University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Education Champaign, Illinois Institution Comment Comments submitted by: Mary Kalantzis, Dean, College of Education & Chris Roegge, Exec. Director, Council on Teacher Education
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign shares NCTQ’s commitment to enhancing teacher quality. We are dedicated to preparing candidates to not only effectively engage the existing educational climate in all its complexity, but to envision alternative pathways and work toward continually improving the outcomes for their students and communities. As a Tier 1 research institution we embrace the appropriate, systematic, and careful use of data to inform improvement of teaching and teacher preparation. We further appreciate the challenges involved, and the expertise required, to reliably evaluate university teacher preparation programs. While naturally pleased with the majority high ratings awarded and inclined to dispute the number of low ones, we recognize that taking issue with the methodology applied in the study calls into question the high ratings along with the low. We have raised methodological and other issues with NCTQ in greater detail in separate communications. Our goal here is to clarify a few points, and identify specific instances in which we feel the ratings are not reflective of the quality of our programs. Regarding Standard 3, state certification tests do provide valuable data. Our candidates routinely score well above the cut line, and also well above the statewide average scores on all test subscales. More importantly, the certification tests are only one element of a comprehensive suite of assessments (required for accreditation) that are applied throughout the certification programs to ensure the quality of the teacher candidates. Regarding Standard 15, NCTQ recognizes that “Illinois does not have a state data system that can be used to provide evidence of teacher effectiveness” (A Guide to Ratings Methodologies, September 2010). The University is actively involved with our state in working toward such a system; however, until reliable measures are developed that can link student growth teacher influence, we choose not to rely on half-measures that may compromise accuracy or validity. Regarding Standards 26 and 34, we of course assert that our candidates are well versed in the teaching of reading. We further maintain that the five “components of effective reading instruction” are addressed appropriately in the relevant course, to a depth and breadth not revealed by the analysis of the course syllabus. Regarding Standards 27 and 35, while an in-program mathematics course sequence is not required, students must take at least two mathematics courses to fulfill the quantitative reasoning aspect of their general education requirements. Most elementary candidates choose to take Math 117, Elementary Mathematics, or a more advanced course. Further, the required mathematics methods courses also address many of the “essential” topics identified by NCTQ. The University of Illinois takes seriously any external appraisal of our programs, and will continue to utilize multiple approaches to monitor and enhance the quality of our teacher preparation program graduates. We appreciate being given this opportunity to comment on the Illinois Teacher Preparation Study.
www.nctq.org/edschoolreports
1