Achieving the Goal of a Quality Teacher
by Debra Price

TACT has chosen to support educator preparation programs in the state of Texas by taking a stance against certification by exam only. They have voted in favor of preparation over the rush to certify anyone with a degree. I am highly appreciative of that stance. Today teacher education and professional development are at a crossroads. Teachers and teacher educators find themselves often at odds with the policy community rather than in concert with them. The antagonism seems to be growing just at a time when collaboration is most needed. There is a real crisis in teacher education in Texas that must be addressed. The crisis relates to both the quantity of teachers being prepared and the quality of the preparation prospective teachers receive.

The quantity crisis in teaching is at the door. During the next five years, approximately two million new K-12 teachers will be needed to work in public school classrooms nationwide (Hussar, 1999; Southworth, 2000). Current teacher preparation programs in the US do not have the capacity to graduate students in these numbers. Further, consider that a full 1/3 of those who enter teacher preparation programs never enter teaching. Of those who do begin teaching over 1/3 leave the profession within their first three years (Darling-Hammond 1997). Given this data, why would anyone not support any plan that would increase the numbers of certified teachers in our state and nation? Let’s examine it a little more closely.

The quantity crisis is at a critical point when we examine shortages more carefully. There are no shortages of teachers in school districts serving economically advantaged communities in Texas or the nation. The crisis is in poor inner-city schools and poor rural areas. Individuals willing to commit to teach in inner-city settings serving minority students are dwindling at the same time as these populations are growing. Teachers of color are still vastly underrepresented in consideration of the student populations we serve. Teachers with competence in the multiple languages we find in schools today are too few in numbers to meet the demands as well. A disproportionate number of non-certified and under-qualified teachers are to be found in the urban schools of America. The recent findings from the Quality Counts survey reported by Education Week reveals the severity of this problem. In California, 23 percent of teachers in the state's lowest-achieving schools lacked full credentials to teach in the 2000-01 school year, compared with only about 6 percent of teachers in the highest-achieving schools.

In the state of New York, an analysis of data from 1984-85 through 1999-2000 found that fewer than half the teachers in some high-poverty, high-minority schools were fully certified in all the courses they taught. Low-income, low-achieving, and nonwhite students also were more likely to have teachers who lacked prior teaching experience, had failed a teacher-licensing exam on the first try, or had attended less selective colleges as undergraduates, Students in high-poverty and high-minority schools also are more likely to be taught by newcomers with no practice-teaching experience (this will be the norm under the certification by exam only plan). In schools where a majority of students are members of minority groups, nearly 17 percent of novice teachers never student-taught, compared with fewer than 6 percent in low-minority schools. In high- vs. low-poverty schools, those figures are 15 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Quite simply stated, the facts are that students in high- poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools have less access to well-qualified teachers.

For states to end the "achievement gap" between minority and nonminority students and those from rich and poor families . . . for states to achieve the goal of “no child left behind” they must first end the "teacher gap": the dearth of well-qualified teachers for those who need them most. In Texas, 760,000 of the states 3.8 million students were taught by uncertified teachers (Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2000, p 2).

The quality crisis in teacher preparation is more difficult to objectify. Politicians, bureaurocrats, and even some teacher organizations have made vicious, and for the most part ungrounded, attacks on teacher preparation in America (Duffy, 2002). These attacks include any number of unsupported charges against teacher preparation programs ranging from the failure to provide good training in phonics to the inadequacies of the faculty and courses offered in teacher preparation programs. The actual evidence regarding the quality and effectiveness of programs is slim. The effect of these attacks has been to polarize opinion and silence dialogue. The facts are that there is range in quality of teacher preparation programs across the United States. The majority of elementary teachers in the United States are prepared through four-year, baccalaureate programs. There are outstanding programs that are well resourced and conceptualized where the graduates enter teaching equipped with the understandings that will serve them well as they grow in teaching maturity. There are many other programs that are under-resourced, without direction, and struggling to offer programs that are more than just a set of isolated coursed experiences leading to an unexamined "student teaching" experience that serves mainly to perpetuate mediocrity in practice. Would it surprise anyone to find out these under-resourced, and struggling programs are themselves the ones serving minority populations. In Texas, many of the teacher education programs serving primarily Hispanic populations in South Texas have passing rates on the state certification examinations that average less than 50%, less than half of the students successfully completing the teacher education programs manage to pass the basic entry level examinations for certification. Contrast this to passing rates of over 98% for the better-resourced state programs serving a majority Anglo student population.

The crisis in supply and varying quality of preservice teacher education preparation is leading us, as a field, into a critical time period. Decisions made and actions taken over the next several years may well shape our profession and our schools far into the next millennium. Let there be no doubt that this is a real crisis. Now, states and districts are under new pressure to guarantee a skilled teacher in every classroom. The federal "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001 requires states to ensure that all teachers of the core academic subjects—English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history, geography, and the arts—are "highly qualified" in every subject they teach by the end of the 2005-06 school year. Newly hired teachers in schools receiving federal Title I money must have met the law's requirements this school year. What is the best way to improve both the quality of educator preparation and increase the numbers of qualified teachers to the levels needed? Divest? Test? or Invest?

Any educator will tell you, there is only one right way… Invest. Regrettably, if you pose the same question to individuals outside of the teaching profession you will encounter large numbers who are under the illusion that the others offer more attractive alternatives. This group includes politicians, publishers, the popular press, parents, and the public at large. I want to briefly examine with you each of these alternatives in terms of its conceptual base, research evidence, and current trends implications for policy.

What does it mean to Divest?

Cochran-Smith notes:

“There is . . . a well publicize and well-funded movement to deregulate teacher education by dismantling teacher education institutions and breaking up the monopoly that the profession (i.e., schools of education, professional accrediting agencies, and many state licensing departments) has, according to its critics, too long enjoyed. The deregulation movement, well-funded by conservative political groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Pioneer Institute, and the Fordham Foundation . . . “ (Cochran-Smith, p 5)

A recent position paper from the Abel Foundation in Baltimore Maryland, for example, argues that the solution to the teacher quantity and teacher quality problems is to be found in opening the doors to teaching to anyone with a bachelor's degree of any kind. Let the hiring institutions or local service agencies provide for a minimal preparation period (typically two or three months) leading to full-time teaching responsibilities. On-site mentoring and training will help smooth the transition. These kinds of "alternative" and "emergency" certification routes into classroom teaching are to be found all around the US today. The appeal is obvious. These programs are cheaper and faster than traditional teacher preparation. These programs suggest an immediate solution to the supply problem. They offer the opportunity to attract more minority candidates into teaching. They circumvent the autonomy of teacher education programs that are university based and lead to direct "training" rather than "educative" models of preparation.

It’s one thing, of course, for a conservative “think tank” or “foundation” to propose divesting in teacher preparation. It’s quite another when this becomes the official stance of the federal or state government. “In July 2002 the U.S. Secretary of Education issued the Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality (US Dept of Education). In this report titled Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge, the Secretary essentially argues for the dismantling of teacher education systems and the redefinition of teacher qualifications to include little preparation for teaching. Stating that current teacher certification systems are “broken”, and that they impose “burdensome requirements” for education coursework that make up the “bulk of current teacher certification regimes” (p 8). The report argues that certification should be redefined to emphasize higher standards for verbal ability and content knowledge and to de-emphasize requirements for education coursework. . making student teaching and attendance at schools of education optional and eliminating “other bureaucratic hurdles”. The secretary’s report asserts that there is “little evidence that education school course work leads to improved student achievement (2002, p 19). Scholars have attacked the report and revealed the numerous flaws in its interpretation of current research (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2002). Unfortunately, this is not an academic debate; this is public policy information.

Over the past decade, faced with critical shortages, states and districts have tried to increase the supply of teacher through alternative routes that streamline entry into the profession for midcareer job-switchers or those with bachelor's degrees. All but six states have alternative routes in place. The Quality Counts survey reported by Education Week found that 24 states and the District of Columbia have created or regulate alternative routes that include both a preservice and a mentoring component.

The content, organization, and quality of alternative routes vary widely. Although some alternative routes graduate effective new teachers who stay in teaching, other programs permit individuals to enter the classroom with minimal prior training or experience working with children. Many alternative-route candidates also must take evening and weekend classes while carrying full teaching loads.

What kind of experiences and training are provided? The survey found preservice training in alternative routes ranges from two-week orientations to a full year of training. Only 12 states and the District of Columbia require that a portion of the training include actual classroom experience. The most typical pattern that can be generalized is a summer (8 weeks) of “academic course” preparation (mostly focused on classroom management) followed by placement in a classroom with full teaching responsibilities. Coursework would continue over the year with evening and weekend classes. The teacher is also supported by a mentor teacher in the same school, although the quality of the mentoring may be quite suspect. A recent study found that less than 20% of teachers assigned as mentor teachers ever observed their “mentee” teach.

How effective are such programs? Let’s look closely at some data recently reported by Laczko-Kerr & Berliner (2002). They compared student achievement growth in the classrooms of teachers who followed three very different preparation paths. One group of teachers included three groups of “under-qualified” teachers: emergency, temporary, and provisionally certified teachers. This included one group of teachers from the national Teach for America (TFA) program. Certified teachers in this study were from accredited universities and all met state requirements for receiving their regular initial certificate to teach. There were 109 pairs of teachers from five low-income districts. All students in these classrooms took the mandated state achievement test. The results indicated that the TFA teachers’ students performed no differently from the other under-certified groups. The students of fully certified teachers outperformed students of under-certified teachers. Students of under-certified teacher made about 20% less academic growth than students of fully certified teachers.

Generally, reports on the effectiveness of alternative certification programs show (1) these teachers end up in schools serving the neediest students; (2) the achievement on the students in these classrooms suffers as compared to students in the classrooms of regularly certified teachers; and (3) the retention rates for these teachers is far lower than for regularly certified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000). How can we accept a national plan for reform in teacher preparation that stresses alternative paths with this reality in mind? Is this the scientific basis for advocating the dismantling of college and university based teacher education in favor of fast-track alternative plans?

I want to be clear that I am not personally opposed to alternative certification plans or to lump all of them as the same. I often work with students in these programs and they enter the field with the best, most noble intentions. I am not opposed to alternative routes to attract those interested into teaching. I am opposed to all programs that lack quality and rigor. I am opposed to any program of reform that would push us back not forward.

What does it mean to Test?

Mr. Leher (Debate Monitor): “ . .What’s the choice between the two of you on education? Mr. Bush: Well the first – first is, the difference is, there is no new accountability measures in Vice President Gore’s plan. He says he’s for voluntary testing. You can’t have voluntary testing. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that if you receive money, you must show us whether or not children are leaning to read and write and add and subtract. That’s the difference. You may claim you’ve got mandatory testing, but you don’t, Mr. Vice President. And that is a huge difference. Testing is the cornerstone of reform . . .

Mr. Gore: Well first of all, I do have mandatory testing. I think the governor may not have heard what I said clearly. The voluntary national test is in addition to the mandatory testing that we will require of all states – all schools, all school districts, students themselves and required teacher testing, which goes a step further than Governor Bush has been willing to go (New York Times Archives, 2000).

We know who won the election . . . but Vice-President Gore’s promise to bring the testing of teachers to a more prominent place in the accountability system is playing out despite his losing the election. And is this focus on testing a surprise? Promoting higher educational standards in US public schools has become identified with high-stakes testing. The "accountability" card has been played out repeatedly and effectively by politicians as a tool for leveraging school reform. We can raise student achievement be giving more and harder tests and holding everyone accountable for raising scores. Many states are coming to see this tool as equally applicable in "raising teacher standards". Use a rigorous test as the hurdle for entry into the profession and standards will go up. This is an even more extreme representation of a public policy path for teacher education than that represented by the current Secretary of Education, but not one to ignore.

The testing option is being used as a control mechanism in two ways. First, it is being used to exercise control over the teacher education curriculum. Create a certification exam the tests so specific to the state curriculum and the state pupil accountability system that you have virtually guaranteed that the content of teacher preparation programs will be directed to what is prescribed. The second path for testing is to open the doors to anyone with a college degree and sufficient knowledge and test-taking skills to pass. How close is this to a reality?

The State COMPTROLLER of Texas issued the latest Texas Performance Review report prepared by her staff. The report, entitled Limited Government, Unlimited Opportunity, outlines savings and additional revenue suggestions that, if all implemented by the Legislature, would provide nearly $3.7 billion for use during the next biennium. $1.7 billion of that would be general revenue funding. One recommendation relates directly to teacher preparation and certification. The comptroller recommends “State law should be amended to allow anyone who passes the state's teacher certification examination (TexAs) in a subject area and holds a bachelor's degree in the same area to be fully certified without completion of a teacher training program.” The comptroller goes on to state: “Educational research does not support a need for training programs for prospective teachers. The emphasis instead should be on supporting new teachers during their first few years of employment, when turnover rates are highest.”

A bill was introduced by Texas state representative Grusendorf . 78R971 BDH-D By: Grusendorf. H.B. No. 318. ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION OF PERSON HOLDING BACHELOR'S DEGREE. The state board may issue a teaching certificate to a person who: (1) holds a bachelor's degree received with an academic major or interdisciplinary academic major, including reading, other than education, that is related to at least one area of the curriculum as prescribed under Subchapter A, Chapter 28; and (2) performs satisfactorily on the appropriate examination prescribed under Section 21.048. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2003.”

There is no research on the validity of these tests as relates to effective teaching. There is simply no data on these tests to suggest that they function in any way to open the door to potentially good teachers or to keep the poorly prepared out. The bare truth is, as it is in the high-stakes pupil accountability systems, these efforts are more about control, conformity, and standardization than they are about raising standards. Raising standards through testing is no solution to the problems we face. But in these times of fiscal constraints the pressure is tremendous and may be next to impossible to stop.

Teachers will be certified in this manner. They will meet the criterion for the “qualified teacher” stipulated in the “No Child Left Behind” law. But, who will hire these teachers? And where will they teach? And where will the successful ones go to in the future? This option of testing is even more frightening than the alternative service route because no support is insured and it has the face appeal of being cheaper.

What does it mean to invest?

The Secretary’s report claiming that university and college based teacher preparation is ineffective in promoting student learning is directly contradicted by a recent research review commissioned by his own Department of Education’s Office of Education Research and Improvement that was vetted for scientific rigor by a panel of researchers. This review, which analyses 57 studies that met specific research criteria and were published after 1980 in peer reviewed journals, concludes that the available evidence demonstrates a positive relationship between teacher education and teacher effectiveness (Wilson, Floden & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001).

Economists Steven G. Rivkin and Eric A. Hanushek found that the best teachers, compared with their least effective colleagues, can get an additional year's worth of learning out of their students. The importance of having an effective teacher is so pronounced, they suggest, based on research in Texas, that having a very good teacher instead of an average teacher for four or five years in a row could essentially close the gap in math performance between students from low-income and high-income households. "The magnitude of the teacher effect is striking," says Hanushek. Linda-Darling Hammond's work in this area has been outstanding showing precise relationships of the connection between investment in teacher preparation and student learning. Important in Darling-Hammond's research is that this finding related to investment and student learning is just as apparent at the professional development level and beyond initial certification. Investment in quality professional development that goes beyond one-shot workshops translates into student achievement gains. Using data from a 50 state survey of policies, state case study analysis, the 1993/1994 Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Linda Darling-Hammond (2002) found in quantitative analyses that measures of teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics. Both before and after controlling for student poverty and language status.” (p 1) I am not suggesting at all that the evidence in support of the effectiveness of fully certified teachers means that all is well in teacher preparation. Not at all... Reform is necessary. The quality varies too greatly from one program to the next. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of regular certified teachers over alternative or non-certified teachers is a crude defense of teacher education. It is not very helpful in guiding needed reforms teacher preparation programs. Up to this point in time there has been little evidence that connects the quality of the teacher preparation program with the effectiveness of the graduates in teaching. There has been little evidence to describe the features of quality programs. However, research is beginning to accumulate (e.g., Grossman, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2002).

Researchers under the auspices of the International Reading Association are in the final stages of completing the analysis of large-scale, longitudinal, quasi-experimental study of effective reading teacher preparation. Early results indicate:

Graduates of exemplary programs:

Make an easier and more effective transition into classroom teaching… Offer more effective instruction to their students than traditionally prepared students right from the earliest years; and Have a more positive impact on student achievement (Roller, C. & Hoffman, 2002).

Negotiating Reform in these Troubled Times

The goal of a having a quality teacher in every classroom in Texas is logically dependent on the related goal of a quality teacher educator and a quality program for every prospective teacher. This will require major structural, conceptual, and procedural revisions in teacher education programs. It will require an investment of energy and expertise. What is required? It seems to me that there are five areas we must consider in negotiating the challenges of improving teacher preparation that lay ahead: cost, commitment, content, continuity and control. These areas are relevant to educators, teacher educators, administrators and policy-makers.

1. Cost Issues: Match resources to the mission.

These are tight times. It would be difficult to argue for more funding for better teacher education within the current economic conditions. And even though I believe strongly that a greater investment in teacher education is needed, I would not ask for policy makers to allocate more money to teacher preparation. This may come as a surprise. I would ask, instead, that policy makers scrutinize carefully where the money they currently allocate to teacher preparation really goes. I would ask specifically for policy makers to examine carefully if the money dedicated by state legislatures to the preparation of teachers is reaching the intended programs. To examine, on behalf of the students, if the tuition and fees students pay for their preparation to teach is going to the program they are enrolled in.

2. Commitment: Concentrate efforts on a shared understanding of the mission.

Colleges of Education need to take stock of their commitment to teacher preparation. In many institutions, there are no expectations, requirements, rewards or recognition for regular faculty to teach in the undergraduate teacher preparation program. . In fact there are penalties associated with teaching undergraduates (lower rank, lower average salary, higher course loads. The same “field-based” courses with twenty to twenty-five students that the state legislature rewards with higher formula funding count less toward faculty load than one graduate course with as few as eight students enrolled). The gap between teaching undergraduates vs. graduate courses is a bit like the gap in who teaches in the inner-city and who teaches in the suburbs. You don’t tend to find the experienced, full-professors teaching in the undergraduate program. What kind of valuing is represented here?

Colleges of education through centering and self-study and a careful examination of priorities and pressures can reform from within. What is the nature of the mission and commitment of the University’s and colleges to teacher preparation? How are the energies and expertise within the faculty focused on this mission? 3. Content: Develop programs that are effective

This is not a deliberation that is even focused solely on the content of courses. This is a serious consideration of what we teach and how. Not content delivered, but knowledge transformed into principles that can guide action. Teacher preparation programs need to take a serious look at what they offer and how it is offered. We need to examine this carefully through systematic and rigorous self-study and fix from within.

4. Continuity: Take into account the continuum of teacher development.

At its best a quality educator preparation programs can only insure a “good start” in teaching. It is imperative that our conversations and deliberations over teacher preparation bridge into a life-long learning to teach model. We must take a serious look at the conditions of teaching that sustain and support the best teachers to stay. This is a particular responsibility as we reconsider the need to attract and support the best teachers in to the areas they are needed most.

5. Control: Maintain autonomy within a framework of accountability.

The issues surrounding teacher preparation are not limited to matters of supply and economics. There is a very large issue surrounding control. The past one hundred years of professionalization of teaching and the movement from “school district certification” to University based programs has been a movement toward autonomous thinking. Many aspects of the current political agenda for teacher preparation are designed to put control of the content of teacher preparation in the hands of the state bureaucrats not in the hands of academics who thrive on autonomy. University-based teacher preparation programs are not there to “train” teachers but to educate them. Autonomy is an essential feature that divides these two domains. The same reasons we don’t turn medical education over to the hospitals or HM0s. The same reason we don’t turn legal education over to giant law firms, or turn the education of engineers over to mega, multi-national corporations. It’s not tradition; it’s just not as effective in preparing knowledgably, reflective professionals. Effective teachers are creative, responsive and knowledgeable. You cannot, “train” these qualities, you must educate.

Summary

In 1984, the US Office of Education published a highly influential report entitled: A Nation at Risk. In the opening of this report, the authors caught the attention of American public with a bold claim.

“If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems that helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”

This came from a report that launched us into the reforms of the past two decades. I think it’s important to put this back in front of us today, to ask the question when is reform wrong-headed and, indeed, more guilty of the charge it makes than the conditions that gave rise to it in the first place.

President Bush has set before this nation a goal that we can all, regardless of political persuasion, rally around: a quality teacher for every child. The path that leads to this outcome is through quality teacher education . . . a quality teacher educator in a quality teacher education program is the only choice toward successful reform. Investment, not divestment or testing, holds the answer.

I must be clear in that my motivations are not self-serving, self-indulgent, self-promotional, or worse an expression of self-satisfaction. We have a long way to go before we reach the standard of quality teacher preparation for all prospective teachers. It is a goal we can achieve. Let’s begin. . not by “dismantling” what we have achieved but by making our best efforts and our best programs the standard and not the exception.

References

Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy, practice and pitfalls. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v.9, n.11, pp 1-25.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. NY: National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). "http://epaaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

"

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A Response to “teacher certification reconsidered”. NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. "http://www.nctaf.org"

Darling-Hammond, L. & Young, P. (2002). Defining “Highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational researcher, December, pp 13-25.

Duffy, G. (2002). Teachers Who Improve Reading Achievement: What Research Says About What They Do and How To Develop Them. Paper presented for the National Invitational Conference on Improving Reading Achievement Through Professional Development, in Washington, DC, November 13-14, 2002

Fordham Foundation (1999). Manifesto: A policy statement. New York, NY: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Grossman, P. (2003, Jan./Feb.). Teaching: From A Nation at Risk to a Profession at Risk? Harvard Education Letter. http://www.edletter.org/current/index.shtml"

Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84-117.

Hussar, W. J. (1999). Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States. Education Statistics Quarterly, v1, n4, pp 45-50.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). A Different approach to solving the teacher shortage problem. Teaching Quality Briefs, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Number 3, January, p. 4.

Laczko-Kerr, L., & Berliner, D. (2002). The effectiveness of Teach for America and other under certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public polity. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). http://epaa.asuedu/epaa/v10n37

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTF) (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York.

Roller, C. & Hoffman (2002). Setting standards for reading teacher preparation. Paper presented for the National Invitational Conference on Improving Reading Achievement Through Professional Development, in Washington, DC, November 13-14, 2002

Southworth, S.A. (2000). Wanted: Two million teachers. Instructor, v.110, n1, pp 31-32. Teaching and California's Future: The Status of the Teaching Profession (2002). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy, Planning and Innovation.

Wilson,S.M., Floden, R.E., Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.