How Well are Today’s Teachers Prepared for the Classroom?

This summer, the National Council on Teacher Quality released its first Teacher Prep Review, finding that many preparation programs poorly equip prospective teachers to meet the needs of today’s students. In fact, only four of the 1,200 undergraduate and graduate programs reviewed earned a spot on the “Dean’s List,” meaning they received four out of four stars. On the flipside, more than 160 programs earned less than one star, putting them on NCTQ’s “consumer alert” list.

While the review is not without criticism, it helps to illuminate the poor state of teacher preparation, building on the conclusions of several other reports in recent years from NCTQ and other organizations, including our own Early Education Initiative. In 2011, we released the report “Getting in Sync: Revamping Licensure and Preparation for teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and the Early Grade,” finding that, for instance, programs preparing prospective teachers for the PreK-3^rd grades do not both provide them with ample coursework to cover the wide range of content areas in the elementary curriculum and ensure they have an understanding of how young children learn new concepts and content. 

NCTQ reviewers rated teacher preparation programs based on 18 standards in four categories: selection, content preparation, professional skills, and outcomes. Four of the standards under the content preparation category examine how undergraduate elementary and special education teacher preparation programs prepare teachers to teach:

• Early reading;
• English language learners (ELLs) and struggling readers;
• elementary math (especially with a focus on the Common Core standards);
• and other elementary Common Core content.

For the early reading standard, indicators were based on the findings of the National Reading Panel study that identifies five components of effective reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension strategies. The NCTQ standard requires that preparation programs provide at least two lectures in each component and an accompanying assignment to determine prospective teachers’ level of understanding. According to NCTQ, while 26 states have passed regulations requiring programs to use the NRP’s reading instruction approach, only about 29 percent of programs do. (Additionally, a 2011 Education Sector report examines state approval processes and found that few states ever identify a preparation program as low-performing.)

Are preparation programs employing a competing theory of reading instruction programs? No, explain the report’s authors. “The courses in our sample require 866 different reading textbooks, compared to only 17 elementary content textbooks used in mathematics courses. The problem [in reading courses] is that in most programs, no theory is being taught.” And when it comes to instructing teachers in strategies to better help ELLs and struggling readers, only 24 and 22 percent of programs, respectively, provided coursework that NCTQ deemed adequate. The fact that less than one-third of children are proficient readers by the end of third grade suggests we need a different approach to reading instruction.

In the field of math, preparation programs don’t fare much better. The NCTQ standard is based on a consensus from the field that elementary school teachers need “extensive, well-designed coursework to confidently and competently teach math.” Preparation programs earned at least three stars if they provided at least six semester credit hours, allowing enough time to cover the essential math topics. NCTQ found that less than 18 percent of elementary preparation programs earned at least three stars in preparing teachers for math instruction under the Common Core. Highly rated programs included the University of Utah and the University of Wyoming.

NCTQ also looks at how well programs are preparing prospective teachers overall for teaching the Common Core State Standards. Nonfiction topics take priority in reading instruction under the Common Core, so teachers need deep content knowledge. The authors of the report aptly note, “teachers cannot teach what they do not know.” NCTQ finds that only 10 percent of programs did a decent job in preparing teachers for content spanning the full elementary curriculum. Alarmingly, NCTQ finds that about 70 percent of elementary teacher preparation programs did not require prospective teachers to take any science coursework.

NCTQ also rated the student teaching experiences offered by preparation programs, focusing on the program’s role in identifying essential characteristics of and selecting cooperating teachers (the current classroom teachers who supervise and coach student teachers). No programs earned top marks for design. Arizona State University, however, did come close. This school was recognized for its efforts to pair student teachers with qualified cooperating teachers. ASU requires cooperating teachers to fill out an application explaining their qualifications and get approval from their principal. A committee made up of university and district staff makes the final call on who can mentor a student teacher. Such rigor is rare. More frequently, districts ask for volunteers with no application, recommendation, or interview process. Under this kind of loose selection process, some prospective teachers wind up with highly effective cooperating teachers and others with those are looking to have a long break from the classroom each day. 

The NCTQ teacher preparation program review is not without controversy. Several institutions refused to participate early on, making it challenging to obtain complete data. Some critics were concerned that NCTQ never visited the programs and that the ratings focus on things like required courses and textbooks rather than on how well graduates improve student achievement once they are in the classroom. You can read more about the concerns here, here, and here.

But the report does prove that teacher preparation needs an overhaul. While there are promising practices scattered across the country, too many programs are subpar, especially those that prepare elementary school teachers. Helping to ensure that a highly effective teacher teaches every child is a two-pronged approach: 1) High-quality teacher preparation for prospective teachers with multiple opportunities to work in classrooms with diverse groups of students; and 2) Professional development for in-service teachers that is personalized, job embedded, and includes opportunities to learn from peers and other experts in effective instruction. The NCTQ report – as well as several others in recent years – shows that there is a lot of work left to do.