Student Teaching/Clinical Practice :
California
General Teacher Preparation Policy
Analysis of California's policies
Cooperating Teacher Requirements:
California's program standards require that cooperating teachers must have a clear credential in the content area and three years of experience teaching in the content area and grade level. The cooperating teacher "must have demonstrated exemplary teaching practices as determined by the employer and the preparation program." However, program standards do not require that cooperating teachers be rated effective based on the state's evaluation system.
Clinical Practice Duration:
California requires that the clinical practice program be at least 600 hours. However this duration includes "supervised early field experiences, initial student teaching (co-planning and co-teaching with both general educators and Education specialists, as appropriate, or guided teaching), and final student teaching." The state further clarifies that the clinical practice program includes at least four weeks of solo student teaching.
California also allows candidates to meet their professional preparation requirements with certification from a Peace Corps director verifying that they have completed at least 18 months in an assignment in a foreign country, with 50 percent or more of duties consisting of classroom teaching of resident children.
Clinical Practice Assignment:
California does not specify that a teacher candidate's clinical practice experience take place in the grade level(s) on the license sought. Programs that offer dual licensure in general and special education are required to provide experiences in both general and inclusive settings.
Recommendations for California
Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness as measured by student learning.
Cooperating teachers in California should be carefully screened for their ability to further
student achievement. Research indicates that student teachers benefit most when
cooperating teachers are selected by the preparation program rather than by the
student teacher or school district staff.
Require teacher candidates to spend at least 10 weeks student teaching.
California should require a summative clinical experience for all prospective teachers. Student teaching should be a full-time commitment;
requiring coursework and student teaching simultaneously does a disservice to
both.
Specify that clinical practice experiences take place in the setting of the license sought.
Although California may intend that
teachers complete their clinical practice experience in the setting of the
license they are seeking, without clearly requiring that teachers do so, it may
be possible for teachers to fulfill these requirements in any setting.
Explicitly require that student teaching be completed locally, thus prohibiting candidates from completing this requirement abroad.
Unless preparation programs can establish true satellite campuses to closely supervise student teaching arrangements, placement in foreign or otherwise novel locales should be supplementary to a standard student teaching arrangement. Outsourcing the arrangements for student teaching makes it impossible to ensure the selection of the best cooperating teacher and adequate supervision of the student teacher and may prevent training the teacher on relevant state instructional frameworks.
State response to our analysis
California declined to respond to NCTQ's analyses.
Updated: December 2017
-
California
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
- Teaching Methods
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Deficiencies
- Adolescent Literacy
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Deficiencies
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
- Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Provisional and Emergency Licensure
- Licensure for Substitute Teachers
- Supporting New Teachers
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded
1E: Student Teaching
- Selection of Cooperating Teachers: The state should require that all student teachers be placed with cooperating teachers for whom there is evidence of effectiveness as measured by demonstrated success in improving student outcomes.
- Length and Specificity of Student Teaching: The state should require all teacher candidates to spend at least 10 weeks student teaching at the appropriate grade level(s).
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point if it selects cooperating teachers based on evidence of effectiveness as measured by student learning gains.
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it selects cooperating teachers based on on their evaluation ratings, but the state's evaluation system is not based on measures of student growth. The state may also earn one-quarter of a point if it selects cooperating teachers based on factors approaching effectiveness.
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point when student teaching is at least 10 weeks and full time and specifies experience in the grade span for the certificate sought. A state with broad grade spans (e.g., K-8, K-12) will earn one-half a point if it requires 10 weeks of student teaching and specifies that at least 10 weeks of student teaching includes experience at multiple grade levels.
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point when student teaching is at least 10 weeks, but it does not specifically require the experience to match the grade span of the certificate sought. A state with broad grade spans (e.g. K-8, K-12) may also earn one-quarter of a point if it specifically requires clinical practice experience at multiple grade levels.
Research rationale
The stakes are too high for student teaching requirements to be left to chance.[1] Student teaching is the final clinical experience of teacher preparation, and teacher candidates have only one chance to experience the best possible placement. Student teaching will shape their own performance as teachers and help determine the type of school in which they will choose to teach.[2] A mediocre student teaching experience, let alone a disastrous one, can never be undone.
Central to the quality of the student teaching experience is the classroom teacher who serves as the teacher candidate's mentor, or cooperating teacher.[3] Only strong teachers with evidence of their effectiveness, as assessed by objective measures of student learning and by their principals, should be able to serve as cooperating teachers.[4] Yet placement is much more likely to be the luck of the draw. Reports by NCTQ, including Student Teaching in the United States and the Teacher Prep Review,
found most teacher preparation programs fail to require that cooperating teachers must be effective instructors.[5]
[1] For evidence on the importance of the selection of the cooperating teacher, particularly the benefits of selection by the preparation program as well as the importance of congruence between the student teacher's placement grade and her first teaching assignment, see Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509670.pdf
[2] Further evidence and discussion surrounding the impact of student-teaching on student achievement can be found in NCTQ's report: Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Student_Teaching_United_States_NCTQ_Report; To explore additional studies published in peer-reviewed journals on student teaching, see Anderson, N. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2001). The value of feedback in an early field experience: Peer, teacher, and supervisor coaching. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 66-74.; Brink, B., Grisham, D. L., Laguardia, A., Granby, C., & Peck, C. A. (2001). Who needs student teachers? Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 33-45.; Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.; Bullough Jr, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., ... & Smith, G. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68-80.; Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 104-118.; Connor, K. R., & Killmer, N. (2001). Cohorts, collaboration, and community: Does contextual teacher education really work?. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 46-53.; Daane, C. J. (2000). Clinical master teacher program: Teachers' and interns' perceptions of supervision with limited university intervention. Action in Teacher Education, 22(1), 93-100.; Freese, A. R. (1999). The role of reflection on preservice teachers' development in the context of a professional development school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 895-909.; Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. M., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Constructing coherence: Structural predictors of perceptions of coherence in NYC teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 273-287.; Hopkins, W. S., Hoffman, S. Q., & Moss, V. D. (1997). Professional development schools and preservice teacher stress. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4), 36-46.; Lesley, M. K., Hamman, D., Olivarez, A., Button, K., & Griffith, R. (2009). "I'm prepared for anything now": Student teacher and cooperating teacher interaction as a critical factor in determining the preparation of "quality" elementary reading teachers. The Teacher Educator, 44(1), 40-55.; Justen III, J. E., McJunkin, M., & Strickland, H. (1999). Supervisory beliefs of cooperating teachers. The Teacher Educator, 34(3), 173-180.; Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of student teachers: Practices of cooperating teachers prepared in a clinical supervision course. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(3), 228-44.; Knight, S. L., Wiseman, D. L., & Cooner, D. (2000). Using collaborative teacher research to determine the impact of professional development school activities on elementary students' math and writing outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 26-38.; Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). "Maybe I can teach those kids": The influence of contextual factors on student teachers' efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 166-179.
[3] For information about the role and importance of quality cooperating teachers, see: Slick, S. K. (1997). Assessing versus assisting: The supervisor's roles in the complex dynamics of the student teaching triad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 713-726.; Tellez, K. (2008). What student teachers learn about multicultural education from their cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 43-58.; Tillema, H. H. (2009). Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice teaching lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 155-167.; Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304-322.; White, S. (2009). Articulation and re‐articulation: Development of a model for providing quality feedback to pre‐service teachers on practicum. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(2), 123-132.; See also Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504144.pdf
[4] Houston, W. R. (1990). Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher educators. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.; For additional information on the impacts of field experience and its role in teacher preparation programs, see: Knudson, R. E., & Turley, S. (2000). University supervisors and at-risk student teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(3), 175-186.; Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-1041.; McNay, M., & Graham, R. (2007). Can cooperating teachers help student teachers develop a vision of education? The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 224-236.; Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. National Council on Teacher Quality.
Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Student_Teaching_United_States_NCTQ_Report; Mewborn, D. S. (2000). Learning to teach elementary mathematics: Ecological elements of a field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(1), 27-46.; Mule, L. (2006). Preservice teachers' inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 205-218.; Nguyen, H. T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 655-662.; Pence, H. M., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 14-25.; Peterson, B. E., & Williams, S. R. (2008). Learning mathematics for teaching in the student teaching experience: Two contrasting cases. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 459-478.; Putman, S. M. (2009). Grappling with classroom management: The orientations of preservice teachers and impact of student teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 232-247. ; Richardson-Koehler, V. (1988). Barriers to the effective supervision of student teaching: A field study. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 28-34.; Ridley, D. S., Hurwitz, S., Hackett, M. R. D., & Miller, K. K. (2005). Comparing PDS and campus-based preservice teacher preparation: Is PDS-based preparation really better? Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 46-56.; Rodgers, A., & Keil, V. L. (2007). Restructuring a traditional student teacher supervision model: Fostering enhanced professional development and mentoring within a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 63-80.; McDuffie, A. R. (2004). Mathematics teaching as a deliberate practice: An investigation of elementary pre-service teachers' reflective thinking during student teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(1), 33-61.; Sandholtz, J. H., & Wasserman, K. (2001). Student and cooperating teachers: Contrasting experiences in teacher preparation programs. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 54-65.
[5] Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. National Council on Teacher Quality.
Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Student_Teaching_United_States_NCTQ_Report; National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017, May). Landscapes in teacher prep: Undergraduate secondary. National Council on Teacher Quality's Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Landscapes_-_2017_UG_Secondary