Despite longstanding criticisms of teacher education, the weight of substantial evidence indicates that teachers who have had more preparation for teaching are more confident and successful with students than those who have had little or none. Recent evidence also indicates that reforms of teacher education creating more tightly integrated programs with extended clinical preparation interwoven with coursework on learning and teaching produce teachers who are both more effective and more likely to enter and stay in teaching. An important contribution of teacher education is its development of teachers’ abilities to examine teaching from the perspective of learners who bring diverse experiences and frames of reference to the classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewM. (1990). The differences between graduates of four-year and five-year teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 45-51.
2.
AndrewM.SchwabR. L. (1995). Has reform in teacher education influenced teacher performance? An out- come assessment of graduates of eleven teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 43-53.
3.
ArchE. C. (1989, April). Comparison of student attainment of teaching competence in traditional preservice and fifth-year master of arts in teaching programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
4.
AshtonP.CrockerL. (1986). Does teacher certification make a difference?Florida Journal of Teacher Education, 3, 73-83.
5.
BegleE. G.GeeslinW. (1972). Teacher effectiveness in mathematics instruction. (National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities Reports No. 28). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
6.
BlissT. (1992). Alternate certification in Connecticut: Reshaping the profession. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 35-54.
7.
Byrne. (1983). Teacher knowledge and teacher effectiveness: A literature review, theoretical analysis, and discussion of research strategy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellen- ville, NY.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (1992). Teaching and knowledge: Policy issues posed by alternative certification for teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 123-154.
9.
Darling-HammondL. (1999a). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
10.
Darling-HammondL. (1999b). Teaching quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
11.
Darling-HammondL.HudsonL.KirbyS. (1989). Redesigning teacher education: Opening the door for new recruits to science and mathematics teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12.
Darling-HammondL.SnyderJ. (in press). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education.
13.
DentonJ. J.PetersW. H. (1988). Program assessment report: Curriculum evaluation of a non-traditional program for certifying teachers. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University.
14.
DeweyJ. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.
15.
DyalA. B. (1993). An exploratory study to determine principals’ perceptions concerning the effectiveness of a fifth-year preparation program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
16.
EvertsonC.HawleyW.ZlotnickM. (1985). Making a difference in educational quality through teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 2-12.
17.
FergusonR. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465-498.
18.
FergusonP.WomackS. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55-63.
19.
FetlerM. (1999, March24). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 [Online]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu
20.
FullerE. J. (1999). Does teacher certification matter? A comparison of TAAS performance in 1997 between schools with low and high percentages of certified teachers. Austin: Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin.
21.
GomezD. L.GrobeR. P. (1990, April). Three years of alternative certification in Dallas: Where are we?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
22.
GoodladJ. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
GordonE. W. (1990). Coping with communicentric bias in knowledge production in the social sciences. Educational Researcher, 19.
24.
GradyM. P.CollinsP.GradyE. L. (1991). Teach for America 1991 Summer Institute evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript.
25.
GreenbergJ. D. (1983). The case for teacher education: Open and shut. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 2-5.
26.
GuytonE.FarokhiE. (1987, September-October). Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 37-42.
27.
HabermanM. (1984, September). An Evaluation of the rationale for required teacher education: Beginning teachers with or without teacher preparation. Paper prepared for the National Commission on Excellence in Teacher Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
28.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
29.
Los Angeles County Office Of Education. (1999).
30.
LutzF. W.HuttonJ. B. (1989). Alternative teacher certification: Its policy implications for classroom and personnel practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 237-254.
31.
MonkD. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
32.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. NY: Author.
33.
OlsenD. G. (1985). The quality of prospective teachers: Education vs. noneducation graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 56-59.
34.
PerkesV. A. (1967-1968). Junior high school science teacher preparation, teaching behavior, and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(4), 121-126.
35.
PopkewitzT. S. (1995). Policy, knowledge, and power: Some issues for the study of educational reform. In CooksonP.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Transforming schools: Trends, dilemmas and prospects. Garland Press.
36.
RothR. A. (1993). Teach for America 1993 summer institute: Program review. Unpublished report.
37.
SchorrJ. (1993, December). Class action: What Clinton’s National Service Program could learn from “Teach for America.” Phi Delta Kappan, 315-318.
38.
ShinH.-S. (1994). Estimating future teacher supply: An application of survival analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
39.
StraussR. P.SawyerE. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5(1), 41-48.
40.
StoddartT. (1992). An alternate route to teacher certification: Preliminary findings from the Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3).
41.
Texas Education Agency. (1993). Teach for America visiting team report. Meeting minutes of Texas State Board of Education Meeting (Appendix B), Austin.
42.
WrightD. P.McKibbonM.WaltonP. (1987). The effectiveness of the teacher trainee program: An alternate route into teaching in California. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
43.
ZumwaltK. (1990). Alternate routes to teaching: Three alternative approaches. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
