THE POLITICS OF TEACHER EDUCATION: LESSONS FROM NEW YORK CITY

THE POLITICS OF TEACHER EDUCATION: LESSONS FROM NEW YORK CITY

Nicholas M. Michelli
City University of New York
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, May/June 2005


Education policy, including teacher education policy, is largely grounded in political and economic arguments, arguments that have to do with power and resources. Most teacher educators I know believe that education policy should be grounded first in moral arguments with a focus on democratic practice and social justice and in educational arguments that lead to high level understanding and the ability to think critically. Many teacher educators, and even deans of education, are not part of the process to influence the politics affecting the education of educators, perhaps because they find the process distasteful (it sometimes is), do not understand how to act politically, or continue to use moral and educational arguments. Acting politically and morally are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.
For the past decade or more, I have tried to influence deans of education and other educational leaders to become active in shaping the policy affecting teacher education, and it is, of course, policy that is the focus of the politics of teacher education. In Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Stone (2002) argued that we are in error if we think of policy formation as rational. Instead, Stone argued that “the very categories of thought underlying rational analysis are themselves a kind of paradox, defined in political struggle. They do not exist before or without politics, and because they are necessarily abstract, they can have multiple meanings” (pp. 8-9).
A good example of paradox, and multiple meanings embedded in a political struggle, is the concept of a “highly qualified teacher.” For the first time in our history, we have a legal definition of a highly qualified teacher. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the definition for a highly qualified teacher in any public elementary or secondary school is that generally, the teacher has met state certification requirements (including alternate routes), passed state tests, and has a high level of competency in academic subjects taught measured by an appropriate major or advanced credentialing (NCLB, 2001, pp. 544-545).
And so, a highly qualified teacher knows his or her content, and we know that this is so because he or she has either passed a test, has an academic major, graduate degree, equivalent coursework, or advanced certification or credentialing. (Note that there is a nod to teaching skills for new elementary teachers.) In his review of the research on teaching, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige (U.S. Department of Education, 2003) concluded that although individual teachers make an enormous difference in student achievement, we do not know which attributes matter. Furthermore, Paige cited research that although teacher experience and content knowledge are linked to student achievement, training in pedagogy or field experiences or master’s degrees have not been linked to student success, nor have certification requirements. Curiously, meeting state certification standards is one of the standards for identifying highly qualified teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 2). Of course, there is a great deal of other research that counters this limited perspective that quality depends on content knowledge and two other variables not seemingly in NCLB— cognitive ability and length of service (see, e.g., 235
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, May/June 2005 235-241
© 2005 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Why would the policy reflect such a narrow definition of the qualities we would look for in a highly qualified teacher? Why would the policy allow one to demonstrate that quality of academic content knowledge by so many means—a test, a major, an equivalence of a major, state certification (a quality the secretary is not confident in)? I think I know. Not too long ago, a senior member of the Bush administration’s education hierarchy (who will remain nameless) met with a group of researchers who were, in part, debating the meaning of having highly qualified teachers for every child— seemingly a core goal of NCLB. After some debate, he interrupted us and said, “Having a highly qualified teacher for every child isn’t an educational issue, it’s an economic and political issue. Some children will have highly qualified teachers and some children will have ‘good enough’ teachers.” Some of us were stunned enough to respond that it was not an educational, political, or economic issue, it was a moral issue. If one starts with an economic and political grounding, the policy that will yield the highest number of highly qualified teachers— or good enough teachers—is the best policy. Of course, we knew then, and still know now, who the children who will settle for “good enough” teachers are—they are children in urban and rural schools, including the more than 1 million children in New York City that I spend my days worrying about and working for. In defining educational practice, politics and numbers often trump the educational and moral arguments.
If we follow Stone’s (2002) logic, and my experience, virtually every public policy decision, then, is grounded in politics and usually economics. If we want to influence education policy, then we must become politically active and try to understand what drives the politics. I do not necessarily mean partisan political action, but I do mean taking a position and trying to influence policy makers and their beliefs. During the course of these years, I have put forth some principles that can guide such work; and in recent years, I have tested those principles in one of the most visible and contentious educational environments, New York City. I will say more about the principles after we examine the policy changes and politics surrounding them in New York City.
POLICY CHANGES AND POLITICS IN NEW YORK CITY
In the past 4 years, major political struggles regarding education have led to significant policy changes, including establishing citywide curricula in literacy and mathematics, mayoral control of education, ending social promotion in third and fifth grade, reorganizing the district into 10 regions and effectively eliminating community school districts, and moving toward the creation of 200 new small high schools. This is the local backdrop for what was happening at the state level. My focus will be largely on the state policy changes and their impact on New York City.
NEW YORK STATE’S STANDARDS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
With amazing single-mindedness, the New York State Regents, guided by Commissioner Richard Mills, put together a comprehensive plan to improve teaching in New York, including a set of standards that as I have argued, are among the highest in the nation. The standards, as they were originally developed, came as close to being standards based on educational and moral grounding as I have seen. Elements of the standards include
A required, clearly stated vision that drives the program to prepare teachers.
Evidence of collaboration among arts and science and education faculty as well as K-12 faculty in teacher education.
Evidence of study in general education to establish broad arts and science knowledge for all teachers.
Course work to establish content knowledge (a major or cohesive sequence of 30 credits) and a test of content knowledge.
A full professional sequence focusing on foundations, pedagogy, and inclusive education that includes specific study of literacy and other important areas.
A requirement that more than 50% of course work in teacher education be taught by full-time faculty.
Requiring examinations for teachers in knowledge of liberal arts and science, pedagogy, and subject-specific knowledge related to the area of certification.
Requiring 100 hours of field experiences before student teaching, which must take place at two different grade levels.
Ending transcript review of candidates for certification as a pathway to certification.
Requiring a relevant master’s degree for professional certification within 3 years of initial certification.
Achieving national accreditation for all programs by December 2004.
Every teacher education program within every university in the state—public and private— was required to be “reregistered” with the New York State Department of Education by the summer of 2000 (revisions in certification for school administrators came later). At City University of New York (CUNY), for example, that meant redesigning and submitting more than 350 programs from our nine colleges offering initial preparation for teachers.
THE POLITICS OF NUMBERS AND THE EFFECT ON GREAT IDEAS
These were very high standards that I believe can be traced to the educational beliefs and moral judgments of the policy makers involved. Even when policy is grounded in this way, the hard reality of numbers can take us in different directions. It is not surprising that pressure for high-stakes accreditation faced by colleges, or for finding certified teachers for every classroom, led to policy changes.
One change that emerged even as the policy was evolving was a decision to develop a Regents Accreditation of Teacher Education Program as an alternative to accreditation by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, and ultimately accepting the Teacher Education Accreditation Council as an alternative when the Department of Education approved the Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Much of the politics here were based on perceived costs of various forms of accreditation and concern for meeting some standards, even though some colleges claimed it was the nature of the standards embedded in the accreditation processes that drove the pressure for alternatives.
Overall, I am still amazed that in large measure, these standards became regulation with very few changes, largely because Commissioner Mills and the Regents genuinely believe in the research that pointed to the importance of highly qualified teachers in assuring student success in a state where there are wide achievement gaps between rural, suburban, and urban schools, as well as within districts. The commitment is implicit in the standards just described, which imply a far broader conception of what it means to be a highly qualified teacher than the federal standards. These standards extended to requiring clear, unequivocal statements about beliefs, grounding in pedagogy, foundations, field experiences, and deep content knowledge. Because of his commitment to having qualified teachers in every classroom, Commissioner Mills sued the New York Board of Education to require that a certified teacher be in every classroom in a failing school (called a School Under Registration Review [SURR school] in New York). The commissioner won the suit and overcame an injunction sought by the board. The court required that the standard be met by September 2001. Within 2 years of that, the courts required that every school have a certified teacher in every classroom, a year before the NCLB requirement. This meant that by September 2001, New York would have to hire 12,000 newly certified teachers. The projections for retirement were staggering and combined with the prohibition against hiring uncertified teachers, a standard practice in the city, the political pressure was intense.
The first outcome of the pressure was that the Regents, acting within a few weeks, established policy for New York State’s alternative route to teaching program. Having spent several decades with New Jersey’s alternative route to teaching program, I knew that there was potential for real danger here for the high standards just enacted because of the need to staff urban schools quickly. The politically expedient way of meeting large shortages of certified teachers, especially sudden shortages of the sort California faced when class size was reduced and New York then faced, is to simply redefine certification and lower standards.
The Regents maintained that their standards were sound, although it was clear that some thing had to give to meet the dilemma the court order created. The program that emerged from the Regents is the Transitional B Program, known in New York City as the Teaching Fellows Program. By state policy, all students entering the program had to come with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in the field they would teach and a 3.0 grade point average, and they had to have satisfactorily passed the state examinations in content knowledge and liberal arts and science knowledge. The test of pedagogy would come before final certification and awarding of the master’s degree. The New York City Teaching Fellows Program was crafted during that summer through long meetings of CUNY teacher education faculty, representatives of the then board of education staff, and members of the United Federation of Teachers (the AFT affiliate representing New York’s more than 75,000 teachers). We agreed on the essential elements that had to be present for each new teacher, including an understanding of what it means to teach in a democracy. Each college had to register its Transitional B Programs for state review and approval. What emerged was a program full of political compromises that everyone thought was worth trying, although most agreed that students began teaching too soon—after an intensive 6-week summer “boot camp.” Teacher education faculty and United Federation of Teachers members, working as a team, taught in the summer program. At the end of the summer, the college was required to recommend the candidate for certification. Within 3 years, every Transitional B–certified teacher had to complete a full master’s degree and meet every requirement the Regents had established in policy for certification. Students received a summer stipend, a fully paid master’s degree, and a guaranteed job. Almost all the jobs, however, were in failing schools to meet the court’s initial order. So the most challenged schools got the least prepared certified teachers. In fact, virtually every newly certified teacher, through the Teaching Fellows or college programs, went to failing schools in that year. But there were some other unintended outcomes.
In the 1st year, CUNY saw its number of certified graduates drop. We found out why. In the consent order that enforced the commissioner’s order that every classroom in every SURR school have a certified teacher, the following clause appeared:
Defendants shall fill every vacancy in SURR schools in the Common Branch license area with certified teachers only. . . . If the Defendants hire a certified teacher for a non-Common Branch vacancy, that teacher must be assigned first to a vacancy in aSURR school. (Mills v. Levy, 2000, part 22, p. 2)
The reason our numbers of certified graduates dropped, it turned out, was political savvy on the part of local school principals in schools not in the SURR list, who told many of our best students, “Don’t finish your certification program. If you are certified, I can’t hire you and if you are certified you will have to go to a SURR school.” It was still possible to hire an uncertified teacher with a temporary license in schools not on the SURRlist in that year. The other consequence, of course, was that the least prepared teachers were assigned to the most troubled schools. Since the 1st year of the program, private colleges have joined CUNY in delivering the New York City Teaching Fellows Program, and CUNY has worked with more than 5,000 teachers. There remains a significant tension regarding some issues. From the start, there was debate about whether someone trained as an accountant had the required major to teach mathematics, one of the areas of greatest shortage. Although the board contended that it did, we argued that accountants are more likely to know algorithms for solving problems than have the deep knowledge of mathematics needed to teach for understanding. Of course, the school chancellor asked what our evidence was, and we had good arguments, but not solid evidence. That experience reinforced what we already knew: Hard evidence, quantitative in nature, was going to be a political factor in all future debates.
238 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, May/June 2005
We held the line on the state standards, whereas some of our private college colleagues admitted students with backgrounds and preparation we would consider inadequate, responding to the politics of enrollment and economics. Ultimately, yet another program was developed to provide “mathematics immersion” to students with some solid background in mathematics but not a full major. This program recognizes content deficiencies and seeks to address them.
Several years after the initial policy was adopted, the state produced evidence that most of the teachers of mathematics and science came through transcript review rather than the completion of college programs. Transcript review as a pathway to teaching was scheduled to be eliminated by the new teacher education policy, but based on the data the New York State Department of Education proposed that the plan to drop transcript review be eliminated. This became an issue for the New York State Professional Practices and Standards Board, which proposed instead that if the transcript review was to be continued as a pathway to teaching, it be only in areas of demonstrated shortage. A compromise was needed to settle this debate; and although transcript review was continued for all areas, it also is to end by a certain date, at which time further evaluation of needs must be undertaken.
By the beginning of the 2004-2005 academic year, the debate at the state level had turned to the regulation requiring that full-time faculty teach 50% of all teacher education courses. For many programs, including CUNY’s, meeting this standard required a good deal of hiring. In fact, at CUNY a decision had been made to make teacher education a “flagship program,” one that receives special attention that includes centrally distributed lines to attract highly qualified faculty and a set goal of 70% of all classes taught by full-time faculty. Some college presidents, however, have lobbied against this provision for obvious reasons. In one meeting with state officials, an advisory group to the commissioner, on which I also serve, was told that presidents and deans were objecting. We have not found any deans who claimed to be opposed to the policy, but the policy ultimately was changed. In its final form, colleges meeting the state’s minimum pass rate on tests for teachers and accreditation are not required to demonstrate the 50% rule. In fact, CUNY holds to having 70% of courses taught by full-time faculty, so the change is likely to affect small private colleges ultimately. State officials have promised to continue to collect data on the percentage of full-time faculty and to monitor the impact of the change.
There have been other compromises. The date for accreditation has been set back from December 2004 to December 2006 with interim evidence of progress required, and it is likely that the requirement of a master’s degree in 3 years for certified teachers will move to 5 years, as it was in the original regulations. These are reasonable changes that reflect reality. Also on the horizon is a change that would allow teachers to begin teaching in a new certification area with minimum content study. The number of credits was the subject of negotiations, and a compromise was reached with the requirement that teachers complete all requirements for the field within a fixed number of years. The policy changes in New York City during the past 4 years, some generated by the state, some by the city, some by the legislature, and some by the courts have been widespread. Whether grounded in educational, moral, economic, or political grounds, all were shaped by political action in one way or another. What can we learn from this experience?
SOME PRINCIPLES FOR POLITICAL ACTION
Know what you stand for. What is your vision for education in a democratic society? Is it a shared vision? With whom is it shared? It is obviously important for any excellent program to have a clear, unequivocal vision, and our vision is for education that promotes democracy and social justice by providing all students access to knowledge and critical thinking. With that in mind, we try to pick our political battles.
Know where policy is made, the process by which it is made, and who makes it. I learned quickly in my years with the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Governmental Relations Committee that working with legislative aides was far more important than a ceremonial visit with a senator or representative. In fact, rule making is largely an executive branch function at the state level. Under President Bush, the U.S. Department of Education’s “guidance” on NCLB takes on a life beyond the actual legislation, and here too the real effect of policy is executive regulation at least as much as legislation. A codicil of this principle comes from something attributed to Lyndon Johnson, who is reported to have said, “Make friends before you need them.” I am fortunate that the New York State Department of Education leaders with whom I work are collaborative and genuinely understand the process of compromise while maintaining the highest possible standards.
Be clear in your own mind about how the policy in question relates to your beliefs. There was a time in my career when I thought I was opposed to alternate routes to certification, no matter what their form. I no longer believe that. In the case of New York State, nothing in policy stands in the way of developing teachers with a deep understanding of what it means to teach in a democracy and the moral obligations teachers have.
Be prepared to argue strongly for your position and to compromise. Strong argument is a central component of democracy, and learning how to argue rationally is obviously important. It was very clear to me that the Transitional B Program as proposed did not interfere with the basic conceptions we had about teaching and public education. To argue for the status quo made no sense because the shortage in New York City of certified teachers was real. The alternative of having uncertified teachers was no longer a possibility, fortunately, because of the court case. Some of my colleagues think doing any work to support alternate programs is selling out. I think the opposite is true. Unless we are in the game arguing for our beliefs and willing to compromise, we will have no role whatsoever.
Do not claim to represent a larger constituency than you really do. I have learned that it is almost impossible to have teacher educators agree to present a solid front against a threat—moral, political, economic, or educational. More than once I have claimed that we were united only to find those colleagues had chosen to cut a deal, for whatever reason. In New Jersey, it was raw political pressure placed on presidents. In New York, it was a need for revenues over established principles. I believe one must know whom and what one represents to avoid overstating the case and making claims about unanimity that are not valid.
Get and use data to argue for your positions and to demonstrate the success, or failure, of policy. Of course, this raises the question of what kinds of data. Policy makers, it seems, are into quantitative data, especially data related to gains on tests, whereas, of course, educators know these are not sufficient. We all know the mantra of scientifically based evidence. Our decision in New York City has been to assemble the quantitative data and enhance it with qualitative data. We invested US$600,000 in a project now undertaken by an external team of researchers—labor economists and qualitative researchers—to examine the impact of all the pathways into teaching in New York City. The researchers have used this seed money to assemble a budget of US$3.8 million, including funding from the Carnegie Corporation, the Spencer Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.
My colleague Carla Asher, university director of teacher education initiatives at CUNY, and I identified the central questions we needed to answer. Who chooses which pathway into teaching? Which schools do they go to? How are they received in the schools? Do they stay? If they leave, where do they go and why? What is the effect of each pathway on student achievement using a value-added measure? What can we say about the cost-effectiveness of each pathway, taking into account student gains, other qualitative values, and longevity in the profession? We worked closely with Commissioner Mills in assuring that a full range of data would be available for the study. It will provide measures of the effect of New York State policy on teacher education in the broadest sense. Data from CUNY, the New York Department of Education, and the private colleges involved in teacher education in New York City make this an important study. We are committed also to examining the qualitative aspects of our programs— those important aspects less amenable to standard measures—including preparing teachers who understand democratic practice, know what it means in the classroom, are committed to social justice, and care about urban education. There is a risk here, the risk that the quantitative data will overshadow any qualitative data we bring to bear, but politically, we are convinced that we need to pursue both. The study can be followed on www.teachereducationpolicy.org.
Do not forget the children. It sounds trite, but it is the children and the society that we are in this business for. For them, we must work to prepare teachers who have the deep content knowledge we know they need, but who also understand child development, responsive pedagogy, and are committed to preparing critical and involved future participants in our democracy who have a deep sense of the meaning of social justice. In the politics of teacher education, there will always be someone who will assume we are self-serving. We cannot be. The focus of our service must be the children in schools, and our arguments must be presented in terms of their well-being and the well-being of our democracy. All of our political actions must be in pursuit of this educational and moral principle.
240 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, May/June 2005
REFERENCES
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January 1). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/
Mills v. Levy, Supreme Court of the State of New York Consent Order No.26196/00 (August 24, 2000).
No Child Left Behind, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1, 107th Cong., 1st Session (2001).
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s second annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author. Wilson, S., Floden, R.,&Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001, February).
Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (No. r-01-3). Seattle,WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Nicholas M. Michelli is university dean for teacher education at the City University of New York and professor of education specializing in education policy in City University of New York’s Ph.D. in Urban Education. For 8 years, he served on the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Combined Committee on Governmental Relations, chairing the group for 5 years. He is currently a member of the New York State Professional Practices and Standards Board for Teaching, the Regents primary policy-developing group for the improvement of teaching, including the education of educators. He also serves on New York’s Committee of Practitioners, an agency required by the No Child Left Behind Act to review all state policy before it is enacted. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, May/June 2005 241