The perception held by many teacher educators is that the commitment by colleges and universities to education programs is weak and funding for education lags far behind that of other disciplines. This perception was validated by a national study in which expenditure data for education programs were compared to those of other academic disciplines. The results of the study are presented in this article, followed by a discussion of the role a strong national accrediting body could play in support of stronger funding for teacher education programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)
. (1987). Teaching teachers: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Bowen, H. R.
(1980). The costs of higher education: How much do colleges and universities spend per student and how much should they spend?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Ducharme, E. R.
, & Ducharme, M. K. (1998). The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: A history. Washington DC: American Association for Teacher Education.
4.
Ebmeier, H.
, Twombly, S., & Teeter, D. J. (1991). The comparability and adequacy of financial support for schools of education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 226-235.
5.
Hample, S. R.
(1980). Cost studies in higher education (AIR Professional File No. 7). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
6.
Howard, R. D.
, Hitz, R., & Baker, L. (1997). Comparative study of expenditures per student credit hour of education programs to programs of other disciplines and professions. Report prepared for the Government Relations Committee of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the Association of Colleges and Schools of the Education in State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and Affiliated Private Universities, and the Teacher Education Council for State Colleges and Universities.
7.
Howard, R. D.
, Hitz, R., & Baker, L. (1998). A national study comparing the expenditures of teacher education programs by Carnegie classification and with other disciplines. Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 1-14.
8.
Murray, F. B.
(2000). The role of accreditation reform in teacher education. Educational Policy,14(1), 40-59.
9.
National Commission on Teaching & America's Future
. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America 's future. New York: Author.
10.
Office of Institutional Research and Planning
. (1996). Summary report refined means for work-load, cost, and productivity indicators, by CIP code and Carnegie classification. University of Delaware: Author.
11.
Walters, D. L.
(1981). Financial analysis for academic units (AAHE_ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 7). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
