Research continues to affirm what common sense dictates: namely, that the teacher is the single most important factor in determining student achievement. Clearly, what teachers bring to the classroom – by way of aptitude and training – matters a great deal. So evaluating schools of education and teaching requirements makes good sense, especially if we are serious about raising student performance.
Prior to 1950, teaching qualifications were relatively simple: instructors were hired based on ability and desire, and had few bureaucratic hurdles to clear. In the intervening years, however, a gradual movement to regulate teacher education programs (and hence, eligibility for teaching) has emerged. The result is that university-based teacher-education programs (in partnership with state governments) are now a monopoly system, representing virtually the only path to a teaching career in public education.
And there’s more: the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), founded in 1954, wields an ever-increasing amount of power when it comes to accreditation for schools of education. In fact, NCATE now accredits institutions training more than 70 percent of the nation’s teachers; since 2002, U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of the Best Graduate Schools in Education has even identified whether a school is accredited by NCATE.
Fortunately, in 2004, North Carolina teachers were given a second accreditation option – the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). However, such an allowance was made only because smaller colleges could not afford the expense of NCATE, and teachers were (and still are) in short supply.
All of this begs the question: Do accreditation and certification requirements yield better teachers? The answer, increasingly, seems to be “no.” According to an aptly titled article, “The Accreditation Game,” in Education Next, teaching candidates from 4 of 7 NCATE-accredited institutions in Massachusetts performed well below the average pass rate of 50 percent on the state licensing exam. And a state-by-state comparison of teacher certification and student performance on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math exam showed that certification standards and teacher testing did not improve test scores. Thus, while teachers must spend ever-increasing amounts of time jumping through regulatory hoops, our teacher shortage crisis continues to deepen.
What can be done? Dr. James Fraser, Dean of the School of Education at Northeastern University, suggests breaking up the accreditation and certification monopoly. Under such a system, state governments would no longer regulate university-based teacher preparation programs, and would simply hold public school systems accountable for student achievement (no small task). Universities and colleges would have considerably more freedom to design innovative programs best suited to the needs of today’s teachers. Schools of education would then be forced to compete to produce qualified and skilled candidates. Ultimately, Dr. Fraser is a fan of local control: “Let the schools and school districts certify and hire whom they will.” Good ideas, all, and certain to shake up an increasingly problematic system.
In the end, if our current certification and accreditation process doesn’t prepare the next generation of teachers, why do it? Sure, we can continue to emphasize “style” over substance, but the costs – to the teaching profession and to our children – will continue to mount. After all, trends come and go, but failing our students is never in vogue.
Lindalyn Kakadelis writes a regular column, Lindalyn’s Journal, for the North Carolina Education Alliance.
