SIGN UP
 

Findings by State - Arkansas

Overview

Scope of Review in Arkansas
  1535 New teachers from the state's higher education institutions included in Review (2010)
  14 Institutions evaluated by NCTQ in the 2013 Review
-14 elementary programs, undergraduate (UG) and graduate (G)
-14 secondary programs, undergraduate (UG) and graduate (G)
  10 Institutions with sufficient data for an overall program rating
-Collectively supplying 87% of the state's traditionally trained teachers
-9 elementary programs, undergraduate (UG) and graduate (G)
-10 secondary programs, undergraduate (UG) and graduate (G)
64% Institutions sharing information for the Review
Big "take-aways" about teacher preparation in Arkansas:

  • Highly rated programs -- Programs at Arkansas Tech University (undergraduate secondary) and University of Central Arkansas (undergraduate secondary) are on the Teacher Prep Review's Honor Roll, earning at least three out of four possible stars. Across the country, NCTQ identified 21 elementary programs (4 percent of those rated) and 84 secondary programs (14 percent) for the Honor Roll.

  • Selectivity in admissions -- The Review found that only 21 percent of elementary and secondary programs in Arkansas restrict admissions to the top half of the college-going population, compared to 28 percent nationwide. Countries where students consistently outperform the U.S. typically set an even higher bar, with teacher prep programs recruiting candidates from the top third of the college-going population.

Some worry that increasing admissions requirements will have a negative effect on the diversity of teacher candidates. By increasing the rigor and therefore the prestige of teacher preparation the profession will attract more talent, including talented minorities. This is not an impossible dream: 83 programs across the country earn a Strong Design designation on this standard because they are both selective and diverse, including the undergraduate elementary and secondary programs at Auburn University.

  • Early reading instruction -- Only 30 percent of evaluated elementary programs in Arkansas are preparing teacher candidates in effective, scientifically based reading instruction, about the same as the small minority of programs (29 percent) providing such training nationally.

  • Elementary math -- A mere 19 percent of evaluated elementary programs nationwide provide strong preparation to teach elementary mathematics, training that mirrors the practices of higher performing nations such as Singapore and South Korea. 56 percent of the evaluated elementary programs in Arkansas provide such training, a significantly better showing than the national finding.

  • Student teaching -- Of the evaluated elementary and secondary programs in Arkansas, 30 percent entirely fail to ensure a high quality student teaching experience, in which candidates are assigned only to highly skilled teachers and receive frequent concrete feedback, compared to a national failure rate of 71 percent.

  • Classroom management -- 25 percent of the evaluated Arkansas elementary and secondary programs earn a perfect four stars for providing feedback to teacher candidates on concrete classroom management strategies to improve classroom behavior, compared to 23 percent of evaluated programs nationwide.

  • Content preparation -- 14 percent of Arkansas elementary programs earn three or four stars for providing teacher candidates adequate content preparation, compared to 11 percent of elementary programs nationwide. At the high school level, 15 percent of Arkansas secondary programs earn four stars for content preparation, compared to 35 percent nationwide. The major problem at the secondary level is that programs' requirements for physical science and general social science certifications do not ensure that candidates are prepared in the content of every subject they will be licensed to teach, since the state's licensing test requirements do not provide this assurance.

  • Outcome data -- None of Arkansas' evaluated programs earn four stars for collecting data on their graduates, compared to 26 percent of evaluated programs in the national sample. The state does not connect student achievement data to teacher preparation programs, administer surveys of graduates and employers or require administration of teacher performance assessments (TPAs), and programs have not taken the initiative to collect any such data on their own.

Arkansas Elementary Teacher Prep Rating Distribution

Arkansas Secondary Teacher Prep Rating Distribution

Programs that earned 3-star rating or more
Arkansas Tech University - Undergraduate Secondary
University of Central Arkansas - Undergraduate Secondary
Consumer Alert: Programs earning no stars

Endorsers of the Review in Arkansas

Arkansas for Eduction Reform Foundation

Morris Holmes, Superintendent, Little Rock School District

Arkansas' Teacher Prep Review was made possible by the following foundations and organizations

Carnegie Corporation of New York
Gleason Family Foundation
Laura and John Arnold Foundation
Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
Searle Freedom Trust
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
The Teaching Commission
Anonymous (2)

Institution List

Institutions with Teacher Training Rated
Arkansas State University Annual new teacher production (2010):  253
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
Graduate Special Education
Arkansas Tech University Annual new teacher production (2010):  153
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
Harding University Annual new teacher production (2010):  112
Undergraduate Elementary Some standard scores available
Undergraduate Secondary Some standard scores available
Henderson State University Annual new teacher production (2010):  125
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
John Brown University Annual new teacher production (2010):  42
Undergraduate Elementary Some standard scores available
Undergraduate Secondary Some standard scores available
Ouachita Baptist University Annual new teacher production (2010):  23
Undergraduate Elementary Some standard scores available
Undergraduate Secondary Some standard scores available
Southern Arkansas University Annual new teacher production (2010):  75
Undergraduate Elementary
Graduate Secondary
University of Arkansas Annual new teacher production (2010):  216
Graduate Elementary
Graduate Secondary
University of Arkansas - Fort Smith Annual new teacher production (2010):  107
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Annual new teacher production (2010):  103
Undergraduate Elementary Some standard scores available
Undergraduate Secondary
University of Arkansas at Monticello Annual new teacher production (2010):  17
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Annual new teacher production (2010):  32
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
University of Central Arkansas Annual new teacher production (2010):  252
Undergraduate Elementary
Undergraduate Secondary
Williams Baptist College Annual new teacher production (2010):  25
Undergraduate Elementary Some standard scores available
Undergraduate Secondary Some standard scores available

Institutions with Teacher Training Not Rated

Lyon College
University of the Ozarks
Hendrix College
Philander Smith College

State Context

Good preparation does not guarantee that teachers will ultimately be effective, but there is much that states can do to ensure that new teachers are classroom ready. The tables below are drawn from NCTQ's 2013 State Teacher Policy Yearbook (Full State Report here) and offer a summary of Arkansas' teacher preparation policies, identifying strong policies and those in need of improvement.

Each state has a set of laws, rules and regulations that govern how teachers are prepared for the classroom. These policies establish guidelines for admission to teacher preparation programs, set standards for what teachers should know and be able to do in order to be licensed, and can be used to hold preparation programs accountable for the quality of teachers they produce.

Although states regulate most aspects of how teachers are prepared, where in each state this authority lies is not standard across the country. And in some states, authority for different components of teacher preparation rests with different entities.