[Editor’s note: This is the third post in a series on improving teacher preparation programs. See here and here for prior posts.]
The traditional pathway toward becoming a teacher requires the completion of an undergraduate teacher preparation program. In Ohio, entry requirements for these programs aren't mandated by law, which means they are set by individual institutions. While some schools automatically admit all who apply, others have GPA or test score requirements. Unfortunately, these requirements often aren’t very rigorous.[1]
Low or nonexistent entry standards to teacher training programs have been identified as a problem in Ohio and nationally by many experts, including those at the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). NCTQ argues that “sixty years of research and the experience of nations whose students outperform our own” have proven that raising the bar of admission into teacher preparation programs—filtering out potentially weak teachers at the beginning of the process, before they ever step foot in a classroom, even as a student-teacher—is a necessary first step in ensuring a strong teaching force.
While others contend that teacher licensure (which typically happens as a candidate finishes up her preparation program) is a more effective place to set a high bar, these folks ignore that licensure standards are often just as low or non-existent as program entry standards. While reforming teacher licensure is always an option, setting high standards on the front end (program entry) rather than the back end (licensure) is a better one. Admitting only strong candidates could elevate the profession, since selectivity often contributes to prestige. Rigorous entry standards could also elevate the level of work happening within a program, as strong students could challenge other strong students to perform better. There’s also the not-so-small matter of how much time and money it costs to complete an education degree and licensure exams; it’s far better to allow a student who doesn’t meet rigorous entry standards to choose another major than to tell them that four years and thousands of dollars in student loan debt are all for naught.
Raising the bar for entry into teacher training isn’t a novel idea. For example, while Teach For America (TFA) teachers don’t earn degrees over the course of four years, entry standards for the organization are much higher than those of most traditional education schools. It’s true that TFA applicants are college seniors rather than freshmen, but the majority of TFA applicants aren’t education majors—in other words, TFA applicants and applicants to traditional preparation programs are on the same level because both are seeking admission into a program that will train them how to teach. In 2015, TFA admitted only 15 percent of those who applied. The application process involves multiple interviews, a sample teaching lesson, and other exercises. There’s a study that shows that these admissions measures are associated with student gains and improved classroom behavior. Additional research on TFA indicates that the organization’s teachers are typically just as effective at promoting student achievement as other teachers.[2]
Of course, what works for TFA may not work for traditional education schools, and it wouldn’t be fair (or good policy) to impose TFA’s methods on all other programs. Instead, policy makers should seek suggestions from a broad coalition of stakeholders on what admission standards should exist for programs that receive state money. Options include a rigorous ACT or SAT score requirement, a high school GPA threshold, passing a tough common entry test (like an education version of the MCAT or LSAT), or passing content tests for specific subject-matter teachers. Several studies indicate that, in general, teachers who score higher on tests produce students who do the same.
To be fair, there are valid questions about the importance of academic screening. Some are addressed in a new report from Bellwether Education Partners, which argues that the value of teacher academic credentials is small. But there is also additional research that suggests otherwise, including a brand-new report from Brookings that examines D.C.’s teacher selection process. The study finds that the District’s multiple measures—along with traditional indicators of academic achievement—strongly predict a teacher’s performance on its evaluation system (which has lately been championed as a model for other cities).
Although raising admissions standards could increase teacher quality, it also poses a few challenges. Most notably, raising standards would almost assuredly lead to fewer candidates overall, particularly since preparation programs will have to compete with other fields of study for top students. To solve this issue, Buckeye policy makers will need to consider how best to encourage talented people of all backgrounds to go into education. This could include a raise in average and starting teacher salaries, or providing incentives like student loan forgiveness, tuition scholarships, and tax credits. A grant program similar to Straight A could be created to fund preparation programs with innovative ideas for drawing in talent. The state could even pilot alternative teacher contracts—which would offer alternate pay scales, hybrid teacher roles, or fully paid master’s degrees— as a way of attracting both new teachers into the profession and experienced educators from other states.
While higher admissions standards would (at least initially) drive down the number of teacher candidates overall, it could also have a significant impact on recent efforts to increase the diversity of the teaching profession. It’s critical that this is addressed, as research and anecdotal evidence from multiple sources show that teacher diversity matters. A 2014 report from the Center for American Progress explains that “fundamental constraints limit the potential supply of highly effective teachers of color.” These constraints include the fact that students of color have significantly lower college enrollment rates than white students; the relatively small number of students of color who enroll in teacher education programs each year; and the fact that teaching candidates of color score lower on licensure exams, reflecting the racial achievement gap. (Teachers of color also leave the profession at much higher rates than their white peers, which is equally important but a conversation for a different day.) Following this data, it’s reasonable to assume that schools of education that raise their admission standards could struggle to admit a truly diverse group of teacher candidates.
But raising standards and improving diversity don’t have to be at odds. General incentives to attract talented folks to teaching will attract minority and low-income students, too. Beyond that, there are numerous organizations in other realms of education that could be partners or serve as models for preparation programs. Other states and institutions have initiatives like Call me MISTER, Teach Tomorrow in Oakland, and Grow Your Own Teachers that identify both college students and people without degrees who would make strong teacher candidates. In Texas, the “Top 10 plan” guarantees admission to any public university in the state to students who finish in the top 10 percent of their high school class. Other ideas emphasize a sliding scale whereby students with low test scores are admitted if their GPAs meet a rigorous bar. These initiatives also dovetail with the need to have “smart”—not just high—admissions standards that take into account desirable teacher traits other than academic prowess. There is research that shows certain non-traditional factors can predict teaching effectiveness, and American colleges and universities are already paying more attention to holistic admissions and the student behind the application. Teacher preparation programs would be wise to raise their entry standards to a “smart” bar while also being intentional about expanding the diversity of their candidates.
Raising standards for entry into training programs isn’t the only solution for improving teacher preparation, but it’s one that deserves consideration from Ohio policy makers. Stay tuned for an in-depth look at how a competency-based model—and related program changes—could improve teacher training.
[1] For example, Miami University of Ohio, whose programs are ranked as some of the best in the country, only requires a minimum 2.75 GPA for admission into its cohorts. Miami students are also required to complete the Praxis I test, but only if they don’t have an ACT composite score of 21 or higher or an SAT score of 980 or above.
