Accreditation for Teacher Prep Needs a Makeover, Say Former Ed. Officials

Save to favorites
Print

Copy URL

The current system for accrediting schools of education isn鈥檛 working, argue two former senior U.S. Department of Education officials in a recent brief. And they think school districts and philanthropists can help.

Instead of 鈥攚hich end up employing the education schools鈥� graduates鈥攕hould be assessing program quality.

David Bergeron and Michael Dannenberg, who issued the brief, helped write the teacher-prep regulations under the Obama administration. (The rules by President Trump).

The background on accreditation for teacher-education programs in the United States is somewhat complex, but here鈥檚 what you need to know:

In many states, getting a national accreditation is voluntary. But the majority of teacher-prep programs participate as a way of demonstrating professional quality and improving their work.

The group currently responsible for accrediting programs is the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation. CAEP was formed in 2010 when the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, or NCATE, and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, or TEAC, merged.

CAEP released new program standards, which were meant to be tougher, in 2013. For the next few years, CAEP suffered from internal divisions and high staff turnover. Teacher colleges resisted the more-rigorous standards, and CAEP did make some changes.

The accreditor is not yet recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, but aims to be down the road.

Among the major problems with accreditation is that CAEP dues are paid by members, who hail from higher education, write Bergeron and Dannenberg.

鈥淚f you think our accreditation system whereby existing suppliers effectively decide who else can be suppliers of services is a case of the fox guarding the taxpayer鈥檚 hen house, you would be correct,鈥� they write. 鈥淏ecause the current teacher education accreditor has shown it cannot and will not reform itself, a new type of accreditor, not dependent on schools of education and their personnel, but instead on the employers of graduates from schools of education and teacher preparation programs, should be created.鈥�

As we鈥檝e written before, schools of education are almost never closed for underperformance.

Christopher Koch, the president of CAEP, said that fox-hen house characterization is 鈥渘ot valid.鈥�

Membership dues are 鈥渘ot our only source of revenue,鈥� he said, citing funding from the Council of Chief State School Officers and states, among other places. 鈥淓ven if it were, we鈥檙e still making tough decisions about accreditation.鈥� And only about half of the folks on the board of directors are from higher education, he noted.

But Bergeron and Dannenberg say in an ideal situation, district and charter school leaders would partner to lead the accreditation process.

鈥淚f you talk to school leaders in the building, they know what they want from new teachers. It鈥檚 easily assessable what they want,鈥� said Bergeron in an interview. 鈥淢aybe if the schools that need the teachers were controlling the accreditor and making sure the accreditor was giving them what they need, they鈥檇 be willing to pay for it and would make sure the accreditor鈥檚 standards aligned to what they鈥檙e looking for,鈥� he said. The philanthropic community might also be able to play a role, he said.

The authors of the brief offer three potential methods for overhauling accreditation. (See chart below.)

鈥淚 think there鈥檚 bipartisan interest in doing something different on accreditation,鈥� Bergeron said. 鈥淭his is not as pie in the sky as it would have seemed three or four years ago.鈥�

Koch said he doesn鈥檛 see districts being willing to pay. But he recognizes that as of now districts spend a lot of money training teachers who come in unprepared. 鈥淭he vision I have for CAEP is, going forward, if you鈥檙e hiring teachers from an accredited institution, you can trust they鈥檙e qualified,鈥� he said.

See also: