TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS: CREATING A FEEDBACK LOOP Peter W. Bates, Michigan State University

1. TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS: CREATING A FEEDBACK LOOPPeter W. Bates, Michigan State University

2. Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science: PROM/SE

3. PROM/SE Partners • Ingham County Intermediate School District, Michigan • St. Clair County Intermediate School District, Michigan • Calhoun County Intermediate School District, Michigan • SMART Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio Area • High AIMS Consortium, Cincinnati, Ohio Area • Michigan State University (Lead partner)

4. PROM/SE Scope ~70 school districts ~1400 PROM/SE associates ~5000 inservice teachers ~800 preservice teachers ~400,000 K-12 students

5. Project Leaders: Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Associate Dean, Science and Mathematics Education, MSU College of Natural Science William Schmidt, MSU Distinguished Professor, College of Education Co-PIs: George Leroi, Dean, MSU College of Natural Science Peter Bates, Chair, MSU Department of Mathematics Terry Joyner, Director of Curriculum, Cincinnati Public Schools

6. PROM/SE is a comprehensive research and development effort to improve mathematics and science teaching and learning in grades K-12. PROM/SE is based on: • assessment of students • surveys of teachers and principals • improvement of standards • professional development of teachers • preparation of preservice teachers

7. PROM/SE Goals for Mathematics and Science Education • Build reform efforts on a base of empirical evidence • Develop challenging content standards and align instruction with those standards • Provide professional development based on disciplinary content, standards, and evidence • Reform the preparation of future teachers • Improve student learning in science and mathematics

8. PROM/SE is an Evidence-based Research and Development Initiative to Improve Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning in Grades K-12 PROM/SE Strategies: Create the research database: • Assess student knowledge in mathematics and science • Survey teachers and principals regarding mathematics and science preparation and instructional approaches

9. PROM/SE Strategies cont.: Using the research data: • Improve mathematics and science curriculum standards • Design and provide effective professional development for comprehensive mathematics and science curricula • Review and reform the teacher preparation in mathematics and science

10. Teachers for a New Era

11. What is TEACHERS FOR A NEW ERA? • national effort to strengthen K-12 teaching by developing state-of-the art schools of education • expected to directly influence public policy leaders concerned with the quality of the nation’s teachers • funded by the Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller and Annenberg Foundations • 5-year, $5,000,000 grant, requires $5,000,000 match • catalytic reform of teacher education as a university-wide undertaking

12. TNE Design Principles • Decisions driven by evidence • Engagement with the Arts and Sciences • Teaching as an academically taught clinical practice profession

13. MSU TNE Focus Centrality of Content and Context

14. Content is Central • Instructional content key to student achievement • Content knowledge for teachers: focus on what is important for teaching

15. Context is Central • Teaching is bifocal work: one eye on content and the other on the student. • Knowledge of students enables teachers to capitalize on student assets • Knowledge of their students’ communities helps teachers make instructional connections

16. Crucial Part of TNE and PROM/SE:Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs WHAT MUST BE EVALUATED? • Coursework, i.e. academic preparation, including: Education, Content Area, and Field experience • Outcomes

17. Coursework • Who is providing the instruction (regular faculty, graduate students, adjuncts) • Does the content match standards (pedagogical and disciplinary)? • Do the field experiences offer good models? • Are they good mentors? • How much field experience? • How often? • How early?

18. OUTCOMES • Typically, programs survey graduates and employers • It would also be helpful to assess what teachers know and can do. • How effective are these teachers in helping their pupils learn? • Can this be measured?

19. Example survey compiled by D.J. Freeman • Study by D. L. Ball

21. What happens when you divide by 0?

22. Student teacher #1 Student teacher #2

23. Student teacher #3

24. Performance of pupils of graduates Ed Begle (early 70’s) surveyed all literature whose focus was to correlate teacher knowledge to “effectiveness” (in terms of student learning) “There are no experts that can distinguish effective from ineffective teachers based on easily observable characteristics. …” “ Similarly, the effects of a teacher’s subject matter knowledge and attitudes on student learning seem to be far less powerful than most of us had realized.” However, Monk (1994) found a weak but positive correlation between teacher knowledge and student learning

25. Challenges – Evaluating Teachers through Pupil Performance • Threat of evaluation narrows the curriculum • Is the data reliable? • What factors must be taken into account? • Making sure that evaluation information is used

26. REMEMBER “Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts” A. Einstein