Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Teacher Education Policy and Practice pp 3–16Cite as

What Counts? Who is Counting? Teacher Education Improvement and Accountability in a Data-Driven Era

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter offers an overview of policies for reform and accountability in teacher education, addressing the role of evidence, and the opportunities for improvement within the field of teacher education. It focuses upon efforts to utilize tests or assessments and data-driven methodologies to inform government, the public, and educators. The discussion draws from the manner in which these issues have played out in the United States, to contrast with approaches and opportunities in the Australian context. The unsatisfying outcomes of many past initiatives in the United States point to the need to improve reform and accountability efforts in order to maximize the chances for meaningful change in education. The chapter concludes with a call for reflection and action within teacher education itself, arguing a “window of opportunity” exists, particularly in Australia, to develop a more confident way forward in the context of present reforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Teach for America was one of the early alternative providers in the United States. It then expanded to become a separate international organization, Teach for All, which includes Teach for Australia, the recipient of significant government support. See www.teachforaustralia.org.

  2. 2.

    There is widespread speculation that a new Trump Administration will withdraw all of these regulations to implement its goal of reducing the federal role in education at all levels, curtailing federal government regulations, and allowing more private and for-profit education providers to flourish.

  3. 3.

    It should be noted that neither teacher preparation nor elementary and secondary schools, nor their combined forces, can be fully responsible for the broad range of sociocultural and economic forces impacting educational opportunity.

References

  • American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE). (n.d.). About edTPA. Retreived at http://www.edtpa.aacte.org

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council for Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: Critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government, Department of Education and Training (2016, May). Quality schools, quality outcomes. Retrieved May 5, 2016 at https://docs.education.gov.au/node/40671

  • Australian Government, Department of Education and Training. (n.d.). Literacy and numeracy test for beginning teachers: Fact sheet. Retrieved May 5, 2016 from www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-quality

  • Bryk, A., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2016). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: American Educational Research Association and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2012, December 21). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6–21. doi:10.1080/00131725.2013.739015

  • Cumming, J. J., & Mawdsley, R. D. (2011). Certification of teachers, pre-service teacher education, tests and legal issues in Australia and the United States of America (US): Part B implications for Queensland and Australia. International Journal of Law and Education, 16(1), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossery-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P., Imig, D., & Michelli, N. (Eds.). (2011). Teacher education policy in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. (2011). A modest approach to deconstructing teacher education policy. In P. Earley, D. Imig, & N. Michelli (Eds.), Teacher education policy in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuer, M. J., Floden, R. E., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: Purposes, methods, and policy options. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Education. Retrieved at www.naeducation.org

  • Floden, R. E. (2006). What knowledge users want. In C. F. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook for research in education (pp. 23–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haertel, E., & Herman, J. L. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement: The 104th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, W., Madaus, G. F., & Kreitzer, A. (1987). Charms talismanic: Testing teachers for the improvement of American education. Review of Research in Education, 14, 169–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D., & Harrington, C. (Eds.). (2015, March). Special issue: Value added meets the schools: The effects of using test-based teacher evaluation on the work of teachers and leaders. Educational Researcher 44(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, F. M. (2011). Perspectives on federal policy. In P. Earley, D. Imig & N. Michelli (Eds.), Teacher education policy in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations (pp. 14–20). New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. (2014). Variety and drift in the functions and purposes of assessment in K–12 education. TC Record. Retrieved at http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=17648

  • Jordan, A., & Hawley, T. (2016, February 15). By the elite, for the vulnerable: The edTPA, academic oppression, and the battle to define good teaching. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.orgID Number: 19461, Accessed 29 Jan 2017.

  • Kingdon, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, S., Lloyd, G., Arbaugh, F., Gamson, D., McDonald, S., Nolan, J., et al. (2014). Performance assessment of teaching: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 372–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. (Ed.). (1991). School follies: The miseducation of America’s teachers. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labaree, D. (2004). The trouble with Ed Schools. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, B., Thompson, G., & Sellar, S. (2016). National testing from an Australian perspective. In Bob Lingard Greg Thompson & Sam Sellar (Eds.), National testing in schools: An Australian assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawdsley, R. D., & Cumming, J. J. (2011). Certification of teachers, pre-service teacher education, tests and legal issues in Australia and the United States of America (US): Part A Context, and US history. International Journal of Law and Education, 16(1), 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, L. M. (2005). Assessment and accountability from the policymaker’s perspective. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 35–54). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelli, N., & Earley, P. (2011). Teacher education policy context. In P. Earley, D. Imig, & N. Michelli (Eds.), Teacher education policy in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations (pp. 1–13). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minaya, V., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2016, December). Labor market outcomes and postsecondary accountability: Are imperfect metrics better than none? (Working Paper 22880). Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnane, R. J. (1991, October). The case for performance-based licensing. Phi Delta Kappan. 73(2), 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Testing teacher candidates: The role of licensure tests in improving teacher quality. In K. J. Mitchell, D. Z. Robinson, B. S Plake, & K. T. Knowles (Eds.), Committee on Assessment and Teacher Quality. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, C. M. (2010). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullin, D. (2015, August 31). Performance measures for teachers and teacher education: Corporate education reform opens the door to new legal issues. Education policy analysis archives 23(81). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1980

  • Pullin, D. (2013, January). Legal issues in the use of student test scores and Value-added Models (VAM) to determine educational quality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, North America, 21. Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1160

  • Pullin, D. (2004, September/October). Accountability, autonomy, and academic freedom in educator preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education 55(4), 300–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullin, D. (2001). Key questions in implementing teacher testing and licensing. Journal of Law and Education, 30, 383–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan, E. M., Schram, T., McCurdy, K., Chang, T., & Evans, C. (2016, January 25). Politics of policy: Assessing the implementation, impact, and evolution of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teacher, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawchuk, S. (2014, October 21). Steep drops seen in teacher-prep enrollment numbers. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09enroll.h34.html

  • Tatto, M. T., Savage, C., Wei, L., Marshall, S. L., Goldblatt, P., & Medel Contreras, L. (2016). The Emergence of high-stakes accountability policies in teacher preparation: An examination of the U.S. department of education’s proposed regulations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(21), 1–54. doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2322

  • Tatto, M. T. (2015). The role of research in the policy and practice of quality teacher education: An international review. Oxford Review Of Education, 41(2), 171–201. doi:10.1080/03054985.2015.1017405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. Retrieved from East Lansing, Michigan: The Holmes Group Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). The life of data: Evolving national testing. In Bob Lingard Greg Thompson & Sam Sellar (Eds.), National testing in schools: An Australian assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education (2016, October 31). Teacher preparation issues, 34 CFR Parts 612 and 686, 81 Federal Register 75494-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, R., & Pecheone, R. (2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education: Performance-based assessments. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69–132). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S., & Youngs, P. (2005). Research on accountability processes in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher education (pp. 591–644). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. (2011). Assessing state and federal policies to evaluate the quality of teacher preparation programs. In P. Earley, D. Imig, & N. Michelli (Eds.), Teacher education policy in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations (pp. 76–102). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lynch School of Education, School of Law, Boston College, Newton, USA

    Diana Pullin

Authors
  1. Diana Pullin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Pullin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Institute Australia, Australian Catholic University Learning Sciences Institute Australia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Joce Nuttall

  2. Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University Faculty of Education and Arts, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia

    Alex Kostogriz

  3. Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University Faculty of Education and Arts, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia

    Mellita Jones

  4. Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University Faculty of Education and Arts, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia

    Jenny Martin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pullin, D. (2017). What Counts? Who is Counting? Teacher Education Improvement and Accountability in a Data-Driven Era. In: Nuttall, J., Kostogriz, A., Jones, M., Martin, J. (eds) Teacher Education Policy and Practice. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4133-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4133-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4132-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4133-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation