Advocacy for academically based teacher education informs this article, which stresses the need for persuasive evidence of its value. A summary of the current state of the evidence is presented, concluding that positive evidence is now very limited. What is needed to make the case for academically based teacher education is quantitative empirical evidence. The data presented by Coleman are described as a case study to demonstrate the difficulties in interpreting empirical data developed through quantitative methods. The recent assembling of comprehensive longitudinal databases of student achievement in multiple knowledge domains linking individual students with specific teachers is shown to be a promising improvement available to contemporary researchers. Good data and the means for working with them are currently at hand. Those who support the aims of academically based teacher education are called to develop quantitative empirical arguments that will build a dossier of persuasive evidence on its behalf.
American Council on Education. (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Educational Research Association. (2004). Teachers matter: Evidence from value-added assessments. In Research points: Essential information for education policy, 2(2). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Babbitt, I. (1908). Literature and the American college. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., and Bass, H. (2005, April). Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montréal, Canada.
5.
Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence?Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5-27.
6.
Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W. K., and Hattie, J. A. (2000). The certification system of the national board for professional teaching standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensboro: University of North Carolina-Greensboro, Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.
7.
Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Bryk, A. S., and Weisberg, H. I. (1976). Value-added analysis: A dynamic approach to the estimation of treatment effects. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 127-155.
9.
Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2001). Teachers for a New Era: A national initiative to improve the quality of teaching. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
10.
Carroll, L. (1991). The complete Sylvie and Bruno. San Francisco: Mercury House. (Original work published 1889)
11.
Cochran-Smith, M., and Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., and Ball D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1-24.
13.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, R., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
14.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., and Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). What happens to a dream deferred? The continuing quest for equal educational opportunity. In J. A. Banks-C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 607-630). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. Toronto, Canada: Collier-Macmillan. (Original work published 1916)
17.
Editors of Lingua Franca. (Eds.). (2000). The Sokal hoax: The sham that shook the academy. Lincoln, NE: Lingua Franca.
18.
Editors of Teachers College Record. (Eds.). (1924). Standard tests and their use: A symposium. Teachers College Record, 26(2), 93-116.
19.
Editors of Teachers College Record. (Eds.). (2005). A symposium on the implications of the Scientific research in education report for qualitative inquiry. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 1-58.
20.
Education Commission of the States. (2005). Teacher quality/Teacher preparation/Education. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=129&subIssueID=63
21.
Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers’ knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 1-19.
22.
Gamse, B. C., and Singer, J. D. (2005). Lessons from the Red Sox playbook. Harvard Education Letter, 21(1), 7-8.
23.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., and Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
24.
Gross, P. R., Levitt, N., and Lewis, M. (1996). The flight from science and reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
25.
Grossman, P. (2004, April). The research we want, the research we need: A teacher educator’s perspective. Division K vice presidential address presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
26.
Guillory, J. (2002, Winter). The Sokal affair and the history of criticism. Critical Inquiry, 28, 470-508.
27.
Hanushek, E. A. (2003, February). The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal, 113, F64-F98.
28.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., and Rivkin, S. G. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
29.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
30.
Heap, J. L. (1995). The status of claims in “qualitative” educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(3), 271-292.
31.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., and Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
32.
Jacob, B., and Lefgren, L. (2005). Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in education (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11463). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
33.
Jencks, C. S., Smith, M., Ackland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Ginter, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of the family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
34.
Justice, L. M., and Fey, M. E. (2004, September 21). Evidence-based practice in schools: Integrating craft and theory with science and data. The ASHA Leader, pp. 4-5, 30-32.
35.
LaDuke, C. V. (1945). The measurement of teaching ability: Study number three. Journal of Experimental Education, 14, 75-100.
36.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. L., and Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
38.
Medley, D. M., and Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80(4), 242-247.
39.
Murnane, R. J. (1981). Interpreting the evidence on school effectiveness. Teachers College Record, 83, 19-35.
40.
Murray, F. B. (2001). From consensus standards to evidence for claims. In J. Ratchliff, E. Lubinescu, and M. Gaffney (Eds.), New directions for higher education (pp. 49-66). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
41.
Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: Acritical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 273-306.
42.
Paige, R. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.
43.
Popham, W. J. (1997). The moth and the flame: Student learning as a criterion of instructional competence. In J. Millman (Ed.) Grading teachers, grading schools: Is achievement a valid measure? (pp. 264-274). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
44.
Purser, S. R., Knight, H. V., and Bedenbaugh, E. H. (1990, April). The relationship between secondary principals’ evaluation of teachers and pupil achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
45.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2004, December). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methodological diversity. Paper presented at the Center for Education of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
46.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methodological diversity. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 25-31.
47.
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
48.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
49.
Rostker, L. E. (1945). The measurement of teaching ability: Study number one. Journal of Experimental Education, 14, 6-51.
50.
Rumberger, R. W., and Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73, 39-67.
51.
Sanders, W., Saxton, A., and Horn, B. (1997). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System: A quantitative outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is achievement a valid measure? (pp. 137-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
52.
Sanders, W. L., and Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
53.
Shavelson, R. J., and Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54.
Shulman, L. (2004). Disciplines of inquiry in education: A new overview. In S. M. Wilson (Ed.), Lee S. Shulman: The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (pp. 273-307). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55.
Simmons, W. (2005, Winter). Evidence-based practice: Building capacity for informed professional judgment. Voices in Urban Education, 6, 5-13.
56.
Sokal, A. (1996, Spring/Summer). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217-252.
57.
Stanovich, P. J., and Stanovich, K. E. (2003, May). Using research and reason in education. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
58.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
59.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Review of research on teacher preparation. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
60.
Woody, C. (1924). The meaning, use and development of educational measurements. Teachers College Record, 26(2), 95-106.
61.
Yarger, S. J., and Smith, P. I. (1990). Issues in research on teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 25-41). New York: Macmillan.
