The answer is simple…evidence.

Evidence supports the fact that new teachers struggle with managing their classrooms in the first few years of their career. With little practical experience delivering curriculum, planning, managing student behavior, and with tenure hanging over their heads, they do not have the confidence and often fumble through, much to the detriment of student learning.

Part of the problem is a fragmented system of preparing teachers. With many paths to teacher certification, there is little standardization. States and organizations take hold of teacher education program and in that quest for control somehow lose focus of the mission of preparing teachers’ to educate. Universities, private programs, and alternative teacher preparation (ATP) programs are examples of the many ways teachers are prepared.

The solution is unclear since there is a lack of high-quality evidence of what works and what does not work for pre-service teacher education programs. Reports suggest that teacher preparation is one of the strongest factors influencing student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Pre-service teachers’ earn a bachelor’s degree and licensure in an education field, and tend to require supervised student teaching, as part of traditional teacher preparation (TTP) programs (Shuls & Trivitt, 2015). As part of alternative teacher preparation programs, typically pre-service teachers’ complete a licensure program in education after earning a bachelor’s degree in any field of study (Boyd et al., 2007; Shuls & Trivitt, 2015).

A commonly held opinion is that alternative certification programs are negatively associated with student achievement (Betts, Zau, & Rice, 2003; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000). While the National Council of Teacher Quality rated approximately 80% of traditional teacher preparation programs as failing or weak (Greenberg, Walsh, & McKee, 2015). Some programs are not based on high quality evidence, but are instead money making enterprises. With little oversight these programs are problematic and become entrenched in their way of doing things without modernization or any change. They all seem to have different requirements from the course work to student teaching.

Without evidence supporting what works in creating great teachers, preparation programs will never fully prepare aspiring educators. With a shift and commitment to evidence-based preparation, we can ensure our beginning teachers have the academic and practical experience needed to give them the confidence in the classroom to be exceptional.

References

Betts, J. R., Zau, A. C., & Rice, L. A. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: New evidence from San Diego. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Boyd, D., Goldhaber, D., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17, 45-68.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1), 1-44. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515

Shuls, J. V., & Trivitt, J. R. (2015). Teacher effectiveness: An analysis of licensure screens. Educational Policy, 29 (4), 645-675. doi:10.1177/0895904813510777.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–145. doi:10.3102/01623737022002129.

Greenberg, J., Walsh, K., & McKee, A. (2015). 2014 teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs revised. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED556254