By Tom

The National Council for Teacher Quality (NCTQ) just came
out with a review
of America’s education schools. And it’s caused quite a stir. I spent most of
the first day of my summer vacation sifting through it, and I’ve got several reactions.
But before I get there, a quick word about my own perspective: For the past
eight years, I have served on the Board of Examiners for the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In that capacity I visit two colleges
of education each year, collaborating on a standards-based report, which
eventually leads to the accreditation. (Or, in some cases, doesn’t) NCATE
accreditation isn’t universal; many states require it, although some states –
like Washington – let colleges decide whether or not they want to pursue it. Every
state, however, does have some form of standards-based accreditation for higher ed programs.

Now for the NCTQ review.

First of all, it appears that the
methodology consisted mainly of looking at syllabi and textbooks to see what
the colleges teach their candidates. They also looked at the qualifications of
their mentor teachers and the grade point average of the students accepted into
their programs. What they didn’t look at was the actual performance of the
candidates and graduates of the programs. This is important, especially when
you consider that NCTQ is primarily an education reform organization – not a
research center – and they have focused extensively on teacher quality as
measured by teacher output.

Besides that, their methodology – flawed as it is – appears to
have been misused. Linda Darling-Hammonds points out several glaring mistakes
in this
scathing rebuttal. This alone should be enough to thoroughly discount NCTQ’s
review.

My main problem with the review, however, lies in how it
differs from an accreditation. When a program comes up for review, the
stakeholders basically have to present evidence that they’re meeting a set of
standards. Reviewers check that evidence and decide whether it’s sufficient.
Throughout the process, there is a continuous conversation about the evidence;
a conversation that includes faculty, partners, candidates and alumni. It is
totally transparent. NCTQ’s process was anything but transparent. Because of
that, many schools refused to cooperate. Even those which did were not invited
to present rebuttal evidence. The result is a useless scorecard that ranks
colleges of education according to the “points” they earned.

This brings up another issue. In my experience on site
visits, it seems that most college students pursuing a career in education come
from middle-class backgrounds, and lack the wherewithal to “shop” for the best
education college. More often than not, they attend a state school where they
qualify for resident tuition, or they attend a nearby private school on a
need-based scholarship. Indeed, many teaching candidates didn’t even decide on
an education degree until they were well into their college career.

That’s why the accreditation process is far preferable to a
points system. An accreditation process insures that any school is up to snuff:
if it isn’t, it has to shut down. A point system – especially one that relies
on flawed and poorly-executed methodology – results in college students needlessly
questioning the quality of the only school they can afford to attend.

I’m not arguing that every accredited college is perfect.
Far from it. In fact, most NCATE visits, and the reports generated by the
visitors, result in several “Areas for Improvement.” The institution then has
to focus on those areas before their next visit, or risk non-accreditation.

One more thing; and this is important. In my experience,
there is far more variation in the quality of faculty within any institution than there is in the quality between institutions. That goes double
for the quality of their graduates; the best graduate from the worst college is
probably a much better teacher than the worst graduate from the best college. If
you’re a teacher, you already know this. Most of us have no idea where our colleagues
went to school. We don’t know because we don’t care. We don’t care because it
doesn’t matter: you’re as good as the lessons you teach, pure and simple.

NCTQ’s review has stirred the pot, no question about it. Ultimately
it might result in a general improvement of teacher preparation. But because of
their sloppy methodology and opaque process, it is far more trouble than it’s
worth.