Help us put a great teacher in every classroom

The research is unequivocal: teacher quality is the single most important school-based factor determining how much students learn. How good a job we are doing in selecting and training teachers is a matter of vital importance to the country, and yet we know surprisingly little about it. NCTQ's review aims to shine a spotlight on the field of teacher preparation, galvanize action against poor-performing programs and celebrate those who are preparing student-ready teachers.

Our model for this effort is the famous report on the preparation of physicians authored by Abraham Flexner a century ago. Then as now the public questioned whether the training of the members of a crucial profession was up to the task. The publication of the Flexner report ushered in a revolution in medical training and set the stage for high standard of care we now enjoy. America's students deserve nothing less than preparation for teachers whose rigor and effectiveness rivals that for doctors.

NCTQ is looking to see whether or not programs are collecting the outcomes data they need to make improvements, such as teacher evaluation and retention data after their graduates enter the classroom. Unfortunately, few states have the capacity to track the outcomes of their teachers in the classroom. Where this data exists, NCTQ is committed to examining it.

States may regulate teacher preparation programs, but that doesn't mean that they're holding them accountable. In the latest year for which we have data, states designated only 15 out of more 1,400 institutions "low-performing." And no more than a handful have ever had their approval taken away. That's not accountability at work.

Unlike other professions such as nursing, engineering or law, the teaching profession has yet to set rigorous standards of training. In 2006, Arthur Levine, the former President of Teachers College chronicled severe problems with accreditation, with NCATE having failed to persuade top education schools even to seek accreditation (including a third of the most prestigious), while also awarding accreditation to many demonstrably substandard institutions.

For starters, higher ed institutions, whether they are private or public, have an obligation to be publicly transparent about the design and operations of their teacher preparation programs. After all, these institutions have been publicly approved to prepare public school teachers. And NCTQ's review will name winners—institutions that are doing a great job and from which other institutions can learn. So by participating in the review, schools of education will be making a substantial contribution, not just to tomorrow's teachers, but tomorrow's students.

NCTQ counts itself among the many researchers, educators and officials—including Arne Duncan and Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the staunchest defender of formal teacher education—who have gone on record stating that teacher prep needs a major overhaul. Most importantly, the main customers of teacher preparation programs, college students and school districts, hold teacher preparation in general in low regard.

However, unlike a lot of others, we have not written off traditional teacher preparation. NCTQ contends that formal teacher education, done right, should be superior to any other alternative pathway into the profession. Indeed, we envision a system of teacher preparation such that no school district would ever consider hiring a teacher who had not been formally trained.

Yes. Roughly half of all teachers who come through an alternative certification route—including most Teach for America corps members—actually attend graduate programs at university-based education schools. Our review will capture pertinent information about those pathways into the profession. In addition, we will evaluate a number of programs in the country which do not require graduate study, such as the Teach for America's and New Teacher Project's "freestanding" teacher certification programs and Boston's celebrated urban residency model.