Licensed but Unprepared: Special Educators’ Preparation to Teach Autistic Students

Thesis advisor: Marilyn Cochran-SmithThe number of autistic students receiving special education services increased 478% between the years 2000 and 2013 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). U.S. schools and teachers are educating more autistic students with complex educational needs resulting from differences in communication, social interaction and behavior. As a result, schools need increasing numbers of teachers who are equipped to educate them. Quality special education teacher preparation is critical for teachers of autistic students, because it can affect the quality of education and outcomes for this highly unique student population. Very little research has been conducted to determine the extent to which special education teacher preparation programs provide teachers with preparation to teach autistic students, or about the extent to which special educators feel prepared to teach this population at the point of conclusion of their preparation programs. This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to examine the perceptions of special educators about their preparedness to teach autistic students based on preparation program/licensure, specialized autism coursework, and on-the-job experiences after licensure programs. A researcher-created survey was followed by interviews to explore participants’ survey responses more deeply. Survey data (n =121) were used to inform both question construction and participant selection for a purposive sample of follow-up interviews (n= 10). Regression analyses, means, summary scores, and thematic coding were employed to analyze the survey data. Results indicated that the majority (77%) of special education teachers felt unprepared to teach autistic students at the end of their licensure programs. However, specialized autism coursework was a significant predictor of teachers’ sense of preparedness. Limitations of the study and implications for special education teacher preparation and education are discussed.Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2017.Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education.Discipline: Teacher Education, Special Education, Curriculum and Instruction

NEPC Review: 2018 Teacher Prep Review (National Council on Teacher Quality, April 2018)

NCTQ released its 2018 review of U.S. teacher preparation programs. Employing open-records requests and online searches, the report ranks 567 graduate teacher preparation programs, 129 alternative route programs, and 18 residencies on practice, knowledge and admissions. The report seeks to determine if the teacher preparation programs are aligned with NCTQ&rsquo;s standards. Such alignment, the report insists, will produce teachers &ldquo;not only ready to achieve individual successes, but also to start a broader movement toward increased student learning and proficiency.&rdquo; However, the report determines that most programs are not aligned with its standards. Accordingly, it finds &ldquo;severe structural problems with both graduate and alternative route programs that should make anyone considering them cautious.&rdquo; However, the report has multiple logical, conceptual, and methodological flaws. Its rationale includes widely critiqued assumptions about the nature of teaching, learning, and teacher credentials. Its methodology, which employs a highly questionable documents-only evaluation system, is a maze of inconsistencies, ambiguities, and contradictions. Further, the report ignores accumulating evidence that there is little relationship between graduates&rsquo; classroom performance and NCTQ&rsquo;s ratings. Finally, the report fails to substantively account for broad shifts in the field of teacher education that are nuanced, hybridized, and dynamic. Regrettably, the report exacerbates the dysfunctional dichotomy between university programs and alternative routes and offers little guidance for policymakers, practitioners, or the general public.</p

NEPC Review: 2018 State Teacher Policy Best Practices Guide (National Council on Teacher Quality, March 2018)

A report from NCTQ begins with nine goals purportedly based on the &ldquo;best available research evidence&rdquo; about teacher quality. Yet neither this report nor its companion, which describes the original development of the goals, cites any research evidence. The report also uses the terms &ldquo;teacher quality&rdquo; and &ldquo;teacher effectiveness&rdquo; (on raising test scores) interchangeably. The report assumes reader buy-in to its goals, to its focus on test scores, and to its assumption that &ldquo;great teachers&rdquo; have an &ldquo;outsize impact&rdquo; on students&rsquo; learning and lives. Grounded in these assumptions, the report highlights examples of &ldquo;leading state work&rdquo; in 37 policy areas related to teacher quality, aiming to hold up these state policies as exemplars for other state policymakers to replicate. Despite its intentions, the report has multiple flaws that undermine its validity and usefulness. It offers no explanation about how the 37 best practices were selected in the first place and no justification for its selection of &ldquo;leading&rdquo; policy work, some of which has occurred in states that have consistently been low performers on national assessments. In addition, the report offers no evidence to support its approach and makes no references to the nuanced and complex research literature in this area. The report focuses primarily on human capital policies that explicitly target the qualifications and evaluation of the teacher workforce. This ignores the growing consensus that many other factors matter in the production of students&rsquo; learning, including supports that help teachers succeed, school contexts and cultures, state and regional labor markets, teachers&rsquo; relationship-building capacities, and the social organization of teachers&rsquo; work. In the end, the report is of limited use</p

NEPC Review: Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admissions Standards in Teacher Prep

Based on a review of GPA and SAT/ACT requirements at 221 institutions in 25 states, a new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) recommends that states, institutions of higher education, and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) maintain or establish a higher bar for entry into teacher preparation programs. The NCTQ report suggests that boosting teacher candidate entry requirements in ways they advocate would significantly improve teacher quality in the U.S.. Yet the report does not provide the needed supports for its assertions or recommendations. In addition, the report makes multiple unsupported and unfounded claims about the impact on teacher diversity of raising admissions requirements for teacher candidates, about public perceptions of teaching and teacher education, and about attracting more academically able teacher candidates. Each claim is based on one or two cherry-picked citations while ignoring the substantial body of research that either provides conflicting evidence or shows that the issues are much more complex and nuanced than the report suggests. Ultimately the report offers little guidance for policymakers or institutions.</p

Holding Teacher Preparation Accountable: A Review of Claims and Evidence

Teacher preparation has emerged as an acutely politicized and publicized issue in U.S. education policy and practice, and there have been fierce debates about the methods and reasoning behind it. Because of the importance of teachers and teacher education, policy should be driven by the best evidence based on high-quality research. In Holding Teacher Preparation Accountable: A Review of Claims and Evidence, four major national initiatives intended to improve teacher quality by “holding teacher education accountable” for arrangements and outcomes are explored. This policy brief scrutinizes each initiative in light of the research evidence