Who doubted that a new report (PDF) from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) on Colorado’s elementary teacher preparation would unleash a small firestorm? For those who did doubt, yesterday’s Ed News story helped to set them straight:

In a letter to the Denver Area Superintendents’ Council dated Dec. 7, two University of Colorado education school deans echoed Sheehan’s criticisms of the study, and suggested that NCTQ may have an axe to grind. According to Lorrie Shepard, dean of the School of Education at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Lynn Rhodes, dean of the CU-Denver School of Education and Human Development,

“NCTQ is a self-appointed teacher-quality advocacy group. Its founder, Kate Walsh, is an avowed critic of college- and university-based teacher preparation programs. NCTQ has not been approved as an accrediting body by either the federal government or professional associations.

NCTQ has already issued reports on teacher preparation in several other states, including Indiana, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, using a predictable template. Although NCTQ claims to provide “comprehensive research,” their research methods and criteria are quite limited. Rather than focusing on teacher candidate performance outcomes as is expected in most present-day accountability and accreditation models, NCTQ bases its critiques on three narrow aspects of program inputs and standardized tests as outcomes.”

Part of the problem here is the heart of the debate lies deeper, over the value of the existing accreditation models. Why else go after NCTQ for not being something they never purport to be — namely, an “accrediting body [approved] by either the federal government or professional associations.” Such appeals to authority have limited value.

However, I agree it would be better to look at what practicing teachers already know. Three years ago the Independence Institute hosted an event titled “The Reading Crisis.” (For those with time on your hands, you can listen to the archived event audio online.) At that event, Dr. Jeannette Cornier presented the findings of her research on Colorado elementary teachers’ basic grasp of phonemic awareness and other key elements of Scientific Based Reading Research.

The results were deplorable. Large percentages of the 183 teachers sampled answered basic questions incorrectly. Isn’t there good reason to believe this problem contributes to the fact that one-third of Colorado public school students are not proficient readers? What’s the possibility that consistently better pre-service instructional training would obviate the need for some of the costly professional development that taxpayers fund through the K-12 system? Where is the incentive to change this vicious trend?

I would love to see a follow-up to Dr. Cornier’s study that covers Colorado elementary teachers’ understanding of basic reading AND math elements, and breaks down the results by their teacher training program. Maybe such a study already exists, but in any case it would be instructive to see how the results line up with NCTQ’s analysis of course syllabi. Because I think an excellent point is made:

Julie Greenberg, senior policy director for the NCTQ and co-author of the report, insists that the methods used are appropriate. “Our feeling is that we’re looking at the necessary conditions for teaching materials that teachers need to know,” she said. “If those building blocks aren’t in place, seeing what actually happens in a classroom won’t change the fact that they’re absent. The lack of these things can’t be compensated for.” [emphasis added]

And I’ve only touched on one major piece of the NCTQ study. In any case, the last thing we should do is let criticism of the study deter policy makers from scrutinizing how we prepare teachers to instruct students in the basics.

Popularity: 5% [?]

An academic mentor of mine used to say that social science research almost always confirms common sense, or … it is wrong.  There is some wisdom in that, but I wouldn’t go quite as far as his more cynical conclusion – “we’ve learned one thing from 50 years of research on health and education – smoking is bad for you.”

As a social science researcher, I have always found the questions we study to be fascinating, but often the answers are frustratingly elusive.  Still, some recent research in education has done more than validate common sense, and has driven important changes in policy focus.

For example, by having teacher identifiers and longitudinal data in some states (Tennessee, Florida and a  few others), researchers have shown: 1) the great importance for low-income student learning of having good teachers for a few consecutive years, versus having bad teachers (yes, this validates common sense, but it shows that learning gains for low-income kids are possible under good teaching); and 2) traditional inputs into teacher pay (seniority and Masters degrees) have little or no association with student learning outcomes (less clearly associated with common sense).

This evidence points to a greater focus on teacher effectiveness, which we now are seeing in Race to the Top and elsewhere, greater equity in quality teacher distribution across schools, and more focus on teacher outputs and outcomes than on the inputs.  This is what evidence based research should do.

But a study on teacher induction programs released this week, brings to the forefront this issue of research findings versus common sense or common wisdom “on the ground.”   I’m particularly intrigued by this study because, at a conference last year, I observed a panel discussion of the first year of findings. Now the second year findings are out.

The study is “Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the Second Year of a Randomized Controlled Study,” by  Eric Isenberg, Steven Glazerman, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Julieta Lugo-Gil, Mary Grider, Sarah Dolfin, Edward Britton, and Melanie Ali –  Mathematica Policy Research, August 2009.

It is funded by the Institute for Education Sciences for 5 years. The authors are expert methodologists; 1,000 teachers in 400 elementary schools in 17 districts in 13 states are involved, and the districts had to agree to a randomized design where some new teachers get one of two high quality, nationally-respected induction programs, while other teachers get “induction as usual.”  This is the gold standard of research designs (and costs $17 million).

The findings: after two years, the teachers getting better induction programs do not show any increase in their student learning outcomes, compared to the control group.

So, either common sense is wrong and a great induction program for teachers doesn’t move student achievement, or there is something wrong with this study (doubtful to me), or 2 years is too short to see student learning outcome effects (possible, and a good thing the study is funded for 5 years).

Popularity: 8% [?]