On Building a Unified System of Accreditation in Teacher Education

Abstract

As of September 2003, there are officially two recognized accreditors for teacher education programs in the United States, each with a distinctly different approach to accreditation. The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), the more recently developed accreditor, has been criticized for promoting “accreditation shopping,” lacking standards, illegitimacy, insensitivity to diversity, and divisiveness. TEAC’s position on each of these issues is explicated along with an analysis of other issues that in contrast to the foregoing, are genuine and truly distinguish the two accreditors. An exploration of the differences and similarities between TEAC and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education suggests the ingredients of a unified accreditation system.

Keywords

accreditation teacher education TEAC NCATE

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Archbald, D. (1998). The reviews of state content standards in English language arts and mathematics: A summary and review of their methods and findings and implications for future standards development. Unpublished report for the National Education Goals Panel.

Ballou, D. , & Podgursky, M. (1999). Teacher training and licensure: A layman’s guide. In M. Kanstoroom & C. Finn (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 31-82). Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation.

Carini, R. , & Kuh, G. (2002, February). What can we learn about the next generation of teachers from student engagement patterns in college? Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, New York.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teaching for America’s future: National commissions and vested interests in an almost profession. Educational Policy, 14(1), 162-183.

Dill, D. , Massy, W. , Williams, P. , & Cook, C. (1996, September/October). Accreditation and academic quality assurance: Can we get there from here? Change Magazine, pp. 17-24.

Ewell, P. (2001) Piloting a new approach to accreditation in teacher education: An evaluation of the TEAC/FIPSE project. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Gideonse, H. (1998). Two accrediting agencies? ATE Newsletter, 31(5), 4.

Gitomer, D. , Latham, A. , & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Graham, P. , Lyman, R. , & Trow, M. (1995). Accountability of colleges and universities: An essay. New York: Columbia University Press.

10.

Meier, D. (1999). Educating a democracy: Standards and the future of public education. Boston Review, December 1999 and January 2000, Vol. 24. Available from http://www.bostonreview.mit.edu

11.

Mitchell, R. , & Barth, P. (1999). How teacher licensing tests fall short. Thinking K-16, 3(1), 3-23.

12.

Murray, F. (2003). Accreditors in teaching now have equal footing. Education Week, 23(9), 34-35.

13.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future . (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

14.

Noddings, N. (1999). Caring and competence. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers (pp. 205-220). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Ohanian, S. (1999). One size fits few: The folly of educational standards. New York: Heinemann.

16.

Ohanian, S. (2000). Goals 200: What’s in a name? Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 345-355.

17.

Teacher Education Accreditation Council . (1999). Prospectus. Washington, DC: Author.

18.

Trow, M. (1998). On the accountability of higher education in the United States. In W. Bowen & H. Shapiro (Eds.), Universities and their leadership (pp. 15-61). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

19.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). Teaching the teachers: Different settings, different results. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. Also available at http://www.ets.org/research/pic