SUNY PP Home Page   Print Page   Close Page   Convert current file into a PDF document   Convert current file into a DOC document


 

 

 

PROVOST’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON TEACHER EDUCATION

Report and Recommendations

March, 2001

 

THE STATE UNIVERSITY of NEW YORK


CONTENTS

 

Council Membership
Executive Summary
Introduction

Goals

 

Goal A: Strengthen and Enhance Curricula and Programs 
Recommendation 1: Curriculum Content
Recommendation 2: Curriculum Pedagogy
Recommendation 3: Clinical Experiences and Relationships with Schools
Recommendation 4: Combined Baccalaureate –  Master’s Programs 

 

Goal B: Responding to State Needs: Teacher Supply and Demand
Recommendation 5: Recruit Students to Teaching Career s
Recommendation 6: Community College Transfers
Recommendation 7: Career-Changer Program

Goal C: Increasing State University’s Commitment to Urban Schools 
Recommendation 8: Establish a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center

 

Goal D: Assuring Quality of State University’s Programs 
Recommendation 9: Research
Recommendation 10: Assuring Quality of Programs 

Implementing the Recommendations

 

Appendix A: Provost’s Letter and Charge to the Council
Appendix B: Regents Regulations with Resource Impacts
Appendix C: Estimate of Cost Impacts
Appendix D: Community College Survey (Summary of Results)
Appendix E: C a re e r-Changer Program (Draft)
Appendix F: SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center (Pro p o s a l )
Appendix G: P residents Panel Report (Excerpts)

 

Bibliography


CO U N C I L ME M B E R S H I P

 

Advisory Council on Teacher Education

 

Julius Gregg Adams Director, School of Education College at Fredonia

William Amoriell Dean, School of Education College at Potsdam

Betsy Balzano Distinguished Service Professor, Education College at Brockport

Linda Biemer Dean, School of Education and Human Development (until 7/00) University at Binghamton

Christopher Dahl, President College at Geneseo

Richard Hoffmann, Dean of Arts and Sciences University at Albany

Donald Katt, Interim President Ulster County Community College

Hubert Keen, Special Assistant to the University Provost Chair, ACTE

Dan King Dean, Faculty of Applied Science and Education College at Buffalo

David Lavallee, Provost College at New Paltz

Judith Lloyd, Professor of Chemistry, Department Chair College at Old Westbury

Michael Merilan, Dean, Science and Social Science College at Oneonta Suzanne Miller Associate Dean, Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo

Galen Pletcher, Dean, School of Arts and Sciences College at Potsdam

John Presley, Provost College at Oswego

Judson Taylor, President College at Cortland

Paul Teske, Professor of Political Science and Graduate Program Director University at Stony Brook

Kathleen Whittier, Professor of Education College at Plattsburgh

 

SUNY System Staff :

 

Ginette Chambers, Director of Faculty Awards and Development

A. Jennifer Clarke, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

Kathryn Van Arnam, Assistant Provost for Academic Programs 


EXECUTIVESUMMARY

 

Introduction

 

Teacher Education was historically the central function of many of the SUNY senior campuses, 11 of which were founded as Normal Schools specifically to prepare teachers. The State University has enjoyed an excellent reputation for its graduates who become teachers. Although missions have expanded and changed, each of the 11 original campuses has retained its commitment to educating teachers, and today 16 SUNY institutions grant degrees accompanied by teacher certification. Currently the State University of New York educates about 25% of the teachers certified in New York State each year through college and university programs.

 

Teacher education continues to evolve in response to reform initiatives. National reports have focused on: (1) the reform of teacher preparation as a complement to rising expectations for students in the schools, and (2) on the need for field-and performance-based teacher preparation. The need for alignment between preparation of teachers and the K-12 standards for learning is also a national concern. In 1998 the New York State Board of Regents adopted standards for learning at every level in K-12 schools, and in 1999 new regulations were adopted for teacher preparation programs.

 

In fall 1999, University System Provost, Peter Salins, appointed and charged an Advisory Council on Teacher Education (ACTE). The Council was charged with investigating and making recommendations on a wide range of issues that a re encompassed by four major goals. These four goals constitute the outline of this report, the Council’s first, coming at the conclusion of over one year of deliberations.

 

Goal A:  Strengthen and enhance all State University teacher education curricula and programs by:

 

Recommendation 1 - Assuring that all students who are candidates for teaching certification have completed majors or concentrations whose content or discipline constitutes a “central content” area to be taught in the classroom.

 

SUNY teacher education institutions must pre p a re beginning teachers who have depth of study in one or more academic content fields that relate dire c t l y to their classroom teaching. Breadth of knowledge that an excellent General Education program can provide is essential for new teachers, and interdisciplinary majors with content essentially like that required of all students who undertake the program are appropriate.

 

Recommendation 2 - Assuring that all pedagogy courses are based on tested and defensible concepts and methods that give candidates for certification the quality and breadth of skill they need to teach students with varied needs.

 

Classroom teachers must have command of the principles of best practice in pedagogy, and teachers must continually incorporate new findings from research that improve instruction and student learning. Teachers must demonstrate skill in classroom management as well as assessment of learning and curriculum.

 

Recommendation 3 - Requiring more extensive clinical experiences and greater integration of theoretical and clinical education for students preparing for teacher certification.

 

Strong consensus exists that greater emphasis than at present is needed on clinical experiences and on the integration of theoretical and clinical education. Experiences in diverse school settings, with effort and dedication of full-time faculty, are requirements for effective teacher education. The system of incentives and accountability both for faculty and for classroom teachers who collaborate in preparing future teachers should be improved. Close collaboration among colleges, schools and teachers is essential to effective teacher preparation.

 

Recommendation 4 - Combining baccalaureate and master’s degree programs so students pursuing careers as teachers may complete requirements for both initial and professional certification more efficiently and in a more integrated manner.

 

Combined baccalaureate - master’s degree programs will be in greater demand as new Board of Regents regulations take effect. Combined programs can pre p a re prospective teachers more effectively, allowing sufficient time for both liberal art s education and pedagogical education.

 

Goal B:  State University teacher education programs should respond to state needs by:

 

Recommendation 5 - Increasing the number of State University candidates for teacher certification in titles with high need and in districts with high need.

 

Demographic analysis predicts a shortage of teachers in the U.S. and in New York State. Needs are already high in urban areas and in some certifications, including the natural sciences, mathematics, special education, early childhood education, English as a second language, and in languages other than English. In 1998-99 almost 16,000 New York State teachers were not certified in their fields, and almost 30,000 teachers in the state were over 55 years of age. Attrition among new teacher is also high.

 

Recommendation 6 - Facilitating the transfer of community college students to State University baccalaureate programs leading to teaching certification.

 

There is evidence of a high interest among community college students in pursuing teaching careers. Community colleges have the capacity to provide lower-division study in high-demand areas such as mathematics and the natural sciences. Community colleges can provide pre-student teaching field experience and may provide introductory education coursework, thereby facilitating completion of demanding teacher education curricula at the senior colleges. Access to teacher certification for place-bound community college students is a concern in some regions.

 

Recommendation 7 - Developing programs for “career changers,” individuals who have pursued another career and/or who have later reached a decision to enter teaching as a career.

 

Some campuses can meet regional needs through campus-based programs for career changers, and a SUNY-wide program should be developed to serve widely dispersed geographic needs. Many career changers have excellent undergraduate education and professional experience, and reports of their success as teachers are very positive.

 

Goal C:  State University teacher education programs should dedicate greater effort to preparing teachers for the State’s urban school districts, where student and school needs call for special attention, by:

 

Recommendation 8 - Collaborating with the New York City Board of Education to establish a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center (SUTEC) in New York City and supporting similar efforts in other cities.

 

If the state is to meet the need for qualified teachers in New York City and other urban areas, then SUNY must provide an increasingly larger number of teachers for the cities. Various factors in urban schools make it difficult to meet higher learning standards and school performance, as now mandated. Historically, the City University of New York provided a large proportion of the city’s teachers but at present meets only about one-quarter of the need.

 

Goal D:  State University’s teacher education programs must sustain quality of performance and continuously strive for improvements by:

 

Recommendation 9 - Promoting research on the degree to which teacher education programs successfully prepare teachers to effect learning in the classroom.

 

Research offers the best hope to enable improved design of programs and enhanced teacher performance in the classroom. Expansion of research requires improving information systems for accumulating, analyzing and sharing data. Reasonable balance of faculty workloads is essential if research on teacher education programs is to be successful.

 

Recommendation 10 - Faculty, campus administrators and System Administration taking actions to assure the continuing quality and improvement of teacher preparation.

 

Program review by external consultants should be undertaken on a regular schedule by all teacher education programs. Accreditation is one endorsement of quality and helps to assure maintenance of high standards in teacher education programs. The proposed in-state accreditation option should be supported as it provides opportunity for an integrated approach to accreditation, designed in conjunction with state standards and regulations. Campuses will assess, through collaboration with school system employers, the quality of pre p a redness of new teachers who are SUNY graduates and respond to any concerns of employers. Campuses will accurately promote the quality of SUNY’s teacher preparation program s. The quality of SUNY teacher education programs should be publicly promoted.

 

Implementing the Recommendations

 

Effective implementation of these recommendations and actions requires , first, strong consensus from all sectors of the university on the issues to be addressed. Second, the cooperation of campus leaders, including P residents, Provosts, program administrators and faculty, is essential in implementing the campus-level recommendations. Third, the System Administration must implement the system-wide recommendations and actions. Finally, this ambitious agenda requires the support of SUNY System Administration and campus leaders working with state officials to re form policy and acquire essential funding.

 




INTRODUCTION

 

Teacher Education was historically the central function of many of the SUNY senior institutions. Eleven of SUNY’s campuses were founded as—or became—Normal Schools to train elementary school teachers. Each of these institutions became “state teachers colleges” during the 1940s, with a broadened mission that included preparation of secondary teachers. And in the 1960s they experienced a dramatic expansion of both mission and size with increased emphasis on the liberal arts and sciences. All of these campuses, however, retained their commitment to educating teachers, and the SUNY system has consistently enjoyed a strong reputation and image in the state for its graduates who become teachers.

 

Through its college and university programs on 16 campuses, SUNY currently educates about 25% of the teachers certified in New York State each year. An additional approximately 15% earn baccalaureate degrees in a SUNY institution and subsequently become certified by the State Education Department thro u g h the evaluation route. The total number of SUNY graduates who become certified as teachers is almost 40% of the State’s annual total (Rockefeller Institute of Government report, December, 1999).

 

In response to reform initiatives at the national level that began in the 1980s, a new era of teacher preparation is evolving. The report A Nation at Risk (1983) highlighted the inadequate performance of elementary and secondary students in core subjects. A 1986 Carnegie Foundation report, A Nation Prepared, called for reform of teacher preparation as a complement to rising expectations for students in the schools. The 1996 report of a national commission, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, focused attention on the need for field- and performance-based teacher preparation, as well as on the efficacy of alignment between the preparation of teachers for the classroom and the K-12 standard s for learning outcomes. The New York State Board of Regents has adopted and is phasing in new standards for learning at every level in K-12 schools (New York’s Commitment, Teaching to Higher Standards, 1998), and in 1999 the Board adopted new regulations for teacher preparation programs.

 

In fall 1999, the State University System Provost, Peter Salins, appointed and charged an Advisory Council on Teacher Education (ACTE). The Council was first convened on December 20, 1999 and held its seventh meeting on February 16, 2001. The Council was charged with investigating and making re commendations on a wide range of issues including: (a) teacher shortages in high-need fields and school districts; (b) the special needs of urban schools; (c) programs  and curricula—including content, pedagogy, clinical experiences, and accreditation; (d) certification programs for career-changers and others; and (e) research on teaching and learning. (See Appendix A for Provost’s letter and complete charge). The Council is a continuing advisory body with an expansive charge, and it is expected to report periodically. This report, at the conclusion of over one year of work, is the first.

 

The recommendations and actions off e red in this report are, the Council believes, important steps to address areas of critical need and to assure continued excellent preparation of teachers in the State University of New York.

 


GOALS

The Council’s work is directed toward the following goals which constitute the central components of the report.

The State University’s teacher education programs should:

 

Goal A: Strengthen and enhance curricula and programs 


Goal B: Respond to State needs

 

Goal C: Dedicate greater effort to improving education in the state’s urban school districts, where student and school performance call for special attention

 

Goal D: Sustain quality of performance and continuously strive for improvements

 

 

GOAL A: STRENGTHEN AND ENHANCE CURRICULA AND PROGRAMS

 

Recommendation 1

 

For teacher education students in State University programs, only majors or concentrations whose content or discipline constitutes a “central content” area to be taught in the classroom should be approved.

 

Background: SUNY institutions must pre p a re teachers who possess demonstrable breadth of general knowledge and depth of study in one or more academic content fields. All students preparing to teach should complete a major or concentration in a discipline that will be taught in the classroom. The general classroom elementary and middle school teacher cannot be expected to be a specialist in more than one or two disciplines. However, given the necessity to complete a major or concentration, the teacher has the opportunity—and, the Council believes, the obligation—to gain depth of knowledge in at least one of the branch subjects to be taught.

 

It is the responsibility of elementary and some middle school teachers to provide both broad and substantial depth of instruction. There f o re, integrated majors or concentrations (involving more than one discipline) may be appropriate, as long as the content of such programs is essentially the same as that studied by all students undertaking a major or concentration in the discipline. While discipline-based courses designed for the special needs of prospective teachers are appropriate, they should be a small component of the major or concentration. Every major or concentration must have significant upper division coursework (typically at least 18 credit hours) to provide intellectual depth. All secondary certification programs and all programs for K-12 specialist teachers (art and music, for example) should require a major in the specific content area to be taught.

 

Essential areas of competence for elementary and some middle school teachers include reading and language arts, mathematics, natural science, and social studies. The breadth of knowledge required for elementary and middle school instruction may be satisfied, in part, by courses within the general education requirements on each campus. However, where institutional general education requirements are too broad and do not include all areas essential to prospective teachers, additional courses should be required.

 

It is impractical to prepare all elementary and middle school teachers to develop their students’ proficiency in specialized areas such as art, music and languages other than English. These disciplines, requiring creative talents and/or extensive specific background, are nevertheless essential intellectual activities and areas of study for all students in the schools. SUNY should support the continued offering of these subjects in the schools and assure the availability of certification programs in them.

 

Liberal arts and sciences faculty have the primary responsibility for ensuring the breadth and depth of study in content areas needed by prospective teachers, and these faculty should know the context and content learning standards for teaching their disciplines in the various grades. Liberal arts and sciences faculty should work in concert with education faculty to determine appropriate programs of study in general education for prospective teachers.

 

College curricula should pre p a re prospective teachers to develop their students’ achievement in all areas of the New York State Board of Regents standard s (Teaching to Higher Standards: New York’s Commitment, 1998) with particular emphasis on the fundamental skill and knowledge areas. However, SUNY institutions should not be constrained in their vision of “what might be” by the mere articulation of minimum standards that sometimes, functionally, become “standards of achievement.”  A mechanism should be available in SUNY for seeking redress in instances where regulations are found to be restrictive and to not contribute significantly to students’ preparation as teachers.

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation 2

 

The pedagogy curriculum should be based upon tested and defensible theoretical frameworks that ensure consistency of quality and breadth of pedagogical skill for teaching students of varied needs.

 

Background: College and university faculty have the responsibility to assure that new classroom teachers have command of the principles of best practice in pedagogy, and through professional development teachers must avail themselves of new findings from research about instruction and student learning. Te a c h e r s must demonstrate skill in classroom management as well as assessment of learning and curriculum. And teachers must demonstrate characteristics that research verifies as crucial to teacher success.

 

Actions:

 

 

 

Recommendation 3

 

More extensive clinical experiences and greater integration of theoretical and clinical education for students preparing for teacher certification should be developed.

 

Background: Strong consensus exists that more effective clinical experiences a re essential in preparing new teachers (National Research Council, 2000). Experiences in diverse settings that bridge theory and practice through collaboration among student, college faculty and classroom teacher are requirements for effective teacher education programs. Increased emphasis on clinical experience and performance based assessment is an integral part of the new agenda for preparing teachers. Regulations or policy positions of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and the New York State Board of Regents give increased emphasis to field experiences. Indeed, NCATE standards and Board of Regents regulations for teacher education programs require close collaboration among college and university faculty and school administrators and teachers. The Regents regulations specify levels of field experience and qualifications of faculty supervisors. (See Appendix B for pertinent Board of Regents regulations and NCATE requirements and Appendix C for estimates of impacts on campuses)

 

As the demand for teachers lessened in the 1970s (Teacher Preparation in SUNY, 1977) resources were dedicated to the growth of other academic areas, particularly the arts and sciences and research. As demand for teachers increased again in the late 1980s (Report of the Chancellor’s Task Force on Teacher Education, 1985) and 1990s, some campuses became heavily dependent upon adjunct instructors for teacher education, especially to supervise field experiences. The lower cost of instruction by adjuncts results in lower base budget allocations for teacher education. Increasing the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty in teacher education to enhance clinical experiences and meet new mandates will require additional resources. (See Appendix C)

 

Quality field experiences for students require intensive effort and dedication of full-time faculty. Board of Regents regulations specify that an individual faculty member “shall not supervise more than 18 student teachers per semester.” Faculty engaged in field experiences and development of relations with schools should have the quality of their involvement considered in tenure and promotion decisions. Institutions might consider the diff e rent types of faculty scholarship described in Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) as models.

 

The preparation of teachers cannot be achieved without the cooperation and substantial collaboration between higher education institutions and the schools. Yet, the schools have no legal or regulatory responsibility for collaboration, nor do they have significant economic incentive. A logical and reinforcing system would provide incentives, both monetary and professional, for teachers supervising student teachers and student observers in their classrooms. Compensation and recognition for classroom teachers would thus create the expectation of deeper involvement and quality of service, determined by an evaluation. It is essential that the system of incentives and recognition for teachers who accept field experience students and student teachers be improved.

 

The current SUNY remuneration for classroom teachers is $200 (or a $250 tuition waiver) per student teacher per quarter (6-8 weeks), and covers a range of responsibilities. Teachers who sponsor pre-student teaching field experiences receive no compensation even though pre-student teaching experience has long been a required part of the curriculum. Compensation of $125 for teachers who sponsor pre-student teaching field-experience students for a full semester is consistent with the responsibility. Compensation of $300 per student per quarter (6-8 weeks) for public-school teachers who supervise student teachers is closer to fair compensation. (See Appendix C for cost estimate)

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation 4

 

Campuses should develop combined baccalaureate - Master’s programs to more fully integrate undergraduate and graduate education and to allow students who wish to do so to complete requirements for both initial and professional certification more efficiently.

 

Background: As new Board of Regents regulations take effect, requiring new teachers to complete a Master’s degree within three years after initial employment, combined baccalaureate - Master’s degrees will be in greater demand. Combined programs offer the possibility of preparing prospective teachers for initial and professional certification in a time-efficient and, when appropriately constructed, more intellectually integrated manner. It will be important to design extensive clinical experiences into such combined programs. In as much as students will complete both degree programs in succession, it is essential to not slight clinical experiences in such combined programs.

 

The following components, based on an analysis of nationally successful models, are recommended for combined and compressed baccalaureate and master’s degrees in teacher education:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actions:

 

 

 

GOAL B: RESPONDING TO STATE NEEDS: TEACHER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

 

Recommendation 5

 

An intense effort should be made to recruit and educate students in certification titles with

teacher shortages and for districts with high need, especially the urban areas.

 

Background: There is an overall shortage of teachers in the U.S. and in New York State (ACE report, 1999; AASCU report, October 1999; National Research Council report, 2000; New York State Education Department report, April, 2000; Lankford, Wyckoff and Papa, 2000). The need for teachers is particularly high in urban areas and in certain certification titles, especially the natural sciences, mathematics, special education, early childhood education, English as a second language, and in languages other than English. As other states aggressively address their own shortages, teachers are being increasingly recruited outside state borders.

 

Without the preparation of significantly more teachers, New York State’s shortages will worsen. In 1998-99, SED issued almost 16,000 temporary licenses, and almost 30,000 teachers in New York State were over 55 years of age. Attrition due to resignation and retirement will exacerbate current shortages. The shortage is particularly acute in New York City’s public schools. (Lankford , Wyckoff and Papa, 2000); (See Recommendation 8)

 

Although the most severe shortages are in urban areas, several certification titles a re in demand across the state, with growing needs in some titles. Special education teachers are needed in all regions, with particularly acute shortages for teachers qualified in secondary special education. Demand for special education teachers will be increased by changes in state regulations taking effect in 2004 that establish three discrete grade level certifications, thereby limiting the range of grades for which individual teachers are qualified. Teachers of languages other than English will be in greater demand as one unit of a foreign language will be required for the high school diploma within the next four years. As schools add pre-kindergarten classes in response to demands for earlier schooling, the need for early childhood teachers will increase.

 

The impact of SUNY’s teacher education programs in New York State is relatively large. More than 4,600 SUNY students were recommended for initial certification in 1998-99 (Statistical Release #391, SUNY Institutional Research and Analysis). However, the total number of certifications granted in New York State from all sources is short of the need in certain specialties and districts. Te a c h e r supply is complicated by the fact that many students who earn certification do not take teaching positions.

 

The three-year requirement for new teachers with initial certification to complete Master’s degrees will require them to take no less than nine college credits per semester (18 per year) to complete a 36 credit-hour Master’s program. In light of the probable increase in students electing to proceed directly to the Master’s after undergraduate programs, the lack of availability of full-time Master’s degree programs will be a problem. (See Recommendation 4)

 

While school district salary decisions are remote from the higher education environment, the effect of financial incentives closer to students’ college time horizons may be more positive than longer- run rewards. Thus, scholarships, low-interest loans and loan forgiveness programs for students may have a high benefit/cost ratio for the State. The current “pipeline” supply of candidates for teaching positions is insufficient to meet demand, and the State University must take actions to increase the number of candidates for teaching careers.

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation 6

 

Effort should be undertaken to facilitate the transfer of community college students to State University baccalaureate programs leading to teacher certification.

 

Background: A number of factors contribute to the complexity of community college students transferring to senior campuses to pursue degrees with teaching certification. It is essential, however, that two-year and four-year campuses collaborate on addressing these issues, that effective transitional programs be maintained or developed, and that quality of student preparation as prospective teachers be sustained for transferring students.

 

Impact of the new Board of Regents regulations on transfer students is not yet fully explored, nor are implications of the SUNY General Education.

 

Requirement (GER). These new requirements may exacerbate the current difficulty of completing teacher education programs within two years after transfer. In some programs, special education for instance, it is widely believed that a four-year baccalaureate program for transfers will no longer be possible.

 

A survey of SUNY community colleges indicates high interest among their students in pursuing teaching as a career (see Appendix D for summary of results). While the large majority of community colleges provide advice about teaching as a career, greater collaboration with senior campus faculty on career counseling and advisement would enhance the effectiveness and provide motivation for community college students. Community colleges can provide pre - student teaching field experience and may provide introductory education coursework. Completing some of these requirements at the community college, including as much of the SUNY-GER as possible, would facilitate completion of demanding teacher preparation curricula at the upper division level. Community colleges have the capacity to provide lower-division study in high-demand areas such as mathematics and the natural sciences. Well-planned student programs at the community colleges will relieve pressure on the extensive curricula of baccalaureate programs during the final two years of study.

 

Access to teacher education programs for place-bound students is a concern for several community colleges. Three - quarters of the community colleges are satisfied with regional access to SUNY teacher education programs. Eight community colleges, however, report limited or no regional access within reasonable distance to a SUNY program. Each of the four community colleges in the vicinity of the Capital District expresses concern about regional access to SUNY teacher education programs. Distance learning can assist the State University in meeting this need as the capacity is more effectively developed and deployed to supplement classroom instruction.

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation 7

 

New programs should be developed for “career changers,”—that is, individuals who have pursued another career and/or who have later reached a decision to enter teaching as a career. Such programs are needed to meet geographic and special certification title needs. Career changer programs should be developed by some campuses to meet regional needs, and a SUNY-wide program should be developed to serve widely dispersed needs throughout the state.

 

Although various program designs are possible, following are principles that should underlie the development of teacher preparation programs for career-changers.

 

1.         Candidates should hold a bachelor’s degree with a major in an appropriate subject as determined by the institution and consistent with its own undergraduate programs. Candidate eligibility should be determined jointly between a participating school district and a SUNY campus. The school district’s endorsement of a candidate should be evidenced by an offer of employment as a teacher—dependent upon satisfactory performance — for the duration of the individual’s professional certification program. Colleges will determine candidate eligibility based on established admissions criteria equivalent to existing graduate degree programs in teaching. A substantial period (at least four years) will have elapsed between the date of completion of the Bachelor’s degree and the beginning of the career-changer program.

 

2.         In addition to campus-based programs, a SUNY system-wide career changer program should be developed in which all campuses may participate in full or in part. A system-wide program should boost preparation of individuals in hard - t o - staff fields. Because demand for such programs is dispersed geographically, some institutions cannot gather a sufficient critical mass of candidates. Therefore, a common SUNY program, with multiple collaborating campuses, will facilitate bringing system-wide re sources to bear in meeting the need.

 

3.         Programs for career changers should be integrated with classroom teaching over a period sufficiently long to allow excellent preparation. Essential components of a program prior to classroom teaching must include initial orientation to the school environment, instruction in classroom management and relevant pedagogy, some field observation and, where feasible, experience as an instructor in the classroom. After candidates begin classroom teaching, schools should provide an experienced teacher-mentor, time for continuing study and consultation with the mentor, and time for meeting with university clinical faculty. Continuing instruction may be on-site and effected by distance learning for one or more web-based courses. Elements of the program will meet Board of Regents regulations (Amendments to Sections 52 and 80, adopted July 2000) and result in qualification for initial teaching licensure.

 

4.         The curriculum for career-changers should be delivered at the graduate level and—upon completion of the full program—candidates should earn a Master’s degree and professional certification as required under State Education Law for career advancement. The ACTE recognizes the necessity for each campus, or a task force of faculty from multiple institutions, to design the curriculum for career changer programs. A model of a program and a graphic representation are contained in Appendix E.

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

GOAL C: INCREASING STATE UNIVERSITY’S COMMITMENT TO URBAN SCHOOLS

 

Recommendation 8

 

The State University should contribute to improving education in the state’s cities. The System should, in collaboration with the New York City Board of Education, establish a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center (SUTEC) in New York City and should support efforts in other urban are as.

 

Background: The shortage of qualified teachers to staff New York City public schools is a major challenge to the state, and in particular to institutions that prepare teachers. During 1998-99, the city schools employed more than 11,000 teachers with temporary licenses, about 16% of its total instructional staff (SED report, April 2000). The majority of new hires in recent years have been teachers with only temporary licenses. The City’s Board of Education estimates the need for more than 50,000 new qualified teachers over the next five years. Ninety nine of the state’s 107 schools identified as poorest performing (Schools Under Registration Review) were located in New York City during 1999-2000 (SED report, January 2000).

 

The impact of shortage of qualified teachers in New York City is complicated because of relatively higher numbers of children with limited English language proficiency and generally lower teacher salaries (Tobier, 2000). Immigration accounts for a substantial percentage of the increase in the city’s school-age population. Retirements in an aging teacher force and alternative employment opportunities in a robust economy have led to attrition among the teaching staff of New York City (Lankford, Wyckoff and Papa, 2000). Shortages exist in the city in most certification titles but are especially severe in science, mathematics, technology and English as a second language (SED report, April 2000). Teacher shortages exist, although not nearly as severe, in the state’s other urban are as (SED report, April 2000).

 

The challenges facing New York City’s public schools are heightened by the Board of Regents’ new regulations that demand universally higher student performance. Students must pass state tests as a condition of promotion, and schools will be challenged to bring all students to adequate levels of performance in order to pass state tests. The local diploma will be eliminated as all high school students (except those in special education programs) must earn the Regents diploma in order to graduate. Individual schools will be assigned ratings based upon overall student performance.

 

Historically, the City University of New York has provided a large proportion of the city’s teachers. Currently, however, CUNY’s production of certified teachers meets only about one-quarter of the city’s annual need (Brumberg, 2000). SUNY has not generally been a substantial provider of teachers for the New York City schools, and the proportion of teachers educated at SUNY institutions who take positions in the city is relatively small. Indeed, SUNY’s preparation of a large proportion of the state’s teachers is in sharp contrast to the shortage of teachers in urban centers. If the state is to meet the need for qualified teachers in New York City and the other urban areas, then an increasingly larger number of SUNY educated teachers must take employment there.

 

Development of a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center would build upon past efforts. Several SUNY campuses have individually developed relationships with New York City and other urban school systems. Currently, the SUNY System Administration and the individual campuses are collaborating with the New York City Board of Education staff to facilitate recruitment of new teachers.

 

The SUNY Deans and Directors of Education met in 1998 with President Judson Taylor of the College at Cortland to define an agenda for inter-institutional cooperation. The Deans and Directors have established an urban education committee. System-wide planning for urban education was the focus of a conference on May 23-24, 2000, funded by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York through SUNY Cortland. Forty-two SUNY education faculty and administrators attended (re p resenting all 16 SUNY institutions with teacher education programs), as did City Board of Education staff. Schools Chancellor Harold Levy addressed the group and expressed strong support. The resulting work has led to a proposal to establish a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center in New York City (See Appendix F).

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOAL D: SUSTAINING AND IMPROVING QUALITY OF STATE UNIVERSITY’S PROGRAMS

 

Recommendation 9

 

Research should be undertaken on the performance of teacher education programs in preparing graduates to effect learning in the classroom.

 

Background: Research is needed to guide K-16 educational reform. There is recognition and concern over the lack of transferability of findings from research to advances in programs and classroom teaching performance. Generally, however, research offers the best hope to enable improved design of programs and to bring about enhanced classroom performance. Are search consortium of colleges and universities, collaborating with the State Education Department and K-12 institutions, could strengthen teacher preparation programs and, as a result, learning by children in the classroom. SUNY as a whole would benefit from fostering an environment where “collaborative research and development can be generated within faculties and with colleagues in the public schools a cross institutions of higher education to achieve more data-based structural changes.” (Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, p. 11 )

 

Expansion of research capability requires improving information systems for accumulating, analyzing and sharing a wide range of data. Significant expertise in statistical analysis and information systems might best be accomplished by System Administration working in concert with a team of SUNY faculty. Much data already exist in SUNY and in the State Education Department that, when properly merged and analyzed, will advance research efforts.

 

SED currently recognizes a number of routes to certification that differ significantly in structure: traditional undergraduate programs, several types of graduate programs (including MEd, MAT and MST), evaluation of credentials acquire d t h rough various means, and the new alternative certification routes. Given these variations in preparation, initiating comprehensive longitudinal studies that draw on expertise throughout the SUNY system would be timely, with the potential to guide not only SUNY program development but also Board of Regents and SED policy.

 

Reasonable balance of workloads is essential if research, field experiences and performance based teacher education are to be successful. The diversity of teacher preparation faculty’s responsibilities is extensive, and thus special attention is required to assure research capacity. Teaching load must take into consideration graduate teaching and commitments to field education.

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation 10

 

Actions should be taken to assure the continuing quality and improvement of teacher preparation.

 

Background: Consistently high standards must be maintained in curriculum and performance of students and faculty in teacher preparation programs. The teacher education programs of the State University are shown by formal measures to be of high quality (see, for instance, “College Results Announced for Teacher Certification Exams,” SED News Release, Sept. 14, 2000). Campuses have confidence in the quality of their faculty and their programs, as well as in the state of preparedness of graduates of their teacher education programs.

 

Increasingly greater public attention is, however, directed to the effectiveness of teachers and the public schools, and therefore to teacher education. It is incumbent upon faculty and administrators to build strong working relationships with schools in order to facilitate continuing development of teachers who are SUNY graduates. Campuses should devise assessment mechanisms to determine, fro m school systems who employ their graduates, the level of pre p a redness of teachers, and campuses should respond to any concerns raised in the assessment. Faculty and administrators should accurately promote the quality of their programs, both to provide information and assurance to the public and as a reminder to faculty and administrators of their responsibilities to sustain strong programs.

 

The Advisory Council advocates rigorous external and system-wide review of teacher education programs on a regular schedule. In compliance with Board of Regents regulations, all programs must seek and gain accreditation by a nationally recognized agency. The Advisory Council supports this requirement. The National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is at p resent the only accrediting agency. The Teacher Education Accrediting Council (TEAC) has petitioned the U.S. Education Department for approval to accredit programs.

Accompanying the Board of Regents new regulations (1999) for teacher education programs was a proposal that an accrediting process be established in the State of New York. While many campuses are likely to choose to become accredited by NCATE, campuses should not be restricted to a single agency but should be able to choose among a small number of accreditors. The in-state option can be designed in conjunction with state standards and regulations for both programs and certification, and can be fully responsive to an integrated approach to accreditation of teacher education programs. The in-state accrediting option, if established, would provide an additional mechanism recognized by the U.S. Education Department.

 

ACTE can, however, only support the in-state option if it is established with autonomy to devise and carry out a credible process of program review and accreditation. In general, ACTE urges that the in-state accrediting mechanism be based upon criteria outlined in Standards and Registration of Teacher Education Programs, presented to the Board of Regents by the Panel of College Presidents in 1997. The Presidents Panel, which included leaders from CUNY, SUNY, and private institutions, demonstrated rare unanimity among all sectors of New York’s teacher preparation institutions. The Panel’s recommendations enumerate useful input and outcomes standards and should serve to assess the effectiveness of modern teacher preparation across the state. (Further detail from the Panel’s report is given in Appendix G).

 

Actions:

 

 

 

 

IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS


For effective implementation of the recommendations and actions in this report, several steps are required. First, a consensus must exist on the importance of the outlined agenda. From faculty and administrators on the campuses, to the staff and senior System Administration, a sense of pursuing important and common goals is essential.

 

Second, most recommendations require action by individual campus administrators and faculty. Education faculties have been confronted with the considerable burden of revising and re - registering programs to meet new regulations and with preparing for program accreditation. However, the impact of the recommendations in this report, when fully implemented, will reinforce campus-based reforms and on-going faculty efforts. The leadership of campus Presidents and Provosts, working with faculty and program administrators, is essential.

 

Third, steps must be taken to implement the system-wide recommendations and actions. This will require the University System Provost to engage working groups of faculty and administrators on specific recommendations or groups of recommendations. Formulation of a system-wide program to accommodate c a re e r-changers, for instance, can only be accomplished through collaborative effort of all or a substantial group of campuses.

 

And finally, much of the effort to accomplish this ambitious agenda is required of the Board of Trustees, SUNY System Administration and campus leaders. Policy formulation and reform, as well as acquisition of essential funds, require work beyond the University System with state officials, school leaders and the extended higher education community. Senior administrators, at both the system and campus levels, must possess the confidence that advancement in quality will result from these recommendations and must pursue the means of support.

 


APPENDIX A

 

Provost’s Letter and Charge to the Council Advisory Council on Teacher Education

 

December 5, 1999

 

Dear :

 

I am pleased to appoint you to membership on the SUNY Advisory Council on Teacher Education. You will bring experiences and insights to the Council’s work that I am confident will contribute to assuring and furthering the State University’s legacy of excellence in teacher education. A significant part of that legacy is that SUNY has historically provided a large proportion of the teachers for New York State, and our alumni teach in school systems across the U.S.

 

The Advisory Council on Teacher Education is intended to advance our continuing efforts in the education of teachers. The Council’s formation comes at a time when the public’s attention is focused intensely on the quality of education provided in the nation’s schools, and on the role of the classroom teacher in that e n d e a v o r. The recently completed report on teacher education by the Rockefeller Institute on Government has provided a context, both national and state, for our work. Although the Council will take the long view of teacher education and help forge a culture of continual improvement, a few issues will command our attention in the short-term.

 

The Board of Trustees, as well as many faculty and administrators in the University, would urge us to aspire to provide the best teacher education programs in the nation. I certainly hold that view, and on behalf of all who do, I thank you for agreeing to serve on this important body of scholars and administrators.

 

I am enclosing a few documents for your information. They are the membership roster and the charge to the Council. A discussion of the charge will be among the agenda items addressed at the first meeting of the Council to be held on Monday, December 20, at the System Administration in Albany.

 

I look forward to seeing you at the meeting and to working with the Council in enhancing even further the quality of the State University’s education programs.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Peter D. Salins

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

 

 


State University of New York Advisory Council on Teacher Education Purpose, Rationale and Charge

 

December 6, 1999

 

Purpose: The purpose of the Teacher Education Advisory Council is to serve as a continuing body of academic leaders to assist the system and its colleges and universities in assuring excellence in teacher education. The council will encompass expertise from across the university as well as seek counsel from the ranks of experts external to the university.

 

Rationale:  SUNY’s prominence and long tradition of educating teachers for the state’s schools imposes a special responsibility to assure that we, as a system and as individual institutions, are fulfilling the promise of excellence. The State University’s collective strength in teacher education results from the individual strengths of programs on the sixteen campuses that have programs. The quality of these programs can, however, be enhanced through our combined efforts.

 

Student and teacher performance in the schools is currently the subject of intense public and governmental attention at every level. New standards and expectations for student learning in New York’s schools, as well as for teacher education programs, have been adopted by the State Regents and are now being planned into curricula. The heightened attention to K-12 education presents to the University and teacher education programs a propitious opportunity to enhance and promote our programs for educating teachers, as well as to bolster public confidence in our programs in the face of the various critiques.

 

Is SUNY living up to its goal of educating teachers who—by virtue of their SUNY educations—will be effective teachers, as evidenced by, among other measures, student achievement?  This question should pervade our thinking at every level and calls for soliciting the expertise and opinions of a wide range of SUNY faculty and administrators, as well as external independent advisors. Our current mechanisms for attaining strength through collaboration can be improved upon, and devising such mechanisms is an important role for the Advisory Council on Teacher Education.

 

In order to attain the goals of the council, several issues command our concert e d attention, some over the long term and others in short order. Examples of the latter are:

 

 

Charge:

 

1.         The ACTE will monitor and advise regarding shortages of teachers in high-need fields and school districts and recommend the means to address these shortages.

 

2.         The ACTE will advise regarding how SUNY might respond to the exceptional, and growing, special needs of urban schools, teachers and their students. With some urgency, the ACTE should recommend a means thro u g h which SUNY can contribute to addressing the need for teachers in urban school systems.

 

3.         The ACTE will advise on how the most academically capable students can be attracted to and retained in SUNY teacher education programs. The council will recommend the best means of monitoring of student preparedness at entry to and exit from teacher education programs.

 

4.         The ACTE will advise pertaining to appropriate formats for program accreditation and compliance with Regents regulations. In order to assure internal quality, as well as to evince public confidence in SUNY’s teacher education mission, periodic assessment and accreditation by independent, external agents is essential. Effective relationships with the State Education Department and the Regents are equally vital, and the council, with its collective knowledge, can advise appropriately.

 

5.         The ACTE will advise regarding best practices pertaining to program curriculum, including the relationship between excellent preparation in both subject matter and pedagogy. Education of teachers requires both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, and effective collaboration between education faculty and arts and sciences faculty is needed to accomplish both instructional goals.

 

6.         The ACTE will advise regarding best practices for providing and evaluating field experiences for students as they pre p a re to be teachers, as well as consider and recommend how campuses can support the continuing education and evaluation of teachers beyond the baccalaureate degree. The continuing education of teachers takes on greater significance given the Regents expansion of education requirements for in-service teachers.

 

7.         The ACTE will consider and advise regarding best practices for encouraging and accommodating individuals who wish to change careers and teachers re-entering the profession after a hiatus away from the classroom. These “non-traditional” potential teacher candidates include students or degree holders who have been educated in relevant subject matter disciplines but who have not pursued the teacher education track. In high-need teaching specialties and locations, it is especially important to accommodate and encourage such individuals as they enter the profession.

 

8.         The ACTE will consider and advise pertaining to research in SUNY on teaching and learning. The recognition in reports on education that classroom teaching has not benefited from research to the same degree as other professions suggests that SUNY, as a national leader in teacher education, examine and redouble its efforts in educational research.

 

9.         The ACTE will consider and advise regarding alternative models to the traditional four-year undergraduate program for educating teachers. The new Regents regulations further encumber the content of undergraduate programs, and the proposed new regulations would shorten the schedule for required attainment of the master’s degree for new teachers. The demands on undergraduates to comply with the requirements of general program.


AP P E N D I X B

 

Regulations and Their Impact: New York State Board of Regents and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

 

Field Experiences and Faculty Involvement: Board of Regents Regulations:

 

52.21 (2) General Require m e n t s

(i)(h) Supervision of field experiences, practica, and student teaching shall be considered by the institution in determining faculty load, and institutions shall demonstrate how such supervision is considered in determining faculty load.

 

52.21 (2) General Requirements

(ii)(c)(2) Field experiences, student teaching and practica. (ii)(B) be accompanied by coursework or seminars and supervised by one or more faculty who participate actively in the program and in program development, and who have training and skills in supervision and the expertise to provide supervision related to content and pedagogy. Full-time faculty shall participate in supervising students during their student-teaching or practica experiences;

 

52.21 (2) General Requirements

(i)(h)(i) Institutions shall demonstrate that participation in relationships with local schools is a valued component of the responsibilities of the faculty with primary appointments to teacher education.

 

52.21 (2) General Require m e n t s

(i)(h) Individual faculty members shall not supervise more than 18 student teachers per semester.

 

52.21 (2) General Requirements 

(ii)(c)(2) Field experiences, student teaching and practica (i) The program shall include at least 100 clock hours of field experiences related to coursework prior to student teaching or practica.

 

52.21 (2) General Requirements

(ii)(c)(2) Field experiences, student teaching and practica (ii) The field experiences, student teaching and practica shall: (C) pro v i d e candidates with experiences in a variety of communities and across the range of student developmental levels of the certificate...

 

52.21 (2) General Require m e n t s

(1)(h) Institutions shall provide sufficient numbers of qualified, full-time faculty in order to : foster and maintain continuity and stability in teacher education programs and policies; ensure that the majority of credit-bearing courses in the program are offered by full-time faculty;…

 

NCATE 2000 Standards for Field Experiences and Faculty Involvement: (The ACTE recommends that campuses have options for program accreditation. However, many campuses will choose to pursue accreditation with NCATE, and this agency’s standards are shown here to illustrate the challenges confronting campuses.

 

“The unit, its school partners, and other members of the professional community design, deliver, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice to help candidates develop their knowledge, skills, and dispositions.” (p. 14)

 

Faculty Teaching Assignments: New York State B o a rd of Regents Regulations:

52.21 (2) General Requirements (i)(h) Faculty teaching assignments shall not exceed 12 semester hours per semester for undergraduate courses, or 9 semester hours per semester for graduate courses, or 21 semester hours per academic year for faculty who teach a combination of graduate and undergraduate courses, while still providing sufficient course offerings to allow students to complete their programs in the minimum time required for earning the degree.

 

Faculty Teaching Assignments: NCATE 2000 Standard s :

“ Professional education faculty demonstrate scholarly work in their field(s) of specialization. They are engaged in diff e rent types of scholarly work, based in part on the mission of their institutions.” (p. 21)

 


AP P E N D I X  C

 

Estimates of financial impacts of attaining goals and meeting regulatory mandates for teacher education in SUNY. (From: “The New Certification Regulations and Regulations for Teacher Education,” a report prepared by William Amoriell for the ACTE)  

 

 

Institution

Goal1
Work with Schools(a)

Goal 2

Full-Time Faculty(b)

Goal 3 Graduate Faculty

Goal 4

Teachers’ Stipends

Goal 5

Technical Capacity (e)

Total Impact by Institution

Albany

$540,000

$243,000

$0

$196,000

$90,000

$1,069, 000

Binghamton

$115,000

$92,500

$0

$72,650

$70,000

$350,150

Brockport

$472,500

$90,000

$0

$191,625

$45,000

$799,125

Buffalo C.

$0

$0

$0

$295,250

 

$295,250

Cornell

$0

$45,000

$45,000

$22,500

 

$112,500

Cortland

$1,049,850

$537,750

$180,000

$445,750

$135,000

$2,348,350

Fredonia

$270,000

$247,500

$180,000

$342,400

$90,000

$1,129,900

Geneseo

 

 

 

$327,000

$180,000

$507,000

New Paltz

$300,150

$220,000

$0

$375,500

 

$895,650

Old Westbury

$210,500

$45,000

$135,000

$97,750

 

$488,250

Oneonta

 

 

 

$238,375

 

$238,375

Oswego

$675,000

$135,000

$135,000

$480,875

$135,000

$1,560,875

Plattsburgh

$225,000

$180,000

$90,000

$260,275

$180,000

$935,275

Potsdam

$270,000

$135,000

$180,000

$293,750

$135,000

$1,013,750

Stony Brook

 

 

 

$144,200

$135,000

$279,200

Univ. Buffalo

$495,000

$135,000

$0

$101,500

$90,000

$821,500

Grand Totals

$4,623,000

$2,105,750

$945,000

$3,885,400

$1,285,000

$12,844,150

 

 

Note: Blanks indicate no estimate available; zeros indicate no additional cost.

 

(a) Goal 1: Provides 3 hours released time per semester for faculty involvement with schools and field experiences.

 

(b) Goal 2: Cost of achieving 50% coverage of student teachers by full-time faculty.

 

(c) Goal 3: Cost of complying with regulatory mandate on teaching load for faculty teaching graduate courses.

 

(d) Goal 4: Cost to pay classroom teachers $125 per student in pre-student teaching clinical experience and raise stipend per student teacher from $200 to $300.

 

(e) Goal 5: Cost to improve technological capability of teacher preparation and meet literacy regulatory requirement.

 


APPENDIX D

 

Community College Survey on Teacher Education Summary of Conclusions

 

October, 2000

 

1.         General Education: Impact of the new SUNY GE Requirement is not yet clear, but most community colleges think general education transfer is not a serious problem.

 

2.         Opportunity for school classroom experience: About half of the community colleges provide the opportunity or are willing to provide it.

 

3.         Advice at community colleges about teacher education as a career: The large majority of community colleges believe good advice is available for students with interest in teaching careers.

 

4.         Possibility to form articulation or jointly registered programs: A majority (15 of 25) have had no problem; seven (7) express that forming relationships has been problematical or very problematical.

 

5.         Interest among community college students in teaching as a career: 17 of 25 campuses rate the interest high or very high. One campus indicated low interest.

 

6.         Would SUNY System Administration efforts help in regional planning? 20 of 25 community colleges believed such efforts would be helpful or very helpful; four (4) were neutral.

 

7.         Do you have articulation agreements or jointly registered programs? Most (19 of 25) have articulation agreements. Twelve (12) report having jointly registered programs.

 

8.         Has there been communication with senior campuses on new regulations and accreditation? Communication has not taken place on the large majority of campuses. The impact of new regulations and accreditation is not yet fully known or understood at community colleges.

 

9.         Capacity of community colleges to contribute to students moving into teacher certification programs in math, science and special education: Most campuses believe they have the capability to help increase the number of students with associates degrees in math and science. Special education p resents problems with lack of information on programs and difficulty of completion within a four-year degree program.

 

10.       Do place bound students have access to teacher education programs in your region? Although a majority of community colleges are satisfied that adequate access exists, eight (8) campuses say this is a problem in their geographic area.

 


APPENDIX E

 

DRAFT (4/26/00)

 

PROPOSAL FOR A CAREER-CHANGER TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM

 

The need for additional fully trained teachers to staff critical shortage areas in New York schools is well established. These identified shortage areas include both specific geographical regions such as impacted urban environments and remote/rural locations, and specific teaching fields such as science and mathematics. One potential personnel source that has received attention among state policy-markers and the popular media is the pool of mature individuals who, having already established both their academic and professional credentials, wish to enter the profession of elementary or secondary school teaching.

 

Traditional teacher education curricula are most frequently designed to meet the p re - service teacher education needs of a very diff e rent type of individual—either one who is completing pre - service teacher education in conjunction with his/her undergraduate degree or who is pursuing a graduate-level pre - service teaching credential in a traditional fashion. A program for career-changer teacher candidates recognizes the diff e rent character of these students—diff e rent by the level of individual student maturing and by the value-added component of one’s professional experience in the first career. Since the State of New York recognizes this as a matter of policy—the program for the Transitional Certificate established under the new Regents standards scheduled to take effect in 2004 provides for a special certification category for individuals in transition teacher p reparation programs—the State University of New York should take a leadership role in designing, implementing, and evaluating such programs.

 

T h e re f o re the subcommittee on curriculum and programs of the SUNY Provost’s Advisory Council on Teacher Education submits to the council the following recommendation.

 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CERTIFICATION PROGRAM(S) FOR CAREER-CHANGE TEACHER

 

The State University of New York — through a collective, system-wide initiative—should establish contractual partnerships with one or more school districts for the express purpose of providing creative and effective programs that prepare “second-career” teachers. Furthermore, the university should—whenever necessary and appropriate—work through said partnerships to achieve the cooperation of the New York State Education Department in modifying certification rules in order to develop/implement efficient, high-quality transitional teacher preparation programs for individuals seeking to enter teaching through this less-traditional route.

 

SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES

 

1.         These partnerships, while not to be unnecessarily limited by geography, should initially focus on areas and disciplines where and in which the demand for additional teachers is most acute (i.e., the state’s “Big 5” urban districts, mathematics, science).

 

2.         Established partnerships should collaborate to request a “waiver of rules” from the New York State Education Department that would allow mature, d e g reed teachers-in-training to engage in supervised / m e n t o red teaching while completing the requirements for full certification.

 

3.         The State University, in advancing this initiative as a system-wide endeavor, should establish mechanisms that (a) ensure university faculty control over the quality of curriculum, and (b) provide financial incentives sufficient to encourage the cooperation/participation of individual campuses.

 

4.         Within the construct of a university-wide developed curriculum protocol, each established partnership should develop specific program criteria that ensure quality and financial commitment assurances that are acceptable to both the university and partner school district.

 

5.         Because the curriculum for these transitional career candidates is intended for non-traditional students who possess a degree and who are atypical in terms of their education and work experience, the professional education program should—after an intensive, summer-long period of preparation — be classroom based, with candidates being gradually phased into full-time teaching through a period of mentored supervision accompanied by college based instruction in pedagogy. (Candidates will be required to complete a second period of campus based coursework during the summer between the first and second year of classroom based preparation.)

 

6.         The curriculum for career-changer teacher candidates who seek certification as an elementary school teacher should be built on possession of a bachelor’s degree with an academic major in one of the state’s Board of Regents Teaching Standards areas. The curriculum for prospective secondary school teachers should be built on a bachelor’s degree with a major in the discipline to be taught.

 

7.         Given that the newly adopted Regents standards for preparation / certification of special education teachers link that certification to one of the non-exceptional certification levels (e.g., childhood, adolescence), this expedited c a re e r-changer transition program shall not be designed to qualify teachers for certification in special education. (However, at some future point, the State University may wish to develop a companion to this transition program that would assist partner school districts in qualifying already certified, regular classroom teachers in areas of exceptionality.)

 

8.         A reasonable duration for a transitional licensure program for career-changers would encompass two academic years, provided (a) that intensive college-based instruction proceeded the first semester of school-based experience, and (b) that partner school districts commit funds necessary for candidates to economically sustain themselves through the transitional period.

 

9.         Both the college or university and partner school districts must be committed to providing the mentoring, supervision, and support which is critical for the success of transitional career-change teachers-in-training.

 

SOME CURRICULAR CONSIDERAT I O N S

 

1.         One approach in building a system-wide curriculum for transitional career-changer teacher candidates would be to organize it around the standards of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. These are:

 

A.        COMMITMENT: Teachers are committed to students and their learning. (1) Dedication: Teachers are dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students. (2) Student Understanding: Teachers understand how students develop and learn.

 

B.        SUBJECTS TAUGHT: Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. (1) Understanding: Teachers have a rich understanding of the subject(s) they teach. (2) Pedagogical Knowledge: Teachers command specialized knowledge of how to convey and reveal subject matter to students.

 

C.        RESPONSIBILITY: Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student achievement. (1) Instructional Settings: Teachers create, enrich, maintain and alter instructional settings of their students. (2) Methods: Teachers command a range of generic instructional techniques. (3) Disciplined Learn i n g: Teachers engage groups of students to ensure a disciplined learning environment. (4) Student Progress: Teachers can assess the progress of individual students through multiple methods as well as that of the class as a whole.

 

D.        PRACTICES: Teachers think systematically about their practices and learn from experience. (1) Exemplars: Teachers are models of educated persons. (2) Sound Practices: Teachers draw on their knowledge of human development, subject matter and instruction and their understanding of students. (3) Strengthen Teaching: Teachers continually strengthen their teaching practices.

 

E.        LEARNING COMMUNITIES: Teachers are members of learning communities. (1) Contributors: Teachers contribute to the effectiveness of the school. (2) Collaboration: Teachers find ways to work with parents.

 

2.         Obviously, any approach will require attention to organizational constructs (such as detailing the components of a program that is presented at this time only as a schematic protocol). However, equally critical to the bureaucratic/organizational delivery details is the development of a guiding theoretical framework that will ensure consistency of philosophy and approach, and will provide a foundation for program assessment.

 

SOME OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

1.         Admissions Considerations: (a) Because this program is designed to take advantage of the professional as well as the academic background candidates bring to the “career changers” transition experience, it will be necessary to establish admission requirements that include significant work/life experience. It is suggested that candidates be required to demonstrate at least five (5) years of successful career experience as a condition for admission. (b) It is further suggested that candidates be required to demonstrate some significant level of previous and successful work with children of an age level close to that which the candidate wishes to teach. (c) Since licensure requires candidates to meet a minimum level of knowledge in general liberal arts & sciences, as well as in the content area to be taught, through satisfactory performance on standardized state licensure examinations, and since this career-changers transition program assumes satisfactory previous education in both general education and the specialized content/teaching field, candidates should be required to submit passing scores on appropriate examinations as a condition of admission to the program. (d) In order to ensure that candidates in this program are academically capable, some combination of previous grade-point averages and/or required minimum GRE or MAT scores should be established as qualifications for admission.

 

2.         Because this program—after an initial, summer-long period of intense preparation—is largely classroom based, participants will need to be provided with the pedagogical tools that are most critical to immediate success in the elementary or secondary school classroom environment. Therefore, in determining the curriculum for the program, it will be necessary to ensure that the following topics are covered to an appropriate degree necessary to ensure a minimum level of pedagogical competence: (a) the nature/needs of students at the grade/age level to be taught, and expected individual and group behaviors to be expected from the students; (b) methods of planning instruction, fundamental instructional methodologies, ways of assessing whether students have achieved intended ends, and strategies for organizing classrooms and managing student behavior.

 

3.         Since this program provides that participants begin teaching very quickly after admission to candidacy (as part of their classroom based teacher preparation), on a less than full-time basis but moving to full-time during the two years preparation period, participating school districts will be required to assume responsibility for paying specified salaries to participating students, and will be responsible for providing the specified level of mentored supervision. State University will provide instruction and specified mentoring with revenue support for said services to be derived from tuition income.

 


VISUAL SCHEMATIC OF A POSSIBLE PROGRAM CONSTRUCT

 




APPENDIX F

SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center
State University of New York

Prepared with support of: SUNY System Provost’s Office Provost’s Advisory Council on Teacher Education SUNY Deans and Directors of Education The Carnegie Corporation

October, 2000

Introduction

In order to more effectively serve its mission in meeting the educational challenges of New York State’s urban schools, the State University of New York should embark upon a system-wide collaboration to increase the number of qualified teachers who are trained, hired, and retained to work in the city schools. It is herein proposed that, as a major first step toward this goal, the university system establish a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center (SUTEC) in New York City.


The development of the center will build upon past efforts. The SUNY Deans and Directors of Education have urged that the university address the needs of urban education, and in 1998 their group met with President Judson Taylor of SUNY College at Cortland to define an agenda for inter-institutional cooperation. The Deans and Directors have established an urban education committee, and the SUNY Provost’s Advisory Council on Teacher Education is charged with addressing urban education issues and has a committee for this purpose. The Carnegie Corporation funded a proposal, submitted by the SUNY College at Cortland, to carry out system-wide planning for urban education. With support of the grant a conference was convened on May 23-24, 2000 involving 42 SUNY education faculty and administrators, representing all 16 SUNY institutions with teacher education programs. The conference was held in collaboration with the New York City Board of Education staff, and Schools Chancellor Harold Levy expressed his strong support and encouragement in comments to the group. A subset of that initial group has now further developed the ideas for a SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center in New York City. This proposal emanates from the various past University System efforts and collaborative work with the city schools.

 

Several campuses have individually pioneered relationships with cities to provide student teaching experiences for prospective teachers and to serve urban schools’ needs. The SUNY System Administration and individual campuses have collaborated with the New York City Board of Education staff to facilitate recruitment of new teachers.

 

The State University of New York has a long and distinguished history of educating teachers for the state’s schools. Indeed, teacher preparation is central to the mission of a majority of SUNY’s senior institutions. Most of the senior campuses with teacher education programs were founded as normal schools or academies for the express purpose of educating teachers. Twenty-five percent of the teachers certified in New York State in 1998-99 through college and university programs were educated in SUNY teacher preparation programs. (SUNY Office of Institutional Research and Analysis report, October 2000; State Education Department report, April 2000)  The growth and strengthening of the liberal arts and sciences on all SUNY campuses during the last forty years have greatly enhanced their capacities to educate teachers through collaboration between subject matter specialists and education faculties.

 

The demand for teachers has increased nationwide in recent years because of several factors. The number of school age children (5-17) has increased 8%— with increases during every year—since 1990 (Population Estimates Program , U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Immigration has contributed a substantial portion of this increase in some locations such as in New York City. New government mandates have increased access to formal schooling for pre-kindergarten children and have reduced class sizes. Retirements of an aging teacher force and alternative employment opportunities in a robust economy have led to attrition among the teaching force, particularly those educated in science, mathematics and technology (Hussar, 1999). While shortages are evident in many teaching fields and geographic regions, they are much more pronounced in urban schools, which have far higher numbers of children with limited English language proficiency and generally lower teacher salaries (Tobier, 2000).

 

New York State has long had a large percentage of its population in and near urban centers, but a persistent trend toward urban and suburbanization has increased this percentage. Cities have thus needed a commensurate increase in the demand for teachers. Historically the City University of New York provided a large proportion of the city’s teachers. However, CUNY’s present production of certified teachers meets only about one-quarter of the city’s need (Brumberg, 2000). This situation is similar, although not as severe, in the state’s other large urban areas (SED report, April 2000).

 

Many SUNY senior institutions are located in rural regions remote from population centers, although the few campuses that are in or near cities have educated a large number of teachers for their local urban schools. SUNY has not generally been identified, however, with the provision of teachers for the New York City schools, and the proportion of new teachers educated at SUNY institutions who take positions in the city is relatively small. Indeed, SUNY’s preparation of a large proportion of the state’s teachers is a sharp contrast to the shortage of teachers in urban centers.

 

Rationale and Proposed Actions

 

The current shortage of qualified teachers to staff the New York City public schools is a serious problem. During 1998-99, the city schools employed more than 11,000 teachers with temporary licenses, about 16% of its total instructional staff (SED report, April 2000). Further, the majority of new hires in recent years have had only temporary licenses. As of January 2000, 99 of the state’s 107 schools identified as poorest performing (Schools Under Registration Review) were located in New York City (SED report, January 2000).

 

The challenges facing New York City schools are increased in the face of the State Board of Regents’ new regulations aimed at universally raising student performance. Schools are facing demands to bring all students to high levels of performance as a condition of promotion, and the local diploma will be eliminated as the requirement is phased in that all high school students —except those in special education programs — earn the Regents diploma. Individual schools must demonstrate acceptable levels of performance and will be assigned ratings based on overall student performance.

 

In addition to increasing standards for students and schools, the State Board of Regents has also adopted new regulations for teacher education programs and teacher licensure (SED Office of Higher Education, Deputy Commissioner’s Report, Sept.-Oct., 1999). Prospective teachers must now have experiences in diverse educational settings, including experiences in schools with high needs and with diverse student populations. Some SUNY programs of teacher education will be challenged to meet this regulation in their immediate regions. However, there is little doubt that the quality of students’ preparation as teachers can be enhanced by experience in urban settings such as are available in New York City (Haberman, unpublished ms., 2000). If the state is to meet the need for qualified teachers for the urban schools, then an increasingly larger number of SUNY educated teachers should take employment as teachers in the cities.

 

Rather than rely on traditional patterns of educating, recruiting, and employing teachers, SUNY should strategically address the issue of urban education. Following are some required actions to pursue this goal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principles Underlying the SUTEC

The principles upon which a SUNY urban teacher education center would be built are to expand the opportunity and quality of education for SUNY students who are prospective teachers for urban schools and to help serve the teacher education needs of the city schools. To accomplish this it is essential to establish a system-wide collaboration that enhances each institution’s capability to contribute, that utilizes each institution’s strengths and that preserves the campuses’ individuality and uniqueness. It is, furthermore, essential to honor the diversity and strengths of the city schools and to enter into partnerships with the schools to attain common goals. Assumptions that underlie SUNY’s engagement with city schools are that (1) teachers from the university’s education programs can, with adequate support, effectively teach all children and assist in bringing them to high levels of achievement, and that (2) all children should have full opportunity to learn with excellent schools and teachers.

 

The center will coordinate work among SUNY campuses and the Board of Education, as well as—when appropriate—among SUNY and the State Education Department, the City University of New York, and other institutions in the city. It is hoped that the SUTEC will serve as a model for such centers in other urban areas of the state.

 

The contrast between the concentration of population in urban centers of New York State and the geographic dispersion of SUNY campuses calls for a different mode of thinking about service. The center should foster interest on campuses in urban education and the problems of urban schools. As an extension of this principle, the center will work to inculcate a concept of educating SUNY students as prospective urban teachers, especially students from the cities who in turn pursue careers as teachers in urban schools. This model holds the most promise to provide continuing teachers for the city’s schools.

 

Structure of the SUTEC

 

The SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center in New York City will be constituted as an operating unit of the SUNY System Administration, and, as such, it will be under the overall administrative responsibility of the Chancellor. The center’s director will report to the SUNY System Provost. The Provost will establish a representative body to advise on the governance of the center. The membership of this advisory body will encompass the center’s stakeholders, including campus faculty and administrators, Board of Education staff, and others. Close monitoring and prompt response to the challenges and successes of the center are essential, especially in the formative stages. A pre requisite for success is the formulation of a governance structure that fosters informed participation of all parties and that concentrates upon attaining the center’s main goals.

 

Student Field Experiences

 

The highest priority for the SUTEC is to assist campuses and the city schools in placing and supervising student teachers. Working with campus administrators, Board of Education staff and school administrators, the director will develop procedures and coordinate all aspects of student teaching, including initial classroom placement and orientation, college staff supervision, and after-school seminars for student teachers as determined by sending institutions’ curriculum or procedures. The center should develop a student teaching handbook with specific materials pertaining to the New York City Schools, and, in collaboration with individual campuses, the handbook should contain sections pertinent to the specific campus of participating student teachers. The center will assist SUNY faculty in generating interest in and recruiting students on campuses to engage in urban field experiences.

The center will assist in developing pre-student teaching experiences for students during summer, interim semesters and inter-sessions, linking SUNY campus academic programs and students with existing (i.e., Summer in the City) or prospective opportunities.

 

The urban cultural environment presents opportunities for extended educational experiences for participating SUNY students, and the center will undertake enrichment opportunities for students where feasible.

 

Support for the City’s Recruitment and Development of Classroom Teachers

 

Assisting city schools in recruiting teachers from SUNY campuses will be a high priority for the center. The center staff will facilitate interaction between Board of Education teacher recruitment staff and campus faculty and career placement offices.

 

The city’s urgent need for qualified teachers calls for SUNY faculty to find creative ways to provide coursework and degree programs that will enable the professional certification of candidates in several categories. Working within new Board of Regents regulations, SUNY campuses will be able to offer academic programs for teachers with temporary licenses who are seeking initial certification, individuals seeking to enter teaching after years spent in another career, and individuals with recent baccalaureate degrees but with no preparation in teaching. Such programs can, and must, be carried out with the assurance of a high standard of preparation.

 

The increased continuing education requirement of 175 hours every five years for in-service teachers, now mandated by the Regents regulations (SED Office of Higher Education, Deputy Commissioner’s Report, Sept.-Oct., 1999), will provide the opportunity for SUNY faculty to contribute to city teachers’ sustained improvement.

 

It is vital to provide effective mentoring to new teachers. Therefore, the SUTEC will be concerned with assistance to new teachers who are graduates of SUNY institutions.

 

Other Goals of the Center

 

The center’s highest priorities will be to provide field experiences for SUNY students and aid in the recruitment of teachers from SUNY institutions by city schools. However, the center also holds the potential to enrich SUNY’s academic and research capabilities in urban education. The following are examples.

 

1.         Create an environment for scholarship and research by SUNY faculty on urban education issues, including questions pertaining to persistence and retention of teachers.

 

2.         Serve as a repository for data on research, programs and innovations in urban education.

 

3.         Coordinate and foster inter-campus activities; for example, curriculum development in urban teacher education, and provide seminars and speakers on urban education.

 

4.         Establish and administer a system of “faculty fellows” whereby campus faculty spend terms in residence at the center.

 

5.         Establish professional development schools in New York City connected to individual campuses.

 

Administrative and Student Support Functions

 

1.         Coordinate activities of the center with campus academic administrators, campus career services/placement offices, and campus recruitment and admissions staff.

 

2.         Serve as liaison with the Board of Education staff and the administrative staff of school districts and schools.

 

3.         Manage the office and facilities, including technological support for a virtual classroom and connectivity with campuses for distance instruction and conferencing.

 

4.         Plan for and acquire financial support, including collaboration with campus administrators to acquire scholarship funding for students interested in teacher education programs at SUNY.

 

5.         Facilitate the development and communication of criteria for SUNY campus-approved student-teacher placements in NYC, including criteria for selection of cooperating teachers and student teaching supervisors.

 

6.         Provide information about SUNY teacher education programs to interested city high school students and assist campuses with recruitment of students to campus teacher education programs.

 

7.         Provide public relations for the center with media, communities and campuses, as appropriate.

 

8.         Arrange housing for students participating in field experiences. This is a major essential task for the center, and the center will explore all aspects of this issue and work with System Administration officials in making contractual arrangements for student housing.

 

9.         The center staff will ensure that the necessary residential support is in place at students’ housing sites, for example, access to personal counseling and emergency medical care.

 

10.       The center’s staff will provide general orientation to the city and its environment (transportation, health care, etc.).

 

11.       Orientation to the city schools and the school environment, in collaboration with School Board and district administrators, will be an integral part of the academic program.

 

12.       Engage a network of SUNY alumni who are city school teachers to support the expansion of teacher education initiatives in the city.

 

Expected Outcomes

 

1.         First full year of operation: place an average of 12 student teachers per campus per semester (total, 360) in New York City schools.

 

2.         Second year: place an average of 18 student teachers per campus per semester (total 540) in New York City schools.

 

3.         First summer: coordinate the participation of 200 SUNY students as aids or interns in New York City summer school.

 

4.         Second summer: coordinate the participation of 300 SUNY students as aids or interns in New York City summer school.

 

5.         First year: plan and implement a SUNY-wide conference on urban education.

 

6.         First year: assemble a directory of participating student teaching supervisors and maintain sufficient capacity for future years.

 

7.         First year: assemble a directory of participating classroom cooperating teachers and maintain sufficient capacity for future years.

 

8.         Increased overall teacher recruitment efforts on SUNY campuses.

 

9.         Implement increased teacher recruitment activity, including mailings, visits to city schools by candidates, etc.

 

10.       Increased number of SUNY applicants for teacher positions in city schools.

 

11.       Increased number of SUNY graduates accept employment as teachers in city schools.

 

Project Evaluation

 

Early in the first year an independent consultant will be retained to design an evaluation plan for the SUTEC. The same consultant will evaluate the center at the end of the first and second years of operation

 

Budget Narrative

 

Attaining the goals of the SUTEC will entail new costs, and the center’s continued success will require a budget for annual operating funds. The State University’s teacher education programs are currently confronted with new regulatory standards, which include limiting the use of part-time faculty and requiring extended field experiences. In some institutions these new standards exceed the limits of current staff resources. While some of the costs of placing and supervising student teachers, and of providing stipends to cooperating classroom teachers, are contained within institutions’ current budgets, most of the start-up and operational costs of SUTEC are new. Special funding (legislative appropriations, and/or grants from government agencies or foundations) is more likely to be acquired during the early stages of start-up of a center.

 

The following budget is designed to cover the major priorities of the center: to place and oversee student teachers and pre-student teachers, to facilitate the recruitment of teachers by the Board of Education and to carry out a minimal research program.

 

Budget (annual)

Director

100,000

SUNY campus liaison

80,000

City Board of Education liaison

80,000

Research Professor position

80,000

Clerical support

40,000

Campus coordinators, 15 @0.25 FTE, @60,000

225,000

Employee benefits, 30% of salaries

109,500

Travel

 

   Director

9,600

   Campus coordinators

15,500

   Student teaching supervisors

20,000

Faculty development and urban education conference

50,000

Research costs

20,000

Evaluation and Consultant Services

24,000

Materials, office

5,000

Materials, instructional

8,000

Property lease/re n t a l

 

   Offices, 300 sq ft, @35

10,500

   Classroom / videoconference room,
   600 sq ft, @30

18,000

   Operational expenses

 

   Telephone, fax, 12 mo, @100

1,200

   Utilities, 12 mo, @150

1,800

   Printing

1,000

Student housing supplements, 540 @300 per semester

162,000

To t a l

1,061,100

Budget (capital)

 

Equipment, office

7,000

   Classroom / videoconference center

 

   Videoconference equipment

40,000

   Computers, 20 @1,500

30,000

   Printers, 5 @500

2,500

   Total, capital

79,500

   Total, annual and capital

1,140,600

 


Bibliography

 

Brumberg, Stephan F. 2000. The Teacher Crisis and Educational Standards. In: City Schools: Lessons From New York. Edited by: Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Haberman, Martin. 2000. What Makes a Teacher Education Program Relevant Preparation for Teaching Diverse Students in Urban Poverty Schools? Unpublished manuscript.

 

Hussar, W.J. 1999. Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-09. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.

 

New York State Education Department report, Schools Under Registration Review, January 2000, April 2000.

 

New York State Education Department report, Supply and Demand Data, New York State Teachers, April 2000.

 

New York State Education Department, Office of Higher Education, Deputy Commissioner’s Report, Sept.-Oct., 1999.

 

Population Estimates Program, 2000, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

 

State University of New York, Office of Institutional Research and Analysis report, October 2000.

 

Tobier, Emanuel. 2000. Schooling in New York City: The Socioeconomic Context. In: City Schools: Lessons from New York. Edited by: Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti. The Johns Hopkins University Press.


APPENDIX G

 

Presidents Panel Report to the Board of Regents (Excerpts)

 

The ACTE generally endorses the recommendations in the report “Standard s and Registration of Teacher Education Programs,” submitted to the New York State Board of Regents by a task force of college presidents from across the state. Following are some specific recommendations, taken from the Panel’s report, that the ACTE believes should prevail in establishing a New York State accrediting body for teacher education.

 

 


BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

AASCU Task Force on Teacher Education, report: A Call for Teacher Education Reform:

 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 1999.

 

American Association of Universities, Resolution on Teacher Education. June, 1999.

 

American Council on Education, To Touch the Future: Transforming the Way Teachers a re Taught, An Action Agenda for College and University Presidents. October, 1999.

 

Amoriell, William. 2000. The New Certification Regulations and the Reform of Teacher Education: Resource Implications. Report prepared for the Advisory Council on Teacher Education.

 

Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

 

Brumberg, Stephan F. 2000. The Teacher Crisis and Educational Standards. In: City Schools: Lessons From New York. Edited by: Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986) A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. New York.

 

Good, T. L. (1996). Teaching Effects and Teacher Evaluation. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd Ed.)(pp. 617-665). New York:  Macmillan.

 

Haberman, Martin. 2000. What Makes a Teacher Education Program Relevant Preparation for Teaching Diverse Students in Urban Poverty Schools?  Unpub. ms.

 

Hussar, W.J. 1999. Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-09. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.

 

Lankford, Hamp, James Wyckoff and Frank Papa, 2000. The Labor Market for Public School Teachers: A Descriptive Analysis of New York State’s Teacher Workforce. Report to: New York State Educational Research Consortium. SUNY at Albany.

 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April) A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

 

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996, September) What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York.

 

National Research Council report, Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium, 2000. New York State Education Department reports, January 2000 (Schools Under Registration Review), April 2000. Report on New York State teacher workforce.

 

New York State Education Department, Office of Higher Education, Deputy Commissioner’s Report, Sept.-Oct., 1999.

 

Panel of College Presidents, Standards and Registration of Teacher Education Programs: A Report and Recommendations presented to the New York State Board of Regents Task Force on Teaching. Panel Convenors: Christopher C. Dahl, Patricia O. Ewers, Edison O. Jackson. October, 1997.

 

Rockefeller Institute of Government, Teacher Preparation, a report prepared for the Office of the Provost. State University of New York. December, 1999.

 

Schwartz, H. (1996). The Changing Nature of Teacher Education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd Ed.)(pp. 3-13). New York: Macmillan.

 

State University of New York, Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, Report #381. October, 2000.

 

State University of New York report, Teacher Preparation in SUNY: An Analysis of Developments and Trends: A Policy Paper Presented to the Board of Trustees, June, 1977.

 

State University of New York report, Report of the Chancellor’s Task Force on Teacher Education, November 1985.

 

Tobier, Emanuel. 2000. Schooling in New York City: The Socioeconomic Context. In: City Schools: Lessons from New York. Edited by: Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2000, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.