renewal" Effort 22Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Teacher

Education System 25Concluding Thoughts 26References 28

3

^1.

111110. Acknowledgments

For some time, ECS has been pressing state-level leaders tothink seriously about the "simultaneous renewal" of teachereducation and public school reform. With the support of agrant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, ECS has focused thelast year on meetings and interviews with several hundredstate officials and many institutional and school district leadersto guide and advance discussions on the "simultaneousrenewal" concept. As a result, ECS found significant interestin the issue and drafted several policy recommendations toencourage governors, legislators and other state leaders to planand work together on renewing teacher education for thebenefit of elementary and econdary students.

Earlier this year, ECS hosted a day-long discussion to reviewthe policy recommendations in this document. We wish to thethank the following individuals for participating and makingsuggestions on improving the document: James B. Appleberry,president, American Association of State Colleges andUniversities; Julie Bell, program manager, National Conferenceof State Legislatures; William Callahan, executive secretary,Renaissance Group; Richard Clark, senior associate, Center forEducational Renewal; Angela M. Covert, program officer, TheAtlantic Philanthropic Service; Charles 0. DeRiemer, executivedirector, Southwestern Bell Foundation; Mary E. Diez, chair,Division of Education, Alverno College; Jeff Dunbar, professorof education and liberal studies, Allegheny College; RussellEdgerton, president, American Association for HigherEducation; and 'Joni E. Finney, associate director, CaliforniaHigher Education Policy Center.

Also participating in the discussion were: Barbara R. Hatton,president, South Carolina State College; David G. Imig, chiefexecutive officer, American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation; James A. Kelly, president, National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards; Wendy Kopp, president,Teach for America; Judith E. Lanier, president, Michigan

[ AM.M,

Partnership for New Education; Arturo Madrid, president,Tomas Rivera Center; Frank B. Murray, dean, College ofEducation, University of Delaware; Donald M. Stewart,president, The College Board; Susan Traiman, senior policyanalyst, National Governors' Association; and Caroline Zinsser,education consultant, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The following ECS staff provided support and guidance inbringing about this group meeting: Frank Newman, KayMcClenney, Dee Green, Sandra Ruppert, Linda Rose, PeggyArkins and Josie Canales.

We also would like to take this opportunity to thank theeducational leadership who gathered in San Diego to critiquethe recommendations. In attendance were: Jerry D. Bailey,associate dean of education, School of Education, University ofKansas; Colleen S. Blankenship, dean, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Utah; William Callal an, executivesecretary, Renaissance Group; Angela M. Covert, programofficer, The Atlantic Philanthropic Service; Mary Diez, chair,Division of Education, Alverno College; Robert L. Egbert,professor of curriculum and instruction, University ofNebraska; John I. Goodlad, director, Center for EducationalRenewal; Marilyn Haring, dean, School of Education, PurdueUniversity; and Willis D. Hawley, professor of political scienceand director, Center for Education and Human DevelopmentPolicy, Vanderbilt University.

Also debating the issues were: Charles Hodge, dean ofeducation, Western Michigan University; David G. Imig, chiefexecutive officer, American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation; Elmer Katz, director, School of Education,University of Denver; Janet S. Kettlewell, dean, School ofEducation and Allied Professions, Miami University, Ohio; AnnLydecker, dean, School of Education, Bridgewater State College;Nicholas M. Michelli, dean, School of Professional Studies,Montclair State College; Jean Miller, director of INTASC;Raphael Nystrand, dean of education, University of Louisville;James O'Hanlon, dean, Teachers College, University ofNebraska-Lincoln; Arturo Pacheco, dean of education,University of Texas at El Paso; Robert Williams, professor ofcurriculum, instruction and media technology, Indiana StateUniversity; Arthur E. Wise, president, National Council for

5

el

-_

Accreditation of Teacher Education; and Caroline Zinsser,education consultant, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Special appreciation also is given to Karen Kaplan, graduatestudent at the University of Denver who conducted telephoneintervews of 44 state leaders in 11 states regarding theirperception of teacher education reform.

Lastly, ECS staff devoted invaluable time and support to thisdocument: final content review by Kay McClenney, vicepresident, and Lois Easton, director of policy studies; superbediting by Sherry Freeland Walker, director of publications;final formatting and proofreading by Josie Canales, projectassistant; and layout advice provided by Anna West, productioncoordinator.

6

salgoitis\*.ara -1.ir-1101.104NRIMIV`.

Higher education must bebrought into the reformloop. Public schoolsstruggling withrestructuring cannot behandicapped each year withthe arrival of thousands ofnew teachers unprepared torespond to public demandfor change. Simultaneousreform public schools andteacher education workingtogether must be thefocus.

100 Discovering Higher Educationand Teacher Education

After a decade of reform effort following the 1983 report, ANation at Risk, states have found educational change to be anelusive goal. From early state-mandated requirements, policyleaders moved to redefine school district roles andresponsibilities and decentralize some of the decision makingto the local building level. With the frustrations anddisappointments came better insights relative to the difficultyof change than existed in the early 1980s. One realizationhitting legislators and governors is that higher education mustbe brought into the reform loop. Public schools struggling withrestructuring cannot be handicapped each year with the arrivalof thousands of new teachers unprepared to respond to thepublic demand for change. Simultaneous reform publicschools and teacher education working together must be thefocus.

Through a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, theEducation Commission of the States (ECS) was able to examinethe literature on teacher education reform proposals, conducta large number of interviews with state leaders, and developand test the recommendations advanced in this documentrelative to bringing the two worlds together. Conceptually, itwould appear from the literature that there is a considerableconsensus in the field relative to the establishment of a moreunified education system.

Linda Sand Guest's review, Improving Teacher Preparation:What the Reform Reports Recommend, found there was asimilarity in the concepts proposed by reform writers dealingwith teacher education. Recommendations from John Goodlad'sCenter for Educational Renewal, The Holmes Group, Project 30and the Renaissance Group, for example, urged institutions tomodify their programs, seek greater alliance with the publicschools through the establishment of clinical schools, bringcollege and _.niversity arts and sciences faculty into the loop,and recognize that training programs may take more than four

PallapprafRINWIWill 4.416.ai:44.-A13111.4%410-440-4-Zk'*.Z-421411111rApiratakia

States have a specialresponsibility in thepreparation of educators.

Interviews with stateleaders showed they see thesystem as cumbersome,over-regulated, lacking acoordinated state vision andhindered by competingpriorities.

years of college work with a major in education. Theirsuggestions were aimed for the most part at the institutionalchanges needed, however. None was particularly strorz, instating the steps to be taken by the state.

But states have a special responsibility in the preparation ofeducators and they are not about to leave institutions alone tocontemplate their role in K-12 reform. States have begun tomove into this arena searching for their role in stimulatingcampus change. Although institutions generally resist stateintrusion, in the area of educator licensing, the state has anethical base for involvement that must be accepted by theinstitution and state policy makers.

Across the country, state laws commonly require studentsbetween the ages of 7 and 16 or 18 to be educated. Mostparents and young people choose to fulfill compulsory educationrequirements through the public schools. The state, having setthis mandate in place, must ensure that the educatorsresponsible for these schools are well trained and effective inadvancing the state toward its goal of an educated, responsiblecitizenry. One might argue, as college and university personneldo regularly, that the state should leave the campuses alone.However, it would be irresponsible if states were to compelyoung people to attend schools and be indifferent to the qualityof the environment and the personnel greeting these youngpeople at the schoolhouse door.

While one might argue with the degree of supervision exercised,there is ample justification for state leadership in theestablishment of effective teacher preparation programs andlicensing procedures. As states responded to concerns abouteducational quality, they examined more closely thecoordination and interaction between postsecondary and K-12leaders. What they found was not encouraging.

Interviews with state leaders showed they see the system ascumbersome, over-regulated, lacking a coordinated state visionand hindered by competing priorities. The study indicated ageneral and widespread dissatisfaction. Another phase of theECS/Rockefeller Brothers study confirmed that state leaderspersistently are frustrated with the failure of current statestrategies to reduce roadblocks to a more efficient and effectivesystem.

8

'Simultaneous renewal- isthe renewal of teachereducation in conjunctionwith K-12 restructuring.

NO. Recurring ThemesFrom State Leaders

Approximately 150 state legislators, governors' offices andagency leaders were interviewed in 1991 and 1992 to seek theiropinions on teacher education and public school reform. Amongthe themes heard most often were these:

Teacher education quality must be improved.

Higher education is too parochial and limited in itsvision of preparing educators.

"Simultaneous renewal" is needed, that is, renewal ofteacher education in conjunction with K-12 restructuring.Many of the contacts said this seemed such a naturalrelationship, they were surprised it had to be given anyspecial focus.

Close relationships between higher education and thepublic schools have been slow to develop.

Clinical or professional development schools are a logicalbase for bringing the higher education faculty and publicschool staff together in a collaborative effort to improveteacher preparation opportunities while simultaneouslyadvancing education programs for elementary andsecondary students.

Teacher education programs need to support the state'sinterest in outcomes-based performance for high schoolgraduates. This same interest was extended to a stateoutcomes-based performance policy for graduates ofteacher education programs.

Alternative routes to certification are a naturaloutgrowth of states moving to an outcomes-basedemphasis rather than controlling the process by whichteachers become licensed. Confirmation of this interest

There was a remarkableagreement on theineffectiveness of thecurrent system.

yar- 411.: 4,010

can be seen in the fact that 41 states have adoptedalternatives to the normal certification and licensingpattern.

Continuing re-education of teachers is as important asthe preservice work.

State leaders expressed two major expectations for internal,institutional change:

Arts and sciences faculty need to be more involved inplanning and implementing teacher education programs.

Universities need to change faculty reward systems thatare inconsistent with state needs and interests inupgrading the preparation of educators for publicschools.

Last, some tension entered the dialogue when state leaderswere asked how they would implement policies necessary toachieve the changes needed. Some favored the statutory andregulatory route, while others felt institutions should assumethe responsibility and leadership required with the stateplaying a relatively minor part.

There was a remarkable agreement on the ineffectiveness of thecurrent system. Likewise, there was a disturbing willingnessto grasp at a single solution. Well-meaning leaders asked forthat "silver bullet." To paraphrase some of the solutions heard:

"Wouldn't this whole teacher education issue be decidedif the state simply required a master's degree for anyonegoing into teaching?"

"The solution to the teacher education problem? Requireevery teacher to major in an academic discipline.Wouldn't that do it?"

"Adoption of an alternative route to certification will putpressure on the colleges to change. That's my solution tothe teacher education weakness. If the colleges can'tcompete in the free market, that would be all right."

i 0

A comprehensive review isneeded of the state'sapproach to teachereducation in relation towhat the state wants toachieve in its elementaryand secondary schools. Thepolicy adopted in the formof legislation shouldstimulate the comingtogether of schools andhigher education to plan.implement and evaluate thestate's education programs.

"1"4111#441M;AW.I.m.assiaswip.m.mao

Discussions around THE solution prompted two conclusionsearly on. First, although the legislative process itself oftendrives the state toward simple, short-term solutions, this isusually the wrong approach. Solutions should be viewed in thecontext of an overall plan. In the case of teacher education,none of the three examples cited above, taken in isolation, willbe satisfying and productive for the schools of any state.Rather, a comprehensive review is needed of the state'sapproach to teacher education in relation to what the statewants to achieve in its elementary and secondary schools. Thepolicy adopted in the form of legislation should stimulate thecoming together of schools and higher education to plan,implement and evaluate the state's education programs.

A second conclusion deals with alternative certification.Alternative routes to certification was one of the mostcontroversial topics discussed and one of the most favoredsolutions offered by state leaders. For that reason, thealternative route needs to be examined as a solution thatpresents some opportunities, but when viewed in the context ofa comprehensive plan for teacher education and school renewal,the approach has some shortcomings that need to be addressed.

1110. A Word AboutAlternative Programs

The recommendations presented in this paper were reviewedwith a number of groups. Policy makers, legislative staffmembers, deans, school district leaders and others providedhelpful reactions. Some discussants felt the recommendationsunduly favor the continuation of higher education as a centralactor in the preparation of teachers. With the development ofprograms such as Teach For America and the MississippiTeacher Corps, in addition to the more established alternativeapproaches serving as a major source of teachers for NewJersey and Texas, why, some participants asked, should statescontinue to build a plan around a school-universityrelationship? Aren't these alternatives the promising, creativeapproaches that need to be considered?

1i

rffusi,o,a4,.....mak.o,siabeasioutivihoomekamoft....wfm-or wiPosmorgWeilkaiipasiiiharilagly

When implemented by astate, the recommendationspresented in this documentshould provide betterteachers than thosecompleting either thetypical alternative programcurrently in place in morethan 40 states orgraduating from the 1,100colleges and universitiespreparing teachers.

op

Yes, programs such as Teach For America and the MississippiTeacher Corps should be considered, but only in the context ofwhat teacher preparation programs should be, not what theyare. This paper raises concerns in respect to shortcomings oftraditional and alternative programs. Both approaches shouldbe judged by the same criteria. Falling into hi. either/ordebate, absent agreement on what constitutes a goodpreparation program, is unproductive. States having legislationrelative to alternative routes can be commended for beingwilling to try a new direction.

However, when alternative provisions have b'en adopted in lieuof addressing disappointments in the currept campus-basedsystem, this is a disservice to the vast majority of studentspreparing for teaching in traditional university iettings. Poorpractices utilized by the primary teacher providers are concernsthat need to be addressed directly and not by the adoption of apotentially flawed alternative.

When implemented by a state, the recommendations presentedin this document should provide better teachers than thosecompleting either the typical alternative program currently inplace in more than 40 states or graduating from the 1,100colleges and universities preparing teachers. Wendy Kopp'sTeach For America program has collaborative and evaluativeelements similar to those recommended in this document. Butthis and other alternatives, however good they might be forentry-level teachers, do not give the state a base of clinical orprofessional development schools that can provide staffdevelopment centers for the continuing education of teachers inthe field. Nor do alternative programs demand the involvementof the state's college and university arts and sciences faculties,who in the end, are critical to the upgrading of elementary andsecondary school curriculum and materials necessary for theeffective implementation of K-12 student performancestandards being adopted in many states.

Alternative routes to certification, as well as existing campus-based programs, need to be evaluated against a much higherstandard of performance than demanded in the past. To be thebest of a mediocre lot doesn't mean much.

12

State leadership is anecessary condition formeaningful. systemicreform.

011 Critical Assumptions inAdopting State Policies

When John Good lad's book, Teachers For Our Nation's Schools,was released with much fanfare in November 1990, a series ofcompanion publications was developed to stimulateimplementation of the book's 19 postulates basic to theimprovement of teacher education. One of those documents,What State Leaders Can Do To Help Change TeacherEducation, anticipated general agreement on the changesneeded and focused on the state policies necessary forimplementing the recommendations. Numerous interviews andgroup meetings since November 1990 validate the assumptionsunderlying the initial state policy recommendations. Examplesof those key assumptions in the earlier document were:

If state policy makers fail to provide the initiativeand the necessary statutory provisions, little willcome from reports such as those of Good lad andother reformers. Higher education, if left on its own,will not move quickly, if at all, to adopt the directionsproposed. The institutional culture is weighted againstthe type of reform advocated. Likewise, school districtscannot be expected to take the lead since the preparationof educators, however valuable to them, is not seen astheir primary task in a time of reduced resources.

State leadership is a necessary condition formeaningful, systemic reform. However, a word ofcaution is needed. States seeking to manageinstitutional change through detailed legislation andregulatory control are doomed to be disappointed withthe results. There is a fine line to be sought in definingthe outcomes expected and adopting those policies thatenergize the system rather than smother it. States mustput in place policies and funding practices that supportcreativity and flexibility with accountability inachieving state goals and priorities.

13

Institutions of highereducation and public schoolsmust work together toachieve long-term changeand simultaneousrestructuring.

Last, institutions of higher education and publicschools must work together to achieve long-termchange and simultaneous restructuring. Thisrelationship must be collegial in nature with respect andtrust paramount in the minds of all parties involved.

Building on these earlier assumptions, how can all this beconverted to a specific state plan for teacher education andschool interaction?

1101* Legislative Policy Making

Major state policy is generally set through the legislativeprocess. Because systemic reform involves the public schoolsand higher education, the state needs to adopt an operatingplan and structure in which educational goals and outcomes areset, resources allocated, institutions and agencies heldaccountable and the system evaluated as to its effectiveness inachieving the ends sought. There must be continuity andcoherence to the plan. While people sometimes say they likelatitude and freedom, experience suggests there is greaterproductivity when roles and responsibilities are defined andpeople know the expectations and parameters of the taskundertaken,

The following proposals are presented in the mannerlegislators, as major policy makers of the state, might normallyconsider any legislation to implement an important state policy,which in this case is the adoption of a plan to unite reform ofteacher education with the state's efforts in schoolrestructuring, For legislative intent to drive change in thedirection desireC., these basic questions must be answered instatute:

What state purpose is served by adopting the plan andstructure?

Who is to be held responsible for carrying out the plan?

14

The state expectscooperation in thepreparation of teachers.

What are the programs and conditions to be establishedto carry out the plan?

What are the specific outcomes sought and how will theybe measured?

How much will the plan cost and how will it be financed?

How does the state periodically evaluate the overalleffectiveness of the plan adopted?

The statutory language should not be overly detailed. Some ofthe best legislation deliberately avoids excessive language,leaving such specifics to others more knowledgeable or havingmore time to develop the necessary detail. The important pointis that educators and others receiving mandated responsibilitiesare clear in respect to legislative intent, outcomes expected andhow they will be held responsible for contributing to theseoutcomes. The following eight recommendations are designedto suggest how the concerns identified in the ECS study can beaddressed and translated to a comprehensive state policy.

110 Policy Recommendations

Organizing at the State Level

4 RECOMMENDATION 1 The state legislatureshould adopt statutory provisions declaring it tobe the state's intent that institutions of highereducation and the public schools shall collaboratein the preparation of teachers so that all newteachers shall be prepared to support andenhance school restructuring.

Policy makers interviewed for this study consistently stressedthe importance of a visible state expression in support of the"simultaneous renewal" concept. Setting such an expectation

15

Clearly designate the partyor parties responsible fordirecting the "simultaneousrenewal" of teachereducation and schoolrestructuring.

10

sends a signal to the institutions and the school districts thatthe state expects cooperation in the preparation of teachers. Astrong legislative declaration of intent supports campus anddistrict leaders in their efforts to achieve a collaborative effort.Additionally, it confirms to agency heads and state boards theexpectation for state-level groups to model close K-12 andhigher education cooperation to the end that all state educationagencies feel an urgency in raising the quality of elementaryand secondary programs.

States with such a statement find other uses for thiscommitment. A declaration of intent should be useful to apowerful appropriations or budget committee when reviewinghigher education and school district allocations. Agency andinstitutional leaders should be asked about their collaborativeefforts. Is the education enterprise becoming the "seamless"system most legislators and governors appear to support? Astated intent relative to improving K-12 and teacher educationsimultaneously should trigger examination of any major reformproposals being adopted for K-12 implementation. What is therole of higher education in supporting this reform? Absentquestions like this from key state policy leaders such aslegislative budget committees, education institutions will movelittle toward this end.

4 RECOMMENDATION 2 The state legislatureshould clearly designate the party or partiesresponsible for directing the "simultaneousrenewal" of teacher education and schoolrestructuring. The legislature should define theroles and responsibilities of each party andprovide the structure to guide the workingrelationships of the various entities, i.e., thedepartment of education, the department ofhigher education, the local school districts andthe individual institutions of higher education.

States consistently lack a clear designation of responsibility forachieving a unified K-12 and higher education coordination.Except for a state such as New York, where one agencysupervises elementary, secondary and postsecondary education,most states divide responsibility between the departments ofeducation and higher education. Generally, the higher

16

Cammonly, no agency ischarged with achieving aunified approach.

Independent bodies such asa professional standardsboard or a commission onteacher credentialing mayhinder achievement of a"simultaneous renewal"plan.

education commission or department is charged with initialprogram approval and resolving issuec of program duplication.The state board of education and department commonly haveresponsibility for licensing teachers and for regulationscontrolling how the teacher education programs are operatedand monitored.

Commonly, no agency is charged with achieving a unifiedapproach. The boards of the two organizations rarely meet onissues of teacher education. The agency heads seldom confer onthe quality issues invol,-Ing teacher education. There is nomodeling of coordination at the top. More often, the twoagencies are seen as being in competition for the same taxdollar.

Independent Hoards and Commissions

Although established with good intentions (i.e., to bringteachers more directly into the planning and review of teachereducation programs), the creation of independent bodies suchas a professional standards board or a commission on teachercredentialing may hinder achievement of a "simultaneousrenewal" plan. While these agencies can play a useful role inthe teacher preparation process, their duties are relativelynarrow in respect to a state mission to achieve a closer teachereducation/K-12 relationship.

A case in point is the charge given to one commission. It"establishes credentialing requirements, conducts educationalresearch, sets program approval standards, evaluates programsto ensure standards are met and administers required testingprograms." The commission appears to be relatively isiilatedfrom the work of the higher education system offices and thedepartment of education.

In 1991, the American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation reported eight states as having an independentlicensing board and one semi-independent body. States wouldbe well advised to decide first how they want to achieve arestructuring of teacher education and the 2.hools and thenevaluate the appropriateness of creating a new, autonomousentity.

The legislature can beginthe corrective process byremoving barriers at alllevels of the policy- anddecision-making process andpushing higher educationand school districtgoverning boards to higherlevels of creativeinteraction.

When the Minnesota legislature sought change in its teachereducation program, it charged the Board of Teaching, theDepartment of Education and the Higher EducationCoordinating Board with preparing a plan for reforming thesystem. The plan was submitted to the legislature in 1992 andled eventually to the adoption of one of the most promisingpieces of teacher education reform passed that year.Collaboration of three entities was achieved in this case, butthe odds seem to be against this happening on a routine basis.

Legislative Processes

Legislative structuring for "simultaneous renewal" also requiresexamination of the state legislative processes themselves. Insome cases, the house and senate divide the educationalresponsibilities between higher education and K-12 committees."Simultaneous renewal" of schools and teacher education ismade more difficult because the legislative committee structuredoesn't lend itself to the concept.

Throughout the ECS interviews relating to teacher education,higher education governing boards such as regents or trusteesseldom were mentioned. These groups appear to have themeans to bring greater direction to the teacher education arena,but this "paper power" has been largely subverted by otherinterests. Governing boards can be a factor.

In Colorado, the University of Southern Colorado and PuebloSchool District #60 have combined to achieve a more efficientdelivery of preschool-to-higher education programs. Thesuperintendent of schools is also the vice president of theuniversity. Other districts and states are looking at this modelwith interest since this may be a pattern for the future.Organizationally, it enhances the potential for achieving ahigher education commitment to support the needs of the publicschools.

Recommendation 2 calls attention to the finding that majorsystemic education reform generally is inhibited byorganizational obstacles. The legislature can begin thecorrective process by removing these barriers at all levels of thepolicy- and decision-making process and pushing higher

18

In moving to an emphasison standards, the statesends a message that it isno longer relying on thecounting of credits or themere delivery of certaincurricula.

education and school district governing boards to higher levelsof creative interaction.

Setting Standards for Licensing and Measuringthe Attainment of These Standards

.terRECOMMENDATION 3 The state should set

standards for the basic-skill levels, teachingperformance and knowledge base expected of allcandidates receiving a state teaching license andindicate how it will assess or confirm theserequirements.

Many states have moved toward an outcomes-based emphasisfor elementary and secondary students. Establishing similarexpectations for the teachers of these students is notunrealistic. In moving to an emphasis on standards, the statesends a message that it is no longer relying on the counting ofcredits or the mere delivery of certain curricula. Also, itremoves the state from arguments over a fifth year versus amasters-degree requirement. In most cases, by the timeprospective teachers meet the expectations for having abroad-based general education, competency in a teaching fieldand demonstrated performance in classroom and school-wideresponsibilities, they will have completed at least a semester,if not a full year, beyond a bachelor's degree. The importantpoint is that this work is done to confirm proficiencies andskills and not just to complete a specific number of courses orobtain an advanced degree.

Most states have established basic-skill levels necessary forentering a teacher education program and believe this hasreassured the public regarding the writing, spelling andcomputational competency of classroom teachers in the state.Details regarding the test to be used and levels of performancerequired need not be in the statutes but can be left to thedesignated agency to prescribe. State adoption of standardsand expected outcomes allows states to drop overly prescriptivestatutes and rules.

19

States are urged to examinethe document, ModelStandards for BeginningTeacher Licensing andDevelopment: A Resourcefor State Dialogue,developed by the InterstateNew Teacher Assessmentand Support Consortium.

States setting performance and knowledge-basc standards to beconsidered at the time of issuance of a license will find severalstatements or models available for their use. States are urgedto examine the document, Model Standards for BeginningTeacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for StateDialogue, developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessmentand Support Consortium. This is a good resource document,but states having adopted standards for student performanceat various K-12 grade levels should relate student and teacherexpectations. It is important that teacher licensing have somerelationship to the demonstrated ability of the teacher to helpstudents meet established learning standards. In the past,states, through their agencies, have stressed the need forcertificated teachers to have demonstrated competence in suchareas as classroom management, use of a variety of teachingstrategies and communication skills. With the adoption of statestandards for students, states now can relate teacherperformance to student performance in a way that has not beenpossible in the past.

Likewise, states having adopted performance standards forstudents can make the same connection with the generaleducation knowledge base expected of a teacher. Obviously,teachers should be expected to demonstrate a knowledge wellbeyond the students ..hey serve in terms of their historical,scientific, social and political perspectives. Critical-thinkingand inquiry skills, along with the moral perspectives of what isinvolved in helping to educate another human being, areequall,- important aspects to be judged.

How and when to assess are obvious questions. Some states,such as California, have developed extensive assessmentprocedures relative to entry to the teacher education program,granting of a license and first-year evaluation. Two otherexamples, representing different philosophies, would be thePraxis, a nationally standardized set of assessments developedby the New Jersey-based Educational Testing Service and thatoffered by National Evaluation Systems, Inc. in Amherst,Massachusetts. The latter company customizes its assessmentof potential teachers with adopted state goals and standards.The organizations are cited here, not as an endorsement, but tosuggest to states the options open to them in this area.

2J

State legislatures andagencies have historicallyapproached theirresponsibility in theprogram standards area inan unfortunate andunproductive manner.

The question of "when" to assess is a critical piece. Placing allthe confidence of the state in an exit assessment is unwiseboth for the state and for the applicant. A far moreeducationally sound approach involves assessments andjudgments throughout the preparation period. The New Mexicotask force report on testing, developed by the ProfessionalStandards Commission and adopted by the New Mexico StateBoard of Education, a good model for states to examine. Forthis approach to be successful, programs preparing teachersmust demonstrate their ability and commitment to fulfill thesecontinuing assessment requirements on behalf of the state.

Setting Program Standards and Evaluating Programsfor Compliance

RECOMMENDATION 4 Through standards,the state should indicate its expectation forcritical conditions and programs to undergird allteacher education programs. Emphasis should beon the collaborative efforts expected frominstitutions of higher education and the localschool districts and those conditions that areabsolutely essential to the preparation of teachersin meeting state licensing standards.

Overriding the discussion of this recommendation is the beliefthat state legislatures and agencies have historicallyapproached their responsibility in the program standards areain an unfortunate and unproductive manner. High priorityexpectations have been lost in a maze of regulations andprocedures. States setting program standards should considerthese three points:

Program standards should be few in number and closelyrelated to those conditions necessary for promoting thepreparation of applicants to meet state licensingstandards.

Program standards should avoid mandating specificcurricula, courses, hours or advanced degrees.Institutions should have flexibility in setting the

21

Teacher preparationprograms should:

be jointly planned,implemented andevaluated

ensure studentexperiences inteacher educationprograms in a widearray of laboratorysettings"

provide a student'sinternship orstudent teachingexperience in anexemplary clinicalor professionaldevelopment school

coursework and activities necessary for preparingprospective teachers,

Program standards should be observable or measurable.

There is a growing desire among legislators to "loosen thesystem." In some cases, the resistance to this change is comingfrom agencies and institutions which have relied on the rulesand regulations to maintain the status quo. Loosening thesystem should not mean giving up an expectation that criticalcomponents must be present and operating well. Even with theadc ption of fewer, but significant standards, a state 0;11 shouldprovide for granting waivers to the adopted standards if theproposed program change or activity promises to guide thestate into p; new approaches. Flexibility should bevalued as a means of achieving a self-correcting system.

The state has an obligation, however, through statute orregulation to identify those critical standards by which allprograms will be judged and held accountable. Examples ofcritical standards for a program include:

1. Teacher preparation programs should be jointly planned,implemented and evaluated by pedagogical experts, artsand sciences personnel, and school district staff, includingteachers.

2. Programs should ensure that student experiences in teachereducation programs are taken "in a wide array of laboratorysettings." Students should observe and participate inschools embarked on major restructuring efforts, such asTed Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools, Henry Levin'sAccelerated School concept, block scheduling or multi-agegroupings of students and community resource schools.Students and faculty should be involved jointly in observingand discussing these settings and others that involvespecial efforts by departments or grade levels of schools.

3. Programs should provide that a student's internship orstudent teaching experience is taken in an exemplaryclinical or professional development school. Arts andsciences faculty, pedagogical specialists and schoolpersonnel should plan and supervise the students'experiences. Minnesota's move to require an internship of

22

provide all studentswith observation andteaching experiencewith public schoolstudents having adiversity of cultural andlanguage backgrounds

have an active andeffective. student andfaculty minorityrecruitment program

have a promotion.tenure and rewardpolicy for facultyparticipating in teacherpreparation programs

demonstrate howcandidates for licensingare evaluated

demonstrate howprogram providersevaluate effectivenessand modify programs.

this nature is an example of state leadership in this area.Students must see their responsibility to contribute toschoolwide decision making.

4. Programs should provide all students with observation andteaching experience with public school students having adiversity of cultural and language backgrounds. Whilenormally this will involve experience in core city schools,students should see the unique challenge of rural settingsas well.

5. Programs preparing teachers should have an active andeffective student and faculty minority recruitment program.

6. Programs preparing teachers should have a promotion,tenure and reward policy that recognizes and encouragesfaculty participation in planning, implementing andevaluating teacher preparation programs. This standardmust apply equally to arts and sciences faculty as well asschool of education personnel.

Programs should demonstrate how candidates for licensingare evaluated on entry and throughout the program in amanner that promotes growth of students to meet or exceedstate licensing standards.

8. Program providers should demonstrate how they evaluatetheir effectiveness and modify their programs as necessaryto promote growth of students, faculty and involved publicschools.

These are only eight examples. There may be other areasstates would deem to be critical and for which a standardshould be stated. Several of these examples are drawn fromconcepts in Good lad's postulates. Seventeen of his 19postulates speak to critical conditions that need to be presentin any institutional program preparing teachers. States wouldbe well advised to consider these conditions when setting stateprogram standards.

Compliance with program standards traditionally has beenconfirmed through program review or state accreditation visitsto the university or college campus. In some instances,programs meeting NCATE (National Council for Accreditation

23

Once state standards havebeen set, the responsiblestate agency should becomea partner and work in acontinuing support role withinstitutions and schools tomeet the standards.

of Teacher Education) requirements are deemed to have metstate program standards. There are strengths in affiliatingwith a national accreditation process. States can be assuredthat NCATE-approved institutions will stand well incomparison with other preparing institutions in the country.However, one doesn't find consistent support for either stateprogram review or NCATE visits. In addition to time andpreparation costs, perhaps the main concern comes in relyingheavily on periodic assessments.

Once state standards have been set, the responsible stateagency should become a partner and work in a continuingsupport role with institutions and schools to meet thestandards. The state needs to be a "loving" critic in discussinghow student assessment is progressing and how school district/institutional planning is evolving relative to establishingclinical or professional development centers and the carryingout of other tasks involved in meeting the legislative intent.

The current review approach, commonly done every three tofive years, is built around the concept of review, report, respondand approve -- unless there are WHIM that lead to warningsand sanctions. The dynamics of the typical review oraccreditation process generally lead to a "we-them" attitudewhich is not beneficial in times demanding creative,collaborative efforts.

NCATE's Role

NCATE's standards address five categories: knowledge basesfor professional education, relationship to the world of practice,students, faculty, and governance and resources. There are 18standards and 94 criteria for compliance within these fivecategories.

NCATE approval provides a state with assurance that nationalstandards have been met. Approval also contributes toreciprocity arrangements between states. However, relyingonly on NCATE approval has certain risks.

1. A direct relationship between NCATE reviews, 4tate-adopted licensing standards for individuals and programstandards for institutions is lacking.

24

It is important for nurturingto continue beyond thepre-licensing period.

. Legislators traditionally have been more concerned aboutthe ability of state institutions to meet state standards thanstandards developed by outside professional groups,

3. Legislative support and confidence is important. Approvalby an external accrediting association controlled byprofessionals may or may not have high credibility inlegislative halls.

Educationally, the most important purpose of any review is toensure that the teacher education programs support standardsset for licensing, are effective in bringing about a K-12/highereducation collaboration, aid in developing teachers capable ofassisting students to meet state learning goals and contributeto achievement of the state's vision for education.

The Induction Period

4 RECQMMENDATION 6 The state should seethe beginning teacher's induction period as anIntegral part of the teacher preparation sequence.The state should express its expectation that thegape collaborative effbrt involving arts andsciences faculty, pedagogical experts and schooldistrict personnel begun in the early stages of theteacher preparation program be continuedthrough at bast the first year of teaching.

Given the complexity of teaching and the varied conditions inwhich beginning teachers work, it is important for thenurturing to continue beyond the pre-licensing period.Mentoring, group discussion or seminars and occasional visitsfrom educators involved in the preparation program areexamples of ways states might extend help to beginningteachers. Provisions should be made for arts and sciencesfaculty to bring a disciplinary focus into discussions involVingall teachers, but particularly those working in secondaryschools.

States sometimes withhold the issuance of a regular orstandard teaching certificate until the new teacher has

25

19

Forty-five states and theDistrict of Columbia haveenacted teacher evaluationprograms or requirements.

20

completed one (New Jersey) to three years (Michigan) ofsuccessful teaching, In some cases, there is an additionalrequirement that a teacher complete a given number of hours,such as Arizona's requirement of 4U hours, 10 of which may bein state-approved district inservice programs. Other statesexpect completion of a fifth year or masters degree (Montana).Reliance on such arbitrary expectations, often unrelated toclassroom and school performance, needs to be evaluated bystates.

Once states establish entry-level performance standards, ratherthan specific courses and credit hours, one can anticipate thatapplicants will be reluctant and perhaps resent relying on thetraditional, arbitrary requirements for the granting of astandard or professional certificate. Neither the hourly nordegree requirements may have any relationship to the qualityof the teaching performance sought by the state. Possiblealternatives include:

1. States should set standards and expectations for thebeginning teacher relative to performance in the classroomand school relating these expectations to the quality of theassistance provided to students in meeting their learningexpectations and the contribution made by the teachers inbroader school improvement efforts.

2. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have enactedteacher evaluation programs or requirements. Twenty-nineof these states have required some evaluation beyond thatreceived by tenure teachers. When such evaluations aredone in conjunction with representatives from arts andsciences faculties and pedagogical experts, states should feelsecure in granting a standard or professional certificate.

The key point, in keeping with the collaborative, "simultaneousrenewal" concept, is to continue the joint participation throughthis period 'for the valuable insights available to teachersinvolved in the preservice preparation program. Thiscontinuity provides a self-corrective aspect commonly lacking inmost programs across the country. As professionaldevelopment or clinical schools increase in number, these unitscan make a major contribution to staff developmentopportunities for beginning teachers, as well as to more

26

Additional training of ateacher f'or recertificationshould benefit the schooland school district,

The accumulation ofrandom course credits andhours that are convenientand available but withoutmuch significance to theteacher or the district willbe challenged increasinglyin the 1990s.

experienced teachers holding standard or professionalcertificates.

Continuing Education and Recertification

4 RECOMMENDATION 6 As part of acomprehensive teacher education program, thestate should require recertification programsrelated to individual teacher needs andadvancement of school and district needs andolVectives.

Most state leaders interviewed frequently commented that theyfelt dissatisfied with current recertification requirements.Programs were characterized as being heavy on inserviceactivity at high cost to the districts and, in some cases, to theteachers themselves, but having little to show for the programdollars spent or the salary increases granted.

While not a locum of this study, two aspects of inservicedevelopment have significance for states looking to achievegreater coherence in their teacher education program.

In an outcomes -hased system, recertification requirementsshould continue this locus. First, coursework and activitiesshould he tied, whenever possible, to those experiences andcourses that make a teacher more effective in helping studentsmeet !mid and state learning goals. Second, the study andadditional training ore teacher fbr recertification should benefitthe school and school district in reaching the goals of theorganization, Minnesota requires that personal learning plansbe consistent with school -site goals. New Mexico requires thatthe Teacher's Professional Development Plan connect toresearch, classroom performance and school, district and stategoals.

Career-advancement and degree programs will continue to bemeaningful parts of ongoing staff' development. But theaccumulation of random course credits and hours that areconvenient and available but without much significance to theteacher or the district will be challenged increasingly in the1990s.

?7

Professional developmentcenters can become a majorstate resource forinstitutions, districts and.perhaps, the nation.

As part of this greater focus on recertification offerings, thedevelopment of clinical or professional development schools willoffer districts and regions a chance to use these centers forhigher-quality, staff-development activities than are currentlyavailable to most districts. Served by school district and highereducation personnel, these exemplary schools can provide abrokering of other college resources to local districts. Inaddition to student teachers, these centers can be used by socialworkers, speech therapists and others. They also can be usedfor a variety of school-university partnership programsinvolving the arts and sciences and other professional schools.Participation in a professional development school may becomeone means of confirming classroom performance for personsapplying for the National Board of Professional TeachingStandards certificate. If this new national certification conceptis to have respect and integrity, it must have a means ofconfirming high-quality teaching skills.

In short, the professional development centers can become amajor state resource for institutions, districts and, perhaps, thenation. In Maine, Michigan, New Jersey and Kentucky, whereprofessional development schools are operating, the clinicalsites have become key inservice centers for experienced andbeginning teachers, as well as a critical component of thepreservice preparation programs. They should be seen as a keycomponent of a comprehensive teacher education program.

Financing the "Simultaneous Renewal" Effort

RECOMMENDATION 7 The state should adoptfunding mechanisms for establishing thecomponents of a comprehensive teacher educationand school renewal program. In doing so, statefunding practices should be recognized as beinga powerful vehicle for retarding or stimulatinginstitutional change.

The potential for funding practices to serve as "powerfulincentives or disincentives" for change was a major point ofWhat State Leaders Can Do Tc Help Change TeacherEducation. The distribution of state monies presently has littledirect relationship to reform goals, quality debates or the

28

The distribution of statemonies presently has littledirect relationship to reformgoals, quality debates or theachievement of specific stateand local objectives.

College and universitygoverning boards andadministrators are oftenunaware of or aloof to stategoals for improvingelementary and secondaryeducation.

achievement of specific state and local objectives. For the mostpart, state monies are disbursed on a per-student or other per-unit basis, and school districts and institutions of higherlearning determine their internal distribution.

Institutions have balked at a closer relationship with theschools because of the costs and faculty loads involving campusresponsibilities. Hence, many universities hire graduateassistants or part-time staff to visit student teachers and workwith cooperating teachers, while regular faculty teach campusclasses, do research and write. Undertaking "simultaneousrenewal" is seen as disruptive to this process and too costly.Critics counter by claiming that in most cases teachereducation programs are really "cash cows" or income producersfor the universities. College and university governing boardsand administrators are often unaware of or aloof to state goalsfor improving elementary and secondary education.

States, caught in the middle of trying to provide a higher-quality teacher for public classrooms and avoiding the morassof micromanaging internal university resources, have triedseveral approaches for breaking the gridlock. In the Kentuckyreform package, each institution of higher education is requiredto demonstrate how that institution helps implement the newreform measures. Florida requires each teacher education unitto indicate how it will address state goals.

School district reluctance generally revolves around a concernthat limited resources will be redirected from the district'sresponsibility to educate the young and assigned to preservicetraining programs traditionally seen as the college'sresponsibility. Collective bargaining pressures can be predictedto oppose such reallocations. The result is a stalemate withlittle movement by either party. The state, having adopted theprevious six recommendations, will need to be creative in itsdistribution of monies to carry out these proposals,

New Arrangements Needed

New funding arrangements need to be considered. Creation ofnew structures, such as professional development or clinicalschools, poses a difficult financial challenge to districts andinstitutions. It is perhaps unrealistic to expect either entity to

mu29

States should avoid placingthe monies in one pocket orthe other. If the moneygoes to higher education,there is great suspicionabout whether it will arriveat the professionaldevelopment school door. Ifthe money goes to theschool district, highereducation feels threatened.

The state agencyresponsible forimplementing school districtand college collaborationshould oversee these funds.

earmark additional monies for these new structures. The stateneeds to establish a special professional development schoolfund or school-university partnership account to support thisadditional expectation. States should avoid placing the moniesin one pocket or the other. If the money goes to highereducation, there is great suspicion about whether it will arriveat the professional development school door. If the money goesto the school district, higher education feels threatened.

By creating a special state-level fund for professionaldevelopment schools and having the parties apply jointly forthe funding, arguments of this nature can be reduced. Thestate agency responsible for implementing school district andcollege collaboration should oversee these funds. Minnesotaestimates it will cost approximately $1.4 million a year to servesome 2,000 interns, while Michigan's costs are estimated to runcloser to $250,000 per site. Clearly, each state will have toestablish the amount needed to implement this reformcomponent and examine its funding options. In doing so, statesare encouraged to identify and use monies that may already bein the system.

For example, states should examine the income and expen-ditures for schools of education. This should include facultyloads for teacher education purposes. Likewise, dollars spentby school districts for inservice staff-development purposes,including salary increases provided for additional training bythe district or colleges, should be balanced against areallocation of these dollars for higher-quality programsplanned and offered at professional development schools.Before allocating new monies, states should assure themselvesthat current monies are spent efficiently. Another source,usually avoided but one to be considered, might be a specialstudent internship fee. Given the added benefits of aprofessional development or clinical school, a studentcontribution is not an unreasonable expectation and is notuncommon in other professional programs.

Additional Costs

States should anticipate budget requests driven by two otherfactors. A greater investment is needed to recruit promisingminority candidates. This suggestion goes beyond granting

Districts and highereducation institutions needto be supportive in theirwillingness to analyze howexisting monies areallocated and expended.'Simultaneous renewal"efforts will require newmoney at both educationallevels.

(liven the public scrutiny ofall governmental agenciesand their operation. statesshould include acomprehensiveaccountability provision,

additional scholarships or stipends. It involves a greateruniversity interaction with minority students, beginning withmiddle-school students. The South Carolina Teacher Cadet andminority recruitment programs provide excellent examples ofwhat can be done with some financial investment and staffcreativity,

A second cost may result from the increased involvement ofarts and sciences faculty whose participation in teachereducation planning and implementation generally has beenmore limited than that visualized in the reforms suggested inthis document.

States need to be responsive to the fiscal impact of the changesrecommended. Likewise, districts and higher educationinstitutions need to be supportive in their willingness toanalyze how existing monies are allocated and expended."Simultaneous renewal" efforts will require new money at botheducational levels. But new expenditures to achieve a higher-quality, comprehensive system versus continued funding of aninefficient, marginally productive operation can be marketableeven in a flat economy.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Teacher EducationSystem

*111111111111111111MNIIIMMIMIIM.

RECOMMENDATIONS 0° The state should adopta plan for evaluating the effectiveness of theteacher education system by which teachers areprepared to serve the schools of the state. Thismeans a periodic review of the legislativestructure, the validity and contribution of thestandards set, the relationship of the teachereducation system to other staff development effortsand the adequacy and use of the resourcesinvested.

Given the public scrutiny of all governmental agencies andtheir operation, states should include a comprehensiveaccountability provision as a part of this "simultaneousrenewal" package. When this final recommendation has beendiscussed in various circles, the most common response is, "We

Ea

31

Have the legislativeprovisions established toprovide high-qualityteachers to the state'sclassrooms been effective?

0

agree. That's why we have a program review component." Or,"NCATE provides us with this feedback." This recommenda-tion goes beyond either of these approaches. One problemstates face is that they have no independent judgment of thewhole system. NCATE and program reviews focus onindividual institutions. They are directed by professionaleducators. The evaluation called for in this recommendation isfor periodic examination of the system itself by an outsideindependent auditing body.

Program review and NCATE reports will be helpful inassessing some elements of the total system, but they examineonly part of the elephant. Aspects such as funding adequacyand interagency coordination remain unexamined.

Many states provide for performance audits to be doneroutinely by a special legislative audit committee. Oklahomacame close to having a process of this scope when theOklahoma State Regents for Higher Education asked selectedoutside experts and four Oklahoma community leaders toreview teacher education in the state.

The state needs to ask, "Have the legislative provisionsestablished to provide high-quality teachers to the state'sclassrooms been effective?" The legislature must have a meansof answering this query. The process must be comprehensiveand have a high level of respect and integrity. It is a processthat doesn't exist in most states and is one reason ineffectiveprograms such as those identified in the Goodlad studies havebeen maintained as long as they have.

1111 Concluding Thoughts

States have been hit with fiscal pressures and, in some cases,enormous budgetary shortfalls. It would be easy in suchsituations to postpone dealing with a concept such as the"simultaneous renewal" of teacher education and the publicschools. Still, states expend considerable funds on theseprograms, and there is widespread dissatisfaction with the

To deal with a concept suchas the "simultaneousrenewal" of teachereducation and the publicschools, state leadershipmust build the unifyingstatutory structure to bringthe pieces together.

quality of these efforts. Delaying action gives sanction to theseprograms and, worst of all, ensures a less-than-successfulpublic school restructuring effort.

All states visited were at various stages of addressing questionsof better student assessment, specified learning standards anda heightened focus on achieving a higher-quality performanceby American students. To leave teacher education and highereducation out of this equation is irresponsible. To tinker withone component and leave others unexamined is unwise. Stateleadership must build the unifying statutory structure to bringthe pieces together.

33

POI* References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Teacher Education Policy in the States: A 50 State Surveyof Legislative and Administrative Actions. Washington, DC:AACTE Publications, 1991.

Frazier, Calvin and Patrick Callan. What State Leaders CanDo To Help Change Teacher Education. Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,1990.

Goodlad, John I. Teachers For Our Nation's Schools. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1990.

Guest, Linda Sand. Improving Teacher Preparation: What theReform Reports Recommend. Denver, CO: EducationCommission of the States, 1993.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium.Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing andDevelopment: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington,DC: INTASC, 1992.

Minnesota Board of Teaching. A Report on TeacherPreparation and Licensing. February 1992.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation atRisk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington,DC: The National Commission on Excellence in Education,1983.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.Standards, Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation ofProfessional Education Units. Washington, DC: NCATE,1992.

34

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. SystemwideTeacher Education Program Review. Report of the ExternalProgram Review Team to the Oklahoma State Regents forHigher Education. Oklahoma City, OK: 1992.

Sclan, Eileen and Linda Darling-Hammond. Beginning TeacherPerformance Evaluation: An Overview of State Policies(Trends and Issues Paper No. 7). Washington, DC: ERICClearinghouse on Teacher Education, American Associationof Colleges for Teacher Education, 1992.

35

Copies of this book are available for $7.50 plus $2.50 postage and handlingfrom the ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver,Colorado 80202-3427, 303-299-3692. Ask for No. TE-93-2.

Co Copyright 1993 by the Education Commission of the States. All rightsreserved.

The Education Commission of the States is a nonprofit, nationwideinterstate compact formed in 1965. The primary purpose of the commissionis to help governors, state legislators, state education officials and othersdevelop policies to improve the quality of education at all levels.

Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa. Puerto Ricoand the Virgin Islands are members. The ECS offices are located at 70717th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, Colorado 80202-3427.

It is the policy of the Education Commission of the States to takeaffirmative action to prevent discrimination in its policies, programs andemployment practices.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE SERIES

At the Crossroads: Linking Teacher Education to School Reform by JoniFinney. Results of dialogues in 25 states with a wide range of stakeholders

from colleges and universities, schools, state government and businessto discuss the role of teacher education in a democracy. (TE-92-1; $5.00)

Improving Teacher Preparation: What the Reform Reports Recommend byLinda Sand (1 uest. A review of the writings of major teacher educationreform advocates finds much similarity between the recommendations ofJohn Goodlad, The Holmes Group, Project 30 and others. iTE-93-1; $5.00)

If you wish to order this publication or another from this series, please usethe order form on the back of this page.

36

ECS PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM

Publication Number and Title Price Quantity Total

TE-93-2, A Shared Vision: Policy Recommendations for LinkingTeacher Education to School Reform $750

TE-93-1, Improving Teacher Preparation: What the Reform ReportsRecommend $5.00

TE-92-I. At the Crossroads: Linking Teacher Education to SchoolReform $5.00

Subtotal $

+ Postage and handling $

TOTAL

Postage and handling charges: Up to $10 $2.50, $10.01-$25.00$3.90, $25.01-$50.00 $5.50, $50.01-$100.00 $8.00, Over$100.01 $10.50.

Generous discounts are available for bulk orders of single publications.They are: 10.24 copies 10% discount, 25-49 copies 20% discount,50+ copies 30% discount.

We honor purchase orders and we accept prepaid orders: no credit cards. If you have questions concerningECS publications, contact our Distribution Center at 303-299-3692. You may fax purchase orders to 303 - 296 -K332.Make checks payable to EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES.

Name

Organization

Address

City/State/ZIP

Send this form to ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, CO 80202-3427.

37

707 17th Street, Sults 2700Denver, Colorado 80202-3427

38