Although state attention to teacher preparation and professional development began more than 150 years ago with the provision of teacher education in Massachusetts, the federal government did not get involved in teacher preparation and development until the late 1950s. Even then, Washington lawmakers generally restricted their activities to financial assistance for in-service training and college aid for teachers. Over time, the federal approach to teacher education has expanded in shape and scope, even as some continued to characterize it as peripheral to core issues of instruction. Today, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the federal government claims to have redefined its role. By tracing the evolution of federal involvement in teacher education over time, this study finds that the act’s provisions may reflect an ongoing attempt beginning in the 1990s to align teacher preparation and professional development activities with K-12 educational reform efforts.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Gaining control of professional licensing and advancement. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conflicting missions (pp. 69-109). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2.
Clark, D. L., & McNergney, R. F. (1990). Governance of teacher education. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 101-118). New York: Macmillan.
3.
Cohen, D. K. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal educational policy on school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 474-499.
4.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28-56.
5.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1988). Evolution of teacher policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
Earley, P. M. (1998). Teacher quality enhancement grants for states and partnerships: HEA, Title II. An AACTE issue paper. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from http://www.edpolicy.org/publications/documents/hea.htm
7.
Earley, P. M. (2000). Finding the culprit: Federal policy and teacher education. Educational Policy, 14, 25-39.
8.
Earley, P. M., & Schneider, E. (1996). Federal policy and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 306-319). New York: Simon & Schuster.
9.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
10.
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557-577.
11.
Garber, S. (2003). Sputnik and the dawn of the space age. Retrieved May 25, 2004, from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/
12.
Hawley, W. D. (1990). Systematic analysis, public policy-making and teacher education. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 136-156). New York: Macmillan.
13.
Hitz, R. (2004). Editorial: Teacher education reform. Educational Perspectives, 36(1). Retrieved August 9, 2004, from http://www.hawaii.edu/edper/pages/vol36n1-2.htm
14.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1996, August). Teacher quality and inequality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Chicago, Illinois.
15.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2003). Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Issues and options. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
Jennings, J. (2003). From the White House to the schoolhouse: Greater demands and new roles. In W. L. Boyd & D. Miretzky (Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Change and challenges (pp. 291-308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Jordan, K. F. (1986, July 18). Teacher education recommendations in the school reform efforts (Rep. No. 86-780 S). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
18.
Jordan, K. F., & Borkow, N. B. (1985). Federal efforts to improve America’s teaching force (Rep. No. 85-644 S). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
19.
Kaestle, C. F. (2001). Federal aid to education since World War II. In J. Jennings (Ed.), The future of the federal role in elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy.
20.
Kaestle, C. F., & Smith, M. S. (1982). The federal role in elementary and secondary education, 1940-1980. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 384-408.
21.
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2003). No Child Left Behind: The politics of teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 687-692.
22.
Kennedy, E. M., & Miller, G. (2002). Letter to President George W. Bush. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/rel31802.html
23.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.
24.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
25.
Millsap, M., Giancola, J., Smith, W., Hunt, D., Humphrey, D., Wechsler, M., et al. (2004). A descriptive evaluation of the federal class-size reduction program. Retrieved June 3, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ods/ppss/reports.html
26.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
27.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
28.
Paige, R. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s first annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29.
Ramirez, H. (2004). The shift from hands-off: The federal role in supporting and defining teacher quality. In R. Hess, A. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom?Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing.
30.
Riley, R. (1996). Achieving the goals: Goal 4 teacher professional development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
31.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
32.
Shaul, M. (1999, May 5). Testimony presented to the Subcomittee on Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives.
33.
Sonnenberg, W. (2004). Federal support for education: FY 1980 to FY 2003 (Rep. No. NCES 2004-026). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
34.
Stedman, J. (2003). The Higher Education Act: Reauthorization status and issues. Retrieved July 13, 2004, from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/educ/files/hiedact.pdf
35.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1999). The teachers we need and how to get more of them: A manifesto. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from http://www.edexcellence.net
36.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Desktop reference of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). Helping teachers through high-quality professional development. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002c). Outline of programs and selected changes in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
40.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Improving teacher quality in U.S. school districts: Districts’ use of Title II, Part A, funds in 2002-2003. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
Wayne, A. J. (2000). Federal policies to improve teacher quality for low-income students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
