Learning First Alliance

Strengthening public schools for every child

Classroom Craft Before Classroom Keys: Changing Paradigms with Teacher Preparation

Phi Delta Kappa International's picture

By Dan Brown, Executive Director, Future Educators Association (part of the PDK International Family of Associations)

Fresh out of New York University film school in 2003 and with only a whirlwind summer of training, it was pretty clear to me that I wasn’t safe to practice as a new teacher. Still, the New York City Teaching Fellows gave me hiring papers. Fueled by excitement and inspiration, I took a job teaching 26 4th graders in the Bronx that fall. Although I knew virtually zero about effective teaching, I plunged ahead armed with wits and worksheets.

My rookie year in Class 4-217 at P.S. 85 was, of course, a fiasco – lost learning time that those students can’t get back. Visitors to our class would have seen student fights, unceasing chatter and a stressed-out teacher resorting to survival mode and lowered expectations.

I should have had to wait until I could demonstrate a baseline of competency. The practice of heaping everything on underprepared rookies – like my 22-year-old self – needs to stop. In this trial-by-fire culture, everyone loses: students and parents get stuck with low-skilled teachers, new teachers struggle and run for the door, and our education system remains locked in a state of churn.

The lack of a clear, high bar for what new teachers should know and be able to do on day one also has lowered expectations and respect for the teaching profession. I now lead the Future Educators Association, a national organization that supports high school students interested in the teaching profession. I can’t tell you how many times talented aspiring educators are condescendingly grilled about their career choice.

I am eagerly awaiting the details of the Obama Administration’s recently announced plans to strengthen teacher preparation programs. The U.S. Department of Education says 62 percent of new teachers report finishing education school unprepared for the classroom. The President should support the revelatory effort that could matter most in elevating teaching: institutionalizing a teacher “bar exam.”

Recommended in the important 2012 “Raising the Bar” report by the American Federation of Teachers, the teacher “bar exam” would be an authentic, teaching-profession-generated assessment to help determine whether incoming teachers are actually ready for the work.

The good news is that at least one such program exists: edTPA. The bad news is that some are attempting to quash edTPA before it has a chance to take root.

edTPA is modeled after the lauded National Board Certification, which is a rigorous, voluntary assessment process for experienced teachers that is considered the gold standard in the field. Following the National Board’s example, edTPA requires teacher candidates to compile portfolios of student-teaching materials, including videos, student work and reflective essays covering a week of teaching. To pass, you must demonstrate to accomplished educator scorers that you are “safe to practice,” as Deborah Ball, Dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan, puts it.

It’s bona fide. edTPA was jointly developed over the past several years by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity, the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and hundreds of teachers nationwide. Institutions from 34 states and Washington, D.C., are now participating. Field-testing involving more than 12,000 candidates wrapped up last fall.

Regrettably, some education schools are resisting edTPA and its attendant focus on performance, arguing it encroaches on academic freedom or represents corporate reform of higher education. For too long, though, America’s 1,400 schools of education have equated the completion of preparation programs with being ready for professional practice. It’s not working; 41 percent flee the profession within five years. A bright light needs to be shone.

Medical schools sounded similar grievances a century ago when the landmark Flexner Report of 1910 called changes the nature of medical preparation by  eviscerating the old “just trust us,” ivory-tower model. Pre-Flexner, each institution had its own home-cookin’ process for determining a doctor’s readiness. Quality varied profoundly. Openings for bad actors were everywhere. Flexner – supported by the Carnegie Foundation and American Medical Association – called foul and laid out a rigorous, standardized route to becoming a doctor. To our great benefit, that path to becoming a professional physician has become embedded in the fabric of our society.

Today, the simmering resistance to edTPA is epitomized by arguments claiming that since edTPA is standardized, it is too impersonal and must be inherently biased against minorities. Also, edTPA’s cost of $300 per taker has been called too burdensome for aspiring teaching professionals to bear. No one makes such claims about medical board or bar exams or other professional entry exams, which are standardized and cost around the same or more than edTPA.

Others argue edTPA considers too little of a teacher’s practice, although it focuses on five “critical dimensions” of teaching (planning, instruction, assessment, analysis of teaching, academic language) that are inspired by the five core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. You can’t find a more rigorous, profession-vetted framework for accomplished teaching than what the National Board offers.

Will edTPA expose some institutions that haven’t been preparing sufficiently skilled new teachers?  Painfully, yes – but that’s what happens when you put kids first.  Too many new teachers – like me at P.S. 85 – have been getting classroom keys before classroom craft, and that has come at a heavy price. It’s time for policymakers, teacher educators and everybody else to swallow hard and support the challenge and necessity of effective teacher training programs.

Follow Dan Brown on Twitter at @danbrownteacher.

This post was originally published on RealClearEducation.com.

Image from the U.S. National Archives, via Flickr

There are many excellent

There are many excellent teacher training programs which not only prepare new teachers but also offer a wide range of courses for continuing education. Teachers study psychology, biology, languages, literature, mathematics,and many other liberal arts courses in addition to their professional education courses. These well-trained teachers show that they are serious about their profession and willing to invest their time in their education.

I think we would do well to require all of our officials, such as the Secretary of Education, to have a degree from one of our teacher training programs.

Great post. There are clear

Great post. There are clear standards set for the learners at each stage of their development; however, I agree with you that "the lack of a clear, high bar for what new teachers should know and be able to do on day one also has lowered expectations and respect for the teaching profession."

In the financial education industry this is very apparent. We have a variety of untrained people teaching the subject - financial professionals, volunteers and even teachers that lack specialized training on financial education subject matter. The National Financial Educators Council addressed this problem with the development of the Framework for Teaching Personal Finance http://www.financialeducatorscouncil.org/framework-for-teaching-personal...

There is still a lot of work to raise industry awareness about the importance of having a qualified educator lead classes. Thanks for your article - you are part of the solution.

    An edTPA convert Head

    An edTPA convert

Head slap.Why didn't I ever think of the“new standards” in edTPA. I sincerely appreciate edTPA for exposing what a world class educational fraud, albeit not intentional, I have been in my thirty plus years in the classroom, my role as chair of our school improvement team for many years, thirteen years as a field supervisor for teaching candidates, and numerous other on the ground experiences. I see now that I (and my colleagues with their varied backgrounds) have learned nothing about the teaching/learning process from our experiences. A sincere mea culpa on my part. Given the massive, and of course supremely professional, edTPA changes imposed upon us by a necessary fiat, I now understand that we lack the wisdom, insights, knowledge, programs, and the teaching, mentoring, and people skills to enrich and develop our candidates and “ to ensure that candidates are provided with opportunities to learn the knowledge and skills of the new standards.” I finally get it that folks far removed and with no accountability or responsibilities for the daily, monthly, and yearly on going realities, issues, stresses and dynamics of working with students in our schools singularly know what makes an effective teacher. Furthermore, who better than anonymous dopplegangers appointed by a British publishing conglomerate to judge new teacher effectiveness? I have forwarded a critical mass of anecdotes to legislators, Regents, and others describing how edTPA has affected supervisors, candidates, and college programs. I realize how illegitimate their reactions (and mine) are now that we have been enlightened. Our lack of credibility and lack of respect is well deserved, and I understand now why our analysis, experiences, and insights are devalued, if not dismissed.

As for the future, I eagerly look forward to when AACTE, SCALE and/or NCTQ, with guidance from Pearson, evaluate supervisors and college programs by how they comply with edTPA prescribed formats just as candidates have to submit to and meet one size fits all edTPA/Pearson protocols. (Perhaps all three impressive acronyms, like the big three in reporting credit scores ,will reduce who we are to single number. After all, if it's right for candidates to have their qualities, skills, and body of work be defined by a Pearson data point, then it is right for us too). I must also assume, given that we are implicitly unqualified and lack the abilities “ to ensure that candidates are provided with opportunities to learn the knowledge and skills of the new standards,” that a Pearson representative will write letters of reference and answer phone calls from prospective employers who want a more in depth and detailed understanding of the skills, abilities, and character of candidates. The written narratives to Pearson prompts and the video will surely provide that. It all makes sense to me now.

Edward Shuster
Student teacher supervisor, Marist College

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options