Cracks in the Ivory Tower Full

8/8/2019 Cracks in the Ivory Tower Full

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cracks-in-the-ivory-tower-full 1/74

September 2010

t Vs f educa pfsssCca 2010

b Sv Faas ad A Duff

Fd Cs e. F, J., mcal J. pll,

ad Ja Scull

CrACkS in theiVory tower?



t Vs f educa pfsssCca 2010

b Sv Faas ad A Duff

Fd Cs e. F, J., mcal J. pll,

ad Ja Scull

CrACkS in theiVory tower?

September 2010

FDR Group

Thomas B. Fordham Institute



Foreword 4

Executive Summary 9

Introduction 11

Chapter 1

Education Proessors’ Goals and Values 13

Active, Lielong Learning

Values Conict with Real-World Expectations

Classroom Management—Not a Priority

Phonics and Math Facts—Not a Priority

High-Needs, Urban Schools

Teaching Young Immigrants

Dierentiated InstructionAgents o Change

Chapter 2

Education Proessors Assess Their Field 23

Criticism rom Within

Student Quality Is an Issue

“Haven’t seen the Inside o a Practical Classroom or 20 Years”

Accountability or Education Programs

Ambivalence about Alternatives

Accolades or Teach For America

O Multiple Minds

Feeling under Siege

Chapter 3

Opinions on Various Policy Initiatives 36

Tenure Reorm

Teaching: Change Some Rules

Standards or All—or Shakespeare Rap?

But What About NCLB?

Common, Nationwide Standards

The Proessors and Education Reorm

Special Analysis Reormers and Deenders 46

Conclusion 50

Appendix A

Methodology 51

Appendix B

National Survey o Education Proessors: Final Data 54

CONTENTS



4 Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Dug Lv’s Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path

to College s a ulsg . Sc s las al s a, as

vd a 100 s Aa.c, sa lagu

as malcl Gladll’s The Tipping Point ad kald hss’s The Kite Runner .

wa Lv s sllg s clal g dad. bu s suc s

sul? t sg daa s sud, da f a laa suv

f duca scl fsss, sd uc lg a qus.

Lv’s vds s a c. hs f- cqus

—culld f svg u-ffcv acs—s csscal, v

vus. bu a csl -g s ad accal ls a ca

keep a new teacher aoat in her rst year in the classroom—and can make

uc ffcv uc qucl. F sac, dscussg

“gagg suds u lsss,” Lv dals tcqu 24, “p”:

F dcads asall las av ad u f gas ad accs lag a ga calld

Pepper. In a group of four or ve players, one holds a bat, and the rest stand in a ring in front of

a, a f ads aa, glvs a ad. o la sss all a. wustopping to catch it, the batter taps it back toward the group using the bat; the nearest player elds

ad, aga, u sg, sss ac a, s ss ac a la.

The game is fast, providing dozens of opportunities to practice elding and hitting skills in a short

d f ad a fas-acd ad gc v. Ul fal acc, ds’

s ac slls ga sag; ’s a fc f slls.

p, acg cqu sa a, als uss fas-acd, gu-d acvs

v fala fa ad fudaal slls. A ac sss quss a gu f

suds qucl, ad as ac. t ac usuall ds sl d gag

dscuss a as; f ’s g, s sl ass a sud a qus. if ’s g, s

ass sa qus f a sud, ug ss sa sud, alas g

vg. ta’s p: a fas-acd, udcal…v f fudaals ls f cacs

f aca ad succss.

w cag “sg ad aag g aval cas,”

Lv dals tcqu 41, “tsld”:

t s a s cas u class s u u

classroom students enter….The rst minute, when students cross the threshold into the classroom,

u us d f cas. i’s ccal sals a, s ,

and reinforce the rst steps in a routine that makes excellence habitual….Ideally you will nd a

a g u suds sadg scal sld f class—asd d,

ag u d suds a ( a u ; a a

cas a ls, u ll alas c s), a gg ( cllg),

ad a u ll dad f (cllc ad ff).

pas, vs, ad aas—ad uld- acs—g ll sus

a suc s ad ls a acl a asg acs acqu u cllgsf duca ad ac aa gas. Af all, s’ l

f ac ag gas a asal ldgal, cag,

casac, ad gad l ad u ffcv class

acs?

S u g ll . bu u uld g, a las s—ad

accdg s—f s acual duca fsss.

FOREWORDBy Chester E. Finn, Jr., Michael J. Petrilli,

and Janie Scull

Foreword




The pages that follow report on the rst national survey of education school

fsss a d as.1 The key nding: A majority of the professoriate

sugs ff ss f asg Lv-sl s ad ls asg

acs. F al:

– ol 24 c lv “aslul ssal” duc “acs

udsad sa’s sadads, ss ad accual

sss.”

– Jus 37 c sa s “aslul ssal” fcus dvlg “acs

aa dscl ad d class.”

– Just 39 percent nd it “absolutely essential” to “create teachers who are trained

addss callgs f g-ds suds ua dscs.”

To be fair, many professors also think these things are important—just not that a. wa’s more a s fg “cag ags”—

acs us ac agas scl accs ad ss d fs,

fs a av ll d ac v f sclg a s a

f D’s dscds s adl sus. t fsss s slvs as

lss ad vaglss, as as cafs sag adcaf

apprentices and journeymen.

ts s g . Safd Uvs’s Davd Laa, a scd sa

f duca, las a as fa ac as al cu, scl

system reformers were pushing for efciency and utility, while education school

fsss ad scls l dvdual cld lss ad dvl

a lflg lv f lag. evuall fsss ls a agu ad

the K–12 system embraced the efciency movement. But this outcome cast

duca fsss as ll a vcaal sucs, ag

cags a uf acg fc ad scl ss—a ss c

scd fsss’ dalsc ducaal valus.

And they didn’t much like it. As Labaree writes, “It was a job, to be sure, but not

uc f a ss.” S fsss clug “dvdual cld” dlg,

a f a ss as callg, ad a a cld acuall

dd. b assgg a g us —sllg acs ac lf a v cld’s a s uqu— sug lg

fss s f ulc.2

1. That survey is Farkas, Steve and Jean Johnson, with Ann Duett. 1997. Different Drummers:How Teachers of Teachers View Public Education. New York: Public Agenda.

2. Labaree, David F. 2005. “Progressivism, Schools and Schools o Education: An AmericanRomance.” Paedagogica Historica 41: 275–288.

Foreword




i 2010, Ud Sas as g v accal ad v dadg

cs k–12 duca. masual acadc acv ad cllg

adss a c f al. S s cc cvss. tac

effectiveness in the classroom is beginning to inuence key personnel decisions.

Scls’ falu a acv gas a ll lad al sucug,

cludg lac f saff. Fals av cl v c scls

their children attend. Elected ofcials and employers are watching schools like

as. tclg s cg f ag duca—ad ag dslac

some esh-and-blood instructors. And in a time of at or shrinking school

budgets, efciency and productivity count more than ever.

t’s v ll ag f —ad ll sac f acs. ta’s

al-ld sgs ad accal s suc as Lv’s a suc dad.

ta’s “ala us” classs a gag ula. ta’s

als ccs s ug f adal duca scls ad ac-

aa gas. Acas dad a acs

gud ug—ad cu ug, ddgg all sacls a,s as s sud acv ad l scls al lag

objectives.

As u ll s s ags, s f fssa sl s’ .

But there’s modest good news here, too. We nd a sizable minority of professors

a s ccal f sadad duca scl acc ad als llg

s l as ag acs f al ld f da’s scls. F

sac, au 40 c f sds lv a ’s “aslul ssal”

a acs “ agac ssus f ug a class suc as aagg

time and preparing lesson plans.” We also nd “adjunct” faculty members

(vsus full-, ud s) ccd au acg

lss lag ad class aag. m fsss d

fcusd callgs f g-ds suds. Ad s c

classroom experience of their own are more attuned to weeding out unqualied

ac caddas a s av u f scl classs f

-lus as.

S f fsss’ vs a als susgl f-dd. t fav

tougher policies for awarding tenure to teachers, nancial incentives for those

ug gds, a c cuculu a acs classcs—

v tac F Aca. ms als ass a sus suld ldaccual f qual f acs gadua ad a acs

should be made to pass tests demonstrating prociency in key subjects before

Foreword




they are hired. And the study even identies a 12 percent segment—labeled

“Reformers”—that is strongly dissatised with the status quo and is agitating

f cag.

n a fssa s ad ac vg f ca ss.

t a dvdd su f valu-addd asus valua ac

effectiveness, for instance, and barely one-third want to see nancial incentives

f adal ffcv acs.

Sll, a’s cla s a duca scl causs alad ca s

al alls f fs. t a cacs iv t—cacs a

g dd a ll cuag f usd.

—

This isn’t the rst time we have examined the views of the education

fssa. i 1997, Fda ad ad sud a gudag pulc Agda . Different Drummers: How Teachers of Teachers View Public

Education suvd duca scl fsss a a tac F

Aca as cug s , ca v as calg, ad

sadads-asd accual as gg s la’s . w ad

fsss vd l as ac ducas ad a, f a,

ac s dvls ag ac aa.

w lad a l—uc f ulg.

Keen to nd out which of their views, if any, had changed over the past dozen

as ad a f s g dvls a av a lac

Aca k–12 lc ad acc dug a d, gagd t FDr

Gu, ld va suv sacs Sv Faas ad A Duff,

als cafd 1997 sud. t suvd v 700 duca scl fsss

acss lad ad ld fcus gus mds, nas, ad

ws Cas. ts , l s a cducd Faas ad Duff,

scass dlgc, accuac, ad ad-fdl aalss. t’v aga

d su ad ’ gaful dd.

Generous support for this project was provided by The Lynde and Harry

badl Fuda, t Lus Cald Fuda, ad wlla e. S

Fuda. ts sud as als sud a u ss gaa, tas b. Fda Fuda. Sa Las svd as u ad c

d ad hus9 Dsg cad f lau. tas als g Fda

sac dc A wl, ulc affas saffs A Faga ad Dala

Facld, lc aals Saffd pal, ad Aada olg.

Foreword




The American K–12 education system is under re—and schools of education

a c. ev U.S. Sca f educa ad sds ad

das f a acs cllgs ad duca scls slvs u

among the critics. Alternative certication programs are blossoming in every

c f lad, cg f ad ad u f s c-da

sus. ev as ffs v acg fss sc d

alls f duca scls, fsss ac s alls av

a cla sa lcs a ll affc suds.

Cracks in the Ivory Tower? , f, gs suc—u a’s ac

ducas, ssl f ag s f u cld’s class acs—

ad ass f scvs ssg quss suudg ac

duca ad scl f da. h d v ls ad s

f sus? h d sd ccs? wa d

au n Cld Lf bd Ac (nCLb), ac u, sa ad aal

standards, measures of accountability, and alternative certication programs

— c?

rsuls s a duca fsss ld dvdd vs a ssus. bal-

acd agas a aal llgss cc aa -

gas s a fa dg f dfsvss. i sval aas, vs f ac

educators conict with the policies that school districts and states pursue in

da’s ulc scls—ad ss ds f acs slvs. ma

auds av sfd sc a gal a f s sud 1997,3 v as

auds av al udgd. t acula suss fss-

a a s sl dff a av ad rfs ad Dfds.

key FinDinGS

1. idals, gd s, ad gssvs g suffus a duca

fsss sv a scv acs, ds s s

valus ad lcs usud scl dscs ad sas. tac ducas

s l ds cc f al-ld callgs suc as aagg

classs ad sud dscl, lg dffad suc, ad

g sa sadads—v ug k–12 acs f sa s a

among the most difcult elements of teaching.

– The vast majority of education professors (82 percent) think it is absolutely

ssal dvl acs a slvs lflg las.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. Farkas, Steve and Jean Johnson, with Ann Duett. 1997. Different Drummers: How Teachers of Teachers View Public Education. New York: Public Agenda.

Executive Summary




– t a fa ll lv a l f ac s

a “facilitator of learning” (84 percent) not a “conveyor of knowledge”

(11 c).

– Asd cs cg lss f l f ac

educator, 68 percent believe preparing students “to be change agents who will

sa duca gg das ad aacs ulc scls”

is most important; just 26 percent advocate preparing students “to work

ffcvl als f da’s ulc scls.”

– ol 24 c lv s aslul ssal duc “acs

udsad sa’s sadads, ss, ad accual

sss.”

– Just 39 percent nd it absolutely essential “to create teachers who are trained

addss callgs f g-ds suds ua dscs.”

– Jus 37 c sa s aslul ssal fcus dvlg “acs

aa dscl ad d class.”

– The vast majority of education professors (83 percent) believe it is absolutely

essential for public school teachers to teach 21st century skills, but just 36c sa sa au acg a facs, ad 44 c au acg

cs ug gads.

2. Most professors of education believe their eld needs to change. Sizable

majorities point to serious deciencies with teacher-preparation programs,

scv acs, ad v cllagus. y a aval au

alavs a cu acs ug adal as. tac F

Aca s c s avalc.

– S-s c lv a s ss f uvs-asd ac

duca as s gd quals u “als ds a cags.”

– half (50 c) ag a “ac duca gas f fal a

acs f callgs f acg al ld.”

– Sv- c fav “ldg ac duca gas

accual f qual f acs gadua.”

– A strong majority (73 percent) believes that “most professors of education need

sd k–12 classs.”

– ol 7 c sa a sual accda s a guaa f qual—

a fa ll sa l assus a asl f accal qual

(46 c) cdual clac (41 c).

– rgadg alav acg us, 42 c s cug caddasbased on their success in other elds and 51 percent oppose programs run

scl dscs ca aag gaas. S- c,

c, v, fav gas l tac F Aca.

Executive Summary




3. pfsss f duca ff s su f a u f lc avs

ad a vg acg cs—.g., ldg ducas

accual, cagg sala sucus ad cvs, ad lsg u

cs. t vc su f acadc sadads ad v dl

ds national sadads. ovall, v, fsss s us f

sud assss daa valua acs.

– Loosening tenure protections: Sv- c su “qug a u

of ve years for tenure and strengthening formal teacher evaluation,” and

86 percent favor “making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent

acs—v f a ud.”

– Changing salary structures and incentives: Eighty-three percent favor nancial

cvs f acs ug gds l-fg

schools; but just 30 percent favor nancial incentives for teachers whose students

ul sc g a sla suds sadadd ss.

– Holding educators and students more accountable: Sv-g c fav qug

public school teachers to pass tests demonstrating their prociency in keysubjects before they are hired; 61 percent feel the same about testing students

in key subjects before they can graduate.

– High standards: Seventy-eight percent support a core curriculum with specic

ldg ad sll sadads slld u f ac gad, k–12.

– National standards: F- c lv sa gvs suld ad

sa s f ducaal sadads ad gv sa ss a, scc, ad

adg ad; 36 c dff sadads ad ss ac sa

a accal.

methoDoLoGy

The study is based on survey ndings from a nationwide, randomly selected

sal f 716 ac ducas fu-a cllgs ad uvss. t

ag f f vall sal s lus us fu cag s;

s g cag cags acss sugus. Fdgs a als

asd qualav daa f fcus gus cducd o, n

Cala, ad Calfa, c sv cual suv daa. t

cl dlg s cludd Ad A, ad qusa

ad suv suls a fud Ad b.

Executive Summary




INTRODUCTION “w l a cfd a l,” J D c

sad. t fsss al alls f u a’s duca scls us

g a l s das. F suc sus ad fsss, s a

callgg s.

t v ssc f ss—ag ’s k–12 class

teachers—has come under re. President Obama’s Secretary of Education says

a scls f duca d “vlua cag.” A sud ld Au

Lv, f sd f Clua Uvs tacs Cllg, ccluds

a “a as a l, a’s ac duca gas uld av

dscd as adqua.”4 Nor are such challenges conned to the speeches

ad sac suds f lcas ad duca lads. Alav ac

preparation and certication programs are launching across the country, directly

callgg ad ad u f s sus.

ts s a cll , f, g s fas ssl—

duca fsss slvs—ad as f scvs callgs cf. h d v ls ad s f

sus? h d sd ccs? h a f

das? wa d au alav gas— c?

Much of what we nd reveals a great deal of churn, ambivalence, and even

cfus. educa fsss vc dvdd s a ssus, s

dfsvss, ad a aal llgss cc duca-aa

gas suc as . ma f quss s a ad f

a 1997 Fda-ad suv f fsss f duca ad val sfs

auds a a fal uusual s ad cssc f dc.5

o auds av al udgd. t suss fssa a

s sl dff a av ad rfs ad Dfds.

In several areas, the views of teacher educators conict with the policies that

scl dscs ad sas usu da’s ulc scls—ad ss

ds f acs slvs.

ts s a sud f ac ducas—a s, sucs ad fsss

a u cld’s class acs. t suv a fs

Cracks in the Ivory Tower? cvd a d va f cs, cludg qual

f ac-duca gas; fcs s f dagg; s

nCLb, ac u, sa ad aal sadads, ad asusf accual f suds ad acs; as ll as vs alavs

adal ss f ac duca.

4. Levine, Arthur. 2006. Educating School Teachers. Washington, D.C.: The EducationSchools Project. http://www.edschools.org/pd/Educating_Teachers_Report.pd.


Introduction




StUDy methoDS

t FDr Gu’s aac sac s clud qualav sac

at the initial phase of a project before designing closed-ended survey questions.

i s cas, vg ac ducas fac fac— fcus

gus f suv as cafd dug -sg sag, va l-

phone after the survey was elded—we placed great emphasis on giving teacher

ducas a cac al ds au gs a a

. As a sul f aca, qusa as vd, -

cs cvd , ad d cc aa.

t gs ad s sud uusuall c accls. Fs, ssus

cvd suv a clcad; val, s fsss fl a

a survey with closed-ended questions would result in over-simplication of

cl vs. As fss af clg suv, “t

a quss as i uld av gv ls s

ddl.” Csqul, a d a cs “ su”cag a a fcd ass a dd’ cau cl

vs. w a s ccs susl; us, a su “ su”

sss cags a uusuall lag, ad clud

direct quotes from the focus groups to illustrate survey ndings and tease out

ner distinctions.6 Scd, a f sud acas suscd a sac

as lcall sd ad uld usd assaul duca scls. i s

cal u a s a lcall cagd s f duca gal

ad scls f duca a dff. tugu sud, sug

assu s fsss ad dus. w lv a s sads

s as a fa, asa dg f vs f duca fsss.

The study is based on survey ndings from a nationwide, randomly selected

sal f 716 ac ducas f fu-a cllgs. wl a

ac clusvl duca das, ac acs cllg suds

a ag la, ddl, g scl acs. t ag

f f vall sal s lus us fu cag s; s

higher when comparing percentages across subgroups. The ndings also are

asd qualav daa f fcus gus cducd o, n

Carolina, and California. In general, the ndings from the focus groups serve

cual suv daa ad vd llusav als f fsss’

sal cs. t cl dlg s cludd Ad A,ad qusa ad suv suls a cludd Ad b.

6. Appendix B includes “not sure” responses or all questions on the survey.

Introduction



13 Thomas B. Fordham Institute Education Proessors’ Goals and Values

Education Proessors’ Goals and Values

idals, gd s, ad gssvs g suffus all a duca

fsss sv a scv acs. t a gal s

ag fuu sucs cag ags ad lflg las. bu

s valus, c a sc ad sl ld, a f s

lcs a scl dscs ad sas usu ulc scls. Fu,

ac ducas s l ld cc f al-ld callgs suc

as aagg classs ad sud dscl, lg dffad

suc, ad g sa sadads—v ug k–12 acs

often say these are among the most difcult elements of teaching.

ACtiVe, LiFeLonG LeArninG

pfsss f duca cv a d-sad dals au .

Sgl ld ad lgsadg gssvs valus, suc as a lv f lag

ad cld-cd duca, dv lsss a scv

teachers. To them, education is more than just a vehicle for shaping students

fucg s f sc; s a dug ass, a us u

itself. For example, 82 percent say it is absolutely essential to develop teachers

a slvs lflg las. As fss u fcus gus u

, “i a suds al aa g a ’s a cual css.

They will have to become lifelong learners….It doesn’t just stop when you

lav cllg.”

tacs f acs als lv a lag qus acv aca ad

gag. t l f ac s a “facla f lag”

(84 percent), not a “conveyor of knowledge” (11 percent). “I’ve seen the

cuculu cag f as all u ad d. if u ad a gd

, u culd suvv cllg a ld,” duca

fss lad. “tda, ’s ccal g. ta’s a a g duc, acs a ccal s ca ac suds

ccal s.”

i ds f fsss, duca s a sul, cl, ad cuus

s, sg a ca asl ducd a sl s f gals,

sadads, ad cs. w asd uld a av suds

struggle with the process of nding the correct answers than actually know

1.




Chapter 1


the right answers, a vast majority (66 percent to 20 percent) would rather that

suds suggl. (A 14 c a usu.)

These views dene the core values and fundamental orientation of professors

toward teaching and have shifted very little since the questions were rst posed

a a dcad ag (s Fgu 1).7 ts sal ad cu valus

cass sal sal sfs vs ad -u ssus, c

dscuss Ca 2.

VALUeS ConFLiCt with reAL-worLD expeCtAtionS

bcaus fl s sgl au fsg sud gag ad a lvf lag, fsss’ vs a f a dds da’s da lc

ds ad ducaal accs.

Sa sadads a al. Sc 2002, nCLb as qud sas

s ad l sadads, ss, ad accual sss. mv, as

f Augus 2010, a -quas f sas ad add common

acadc sadads egls laguag as ad aacs, as u f

naal Gvs Assca ad Cucl f Cf Sa Scl

Ofcers.8 y l 24 c f fsss acag s suv lv

aslul ssal duc “acs udsad

sa’s sadads, ss ad accual sss.”

CLASSroom mAnAGement–not A priority

n k–12 class acs ss cla au gg uc

ad ug ag class aag sud dscl.9

bu suc accal as a a f duca fsss:


8. See Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/.9. In a recent national survey o frst-year teachers, 45 percent reported that their education

training put too much emphasis on the theory and philosophy o education, 3 percent saidit put too much emphasis on handling the practical challenges o teaching, and 50 percentsaid it struck the right balance between the two. National Comprehensive Center orTeacher Quality and Public Agenda. 2007. Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges and Long-Range Plans, Washington, D.C. and New York: NationalComprehensive Center or Teacher Quality and Public Agenda. http://www.publicagenda

.org/fles/pd/lessons_learned_1.pd.




Chapter 1


AbSoLUteLy eSSentiAL QUALitieS oF pUbLiC SChooL teACherS

Teacher education programs can impart dierent qualities to their students. Which o the ollowing qualities

do you think are most essential and which are least essential? (Percent responding “absolutely essential”)

Teachers who are themselves lie-long learners and constantly updating their skills

Teachers who will have high expectations o all their students

Teachers who are deeply knowledgeable about the content o the specifc subjects they will be teaching

Teachers trained in and committed to implementing dierentiated instruction in their classrooms

Teachers trained in pragmatic issues o running a classroom such as managing time and preparing lesson plans

Teachers who are trained to address the challenges o high-needs students in urban districts

Teachers who maintain discipline and order in the classroom

Teachers who are well-versed in theories o child development and learning

Teachers who actively use technology and online resources to improve instruction

Teachers who understand how to work with the state’s standards, tests and accountability systems

Teachers who stress correct spelling, grammar and punctuation

Figure 1

2010

1997

2010

1997

2010

1997

2010

1997 N/A

2010

1997

2010

1997 N/A

2010

1997

2010

1997

2010

1997 N/A

2010

1997 N/A

2010

1997

82 %

84 %

69 %

72 %

62 %

57 %

51 %

42 %

41 %

39 %

37 %

37 %

35 %

46 %

29 %

24 %

23 %

19 %

Percentages in fgures may not equal 100 percent due to rounding or omission o answer categories. Questionwording may be edited or space, but ull question wording is available in Appendix B. Small discrepancies betweenpercentages in the text and those in the appendix are due to rounding.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100




Chapter 1


S lg as acs l gagg sucal cqus a a

suds’ allgdl a lv f lag, av ad class aag

ll a auall. F a alf (42 c) sa s aslul ssal

f ac duca gas duc “acs ad agac ssus

f ug a class suc as aagg ad ag lss las.”

ev f (37 c) lv aslul ssal fcus dvlg

“acs aa dscl ad d class.”

As o fss lad: “if u a gagg suds, ad

suds a csdd s f a lag cu, u d’ d

a uc au dscl. i as ca f slf.” half f

fsss suvd (50 c) lv a “ a ulc scl ac facs

a dsuv class, al as a s as fald a lsssgagg ug.”

phoniCS AnD mAth FACtS—not A priority

ms duca fsss a luca ds sucal sags

such as phonics or memorization of math facts, likely because these conjure

ags f suds gagd “” dull . Jus 36 c

f duca fsss sa s aslul ssal “ac a facs suc

as a f ullca als” al gads ad l

44 c sa s aslul ssal, al gads, “ac cs

ad c aass acg lac” (s Fgu 2). n l d

s auds ll u fsss a dds cval sd, u

cadc cdas f aal als a av lcl dsd

s sucal cqus f al gads.10

i sa v, acg “21s cu slls suc as ccal g, cav,

cllaa ad glal aass” ulc scls s aslul ssal,

according to 83 percent of professors. But just 23 percent say it is absolutely

ssal a suds “ ac f sssg cc sllg,

gaa ad ucua.” isal ad ccal slls clal uaccal ldg s f fsss’ s.

1. Political Identifcation and its Impact

on Proessors’ Point o View

Education proessors view their work through a

broader ideological and political lens. Democrats

outnumber Republicans among survey

respondents by a 4-to-1 ratio (65 percent to

16 percent), and partisan leanings show higher

correlations with survey responses than any

other demographic variable:

– About a third o both groups have a positive

view o alternative teacher certifcation

programs, with 35 percent o Republican and

33 percent o Democratic proessors agreeing

that such programs are “a good way to attractunconventional talent to the public schools.”

But when the issue is ramed as an Obama

administration initiative to open up as many

avenues as possible to recruit news teachers,

dierences emerge: 51 percent o Republicans

oppose the idea compared with 35 percent o

Democrats.

– Fity-nine percent o Republican proessors,

compared with 29 percent o their Democratic

counterparts, believe that public schools’

primary goal or students who are new

immigrants should be to “absorb America’s

language and culture as quickly as possible,”even i it means neglecting their native language

and culture.

– Far more Republicans than Democrats (63

percent to 44 percent) believe that teacher

tenure is an obstacle to improving schools.

10. National Reading Panel. 2000. “Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessmento the Scientifc Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications or Reading Instruction.”Report of the National Reading Panel , 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department o Education.See also, National Mathematics Advisory Panel. 2008. “The Final Report o the NationalMathematics Advisory Panel,” xiv. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department o Education.




Chapter 1


AbSoLUteLy eSSentiAL prioritieS For pUbLiC SChooL teACherS

How important is it or teachers in public schools to do the ollowing in their classes?

(Percent responding “absolutely essential”)

Teach “21st century skills” such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and global awareness

Teach phonics and phonemic awareness when teaching literacy in the early grades

Teach math acts such as memorization o the multiplication tables in the early grades

Rely on student portolios and other authentic assessments

83 %

44 %

36 %

35 %

Figure 2


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100




Chapter 1


ev ag-ld, sgl cuus, scl acvs l “c f

ads suc as sllg s lls” u ssac, l 35

c f fsss llg sa ca valual cvs f sud

lag. pfsss a scl-ag suds s ldg caus

a cuus ad lv la, caus f a sgl cass ds f

ads. ecuagg a ad cllaa s fal c

a suls s ad lss.

hiGh-neeDS, UrbAn SChooLS

Sc vg l-fg, -c scls s agual cf

duca callg sl facg lcas ad a, gc duca fsss as acg sags as la

dsadvaagd suds. bu s s cas: Jus 39 c

aslul ssal “ ca acs a ad addss callgs

f g-ds suds ua dscs.” i add, a lag a

ag (73 c 20 c), sa a, f U.S. lv u

its ideals of justice and equality, it is more important for public schools to “focus

quall all suds, gadlss f acguds acv lvls”

a a “fcus asg acv f dsadvaagd suds

a sugglg acadcall” (s Fgu 3).11

i fac, dscuss f “acv ga” as ad fsss

a f fcus gus. w das asd o gu s as

s, fss lad usl: “w dscuss acv ga s uc

ag uslvs….bd v sgl c a as ad, as all

scls a a sugglg s a ua scls ad acv ga

s cal ga s aas.”

n a duca fsss da f a “scd” aac

acg -c suds, a cu d s l-fg scls

and districts. More than half (54 percent) reject the view that “lower-income

suds -c scls av a ga d f sucud, ac-dc-d suc a ddl class suua suds.” (Als fu [39

c], v, sa sa cs cls v.) o Ls Agls

1. Political Identifcation and its Impact

on Proessors’ Point o View (continued)

On issues o pedagogy, political identifcations

drive sharp rits in the data:

– Republican proessors are more likely to

believe that it is absolutely essential or public

school teachers to teach math acts, such as

memorization o the multiplication tables, in the

early grades (50 percent versus 33 percent o

Democrats) and that early use o calculators can

hamper math learning in the elementary school

grades (52 percent versus 37 percent).

– Similarly, Republican proessors are more

likely to believe that it is absolutely essential toteach phonics and phonemic awareness in the

early grades (56 percent versus 41 percent o

Democrats) and that “competition or rewards

such as spelling bees or honor rolls is a valuable

incentive or student learning” (54 percent

versus 27 percent).

– Proessors who identiy as Democrats, however,

are more likely to think it absolutely essential

or public school teachers to rely on “student

portolios and other authentic assessments”

(40 percent o Democrats versus 21 percent

o Republicans) and or teacher education

programs to prepare teachers to address thechallenges o high-needs students in urban

districts (41 percent versus 25 percent).

11. A survey o third through twelth grade public school teachers shows a margin that is evenwider: 86 percent versus 11 percent. See Steve Farkas and Ann Duett. 2008. HighAchieving Students in the Era of NCLB: Results from a National Teacher Survey (Part 2) .Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.




Chapter 1


CompetinG prioritieS oF pUbLiC SChooLS

For the public schools to help the U.S. live up to its ideals o justice and equality, do you think it’s more

important that they:

Focus on raising the achievement o disadvantaged students who are struggling academically

Focus equally on all students, regardless o their backgrounds or achievement levels

Not sure

Figure 3

Education Proessors

20%

7%

11%

86%73%

3%

Public School Teachers





Chapter 1


aca ad, “pa f g a ac s uv udsadg f

where a kid is and just kind of holistically where they are in the process of gain-

g ldg. Ad f u a d a sc, d a lc-s a,

isn’t any movement for being able to adjust to the needs of your class.”

teAChinG yoUnG immiGrAntS

w asd au s aac acg suds a

gas, duca fsss sad aa f a dff gu f

“s”— gas slvs. pfsss a ll lv a

ulc scls suld l ug gas aa gal laguag

ad culu (47 c) a a “as Aca’s laguag ad culuas qucl as ssl, v f av laguag ad culu a glcd”

(36 c).12 Another 18 percent say they are not sure. These results differ

sal f a aal suv f gas, c 74 c ug

a f scls ac gas egls “as qucl

as possible,” even if that meant falling behind in other subjects.13

DiFFerentiAteD inStrUCtion

half f duca fsss suvd (51 c) sa s aslul

ssal a acs dffa suc classs.

bu aga dal aas dsccd f accal—ad

professors appear to know it. The vast majority (81 percent) acknowledge that

it is difcult to tailor instruction to match the individual needs of students

a dal ass class.14

t dsa dal ad al lads duca fsss sa-

lg f class acs. As fss lad, “w a

asg acs gav, fcusd ss f

cld, fcusd dvdualg….y a sll alg -

2. Minority Education Proessors

About one in ten education proessors

responding to the survey are minority—that

is, mostly Arican American and Hispanic. Their

views dier rom those o their white colleagues

across a number o questions related to

disadvantaged students:

– Minority education proessors are more ocused

on training teachers to address the challenges

o high-needs students in urban districts (58

percent versus 37 percent o whites).

– They are much more likely to want public schools

to ocus on raising the achievement o struggling,disadvantaged students rather than on raising

the achievement o all students (45 percent

versus 17 percent).

– And they are more likely to say it is absolutely

essential or teachers to have high expectations

o all their students (78 percent versus 68

percent).

Minority proessors are also more likely than their

white peers to:

– Believe that the public schools should maintainthe language and culture o students who are

immigrants rather than ocus on absorbing

American culture and language (65 percent

versus 44 percent).

– Support the idea o alternative certifcation—

that is, to think alternative programs “are a good

way to attract unconventional talent to the public

schools” (46 percent versus 31 percent), and

to think the Obama administration’s initiative

to “open up every avenue possible to recruit

new teachers” is on the right track (59 percent

versus 38 percent).

– Support Teach For America (75 percent versus

62 percent).

12. Interesting divides appear in these data when broken out by political afliation. Fity-ninepercent o Republican proessors—compared with 29 percent o their Democraticcounterparts—believe that public schools’ primary goal or students who are newimmigrants should be to “absorb America’s language and culture as quickly as possible,even i their native language and culture are neglected.”

13. Bittle, Scott, and Jonathan Rochkind, with Paul Gasbarra and Amber Ott. 2009. A Placeto Call Home: What Immigrants Say Now About Life in America , 53. New York: PublicAgenda and Carnegie Corporation. http://www.publicagenda.org/fles/pd/Immigration.pd.

14. A similar number o third through twelth grade public school teachers (84 percent) reportthat dierentiated instruction is difcult or them to implement in their own classrooms.




Chapter 1


ve kids in a classroom and one teacher….We don’t have homogeneous class -

s a ad u acs a sll g ad as f vd s -

gus, s ds’ .” i fcus gus, s calld f

sall classs a dffad suc fasl— f c

s ull g cc s. n fss asd duca

schools need to change their ways, and no one suggested a modied approach to

a dffad suc al da’s classs.

AGentS oF ChAnGe

F sa sadads class aag, f clg daggcal s-

sues, education professors pursue objectives that sometimes ignore—and even con-adc— lcs ad callgs a suds ll fac as acual acs.

t k–12 scl ss ss sss. i fcus gus, f al,

a f duca fsss d a dscs ad class acs a

fusg sud acs, ccd a agda f

duca scl ll d ffs accual qus. o

fss sad, “w a g g u suds g u ad d a sac

s sg s acc….bu acs a [sag], ‘i sll av d

s ca a . i av d s c scc caus a’s

a o sadads sa i av d s a.’” A sad, “w a

avg scl dscs fus av us c caus f accual

ad assss css. bcaus acs a sag, ‘i’ ld ssl

f s sud, f class. m scs a a a ulsd.’ [sc]”

bu ds s usac, s duca fsss aa cfal

their approach, perhaps because they do not dene their mission as training

acs f acual classs. F sac, asd cs

competing philosophies regarding the role of teacher educator, just 26 percent

f a f ag suds “ ffcvl als

of today’s public schools”; the majority (68 percent) choose the philosophy

f ag suds “ cag ags ll sa duca gg das ad aacs ulc scls” (s Fgu 4).

pfsss aa sag a s al ld a ds cag,

. As s , ac av f acs sd a’s

classs suld callg saus qu ad v cag. tus,

dscc al ld ad v s l f

ag, u cscus ad usful.




Chapter 1


teACher-eDUCAtor phiLoSophieS

Which comes closer to your own philosophy o your role as teacher educator? To prepare uture teachers to:

Be change agents who will reshape education by bringing new ideas and approaches to the public schools

Work eectively within the realities o today’s public schools—e.g., state mandates, limited budgets, and

beleaguered administrators

Not sure

Figure 4

6%

26%

68%




23 Thomas B. Fordham Institute Education Proessors Assess Their Field

Education Proessors Assess Their Field

Many professors of education believe their eld needs to change (see Figure 5).

Sizable majorities point to serious problems with teacher-preparation programs,

scv acs, ad v cllagus. y a aval au

alavs a cu acs ug adal as. tac F

Aca s c.

Alug valus ad s f duca fsss f d

u f sc al-ld callgs facg acs ad scls, s

professors do examine their programs with a critical eye. Self-reection andss cag ad f a lg uc. Calls f cag

av v c f sds l Au Lv, f sd f Clua

University Teachers College, who wrote in a recent report that “a majority

f acs a ad a duca scls ls adss

sadads ad las acclsd fsss.”15 Suc slf-scu as casd

v as dcad, as vald daac sfs sss 1997

ad cu suvs (s sda “Audal Sfs: A Sgal f eg

pagas?”). Csqul, as Ca 1 dcs s fsss

a f u f s al ld, s ca llusas a a

among their ranks acutely realize that not all is right with their eld.

CritiCiSm From within

Some education professors themselves have joined the chorus of skeptics

ad uld- fs. tu, l au (9 c) call f

“fundamental overhaul” of university-based teacher education, but the majority

(66 c) sas a, l a a gd gs au s

ss, “ als ds a cags.” rlavl f (22 c) a

ss “l ds g.” i fcus gus, s l au

uneven quality in their eld. One veteran education professor in Los Angelesad, “t’s a ug dscac ac duca gas.

i’v aug a a scls, ad ’s a ug dffc. i’s a d ag.”

2.

15. Levine, Arthur. 2006. Educating School Teachers, 26. Washington, D.C.: The EducationSchools Project. http://www.edschools.org/pd/Educating_Teachers_Report.pd.

3. Attitudinal Shits: A Signal o Emergent

Pragmatism?

This study repeats many questions rom the

original Fordham-initiated survey o education

proessors, conducted in 1997. These trend

questions reveal a series o provocative shits

in perceptions, typically in a more “pragmatic”

direction.

Although still deeply attached to a romanticconcept o learning, more proessors take

concrete, practical stands than beore (see

Figure B ). For example, the pool o proessors

who believe it more important or kids to struggle

with the process than end up with the right

answer has dropped 20 percentage points (66

percent rom 86 percent in 1997). Meanwhile,

the percentage saying it is absolutely essential to

produce teachers well-versed in theories o child

development and learning has declined to 35

percent rom 46 percent (see Figure 1, p. 15).

Their sensibility toward teaching methods also

may be shiting in a more pragmatic direction(see Figure B ). For example, only 37 percent

o proessors believe that early use o calculators

will improve children’s problem-solving skills, a

20 percentage point drop rom 57 percent in

1997. Even the view that schools should avoid

competitive events such as spelling bees and

honor rolls has declined to 48 percent rom 64

percent.




Chapter 2


QUALity oF UniVerSity-bASeD teACher eDUCAtion

Thinking about the U.S. system o university-based teacher education, which comes closest to your overall view?

On the whole the system works very well—it only needs minor tinkering

There are many good things about the system but it also needs many changes

The system has so much wrong with it that it needs undamental overhaul

Not sure

9%

3%

66%

22%

Figure 5





Chapter 2


A va—s o—sad uc sa g: “i av aug

g duca fu dff sas, ad fal i s ac

ed programs do a good job, but some do a pretty bad job.”

ma fsss acldg a fuu acs a gg accal

ls ll d succd usd caus gas. half (50 c) sa

“ac duca gas f fal a acs f callgs f

teaching in the real world.” In the focus groups, professors were very specic

au ds f gs a sag acs lac. “i av ald

l scal d g ug a fu-a ga ad v

wrote an IEP,” said an Ohio professor. “I nd that appalling. How could you

sd sd u as d cal c f a a

l av d?” os calld f duca gas u fcus susac. A tas duca fss a suv as

uagd u f class acs s ss acg scc

ulc scls “ d’ scc….t dd’ av a al scc

classs. pl g ug d gas d’ av scc g.

i’s sca.”

StUDent QUALity iS An iSSUe

pfsss als ccs au qual f suds

gas. t sa a s a a caddas f acg, ad

ds d v qual f g suds a

as v usual scs c a lld. m a sv

(73 c) sa a ac duca gas “d d a

job weeding out” less suitable students. Remarked one professor, “There are

s scls’ ac duca gas a a all g —‘w

a gg a s suds a caal f dg ag

.’ i av a g l a.” ms duca fsss sa

“ss” (62 c) “f” (15 c) u acss suds

susl du av a as a ac. o fss cd,

“i fl s vall a -sc ac caddas f asc sllccs f allg a acg aa ga.”

Professors are specically concerned about students’ writing skills. Two out of

(67 c) a a f suds “av ul g

ssas f f sas gaa ad sllg.” (icall, l 23 c sa

s aslul ssal a cllg suds “ ac

f sssg cc sllg, gaa, ad ucua.”)

3. Attitudinal Shits: A Signal o Emergent

Pragmatism? (continued)

Trends also indicate that proessors are fnding

less to ault when they evaluate education

programs—perhaps a signal rom insiders

that things are improving (see Figure A ).

For example, 50 percent o proessors in

this survey say education programs oten ail

to prepare teachers or teaching in the real

world; in 1997, it was 63 percent. And while

the proportion reporting that their programs

“need to do a better job weeding out students

who are unsuitable or the proession” is still

high (73 percent), it is signifcantly lower than

it was in 1997 (86 percent). The percentagethat indicates “most proessors need to spend

more time in K–12 classrooms” has declined to

73 percent rom 84 percent. Only 43 percent

now say teacher education programs “are

too oten seen as cash cows by university

administrators”—down rom 54 percent. These

shits are statistically signifcant, meaningul, and

consistently in the “we think things are getting

better” direction.

But are things really improving? We can’t be

sure rom these data. The movement toward

greater accountability in K–12 education

might have shed light on the aws in teacher-preparation programs, prompting their

improvement. Or the barrage o education

school criticism might have led to sel-reection

and change. O course it is also possible that

today’s proessors, leery o adding to the

cacophony o complaints they already hear, have

merely become more reluctant to openly criticize

their feld.16




Chapter 2

Education Proessors Assess Their Field26 Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Chapter 2


trenDS in eDUCAtion-proFeSSor oUtLook, 1997 to 2010

How close does each o the ollowing come to your own view?

(Percent responding “very close” or “somewhat close”)

Teacher education programs need to do a better job weeding out students who are unsuitable or the proession

Most proessors o education need to spend more time in [K–12] classrooms

Teacher education programs are oten unairly blamed or the problems acing public education

Too many education students have trouble writing essays ree o mistakes in grammar and spelling

Fear o litigation has made it harder to remove unsuitable teacher candidates rom teacher education programs

Teacher education programs oten ail to prepare teachers or the challenges o teaching in the real world

Too many cooperating teachers lack the disposition and skills to be eective models or today’s student teachers

Teacher education programs are too oten seen as cash cows by university administrators

2010

1997

2010

1997

2010

1997

2010

1997

2010

1997 N/A

2010

1997

2010

1997 N/A

2010

1997

Figure A

(Sidebar 3)

84 %

73 %


86 %

73 %

71 %

82 %

75 %

67 %

53 %

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

50 %

63 %

48 %

54 %

43 %




Chapter 2


Figure B

(Sidebar 3)

eDUCAtionAL ApproACheS, 1997 AnD 2010

Which comes closer to your view on the role o teachers?

2010 1997

When teachers assign specic questions in such subjects as math or history, is it more important that:

The kids end up knowing the right answers to the questions or problems 20 12

The kids struggle with the process o trying to fnd the right answers 66 86

Not sure 14 3

Which is closer to your view on using calculators?

2010 1997

Early use o calculators in elementary school grades can hamper children rom learning 42 38

basic arithmetic skills

Early use o calculators will improve children’s problem-solving skills and not prevent 37 57

the learning o arithmetic

Not sure 21 6

Which is closer to your own view?

2010 1997

Competition or rewards such as spelling bees or honor rolls is a valuable incentive 35 33

or student learning

Schools should avoid competition among children and oster cooperation 48 64

Not sure 17 3





Chapter 2


Cug cqu f sud qual s aaad a

c a aa gas df ad v usual suds.

F a alf (46 c) a ga as a fal ad

ssac css lac f vg a ac caddas. ra, 23

c avg a “fal css” a ls fsss “cusl

u” suds ad 11 c dca a ga ls suds

themselves to drop out. Another 17 percent cannot dene the process

(s Fgu 6).

One Ohio professor described her personal aversion to ejecting students:

“There [are] always students that you really don’t think can do the job, but it’s

really hard to have someone not nish. It’s really hard to kick them out of the

ga.” bu a dscd sadad ag cdu ga as cllcv slf-gula ssl: “w lc u ….

w av ‘cadda ccs’ fs. Ad as a sud a class

or a eld setting can ll out one of these….There’s a person in charge who

ss a s a a. Ad ac ss lads a f

da vs ccs a av sud.”

Addal al fcs a dscuag ga slcv. m a

alf (53 c) f duca fsss sa a “fa f lga as

ad v usual ac caddas.” Ccs a usuccssful

students might sue rst came up spontaneously in a focus group with North

Cala fsss. o aca dscd s a: “yu als av

au lgal ssus. h d u dcu a ad al v

uvs a u av d vg….i’s dsad, u ’s

ug a a s.” A Ls Agls fss sad

c: “i ad a sud lagad. S sad as s

lagad as caus i dd’ ll a s culd’. t ad a

her in the program and said I had to change her grade….They just wanted it to

g aa, caus s ad su . t scls d’ a ad

ulc. bcaus ll g u. if s sus u, v f u , ’s gg

v sv.”

16. One data point argues against this notion o reexive sel-deense: The percentage oproessors saying teacher education programs are unairly blamed has declined by 11percentage points, to 71 percent rom 82 percent.




Chapter 2


remoVAL oF UnSUitAbLe teACher CAnDiDAteS

When it comes to removing unsuitable teacher candidates, does your program mostly rely on:

Formal and systematic process or identiying and removing unsuitable candidates

Inormal process that relies on individual proessors to counsel out unsuitable candidates

Students themselves to drop out when they realize they’re not suited or teaching

Something else

Not sure

11%

3%

23%

46%

17%

Figure 6





Chapter 2


4. Proessors Fresh rom Working in K–12

Classrooms Are More Critical

Education proessors who have taught in K–12

classrooms within the past fve years tend to be

more critical o education schools than those

who have been away rom the classroom or

more than twenty years and those who have no

classroom teaching experience. Proessors with

recent experience in the classroom are more

likely to say:

– The system o university-based teacher

education in the U.S. “needs many changes”

(79 percent o those who have been out o

the classroom or fve years or less, versus 61percent o those who have been out or more

than 20 years, versus 63 percent o those with

no classroom experience).

– “Most proessors need to spend more time

in K–12 classrooms” (87 percent versus 68

percent versus 62 percent, respectively).

– “Teacher education programs need to do a better

job weeding out students who are unsuitable

to the proession” (82 percent versus 73

percent versus 68 percent, respectively).

“hAVen’t Seen the inSiDe oF A prACtiCAL CLASSroom

For 20 yeArS”

ma duca fsss a llg ccall assss cllagus as ll

as their students. A strong majority (73 percent) believes that “most professors of

duca d sd k–12 classs.” o suc

Ls Agls aa sl sad, “ms f acs ac duca av

class f a lg .” A sa gu—a la-

vl ac duca—sad a s f s cllagus “av’ s

sd f a accal class f 20 as.” t suv daa uss s s-

s: m a fu (42 c) sa a av v

a class ac a av’ a as.

S suv acas dd cs a a

ffs vs scls ad classs as gus acs vlus, a

a fqul scls svg sud acs. “Alug i av

a class ac f a as,” fss, “i a su

i ac a class f suds a la lvl usc v a s a

i d ls uc cld ulc scl ss.”

ACCoUntAbiLity For eDUCAtion proGrAmS

t cu ss f valuag ad accdg scls f duca s

ula f cllc, accdg duca fsss (s Fgu 7). ol

7 c sa a accda as ga s -c; a fa

more likely to say it assures just a base-line of acceptable quality (46 percent)

cdual clac (41 c). A duca da vd

preparation for this study had just completed an exhaustive process for re-

accda u dscd as ll a a ad clac.

i fcus gus, a fsss ssd cc au

to complete accreditation. “I donate a lot of my time not just here but nationally

accda css,” sad a o fss. “bu au f

that it takes to do this denitely takes away from my ability to prepare for theclasss a i ac.”

i o, a fcus gu aca cd a c cag a

naal Cucl f Accda f tac educa (nCAte) qud

his university to provide for certication—namely data—and he viewed this

as a v. “t us av s . i’s l a




Chapter 2


VALUe oF eDUCAtion proGrAm ACCreDitAtion

From what you know or have heard about the process o proessional accreditation o education programs

—or example, through organizations like NCATE or TEAC—is it your sense that receiving accreditation means:

A guarantee o top-notch quality

A base-line o acceptable quality

Very little other than procedural compliance

Not sure

41%

6%

46%

7%

Figure 7





Chapter 2


a falu a s. Ad a cags. i fl

l ’s a gd g. t’s a ca lvl f accual a i all

d. i a fcl fav f us lcg u a a s lca

u dcdg a s f duca.”

Ulal, susc a gs a qu g ull fs lads

fsss suggs a gas suld ld accual f

fssals duc. i fac, a sv (73 c) fav

“ldg ac duca gas accual f qual f

acs gadua.”

AmbiVALenCe AboUt ALternAtiVeS

wl a ac ducas cqu gas, usd ld

as us fasg alav as acg (ad scl lads)

a sds adal duca scls alg. h d fsss gad

s alavs? t sss a susgl vad, suggsg ss

ds f a las s fsss ad a a f dg gs

(see Figure 8).

Nearly half (47 percent) say that alternative certication programs not run

adal scls f duca “a cs qual f

teaching force in the public schools.” But the lack of a clear majority is notable,

ad al -d (32 c) call suc alav us “a gd a

aac ucval al ulc scls.” (A 21 c sa

a usu.) t suv als ass duca fsss f a

“cug l f scl lads av v ac cds

of success from other elds such as business, law, and the military.” Here again,

fsss a dvdd—alug sa ’s a ad a a gd da

a 42 c 33 c ag. A addal 24 c a “

su” cag.

t suv qus duca fsss fu s ssu fag a qus c f a oaa adsa av “

u v avu ssl cu acs.” t sul s a sl dcs,

40 c agg caus “ d d av as da

qualied people to the teaching profession from nontraditional sources,” and 39

c dssg caus “l uvs-asd duca gas vd




Chapter 2


ALternAtiVe roUteS to the eDUCAtion FieLD

How do education proessors view alternative routes to teaching and administration?

Programs like Teach For America that recruit and place high-achieving college graduates in struggling

public schools

Generally a good idea

Generally a bad idea

Not sure

Recruiting people or school leadership who have proven track records o success rom other felds such

as business, law and the military



Not sure

Teacher preparation programs administered by school districts or charter management organizations that

certiy their own teachers



Not sure

63 %

20 %

17 %

33 %

42 %

24 %

17 %

51 %

33 %

Figure 8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100





Chapter 2


, dagg, ad clcal cs cssa duc gs

qual acs.” Aga, a lavl lag u a usu (22 c).

Fcus gu dscusss llusad s quvcal ss. A fss a

o duca scl as cvcd a alav us lcsu

a ad da, sag a “qu al aa…scall f scl

dscs f v, [c] d g a v lag cag f l

c ug s alav as…lg aca ls.

They just don’t have as deep a knowledge base on which to draw to make

s acg dcss.” bu a n Cala fss ug a

aalll sss culd la f ac : “t a s cs

alternative certication programs that actually we could incorporate that might

usful. bu i als a gs a d a culd cadinto alternative certication programs.”

pfsss f duca aa scall ccd au ac aa

gas u “ scl dscs ca aag gaas a

cf acs.” t a fa ll sa suc gas a

gall a ad da (51 c) a a gd (17 c). o-d

f fsss (33 c) sa d’ ug au ff

an opinion (see Figure 8). One focus group participant pulled no punches in

dscussg lcal scl dsc’s alav ac-aa ga: “i

think it’s horrible. It’s kind of a joke….Most of the teachers…are not getting

cdal ug uvs ; a gg ug

scl dsc….[t dsc] s ag f sa ad fdal

government to run this program, and it’s a joke.”

ACCoLADeS For teACh For AmeriCA

i sa cas scal auds gadg s alav a-

proaches to teacher preparation, a majority of education professors have a high

f tac F Aca. Full 63 c caac as a gd da

“gas l tac F Aca a cu ad lac g-acvg cllggaduas sugglg ulc scls.” ol 20 c sa a a ad da.

i Ls Agls, duca dc c tac F Aca

calld “suc a cdl dl. t a l a all assa

au , all a d sg. t al av s ag

ga a 12 s….i s sdal. yu d’ g lav. yu av

sa . i’s 24/7. i s s ll-ug-u. i s s ll-dvld. i’s a a




Chapter 2


g s.” Sll, sval fsss fcus gus ad dvdual

vs ssd ccs au tac F Aca. i s a sga a-

su, sa, a cus u ug l a cssal sd

teaching careers and who may leave after just two years in the classroom.

oF mULtipLe minDS

t aa f sss alav ac aa vals a, as

a cs s , fsss a f d. ma f fl

a a vs f sval as adal ac ag s s

ad cc aac. bu a als acldg a adal a

class acg s guaa f cllc. wl s as f dsss s alav gas as uglss ad ffcv, a acc

a alavs ca ca s f fs al, scall f

al ducas uld dal csd adal

duca scls.

i s a a s suv quss as fsss gal

au gas a a call vad, ad a dff f dsc

district, state to state, and campus to campus. The difculty of rendering across-

the-board judgment helps to explain why this particular set of questions has

uusuall g “ su” sss. i s al f ac ag, cag

ad uca val.

FeeLinG UnDer SieGe

Results in this chapter suggest that education professors are self-reective and

a av c accal c as. ev s gadg

alav as class acg—c dcl callg a

f fss—a ud a sll. Sll, s duca fsss,

as udsadal, sd dfsvl al ccs. m a

sv (71 c) lv gas a ud sg, ad “fufal lad f ls facg ulc duca.” As fss u

: “…duca scls a lad f a falu sc. i’s alas

accual—‘w a’ u suds scg ? w a’ dg

? i us caus d’ av ffcv acs class’—

ls a uc csv ad f ca’ addssd

a s-ad-a-alf u scl da.”



36 Thomas B. Fordham Institute Opinions on Various Policy Initiatives

Opinions on Various Policy Initiatives

pfsss f duca ff s su f a u f lc avs

ad a vg acg cs—.g., ldg ducas

accual, cagg sala sucus, ad lsg u cs.

t vc su f acadc sadads ad v dl ds national

standards. Overall, however, professors oppose awarding nancial incentives to

acs s suds sc g a sla suds sadadd ss

(s Fgu 9).

tenUre reForm

pfsss a susgl lg cs f ac u.

A wide majority (79 percent) supports “requiring a minimum of ve years for

u ad sgg fal ac valua,” as sd a -

year norm in most states. An even broader majority (86 percent) favors “making

as a uvad c acs—v f

a ud,” slgl a alf (51 c) sgl favg s

sal. F, v, lv a ac u dsvs all la

f a als ulc scls: F-g c sa a “ f a ,

teacher tenure is an obstacle to improving the schools” while 47 percent reject

a v (s Fgu 10).

tug fsss a gall sac ad acs, ca

ag—ad ss s—class sucs suld

acg: dvduals gaduad f gas suld’

av, gad u u a valua, a sll acg

ds lsg ass f caf. w s as, d,

should the K–12 students suffer? An adjunct professor who also teaches middle

scl Ls Agls lad, “[i] scl i …u ccus

after two years as a probationary teacher. [They should] make that ve years.Make the tenure process harder to obtain, make tenure reviewable every ve

as…i a sag g d f du css.”

3.




Chapter 3


eDUCAtion reForm initiAtiVeS

How much do you avor or oppose the ollowing education reorms?

(Percent responding “strongly avor” or “somewhat avor”)

Making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers—even i they are tenured

Giving fnancial incentives to teachers who work in tough neighborhoods with low-perorming schools

Requiring a minimum o fve years beore tenure is awarded and strengthening the ormal teacher

evaluation process

Requiring teachers to pass tests demonstrating profciency in key subjects beore they are hired

Having a core curriculum with specifc knowledge and skill standards spelled out or each grade level

Holding teacher education programs more accountable or the quality o the teachers they graduate

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

51 %

36 %

86 %

38 %

45 %

83 %

79 %

37 %

41 %

78 %

29 %

49 %

78 %

32 %

41 %

73 %

37 %

42 %

Figure 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100





Chapter 3


Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

Strongly avor

Somewhat avor

Total

61 %

18 %

43 %

11 %

20 %

30 %

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


eDUCAtion reForm initiAtiVeS (cud)

How much do you avor or oppose the ollowing education reorms?

(Percent responding “strongly avor” or “somewhat avor”)

Requiring kids to pass tests demonstrating profciency in key subjects beore they can graduate

Giving fnancial incentives to teachers whose students routinely score higher than similar students

on standardized tests

Figure 9




Chapter 3


teACher tenUre reForm

(Percent saying they)

Favor requiring a minimum o 5 years beore tenure is awarded and strengthening the ormal teacher

evaluation process

Favor making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers—even i they are tenured

Believe that more oten than not, teacher tenure is an obstacle to improving the schools

Figure 10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

79 %

48 %

86 %





Chapter 3


teAChinG: ChAnGe Some rULeS

educa fsss ac das a uld l su qual ag

graduates. An expansive majority (78 percent) favors requiring public school

teachers to pass tests demonstrating their prociency in key subjects before they

a d—a c f gal nCLb lgsla. Ad a s

(62 c) lv a s aslul ssal f ac duca

gas duc class sucs a “dl ldgal

about the content of the specic subjects they will be teaching.” When focus

gu acas asd f cdas f vg duca

gas, fss vlud, “S has sa c….i a

acs g u ad v ll gudd a .” A

professor reiterated the importance of subject-specic methods courses: “If u a gg a scs ac, u a a scs ds cus, a

gc scc ds cus.”

bcaus sas f cld a s g, a fsss s valu

addg a qual-cl a sds gadua assg pas

as. “Fudaall a cal, al cs all f s,” a

duca fss ld us. “w av cal s f sd u

….t s a aslul guaa s gg a qual

duca. w g as cls as ca; dcu as uc as ca.”

Ca ffs v acg ss l salas ac

qual ff, ad fsss f duca s s su f s

initiatives. For example, they broadly favor (83 percent) nancial incentives for

acs ug gds l-fg scls. bu

they resist tying teacher pay to student test scores, with just 30 percent in favor

ad 65 c sd. w lcl d salas, av ss

slgl su: Als alf (47 c) sa a asug gss

by assessing students’ skills and knowledge when they rst come to a teacher

ad aga lav—a “valu-addd” d f asug ac

ffcvss—s a cll gd da. t su, vuall sa

proportion (48 percent) describes that idea as only fair or poor.

StAnDArDS For ALL—or ShAkeSpeAre rAp?

pfsss f duca a sg, css lvs s f c s

f sadads v. t sa s laguag ad av f s assu-

5. Adjunct Proessors More Practical?

Adjunct proessors have a more accommodating

posture toward teaching in the K–12 system

than do tenured proessors—plausibly because

adjuncts are more likely to be ormer K–12

teachers now employed as clinical aculty. Based

on several comments, many are simultaneously

teaching in colleges and in district classrooms.

Fully 26 percent o the sample consists o

adjunct or non-tenure track aculty.

Adjunct proessors are more likely than tenured

proessors to believe that education programs

“oten ail to prepare teachers or the challenges

o teaching in the real world” (59 percent versus44 percent). They are also more likely to report

that it is absolutely essential or schools o

education to impart the ollowing to teacher

education students:

– Training in pragmatic issues o running a

classroom, managing time, and preparing lesson

plans (50 percent versus 39 percent);

– Training in how to implement dierentiated

instruction in the classroom (62 percent versus

46 percent);

– How to maintain discipline and order in theclassroom (44 percent versus 34 percent); and

– An understanding o how to work with the

state’s standards, tests, and accountability

systems (31 percent versus 20 percent).




Chapter 3


tions. And they do not shy away from dening appropriate content or from testing

to determine whether it has been learned. Almost four out of ve (78 percent)

su a a uld csd a adcal cag Aca duca:

a core curriculum with specic knowledge and skill standards spelled out for each

grade level in the K–12 system. More than three out of ve (61 percent) also favor

requiring students to pass tests demonstrating prociency in key subjects before

ca gadua. o fss ad, “w d accual. pas

as ug accual duca ss ac

l sadads-asd v.”

Alug ccs a cag duca fsss culual lavs, s

duca fsss sa a lc a al ds f adal ws

ad Aca culu. t u f (67 c) sa “suds us ga asad udsadg” f a “c d f ldg suc as Sasa,

Csu ad ga s l To Kill a Mockingbird.” Only 18 percent say “this

ufal ss gu’s culual valus s ad ’s lva

a suds.” A 15 c a su.

Sll, s fsss a ssv culual lavs ug dagg-

cal aacs. h’s o fss uld ass classcs -

c scls: “i ca Sasa, u l’s cavl au a

gg a a ad a gg us a Sasa a a d f

a ad u s….S a u a su u c ad u sl

f acg s lva u suds ad a ss ad gags .”

bUt whAt AboUt nCLb?

wl s c ls f sadads v sa fsss

—specically testing teachers and students for content knowledge and having

explicit grade-by-grade standards for K–12 students—they report little condence

a’s s vsl lc av sadads: nCLb (s Fgu 11).

ol 10 c uld cu vs f nCLb “as s” “

al cags.” b cas, au alf f U.S. gal ulc (49 c)

6. Mirroring Public School Teachers

When it comes to ways o compensating and

evaluating teachers, proessors o education

and classroom teachers have remarkably

similar views. For example, most proessors

(83 percent) broadly avor fnancial incentives

or teachers who work in tough neighborhoods

with low-perorming schools, as do 80 percent

o public school teachers.17 Both groups

oppose tying teacher pay to student test

scores: Just 30 percent o teacher educators

avor fnancial incentives or teachers whose

students routinely score higher than similar

students on standardized tests, as do 34

percent o teachers.18

Finally, when it comes tothe “value-added” method o measuring teacher

eectiveness, education proessors are divided

between those who think it’s a positive versus

negative approach (47 percent versus 48

percent). Classroom teachers are equally divided,

at 49 percent versus 48 percent.19

17. Duett, Ann, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham and Elena Silva. 2008. Waiting To BeWon Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform. Washington, D.C.:Education Sector. http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/WaitingToBeWonOver.pd.

18. Ibid.19. Ibid.




Chapter 3


nCLb reAUthorizAtion

NCLB requires states to set standards in math and reading and to test students each year to determine whether

schools are making adequate progress, and to intervene when they are not. This year, Congress is deciding

whether to renew NCLB. What do you think Congress should do?

Renew the legislation as is

Renew with minimal changes

Renew with major changes

Not renew at all

Not sure

52%

34%

9%

1%5%

Figure 11





Chapter 3


would do so, a difference of 39 percentage points. And while a majority of

professors (52 percent) think that the act should be renewed “with major changes”

just 30 percent of Americans agree with that position.20 i ss a duca

professors favor NCLB’s focus on standards in principle, but reject “NCLB”

as a brand. This may reect an overall judgment that it has not lived up to

cas, a gal dssasfac ac a sg

g ad “adqua al gss” av ad k–12 scl ss.

m a a f fsss fcus gus fl a gd suc as

suffd caus scl dscs a ag uc a vg s

scs ad ag f asssss. Accual s a, lv,

ad asssss a usful. bu as dscs l lcs aud sadads,

a sgl-dd fcus “g us” a suv gd acg. “ilv d u suds a gag ldg, u…u

adsas a s d scs g asd… a v sag

[k]dga acs, ‘w d d dvlall aa acg;

a f a s cg u , assss,’” sad fcus

gu aca. “Fg au sucal cdus, ’v g g

ad f s….w u sud acs g [ scls], all

a dg s s aa.”

A f duca fsss v susc a ss g aulad f

lcal advaag. A ac duca Ls Agls, f sac, dscd

questionable motives that inuence the shifting of school populations. “When

l-acvg suds a…g dvd u, gs a. o,

the test scores in the district schools rise. That benets the mayor. In addition,

La suds a u s ca scl a gg all f

s scald su. nauall, a gg vg as ll.”

Sll, duca fsss fcus gus dd a dd

sv ffcs f nCLb, aculal acg f s scs sud su-

gus. “[nCLb] as asd aass f acv lvls ag ca u-

lations. It was denitely hidden and it wasn’t important to a lot of people. I think

ss s ds dd g vld,” sad fss. A as v dc: “i’ll sa sg gd— u a slg dgac gus

a vusl adsas ad dscs uld u. yu ca’ d [].”

7. Perceptions o Charter Schools

Sizeable discrepancies set apart the attitudes

o education proessors and those o the public

on a number o issues; their respective views

about charter schools are no exception. Although

the origins o charter schools are independent o

NCLB, their trajectory was aected by the law’s

emphasis on alternative options to ailing schools.

Americans have demonstrated a lack o amiliarity

with the nuances o charter schools, but they

consistently avor the general idea—most

recently by a 64 percent to 33 percent margin.21

By comparison, education proessors are ar less

receptive to charter schools, avoring them only

by a tepid 44 percent to 34 percent margin (23percent are not sure).

20. Education Next -PEPG. 2009. “Survey o Public Opinion.” Cambridge, MA: Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.http://educationnext.org/fles/pepg2009.pd.

21. Bushaw, William J. and John A. McNee. 2009. “Americans Speak Out: Are Educators andPolicy Makers Listening?: The 41st annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll o the Public’sAttitudes Toward the Public Schools,” 8-23. Phi Delta Kappan, 91, no. 1 (September).




Chapter 3


Common, nAtionwiDe StAnDArDS

o suc f s suudg nCLb s sa--sa vaal

c ad sg sadads a lf ac—ad s fsd.

ts, alg rac t fuds, ll ld cvc sas ad

a c s f egls laguag as ad aacs sadads u f

cl naal Gvs Assca ad Cucl f Cf Sa

School Ofcers; as of August 2010, more than three-quarters of the states had

sgd . Sll, fsss a lss usasc au c sadads a

sadads gal (s Fgu 12). Alug als g f fav

“having a core curriculum with specic knowledge and skill standards spelled

out for each grade level,” they indicate only moderate—yet signicant—support

for a national system of standards and tests in the core subject areas. Forty- c lv a “all sa gvs [suld] ad sa s f

ducaal sadads ad gv sa ss a, scc ad adg”

l 36 c uld av “dff sadads ad ss dff sas”;

16 c su. wl duca fsss a lua

su, Aca ulc s caavl usasc. Sv- c

su ad f a aal ss f sadads; l 19 c f

sa-lvl cas ad asssss.22

the proFeSSorS AnD eDUCAtion reForm

Gv s as acs f acs, s ccal udsad vs

f u a’s duca scl fsss. w cs a sd

duca fs, a fa f asas— fac, a ss v

fcful advcas. S al a usg s scs valua ac qual

ad a fa lss sc a ulc au nCLb ad aal sadads,

u a lss sg lvs sadads-asd asus ad g-

sas sg f acs ad suds su c ldg. t a

ucdl vgus sus f u f ad ffs facla

removal of inadequate teachers. In the end, though, it is difcult to characterize

cs a ad us sc f val scss ag as (s “rfs ad Dfds,” Scal Aalss, . 46).

22. Education Next -PEPG. 2009. “Survey o Public Opinion.” Cambridge, MA: Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.http://educationnext.org/fles/pepg2009.pd.




Chapter 3


Common StAnDArDS

Should all state governments adopt the same set o educational standards and give the same tests in math,

science, and reading, or should there be dierent standards and tests in dierent states?

Adopt the same set o educational standards and give same tests

Should be dierent standards and tests

Not sure

Figure 12

36%

49%

16%




46 Thomas B. Fordham Institute Reormers and Deenders

proFeSSorS with CompetinG worLD ViewS

The nation’s system for training teachers is in ux—and full of controversy. A

scal aalss f suv suls vals sall u dsc gus f

duca fsss s sal dvg g ds s f

ssures, tensions, and choices facing the system—to the point of meriting special

attention. One segment—Reformers—is strongly dissatised with the status quo;

asss duca gas ad aga f cag. A

sg—Dfds—ss ccs as u ad s sl cfal

saus qu. A cls l a s gus vals sg fcs a

ac duca.

t su, rfs ad Dfds a sall su-gus f vall sal

f ac ducas—12 c ad 13 c, scvl—ad cau-

ad sal s d clag fllg

suls. ta sad, dffcs gus s d

here are meaningful and statistically signicant.

DeFininG reFormerS AnD DeFenDerS

rfs a ua cu sa f ac duca—acu-

lal s vall qual, scv acs, ad v fll fsss.

rfs a sg advcas f cag. t cagd as a rf,

a fss us ld fllg lfs:

– ta ac duca ss ds fudaal vaul a

changes (i.e., rejecting the view that the U.S. system of university-based teacher

duca s v ll ad ds l g);

– ta sa “tac duca gas f fal a acs f

callgs f acg al ld” cs v cls v; ad

– That the statement “Teacher education programs need to do a better job weeding

u suds a usual f fss” cs v cls v.

Dfds, cas, a sl c adal ac ag ad

scls f duca as a. t a fa sagu au cllagus

ad suds a c ug gas. As a sg, Dfds ss

duca f, scall alav aas class acg. t cagd as a Dfd, a fss us ld fllg lfs:

– ta ss f uvs-asd ac duca, l, “s

v ll— l ds g”;

– ta sa “tac duca gas a f ufal lad f

ls facg ulc duca” cs v cls v; ad

REFORMERS AND DEFENDERSSpecial Analysis



47 Thomas B. Fordham Institute Reormers and Deenders

– ta sa “tac duca gas f fal a acs

f callgs f acg al ld,” s cls cls a

all v.

the SyStem iS SerioUSLy oFF CoUrSe. or DoinG GreAt.

rfs a fa dsavg f uvs-asd ac ag

compared with Defenders and the rest of the sample. As their dening charac-

teristics (above) suggest, Reformers are more likely to be dissatised with their

cllagus, gas, ad qual f scv acs ad -

sg ulc scl acs. n rfs sad aa cad

Dfds ad s f sal (s Fgu 13).

i sa cas, Dfds a sc a las cd. t lv

that the majority of the prospective teachers they encounter will go on to

c ga acs. ms Dfds av fa fssal accda- css f duca scls. Ad a duca gas a

scagas f ls facg duca da (s Fgu 14).

eDUCAtion reFormS: riGht trACk or wronG trACk?

t daa s rfs gc sus f ac-u f,

l Dfds a fa lss ccal f u ss. Slal, rfs

a avd sus f acadc sadads ad fal asus f accual-

, l Dfds s a lac f usas f suc avs. F a,

Dfds a d au alav as acg a ass scls f

duca, lvg ll ud qual f acs ad udcu

adal ss f ac duca (s Fgu 15).

t d ag f sss f rfs, Dfds, ad s f

sal s a duca fsss a sgl dvdd v fuu f

fss ad scls. i s f s dvg vs, r-

fs ad Dfds a cg all v dc f

a’s duca scls. o a qul c-sg. bu s-

c suggss a salds lg f ulc scls

uphold the status quo will each nd allies within the academy.




Special Analysis

Reormers and Deenders

Figure 13

Figure 14

reFormerS tAke Aim

Reormers Deenders All Others

(n=85) (n=98) (n=555

Strongly avor “holding teacher education programs more accountable

or the quality o the teachers they graduate” 66 15 29

“Most proessors o education need to spend more time in K–12

classrooms” is very close to their view 65 20 33

“Too many cooperating teachers lack the disposition and skills to be

eective models or today’s student teachers” is very close to their view 57 4 13

“Fear o litigation has made it harder to remove unsuitable teacher

candidates rom teacher education programs” is very close to their view 52 17 22

“Oten” come across students who they “seriously doubt have what

it takes to be a teacher” 37 3 15

DeFenDerS StAnD StronG


(n=85) (n=98) (n=555

“Most” or “virtually all” graduates rom their programs will

be “great” teachers 25 78 48

Proessional accreditation o education programs guarantees a level

o quality that is “top-notch” or at least “a baseline o acceptable quality” 46 66 51

“Teacher education programs are oten unairly blamed or the problems

acing public education” is very close to their view 35 63 36

Dierences are statistically signifcant at the .05 confdence level.




Special Analysis

Reormers and Deenders

Figure 15 eDUCAtion reForm throUGh the eyeS oF proFeSSorS


(n=85) (n=98) (n=555

On teacher tenure

“More oten than not, teacher tenure is an obstacle to improving

the schools” is very close to their view 37 8 13

Strongly avor “Making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent

teachers—even i they have tenure” 78 39 49

Strongly avor “Requiring a minimum o fve years beore tenure is

awarded and strengthening the ormal teacher evaluation process” 60 40 39

On academic standards and accountability

Strongly avor “Having a core curriculum with specifc knowledge

and skills standards spelled out or each grade level” 45 27 26

Strongly avor “Requiring teachers to pass tests demonstrating

profciency in key subjects beore they are hired” 54 26 37

Support adopting the same standards and exams in math, science,

and reading or all states 60 41 49

On alternative paths to teaching

Alternative certifcation programs not run by schools o education “threaten

to compromise the quality o the teaching orce in the public schools” 38 72 43

“Teacher preparation programs administered by school districts or charter

management organizations that certiy their own teachers” are a bad idea 42 72 48

“Recruiting people or school leadership who have proven track records o

success rom other felds such as business, law and the military” is a bad idea 35 60 40

Dierences are statistically signifcant at the .05 confdence level.




Sg ac csd s sud as a l, s a aa f vs

depicting a profession in ux and under stress. Focus-group conversations

vd valg: pfsss ss dvdd ag slvs, ad

occasionally suspicious of the researchers. Some were reective, chastened by

callg f sdg al-ld ls, l s s as f

g culd dsa f al a k–12 ulc scl

system. Clearly, education professors are trying to nd their way in challenging

times, and the ndings captured in this survey mirror their struggle.

ts as vald uus as. F al, a f quss

ldd a 50-50 sls, dcag a fss a s casgl sgd

sg cas. i fac, g daa dl, ucv

sgs—rfs ad Dfds—ldg vs a a dacall

sd. t f s a csuc advcag f cag; la, sala

advcas f saus qu. Suc dvss g d cud s

within the eld. Many of the survey questions also garner an unusually high

cag f “ su” sss, as f sds a asg, “h d uexpect us to settle on a response when things are complicated, the jury is still

u, ad fa s cssa?”

w als s ds dcall-dd quss a s sfg vs

sc 1997. t fss— a las s f —s vlvg, as

ss al-ld cags, as as a csquc f gaal

lac.

Finally, the content of the survey itself reects the changing times facing

scls f duca. tcs suc as alav ac ag gas

al a ssu dug 1997 a. i d, ss f scls f

education and their professors to the changes occurring in their eld—and their

v f l suld la s asfa—ll d

a da las ac ag aa.

CONCLUSION

Reormers and DeendersConclusion




Methodology

These ndings are based on data from a nationwide, randomly selected sample

f 716 ac ducas a fu-a cllgs Ud Sas. t suv

as cducd Faas Duff rsac Gu (FDr Gu) f

Thomas B. Fordham Institute. It was elded between November 9, 2009, and

March 8, 2010. The margin of error for the overall sample is plus or minus four

cag s; s g cag cags acss sugus.

t suv as cdd fcus gus f ac ducas, c

ld o, n Cala, ad Calfa, ad dad

FDr Gu ( l). Dc qus f acas fcus gus

serve to contextualize the survey ndings and provide illustrative examples of

fsss’ cs ad vs.

the reSeArCh proCeSS

t suv su as dsgd f ds: a, i, ad

l. t sac css cdd as flls:

– A rst-class letter was mailed to a national random sample of 5,977 teacher

ducas nv 9, 2009. t l dscd sac ad vdd

a l w-asd vs f suv.

– e-al ssags s aal 3,600 ac ducas (

u f c -al addsss avalal u f gal 5,977).

t -al ssags s nv 19 ad Dc 3, 2009,

vg ac ducas aca ad vdg a l w-asd

vs f suv.

– A rst-class postcard was mailed to the original 5,977 teacher educators on

Dc 14, 2009, dg au suv ad vdg a l

to the Web-based version. A total of 482 surveys were submitted online.

– Between January 11 and January 28, 2010, follow-up telephone calls were made

-sds, cuagd cl suv l; s

fd sd va l cuagd call a ll-f

u cl suv a a cv f . A al f fvs cld va l.

– A a vs f qusa (alg a l dscg sac

and a postage-paid envelope) was mailed to non-respondents on February 8,

2010, via rst-class mail. Surveys received through March 8, 2010, are included

suls. A al f 216 suvs sud ad c.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A




The systematic, non-stratied random sample of teacher educators was drawn

f a csv daaas f as ad scl addsss f cu

ac ducas fu-a cllgs ugu Ud Sas. A sall

vsalg f fsss acg a’s -ad duca

gas as cludd su a sal uld clud ug f s

su-gu f cas uss. of 125 ulal acad,23

103 ca f gal sal ad - f vsal. n

agful dffcs fud. t ss a, calculad dvdg

the total number of completed interviews (738) by the 5,424 24 ac ducas

ulal vd aca, s 14 c.

t sal as vdd ma Daa rval, a susda f Du

& bads; daa cllc ad aula svcs vdd rs

& mus Asscas.

trenD DAtA

t suv su cludd a sv s ad as svl

pre-tested with teacher educators prior to elding. This survey is a follow-up

a al cducd 1997 pulc Agda f tas b.

Fda Fuda ld Different Drummers: How Teachers of Teachers View

Public Education.25 ma f quss cu suv av

ad, g a aalss f ds v as d as. t

dgac caacscs f 2010 ad 1997 sals qu sla

c f gd; 2010 sal cssd f a caavl sall

proportion of male teacher educators (38 percent unweighted compared with

50 c 1997). t su a sals uld caal,

daa cu sud gd alg al/fal ad

a f gal sal (50 c al ad 50 c fal). t

sample weights applied were as follows: male, 1.311; female, 0.808.

FoCUS GroUpS

p dsg f suv, fcus gus cducd

ac ducas, Da, o, a ralg, n Cala,ad d Ls Agls, Calfa. t us f fcus gus as

to gain a rsthand understanding of the views of teacher educators, to develop

23. Top-ranked education programs defned by U.S. News & World Report “Best EducationPrograms” (ranked in 2009).

24. Total mailed (5,977) minus undeliverable sample (553) equals the number who wereultimately invited to participate (5,424).

25. The two principal researchers o the FDR Group, Steve Farkas and Ann Duett, are co-authors o Different Drummers (along with Jean Johnson o Public Agenda).

Appendix A




ss asd u, ad dsg suv s usg

laguag ad s c duca fsss a cfal. Qus

s a da dcl f fcus gu dscusss. pacas

were recruited to the FDR Group’s specications to ensure a proper mix

f acas; all gus dad FDr Gu.

SeGmentAtion AnALySiS—CreAtinG reFormerS

AnD DeFenDerS

A la fac aalss as cducd a s f audal vaals

ad vald gugs f gl clad s. ts ducd

sgs, rfs ad Dfds. ts gus ad ad

f sal dvdd uuall clusv cags asd

acula suv sss (l).

Respondents were categorized as Reformers (n=85) if they responded in the

fllg a s suv s:

– t ac duca ss ds “fudaal vaul” “a

cags” (Qus 1);

– The statement that “Teacher education programs need to do a better job

f dg u suds a usual f fss” ca v cls

v (Qus 17); ad

– t sa a “tac duca gas f fal a acs

f callgs f acg al ld” ca v cls v

(Qus 19).

Respondents were categorized as Defenders (n=98) if they responded in the

fllg a s suv s:

– t ac duca ss “s v ll— l ds g”

(Qus 1);

– t sa a “tac duca gas a f ufal lad f

ls facg ulc duca” ca v cls v (Qus

15); ad

– t v a “tac duca gas f fal a acs f

callgs f acg al ld” s cls cls a all

v (Qus 19).

rsds rfs Dfds (=555) lacd

d cag.

Appendix A



54 Thomas B. Fordham Institute Appendix B

National Survey o Education Proessors: Final Data

t suv s asd a ad, adl slcd sal f 716 ac

ducas a fu-a cllgs Ud Sas. i as cducd al,

Internet, and telephone between November 9, 2009 and March 8, 2010. The

ag f f 2010 daa s fu cag s. ma quss

suv gall asd a 1997 sud calld Different Drummers: How

Teachers of Teachers View Public Education, c as asd a l suv

f 900 fsss f duca cducd su f 1997; s daa a

als cludd . t ag f f 1997 daa s cag

s. i add, daa f suvs f acs, as, ad gal

ulc a cludd f sval quss cass a aa.

nus a su 100 c du udg. t 2010 daa

sd a gd gd (s “td Daa,” Ad A, . 54). A ass dcas lss a c ad a das dcas . n/A

dcas a qus dd aa 1997 suv.

APPENDIX BFull Survey Results




Q1. tg au U.S. ss f uvs-asd ac duca, c cs clss u vall v:

2010 1997

22 n/A On the whole the system works very well—it only needs minor tinkering

66 There are many good things about the system but it also needs many changes

9 The system has so much wrong with it that it needs undamental overhaul

3 Not sure

Teacher education programs can impart different qualities to their students. Which of the following qualities do you think are most essential and

which are least essential? Use a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means it is least essential and 5 means it is absolutely essential.

Q2. tacs a slvs lf-lg las ad csal udag slls

2010 1997

* * 1—

Least essential* 1 2

2 2 3

15 13 4

82 84 5— Absolutely essential

1 - Not sure

Q3. Teachers who are deeply knowledgeable about the content of the specic subjects they will be teaching

2010 1997

* * 1— Least essential

1 1 2

7 8 3

30 34 4


1 - Not sure

Q4. tacs aa dscl ad d class

2010 1997

* 1 1— Least essential

4 3 218 21 3

39 38 4


1 * Not sure






Q9. tacs udsad sa’s sadads, ss, ad accual sss

2010 1997

5 n/A 1— Least essential

9 2

20 3

42 4

24 5— Absolutely essential

1 Not sure

Q10. tacs ad ad cd lg dffad suc classs

2010 1997


2 2

9 3


3 Not sure

Q11. tacs acvl us clg ad l sucs v suc

2010 1997


5 2

19 3

44 4

29 5—

Absolutely essential

2 Not sure

Q12. tacs a ad addss callgs f g-ds suds ua dscs

2010 1997


3 2

15 3

39 4

39 5—

Absolutely essential4 Not sure




How close does each of the following come to your own view—very close, somewhat close, not too close, or not close at all?

Q13. tac duca gas a f s as cas cs uvs adsas

2010 1997

17 25 Very close

26 28 Somewhat close

43 54 Total

22 23 Not too close

21 18 Not close at all

44 41 Total

13 6 Not sure

Q14. ms fsss f duca d sd [k–12] classs

2010 1997

35 48 Very close38 36 Somewhat close

73 84 Total

15 11 Not too close


23 14 Total

4 2 Not sure

Q15. tac duca gas a f ufal lad f ls facg ulc duca

2010 1997

39 41 Very close


71 82 Total

16 13 Not too close


24 18 Total

5 * Not sure

Q16. t a duca suds av ul g ssas f f sas gaa ad sllg

2010 199734 34 Very close


67 75 Total

22 19 Not too close


29 24 Total

4 1 Not sure




Q17. Teacher education programs need to do a better job weeding out students who are unsuitable for the profession

2010 1997

39 52 Very close


73 86 Total

19 10 Not too close


24 13 Total

3 1 Not sure

Q18. Fa f lga as ad ad v usual ac caddas f ac duca gas

2010 1997

25 n/A Very close

28 Somewhat close

53 Total21 Not too close

14 Not close at all

35 Total

12 Not sure

Q19. tac duca gas f fal a acs f callgs f acg al ld

2010 1997

19 22 Very close


50 63 Total

32 24 Not too close


47 36 Total

4 1 Not sure

Q20. t a cag acs lac dss ad slls ffcv dls f da’s sud acs

2010 1997

17 n/A Very close

31 Somewhat close48 Total

29 Not too close

15 Not close at all

44 Total

8 Not sure




Q21. wc cs cls u ls f l f acs?

2010 1997

84 92 Teachers should see themselves as acilitators o learning who enable their students to learn on their own

11 7 Teachers should see themselves as conveyors o knowledge who enlighten their students with what they know

5 1 Not sure

Q22. wc cs cls u ls f u l as ac duca? t a fuu acs :

2010 1997

68 N/A Be change agents who will reshape education by bringing new ideas and approaches to the public schools

26 Work eectively within the realities o today’s public schools—e.g., state mandates, limited budgets, and beleaguered

administrators

6 Not sure

Q23. For the public schools to help the U.S. live up to its ideals of justice and equality, do you think it’s more important that they:

2010 2008 A

20 11 Focus on raising the achievement o disadvantaged students who are struggling academically

73 86 Focus equally on all students, regardless o their backgrounds or achievement levels

7 3 Not sure

Q23A. wc cs cls u v au ls f scls g-v gds?

ta s scls suld:

2010 1997

17 n/A Encourage disadvantaged students to challenge the larger society, whose rules are stacked against them

69 Focus on teaching social, math, and literacy skills to help disadvantaged students succeed within the rules o society

as it is

14 Not sure

A. Comparison data are rom Farkas, Steve and Ann Duett. 2008. High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB (Part2), 77, question 26 (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute). This was a survey o third through twelthgrade public school teachers.




From your professional perspective, how important is it for teachers in public schools to do the following in their classes? Is it absolutely essential,

important but not essential, or not important?

Q24. tac “21s cu slls” suc as ccal g, cav, cllaa, ad glal aass

2010 1997

83 N/A Absolutely essential

15 Important but not essential

2 Not important

1 Not sure

Q25. tac a facs suc as a f ullca als al gads

2010 1997

36 n/A Absolutely essential


11 Not important3 Not sure

Q26. rl sud fls ad auc asssss

2010 1997



11 Not important

3 Not sure

Q27. tac cs ad c aass acg lac al gads

2010 1997



7 Not important

8 Not sure




Q28. In your judgment, how easy or difcult a mission is it to implement differentiated instruction on a daily basis in the

class?

2010 2008B

29 35 Very difcult

52 48 Somewhat difcult

81 84 Total

11 12 Somewhat easy

4 4 Very easy

15 16 Total

4 1 Not sure

Q29. wc cs cls u v? Gall sag, acs a ll ffcv f ac

classs suds a:

2010 1997

33 n/A Grouped homogeneously by ability28 Mixed in ability

28 Neither—grouping doesn’t have an impact on new teachers’ eectiveness

11 Not sure

How close does each of the following come to your own view—very close, somewhat close, not too close, or not close at all?

Q30. m f a , ac u s a sacl vg scls

2010 1997

15 18 Very close


48 52 Total

28 29 Not too close


47 47 Total

5 1 Not sure

B. Comparison data are rom Farkas, Steve and Ann Duett. 2008. High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB (Part 2), 76, question 22 (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute). This was a survey o third through twelthgrade public school teachers.




Q31. L-c suds -c scls av a ga d f sucud, ac-dcd suc a

ddl class suua suds

2010 1997

13 n/A Very close

26 Somewhat close

39 Total

26 Not too close

29 Not close at all

54 Total

7 Not sure

Q32. w a ulc scl ac facs a dsuv class, al as s as fald a lsss gagg

ug suds

2010 1997

12 17 Very close38 44 Somewhat close

50 61 Total

30 27 Not too close


47 39 Total

3 * Not sure

Q33. wc s cls u v?

2010 1997

35 33 Competition or rewards such as spelling bees or honor rolls is a valuable incentive or student learning

48 64 Schools should avoid competition among children and oster cooperation

17 3 Not sure

Q34. wc s cls u v au acg a c d f ldg suc as Sasa, Csu, ad

ga s l To Kill a Mockingbird ?

2010 1997

67 n/A Students must gain a shared understanding o this core body o knowledge—it’s wrong to let them graduate without

it

18 This unairly imposes one group’s cultural values on others and it’s irrelevant to many students15 Not sure




Q35. When teachers in grades [K–12] assign their kids specic questions in such subjects as math or history, is it more

a a:

2010 1997

20 12 The kids end up knowing the right answers to the questions or problems

66 86 The kids struggle with the process o trying to fnd the right answers

14 3 Not sure

Q36. wc s cls u v?

2010 1997

42 38 Early use o calculators in elementary school grades can hamper children rom learning basic arithmetic skills

37 57 Early use o calculators will improve children’s problem-solving skills and not prevent the learning o arithmetic

21 6 Not sure

Q37. w cs suds a gas, a suld ulc scls’ a gal ? t l gas:

2010 1997

36 n/A Absorb America’s language and culture as quickly as possible, even i their native language and culture are

neglected

47 Maintain their own language and culture even i it takes them longer to absorb America’s and culture

18 Not sure

Q38. F a u av ad au css f fssal accda f duca gas—f

al, ug gaas l nCAte teAC—s u ss a cvg accda as:

2010 1997

7 n/A A guarantee o top-notch quality

46 A base-line o acceptable quality

41 Very little other than procedural compliance

6 Not sure

Q39. Which comes closer to your view of alternative teacher certication programs that are not run by schools of education?

2010 1997

47 n/A They threaten to compromise the quality o the teaching orce in the public schools32 They are a good way to attract unconventional talent to the public schools

21 Not sure




Here are some questions about alternative routes to the education eld. For each, please indicate if you think it is generally a good idea or a bad

idea, or if you don’t know enough to say.

Q40. Recruiting people for school leadership who have proven track records of success from other elds such as business,

la, ad la

2010 1997

33 n/A Generally a good idea

42 Generally a bad idea

21 Don’t know enough to say

3 Not sure

Q41. pgas l tac F Aca a cu ad lac g-acvg cllg gaduas sugglg ulc scls

2010 1997


20 Generally a bad idea13 Don’t know enough to say

4 Not sure

Q42. tac aa gas adsd scl dscs ca aag gaas a cf

acs

2010 1997


51 Generally a bad idea

27 Don’t know enough to say

5 Not sure

Q43. w cs vg usual ac caddas, ds u ga sl l :

2010 1997

46 n/A A ormal and systematic process or identiying and removing unsuitable candidates

23 An inormal process that relies on individual proessors to counsel out unsuitable candidates

11 Students themselves to drop out when they realize they are not suited or teaching

3 Something else/combination

17 Not sure




Q44. Au a f suds gaduag f u ac duca ga s scl a d u ll

ga acs?

2010 1997

- n/A None

10 A ew

34 Some

45 Most

4 Virtually all

8 Not sure

Q45. h f av u sall c acss suds u susl du av a as a ac?

2010 1997

* 1 Never

20 26 Rarely

20 27 Total62 60 Sometimes

15 12 Oten

77 72 Total

3 1 Not sure

Q46. As u a , ca scls a ud a ca cac a fs f a f sa

gulas sd ulc scls ad s a ddl. D u fav s da f

ca scls?

2010 2009 2008

ed pfsss Gal pulcC Class tacsD

44 64 42 Favor

34 33 45 Oppose

23 3 14 Not sure

(There is no Q47.)

C. Comparison data are rom Bushaw, William J. and John A. McNee. 2009. “Americans Speak Out: Are Educators andPolicy Makers Listening?: The 41st annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll o the Public’s Attitudes Toward the PublicSchools.” Phi Delta Kappan, 91, no. 1 (September).

D. Comparison data rom Duett, Ann, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Elena Silva. 2008. Waiting to be WonOver: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform, 24, question 83. (Washington, D.C.: EducationSector). This was a survey o K–12 public school teachers.




Here is a list of different education reforms. For each, please indicate if you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose.

Q48. Having a core curriculum with specic knowledge and skill standards spelled out for each grade level

2010 1997

29 n/A Strongly avor

49 Somewhat avor

78 Total

15 Somewhat oppose

5 Strongly oppose

20 Total

2 Not sure

Q49. Requiring kids to pass tests demonstrating prociency in key subjects before they can graduate

2010 1997

18 N/A Strongly avor43 Somewhat avor

61 Total

25 Somewhat oppose

11 Strongly oppose

36 Total

3 Not sure

Q50. Requiring teachers to pass tests demonstrating prociency in key subjects before they are hired

2010 1997


41 Somewhat avor

78 Total

13 Somewhat oppose

7 Strongly oppose

20 Total

2 Not sure




Q51. Requiring a minimum of ve years before tenure is awarded and strengthening the formal teacher evaluation process

2010 1997


37 Somewhat avor

79 Total

12 Somewhat oppose

4 Strongly oppose

16 Total

6 Not sure

Q52. mag as a uvad c acs—v f a ud

2010 1997


36 Somewhat avor

86 Total8 Somewhat oppose

2 Strongly oppose

10 Total

4 Not sure

Q53. Giving nancial incentives to teachers whose students routinely score higher than similar students on standardized tests

2010 2008E

11 11 Strongly avor

20 23 Somewhat avor

30 34 Total

30 25 Somewhat oppose

35 39 Strongly oppose

65 64 Total

5 3 Not sure

E. Comparison data are rom Duett, Ann, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Elena Silva. 2008. Waiting to beWon Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform, 19, question 20. (Washington, D.C.: EducationSector). This was a survey o K–12 public school teachers.




Q54. Giving nancial incentives to teachers who work in tough neighborhoods with low-performing schools

2010 2008F

38 34 Strongly avor

45 46 Somewhat avor

83 80 Total

9 11 Somewhat oppose

5 7 Strongly oppose

14 17 Total

3 3 Not sure

Q55. hldg ac duca gas accual f qual f acs gadua

2010 1997


41 Somewhat avor73 Total

16 Somewhat oppose

6 Strongly oppose

21 Total

6 Not sure

Q56. S suggs a s a asu ac ffcvss s assss suds’ slls ad ldg

rst come to a teacher and to measure them again when students leave to see what progress was made. Others disagree.

h uld u a s as a a f asug ac ffcvss?

2010 2008G

13 15 Excellent

35 34 Good

47 49 Total

32 29 Fair

16 20 Poor

48 48 Total

4 2 Not sure

F. Comparison data are rom Duett, Ann, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Elena Silva. 2008. Waiting to beWon Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform, 19, question 23. (Washington, D.C.: EducationSector). This was a survey o K–12 public school teachers.

G. Comparison data are rom Duett, Ann, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Elena Silva. 2008. Waiting to beWon Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform, 19, question 27. (Washington, D.C.: EducationSector). This was a survey o K–12 public school teachers.




Q57. o fcus f oaa adsa’s duca agda s u v avu ssl cu

acs. wc cs cls u v?

2010 1997

40 This is on the right track—times have changed, and we need to do whatever it takes to draw qualifed people to the

teaching proession rom nontraditional sources

39 This is on the wrong track—only university-based education programs provide the theory, pedagogy, and clinical

experiences necessary to produce the highest quality teachers

22 Not sure

Q58. As u a , n Cld Lf bd Ac qus sas s sadads a ad adg ad s

suds ac a d scls a ag adqua gss, ad v a . ts

a, Cgss s dcdg n Cld Lf bd Ac. wa d u Cgss suld d?

2010 2009H

1 21 Renew the legislation as is9 28 Renew with minimal changes

52 30 Renew with major changes

34 22 Not renew at all

5 - Not sure

Q59. F ldg scls accual, suld all sa gvs ad sa s f ducaal sadads ad gv

sa ss a, scc ad adg, d u a suld dff sadads ad ss dff

sas?

2010 2009I

49 72 Adopt the same set o educational standards and give same tests

36 19 Should be dierent standards and tests

16 9 Not sure

H. Comparison data are rom Education Next -PEPG. 2009. “Survey o Public Opinion.” Cambridge, MA: EducationNext and the Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.

I. Comparison data are rom Education Next -PEPG. 2009. “Survey o Public Opinion.” Cambridge, MA: EducationNext and the Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.




Q60. wc f fllg dsc u?

2010 1997

3 n/A Dean

8 Department Chair

14 Adjunct

64 Tenured or tenure-track aculty

12 Non-tenure track or clinical aculty

7 Something else

* Not sure

Q61. is cllg uvs u lcad a ua, suua, ual aa?

2010 1997

39 39 Urban

33 27 Suburban

25 34 Rural3 * Not sure

Q62. D u ac:

2010 1997

74 87 Bachelor’s level courses

75 73 Master’s level courses

27 28 Doctoral level courses

5 n/A Something else

Q63. In what subjects, if any, do you consider yourself a specialist?

2010 1997

15 16 Adolescent or child development

8 13 Arts

7 7 Computer science or technology

10 10 Education policy

18 15 Education research

10 11 Educational administration

13 18 Education psychology

16 17 Elementary education10 21 English or language arts

3 5 Foreign language education




(Q63 Continued: In what subjects, if any, do you consider yourself a specialist? )

2010 1997

12 13 Foundations o education

3 4 Health or sex education

8 12 Higher education

20 26 Instructional methods

9 10 Math education

4 3 Physical education

9 11 Reading

9 8 Science education

10 12 Social studies or history

12 11 Special education

4 4 Generalist/not specialist

25 22 Something else

Q64. F a as av u aug a cllg lvl?

2010 1997

17 11 1-5 years

22 21 6-10

18 17 11-15

14 15 16-20

30 36 More than 20

Q65. hav u v a [k–12] class ac?

2010 1997

80 83 Yes, have been [K–12] teacher

20 17 No, have not

(Ask if “Yes” in Q65.)

Q66. Au a as as sc u a [k–12] class ac?

2010 1997

19 11 1-5 years

19 21 6-10

16 16 11-15

16 17 16-2030 34 More than 20

1 1 Not sure




Q67. Gall sag, d u usuall f uslf as a rulca, Dca, idd sg ls?

2010 1997

13 16 Republican

51 50 Democrat

27 31 Independent

4 3 Something else

5 1 Not sure

(Ask if “Independent” in Q67.)

Q68. D u la ad rulca a, Dcac a, d u la a?

2010 1997

(n=187) (n=270)

13 15 Lean Republican

49 41 Lean Democrat

35 43 Do not lean4 1 Not sure

Q69. h ld a u?

2010 1997

5 2 34 or younger

15 17 35-44

25 42 45-54

42 33 55-64

13 7 65 or older

Q70. D u csd uslf:

2010 1997

85 91 White

6 4 Black or Arican American

4 2 Hispanic

1 1 Asian/Pacifc Islander

2 1 Something else

2 Mixed (voluntary)

1 Native American (voluntary)

Q71. A u:

2010J 1997

50 50 Male

50 50 Female

J. For explanation o weighting by gender, see “Trend Data” in Appendix A.



The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is a nonprot organization that

conducts research, issues publications, and directs action projects la ad scda duca f a aal lvl

ad o, scal ass u f Da.

It is afliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and this

publication is a joint project of the Foundation and the Institute. For

fu fa, las vs u s a .dcllc.

or write to the Institute at 1016 16th St. NW, 8th Floor, Washington,

DC 20036. t isu s ccd ssd

Fda Uvs.

ts ad s s c a avalal full

isu’s s: .dcllc..

Documents

Cracks in the Ivory Tower Full