Grade colleges on how well they teach teachers? Universities balk
With fresh credentials in hand, enthusiastic and energetic teachers charge into classrooms hoping to change young lives. But in the first year they often end up feeling overwhelmed, exhausted and unprepared to teach and manage classes.
Now the Obama administration wants to improve teacher training so that newly minted teachers arrive prepared and able to deliver high-quality instruction. Too many teacher credential programs focus on theory, critics say, and devote too little time to instructing teachers on how to teach. And reformers say too many teachers -- 40 percent -- leave the profession in the first five years, in part because they're unable to handle a complex, tough job.
In an unprecedented plan that uses federal dollars as a lure, Uncle Sam would grade education schools and alternative training programs -- partly on how well new teachers' students perform on standardized tests. That could hit hard in California, where one national -- if controversial -- survey has ranked the state's credential programs lower than average.
The federal Department of Education published proposed regulations in December, gathered comment and could issue final rules by midyear.
full: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_27647925/grade-colleges-how-well-they-teach-teachers-universities
= new reply since forum marked as read
for DECADES accredited colleges of teacher education have emphasized high standards and clinical training with hands-ons experience. It was state governments who don't want to PAY for clinical internships, demonstration schools, teachers colleges, and supervising professors.
This is a no-brainer. Every teacher accrediting agency for as long as a century have put clinical standards in the curriculum. Right now, there is probably too little "theory" at this point to go with the hands-on experience. Teachers don't have enough coursework in very important topics like: testing , new curriculums that are NOT developmentally appropriate (Common Core), diagnosing special kids, school law, and ESOL (should teachers be bilingual?). You have to learn material and also put it into practice. It can be pretty complicated to make the connection, and guided experience is the only real "test".
There is simply no time in most college degrees for modern teachers to learn how to deal with the subject they teach, all the different kinds of kids, legal issues, and high-stakes assessment. In fact, even with a Masters many teachers are surprised by new things all the time.
OTOH, district training is sometimes political and not useful but this varies. Universities have difficulty hiring and keeping good faculty because they also have budget cuts that often target professional schools. Clinical experience supervised by veteran teachers is EXPENSIVE - just like you want doctors and lawyers to learn from professors who know what they are doing - but states don't want to pay for it.
Teacher certifications tests have been around since my first days of teaching. My wife and I have taken them and passed them in multiple subjects in multiple states. The teacher certifications tests are almost worthless compared to graduating from a good teacher training programs where you are learning from experienced supervising teachers and professors. If you don't pass that experience, you probably are not ready to be a teacher even if you pass a certification test. Short cuts and tests are simply no substitute for a year or two of guided practice.
Been there!! 
