Findings: Student teaching placements
There are three steps an education school must take to ensure that there is an appropriate selection of cooperating teachers: 1) establishing criteria for selection, 2) conveying those criteria to the principal at the prospective placement school, and 3) either screening cooperating teachers directly or weighing in on the individuals that might be nominated for the role by the principal.
Documents obtained from education schools indicate that while two-thirds of them portray themselves as involved in all aspects of the entire process, most are generally only establishing criteria for selection and then conveying the criteria (usually by letter or contract) to the principal.1 These documents from education schools also indicate that the criteria for selection are usually quite minimal: 1) that cooperating teachers have at least three years of experience and are certified in the area in which they are teaching (the most common criterion), 2) that teachers are "master teachers" (without defining what constitutes mastery), and 3) that cooperating teachers are willing to supervise student teachers (without any requirement of previously demonstrated mentorship skills).
Our interviews indicated, however, that minimal or not, selection criteria are often not conveyed by the education school to principals. For example, two principals working with Roosevelt University were unaware of any formal selection criteria for cooperating teachers, while two other principals had received minimum criteria.
The degree to which education schools are involved in selection is also erratic. Some of the principals who work with North Park University said that they make placements in consultation with university staff, while others reported that there is no collaboration. In a rare contrast, six principals whose schools hosted student teachers from Eastern Illinois University reported that university staff consistently participated in the selection of mentor teachers.
While it is possible that principals will "read between the lines" of pro forma characteristics to select a cooperating teacher who is an effective teacher and a good adult mentor, or do so even without criteria provided at all, there are no guarantees. Some school principals may simply pick the teacher who loves children or who needs help to manage an unruly class, a fact that the education school won't know until after a less than optimal placement is already underway.
Our interviews with principals revealed that they have many different definitions for their "best teacher." One principal who received student teachers from Rockford College said that he interpreted "best teacher" to be an individual with strong instructional and communications skills, whereas a second said the "best teacher" was one with considerable experience and a willingness to mentor.
The bottom line is that principals whose schools host student teachers from Illinois education schools stated that only about 20 percent of those institutions played any role in the selection process.
As a result, only seven institutions meet this standard, with another seven only partially meeting it. The typical program failed to meet the standard because it did not participate actively in choosing cooperating teachers and did not provide guidance to principals specifying that cooperating teachers must demonstrate both instructional and mentorship skills.
The University of Chicago is an excellent example of a university that is completely involved in the cooperating teacher selection process in that it has made a clear statement of the criteria for selection, which include a candidate teacher's demonstrated ability to increase student learning and to mentor an adult. It conveys those criteria to principals to seek their nomination of candidate teachers, and then it screens and selects the cooperating teachers using written applications, completed self-evaluations, observations and interviews.
How Illinois institutions fare on this standard
