Questions? Call 800-624-6242 About | Ordering | New Menu | Items in cart [0] SEARCH

PAPERBACK price:$44.00 add to cart Rights & Permissions Free PDF Access Sign in to download PDF book and chapters Free Resources PDF SUMMARY Display this book on your site! Related Titles Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium Testing Teacher Candidates: The Role of Licensure Tests in Improving Teacher Quality Other Related Titles Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy (2010) Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA) Citation Manager Export the bibliographic data for this book in your chosen format Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web. Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book. Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic. Citation Manager . "Appendix A: Dissent, Michael Podgursky." Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. Please select a format: Page 205   E-mail Share on facebook Facebook Share on delicious Delicious Share on stumbleupon Stumble Share on twitter Twitter More Sharing ServicesMore The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. Appendix A Dissent, Michael Podgursky This report goes beyond our charge from Congress. We were not asked to make recommendations about how teachers ought to be prepared or the necessary preparation of teachers. We were not asked to make recommendations to states about how they should approve teacher training programs. There is simply no scientific research basis for making these recommendations. Congress asked us to assess available data on teacher preparation programs in the United States and whether the training teachers receive is consistent with scientifically based research. If reliable data are lacking (as they clearly are), we were to make recommendations regarding data collection. Since the body of scientifically based research on teacher preparation is very thin, the committee chose to rely heavily on descriptive and qualitative studies, as well as the opinions of panels of teachers and teacher educators. This evidence is then reported in ways that obfuscate the weak research base for the recommendations. The report frequently asserts that these various types of evidence are consistent, but it fails to provide supporting documentation. The proposals for data collection are not well thought out. Clearly it would be useful to know more about what teacher training programs do. However, the rather nebulous language used to describe elements of such a database are not helpful or practical. The proposal for a national longitudinal survey on teacher candidates is not well developed. Page 205 Front Matter (R1-R16) Summary (1-8) 1 Introduction (9-20) 2 Seeking Strong Evidence (21-32) 3 Pathways to Teaching and Teacher Preparation Programs (33-64) 4 Preparing Teachers for All Fields (65-74) 5 Preparing Reading Teachers (75-102) 6 Preparing Mathematics Teachers (103-124) 7 Preparing Science Teachers (125-152) 8 Accountability and Quality Control in Teacher Education (153-172) 9 Summary and Research Agenda (173-188) References (189-204) Appendix A: Dissent, Michael Podgursky (205-206) Appendix B: How Teachers Learn Critical Knowledge and Skills: Tracing One Example (207-210) Appendix C: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members (211-218)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 205
Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy Appendix A Dissent, Michael Podgursky This report goes beyond our charge from Congress. We were not asked to make recommendations about how teachers ought to be prepared or the necessary preparation of teachers. We were not asked to make recommendations to states about how they should approve teacher training programs. There is simply no scientific research basis for making these recommendations. Congress asked us to assess available data on teacher preparation programs in the United States and whether the training teachers receive is consistent with scientifically based research. If reliable data are lacking (as they clearly are), we were to make recommendations regarding data collection. Since the body of scientifically based research on teacher preparation is very thin, the committee chose to rely heavily on descriptive and qualitative studies, as well as the opinions of panels of teachers and teacher educators. This evidence is then reported in ways that obfuscate the weak research base for the recommendations. The report frequently asserts that these various types of evidence are consistent, but it fails to provide supporting documentation. The proposals for data collection are not well thought out. Clearly it would be useful to know more about what teacher training programs do. However, the rather nebulous language used to describe elements of such a database are not helpful or practical. The proposal for a national longitudinal survey on teacher candidates is not well developed.

OCR for page 206
Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy This page intentionally left blank.