Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education?(Report)

The current U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) emphasis on the preparation of teachers in content knowledge, and de-emphasis on pedagogy and teaching practicums, constitutes a major issue concerning how best to prepare a sufficient supply of highly qualified teachers. By contrast, federal policy represented by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes both full certification and content knowledge. Our research was based on data from the Schools and Staffing Survey for beginning teachers in both special and general education (separately). Results showed that extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching was more effective than was only some or no preparation in producing beginning teachers who (a) were fully certified, (b) secured in-field teaching assignments, and (c) reported being well prepared to teach subject matter and well prepared with respect to pedagogical skills. Thus, contrary to the USDOE perspective emphasizing preparation in content knowledge, extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching contributed to the attainment of the two key NCLB indicators of a highly qualified teacher: full certification and in-field teaching.

**********

Upon reviewing "scientifically rigorous" evidence (from Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999; Walsh, 2001) in a report on teacher quality, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) concluded that teacher preparation was of little or no demonstrated value for enhancing student achievement (USDOE, 2002). This conclusion about the value of teacher preparation applied both to traditional and alternative teacher preparation. Traditional teacher preparation (TTP) leads to degrees from colleges and universities and entails unpaid practice teaching. Alternative teacher preparation (ATP) typically targets individuals with degrees who seek a fast-track route to full-time paid teaching employment. ATP programs vary widely in the amount of preparation provided and in their institutional sponsorship (Feistritzer, 2005; Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005). According to the USDOE (2002), neither attendance at traditional schools of education nor teacher certification improved student achievement. Likewise, with respect to ATP programs, the USDOE's position was that "further research is required to provide evidence of their effectiveness" (2003, p. 21). With respect to the production of qualified teachers, the USDOE report stated that the "best available research shows that solid verbal ability and content knowledge are what matters most" (2002, p. 9).

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, the topic of teacher quality has been spotlighted. According to the USDOE (2002), the NCLB definition of a "highly qualified teacher" (HQT) focuses on content knowledge. In accordance with this interpretation, the USDOE promoted improvements in teacher qualifications by emphasizing content knowledge in teacher preparation and professional development (see also USDOE, 2003, 2004; White House, 2002). An emphasis on preparation in content knowledge applies to special education teachers (SETs) as well, as has been made explicit in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004.

In view of its perspective that verbal ability and content knowledge matter most in the production of qualified teachers, the USDOE concluded, "Schools of education and formal teacher training programs are failing to produce the types of highly qualified teachers that the No Child Left Behind Act demands" (2002, p. viii). This failure is attributed to the "burdensome requirements" of a "shocking number of education courses" and the fact that many ATP programs in this respect are "just as burdensome as their more traditional cousins" (p. 31). Instead, the USDOE report called for "fast track" ATP programs leading to certification that shorten or eliminate "course work in education philosophy or methods, pedagogy, practice teaching, etc." (p. 15). According to the USDOE, this new approach "would not necessarily mean the end of schools of education," especially if they were reconceptualized and reorganized "to resemble graduate schools of business" (p. 20). Thus, except for fast-track ATP programs, the challenge to all teacher preparation is clear. In summary, the USDOE contended that extensive preparation in pedagogy (provided by either TTP or ATP programs) is counterproductive in producing HQTs as defined and required by federal policy in NCLB.

However, the USDOE's interpretation of NCLB as focused on preparation in content knowledge overlooks NCLB's other focus on full certification. Under the mandate of NCLB, all elementary teachers, and secondary teachers of core academic subjects, must have been highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The two key requirements defining HQTs are full state certification and a high level of content knowledge (almost all teachers satisfy the third requirement-namely, must earn at least a bachelor's degree; USDOE, 2002, pp. 4-5). Nonetheless, the USDOE report said that NCLB focuses on "content knowledge, as opposed to components such as pedagogy or teaching practicums" (p. 6). Yet, the report recognized that qualifying for full certification requires extensive coursework in pedagogy and practice teaching.

Thus, there is a contradiction between formal federal policy (i.e., NCLB) defining an HQT (certification and content knowledge), and the USDOE's (2002) position on what matters most in the production of qualified teachers (verbal ability and content knowledge). If the USDOE perspective were federal policy, then the two defining requirements for an HQT in NCLB would have been solid verbal ability and content knowledge.