Elmhurst College
Department of Education Elmhurst, Illinois Institution Comment Comments submitted by: Debra Meyer, Ph.D., Chairperson, Department of Education
Elmhurst College participated in NCTQ’s review to demonstrate transparency and our commitment to continually improving teaching and learning for all PK-12 students. Although our ratings were highly favorable, these scores were not based on accepted professional standards or the basic requirements for research methods or program evaluation. Therefore we do not place significance on any ratings. We join with the Associated Colleges of Illinois in highlighting that while NCTQ’s stated purpose was to evaluate the design of teacher preparation programs and thereby advance education reform, their review did not link specific components of teacher preparation to any classroom outcomes nor did it identify teacher preparation practices that close the achievement gap. As the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education has reported, “[NCTQ’s] efforts have utilized methodologies that do not meet the standards of basic scientific research. For example, they have assessed course syllabi and handbooks against “standards”— that are neither research based nor representative of any established consensus-as a means of evaluating teacher preparation programs.” Examples from our review: 1. Exit criteria were rated “0” - NCTQ stated, “This [State elementary content test] is wholly inadequate, both because of its low level of rigor and the lack of separate cut-scores for each subject.” There is no evidence of “low level of rigor” provided. Content validity correlation tables and studies of bias for all tests are published, as are the methods for determining the cut-scores. Special education candidates complete a different content test. We found that the facts do not support the rating. 2. Our liberal arts program was rated a “0” - NCTQ’s response was, “while world literature, global society and science requirements do exist, elective choices are too broad to fully meet our standard.” We find this rating contradictory. 3. Our Special Education Program’s “efficiency standard” was rated a “0” because “[t]he number of semester hours necessary to complete the professional sequence is well above an acceptable level,” although the program is a four–year, K–12 certification program with a bachelor’s degree and only half of the program’s syllabi were reviewed. We find ratings based on credit hours or number of courses rather than content incongruous with NCTQ’s stated purpose. We are deeply troubled by the continuation of unscientific reports being promoted in the media as research and unbiased fact–finding. Published articles dating back 5 years document the consistency of NCTQ errors and misinformation, which were continued in this report. We advocate for no further participation with NCTQ until there has been a rigorous external review of its research methodology. A review also should address conflicts of interest, which are evaluated in all scientific research. We join with the colleges and universities of Illinois and stakeholders across the nation to seek valid bodies of research that advance our understanding of what continually improves teaching and learning for all children. Our nation’s students deserve more than a “one–size–fits–all” approach for their futures. We invite stakeholders to our campus to learn more about how we prepare teachers for our nation’s schools.
www.nctq.org/edschoolreports
1