|
|
THE
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT /
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY
12234 |
|
TO: |
The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents |
|
FROM: |
Johanna Duncan-Poitier
|
|
COMMITTEE: |
Higher Education and Professional Practice |
|
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
|
|
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
October 28, 2004 |
|
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Information |
|
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
To inform the Regents of feedback from presidents of colleges and universities with teacher education programs on modifications recommended by the field to advance the implementation of the Board of Regents Teaching Policy |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
The Committee on Higher Education and Professional Practice requested
that the Department conduct a survey of presidents of colleges and universities
with teacher education programs to provide measurable data regarding the
proposal to modify the regulatory requirements on staffing in teacher education
programs, the hours faculty in teacher education programs are permitted to
teach, and the requirement that new teachers complete a Master’s degree within
three years to qualify for Professional certification. This information is
intended to complement the feedback received from the field over the last two
years. This is a report of the
survey results.
Based on feedback from the field and the results of the survey of
presidents of colleges and universities with teacher education programs, this
month, the Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee will continue to
discuss proposed modifications to the Regents Teaching Policy. Specifically, the Regents are
considering moving toward a performance-based system for teacher education
programs – a system that continues to require high standards of quality while
giving the leadership of colleges and universities with demonstrated records of
performance more discretion and flexibility to develop staffing plans that are
consistent with their program designs.
The proposed modifications under Regents consideration would provide
flexibility regarding the “fixed” number of full-time faculty and the
requirements stipulating limits on the number of semester hours these faculty
may teach for institutions that:
§
achieve and continue to maintain the new Regents
required accreditation for their teacher education program(s),
and
§ meet or exceed the established institutional pass rate (80 percent) on teacher certification examinations
The field has also recommended that the Regents consider modifying the timeframe within which new teachers are required to complete a Master’s degree to provide five years (vs. three years) for the completion of the degree required for Professional certification. This would allow new teachers additional time to meet this requirement while balancing the demands of their new teaching responsibilities as well as financial and family obligations.
Last month, the Department shared with the Regents
highlights of the results of the survey the Board requested of the Presidents of
all 113 New York State colleges and universities with teacher education programs
for their feedback on elements of the Regents Teaching Policy. We are now providing you with a copy of
the complete survey results.
Consistent with input received through the survey and preliminary
feedback received from the Regents, the draft regulations now
under Regents consideration, are grounded in three major
tenets:
QUALITY
- The
increased flexibility provided by the proposed modifications does not waver from
the Regents, the Department’s, and the higher education community’s focus on the
quality of teachers and teacher preparation.
FLEXIBILITY
- The proposed
modifications provide performance-based flexibility to college and university
leadership, enabling them to enhance their education programs consistent with
their needs and program designs, as in all other higher education professional
education programs.
ACCOUNTABILITY – The proposal
moves toward a performance-based approach that measures results of teacher
candidates and the effectiveness of teacher education
programs.
The Regents and the Education Department
remain committed to ensuring high standards of quality in teacher education
programs across the State. The proposal to provide flexibility to institutions
that have met articulated standards of accountability (accreditation and meeting
or exceeding the pass rate on certification examinations) upholds quality
standards through performance-based accountability. This is consistent with the
policy direction the Regents have taken in other areas of the University of the
State of New York (USNY). In addition, the proposal to give new teachers five
years rather than three years to complete their Master’s degrees, which is
required for Professional certification, is consistent with what you have heard
from the field over the last several years. The results of the president’s
survey support that change as well.
Highlights of the Office of
Higher Education’s Survey of Presidents of New York State Colleges and
Universities with Teacher Education Programs on Elements of the Regents Teaching
Policy
Fall 2004
Following discussions in February and May 2004, the Board of Regents requested that the State Education Department survey the Presidents of all 113 colleges and universities in New York State with teacher education programs for a comprehensive, data-driven response to three elements of the Regents teaching policy – the full-time faculty requirement, the maximum number of hours full-time faculty are permitted to work under Regents regulation and the requirement that new teachers complete a Master’s degree within three years.
About the
Respondents
· \Presidents of 113 colleges and universities with teacher preparation programs were surveyed
o 17 State University of New York (SUNY) institutions
o 9 City University of New York (CUNY) institutions
o 87 Independent institutions
o 2 Proprietary institutions
· Responses were received from 74 of the 113 colleges and universities with teacher education programs in New York State, resulting in a 65 percent response rate - approximately two-thirds of all teacher education programs.
o 13 surveys were received from SUNY institutions
o 7 surveys were received from CUNY institutions, including one from CUNY Central Administration
o 52 responses were received from independent institutions
o 2 responses were received from proprietary institutions
· 55 surveys were received directly from Presidents or Chief Executive Officers (74 percent), and 19 surveys were received from Deans, Vice Presidents, Provosts, or other administrators responding on behalf of the President/CEO (26 percent).
Faculty
Staffing Patterns Over the Last Six
Years
·
The total
number of faculty teaching in New York State teacher preparation
programs varied widely depending on size of programs, number of
students, expansion efforts, attrition, etc.
· On average, in 1999-2000, 87 percent of full-time faculty in institutions that responded to the survey were reported to be tenured compared to 82 percent in 2002-03. According to the National Center for Education Statistics[1], 45 percent of all full-time faculty in Title IV degree-granting institutions nationally have tenure.
·
68
percent of respondents reported hiring additional faculty since
1999-2000 to meet the full-time faculty and faculty workload requirements. Thirty-two percent indicated that they did not hire
any additional faculty to meet these requirements.
·
The average number of faculty hired by
institutions to meet the full-time faculty and faculty workload
requirements overall was 6. The
mode was 3 (17.4 percent reported hiring 3 additional faculty; 15.2 percent
reported hiring 1 additional faculty; another 15.2 percent reported hiring 7
additional faculty; and 13 percent reported hiring 2 additional faculty). The
number of faculty hired was related to the size of program(s), expansion
efforts, attrition and whether an institution offers alternative certification
programs.
· 58 percent of institutions reported increasing the number of part-time and adjunct faculty over the last six years. The number of part-time and adjunct faculty in colleges and universities with teacher education programs, as reported by respondents, has increased over the last six years from an average of 44 part-time faculty per institution to 50. On average:
o 61 percent of part-time faculty work full-time in the field of education in addition to college/university teaching.
o 81 percent of part-time faculty are members of professional organizations.
o 89 percent of respondents indicated that part-time faculty at their institutions participate in orientation programs.
o Over half of respondents (55 percent) reported having mentoring programs for part-time faculty.
o 51 percent of respondents reported that part-time faculty regularly attend staff meetings.
Regents
Regulatory Requirement re: Fixed Percentage of Courses that must be taught by
Full-time Faculty
Institutions of higher education with teacher
education programs are required to “provide sufficient numbers of qualified,
full-time faculty to . . . ensure that the majority of credit-bearing courses in
the program are offered by full-time faculty.”
· 72 percent of respondents agree that the majority of credit-bearing courses should be offered by full-time faculty to ensure program quality. Responses to the question, “what percent of teacher preparation faculty do you think should be employed full-time?” ranged from 10 percent to a “goal” of 100 percent. The average proportion recommended by respondents is 56 percent. Several respondents indicated that while institutions should have a majority of full-time faculty, they do not believe there is one optimum number, but rather a range depending on the needs and direction of the institution and the students it serves.
· 61 percent of respondents indicated that the full-time faculty requirement presents a hardship and indicated the need for flexibility.
· 73 percent of respondents indicated specific unintended consequences of the full-time faculty requirement to their programs whether or not they indicated the requirement presents a hardship.[2] Specifically:
o 83 percent indicated that the full-time faculty requirement impacts on their ability to attract a diversified pool of candidates.
o 57 percent indicated that the requirement impacts on their ability to initiate new programs.
o 43 percent indicated that the requirement impacts on their ability to expand programs.
o 27 percent indicated that the requirement has resulted in increased class size.
o 37 percent indicated other unintended consequences beyond choices offered in the survey including larger student to faculty ratios, reduced opportunities for K-16 collaboration, losing quality adjunct faculty to meet the requirement, and less flexibility to engage in opportunities like sabbaticals, research projects, etc.
Requirement re: Number of Semester Hours
Faculty are Permitted to Teach
According to existing regulations, teaching
assignments for faculty in teacher education programs shall not
exceed:
o
12 semester hours
per semester for undergraduate courses,
o
9 semester hours
per semester for graduate courses, or
o
21 semester hours
per academic year for faculty who teach both undergraduate and graduate
courses,
while
still providing sufficient course offerings to allow students to complete their
programs in the minimum time required for earning the
degree.
·
73 percent
of respondents agree that the majority of credit bearing courses
should be offered by full-time faculty to ensure program
quality. When asked for
the maximum number of semester hours faculty
should teach each semester, responses ranged from 6 to 21 semester hours per semester for
faculty teaching only undergraduate courses (average: 10), only graduate courses
(average: 9), or both (average: 10).
Similar to responses received regarding the proportion of full—time
faculty, several respondents indicated that while there must be a reasonable
limit on the number of semester hours faculty teach, there is not necessarily an
optimum number. Rather, this number
can range based upon factors like program, faculty, and student needs, and the
experience, expertise and interest of faculty.
· 52 percent of respondents indicated that “fixed” workload limitations for faculty present a hardship and requested flexibility. Specific unintended consequences of the faculty workload requirement reported by respondents include[3]:
o 31 percent indicated that the faculty workload requirement impacts on their ability to initiate new programs.
o 28 percent indicated that the requirement impacts on their ability to expand programs.
o 21 percent indicated that the requirement has resulted in increased class size.
o
19
percent indicated that the requirement interferes with labor management
negotiations.
o
25
percent indicated other unintended consequences beyond choices
offered in the survey including less flexibility to respond to illness, sabbaticals,
special skills, unanticipated enrollments, etc.,
inequities
among faculty across departments, and
conflicts with institutions’ goals of having more full-time faculty involvement in the field (e.g. student teaching supervision)
·
45 percent
of respondents indicated that if
they had more flexibility to
establish teaching workloads for faculty in teacher preparation
programs, they would be most likely to
continue with the existing load limit. 34
percent said they would determine
load on a case-by-case basis.
Only one institution said they would increase the maximum number of hours
faculty teach. No one said they would eliminate faculty load
restrictions altogether.
Ensuring
High Standards of Quality
·
73 percent of respondents agree that if the Regents consider
modifying the existing regulation regarding full-time faculty and workload
requirements, accreditation and
the 80 percent pass rate on
teacher certification examinations are strong
performance indicators upon which the Regents can rely to ensure that teacher preparation program(s)
continue to achieve high standards of program quality.
·
34
percent recommended other
performance measures for the Regents to consider as indicative of
program quality - many of which are
already included within the accreditation review process. Recommendations
included:
o
reports on the
effectiveness of student teachers in the classroom,
o
quality of field
experiences,
o information on collaboration between colleges and universities and the K-12 community, and
o
indicators of impact of new teachers on
student learning.
Three-year Master’s Degree
Requirement
To qualify for a Professional certificate
(formerly known as Permanent certificate), teachers must now complete a Master’s
degree or higher within three years of receiving the Initial certificate or
apply for a one-year extension to complete the
degree.
·
82 percent
of respondents reported that the three-year Master’s requirement
presents a significant hardship to students in their programs[4].
o
80 percent
reported that it is difficult for students to complete a
Master’s degree in three years
while maintaining family and work
responsibilities.
- 72 percent indicated that graduate programs are more beneficial if students
get teaching experience first; the three-year Master’s requirement
hinders students from gaining teaching experience during this period.
- 63 percent said the requirement presents a financial hardship for students.
- 17 percent said the requirement discourages students from entering
teaching
- 25 percent reported other unintended consequences like, having to
complete a Master’s degree in three years detracts from the attention a new teacher can
give to his/her job and the shorter time frame impacts school districts’ work
to acclimate new teachers to the profession.
·
83
percent of respondents
agreed that it is more reasonable to return to the former policy that
new certificate holders
complete a Master’s
degree or higher within five years to qualify for a Professional
certificate.
Highlights of Comments Received from the
Field
In addition to the numerical responses provided by survey respondents to specific questions, we also received a number of additional comments. Given the large number of comments received, below are highlights of the comments. The comments that appear here are direct quotes and are proportionally representative of the total pool of comments received.
Comments in response to: importance of
full-time faculty to ensuring program
quality
- A
strong full-time faculty presence is necessary to provide for advisement,
scholarship, field supervision, consulting with content faculty, assessment,
school partnerships, and service activities. But a rigid "majority"
requirement should not bind an institution that is successful in producing
highly competent teachers with less than the majority now
required.
- Full-time
faculty provide continuity of program and availability to
students.
- The
issue is not percentage, but quality of instruction and knowledge of and
connection with the program of study.
- There
are numerous activities that faculty are engaged in on a college campus beyond
teaching (curriculum, development, advising, mentoring, research, scholarship,
community service, etc.)
- The
integrity and cohesion of the program relies on sufficient faculty to not only
teach, but to implement all other responsibilities associated with program
quality and continuous improvement. Accredited colleges also
have increased responsibility in the professional development and evaluation
of adjunct or part-time faculty.
- It is important to bring together
theoreticians and practitioners to model for teacher candidates application of
theoretical constructs in the classroom.
- I strongly believe it is inappropriate for
the State to establish regulations regarding percentage of credit-bearing
courses that must be taught by full-time faculty or the number of hours that
faculty can teach. It is appropriate that the State establish expectations for
student outcomes. The context of each institution is very different, as are
the curricula and how they are structured and delivered. Institutions should
have flexibility in regards to the mix of full-time and part-time faculty. The
strength of part-time faculty is that they bring needed experience to the
classroom. They are also very capable as supervisors for student teachers. The
strength of full-time faculty is that they provide continuity and commitment
to the long-term success of a program (although this college has had long-term
adjuncts in programs who have been here for 30+ years and their commitment
matches that of full-time faculty.) Full-time faculty also bear the
responsibility for non-teaching duties.
- It
is best to have a majority of courses taught by full time faculty but
graduation enrollment fluctuates so much from semester to semester it is
difficult to maintain that ratio every semester.
- It is important to bring together
theoreticians and practitioners to model for teacher candidates application of
theoretical constructs in the classroom.
Comments in response to: percentage of
full-time faculty that respondents recommend programs
employ
- We
have not entered a figure because we believe that the percent can vary,
depending on the model of the program.
- Full-time faculty (FTE) should teach
approximately 50% of courses in a program. We are able to retain this ratio. A
higher ratio would be difficult.
- 20
percent - 100 percent. I do not
believe it is appropriate to set a standard for all programs throughout the
State. Circumstances and contexts vary. This said, I do believe it is
appropriate for the State to suggest guidelines for best practice (as opposed
to regulations).
- 60
percent - Something in the range of 50%-70% is probably ideal. But the
location of the program affects the availability (or non-availability) of
highly qualified adjuncts can push the appropriate number up or
down.
- 50
percent - In general, 50 percent is OK, but some departments are growing
faster than the ability to add lines.
In addition, in some departments, faculty are teaching both the content
area and the pedagogical area.
- This
is difficult to answer. Full-time faculty teach much more than part-time
faculty who may be hired for only one course. Thus it is possible to have a
higher percentage of part-time individuals teaching. Clearly the percentage of
courses taught by full-time faculty should be 75% or
higher.
- I
do not believe there is a magical number. There are many variables to
consider. Thus, the percent should be expressed as part of the total
picture.
- 50
percent – While part-time faculty bring valuable experience or perspective, a
core faculty is needed to ensure a consistent level of quality over
time.
- 85
percent - Having a small number of part-time faculty allow flexibility in
assigning resources to meet program needs as those needs shift. Having a large percentage of full-time
faculty reduces time needed to recruit part-timers, allows for more program
consistency, and reduces time taken to mentor new part-time faculty needed to
replace others who do not return.
Comments in response to: a survey question
asking whether or not the full-time faculty requirement presents a significant
hardship to the institution
- Strongly
agree - Such requirements seriously erode my institution's ability to respond
quickly to market forces and to be efficient in educational delivery.
- Agree
– Not only is it difficult to hire sufficient full-time faculty, but the
combination of full and part-time faculty provides invaluable diversity.
- Agree
– It is a hardship, but sustaining a strong full-time faculty is essential for
effective institutions of higher education.
- Strongly
agree – university budget constraints, recruitment difficulties, and concern
about piloting new initiatives are significant challenges.
- Disagree
– This is a challenge but given the importance, we will overcome the
hardships. We do not need a regulation, however, for us to do
so.
- Strongly
agree – we would lose flexibility to respond to changes in enrollment; it
would hurt our ability – as a smaller institution – to provide the best match
of teacher to course to students; we would lose the benefits of hands-on
experts who are working in the schools.
- Disagree
– We are committed to having well-qualified full-time faculty teach our
non-field-based professional education courses. We’d welcome the flexibility
to staff field-based courses with part-time Master teachers and
administrators.
- Disagree
– only [a burden] if resources from New York State funds do not support needs
based on enrollment.
- The faculty requirement has not presented
problems for our campus but, instead, has provided leverage for additional
personnel and staff support.
- Strongly agree – it hinders our response to
changing environmental conditions.
- Strongly agree – The existing requirements
do not give our college flexibility from semester-to-semester to balance
teaching load within total workload. Again, I believe it is inappropriate for
the State to establish one-size-fits-all regulations. Such a regulation, for
example, ignores the larger issue of workload, as opposed teaching load.
Faculty workload can vary considerably from institution to institution,
depending upon a huge array of factors. This requirement also runs counter to
the notion of increasing access to higher education for place-bound and
time-bound students through distance education. This mode of delivery allows
schools to employ the best talent possible, irrespective of full-time or
part-time status.
- Strongly agree – The requirement forces the
university to diminish the quality of its offerings, representing a hardship
to our students.
- Agree
- It is a challenge to find Ph.D. qualified faculty in some areas, also
resource implications.
- Agree
– increased cost of instruction.
§
Agree - We have had to
decrease our program size.
- Agree
– This is true as it relates to the involvement of retired and experienced
teachers in the supervision of student teachers. All of our supervisors are
carefully selected because of their experience, qualifications, commitment to
preparing future teachers and their ability to mentor pre-service teachers.
Although many are retired and limited in the amount of additional income that
they can accrue, hence their part-time status, they are strong believers that
future teachers need quality guidance and preparation. An unintended
consequence of this regulation will be to significantly reduce the rich and
varied experiences that our students would be exposed to. Additionally, budget
restrictions typically place constraints on colleges and universities ability
to hire full-time faculty.
Comments in
response to: limiting the number of semester hours faculty can teach and
ensuring program quality
- Establishing
a State requirement limiting the number of hours faculty can teach is
inappropriate. The State should concern itself with outcomes, not "inputs."
Institutional context varies significantly from school-to-school. Such a
requirement also ignores the fact that hundreds of schools expect faculty to
teach 12 hours per semester (i.e. a 4-4 course load), and these small
independent colleges are known for their quality of teaching and personal
attention to students. Faculty in
all other departments on this College campus are expected to teach 12 hours
per semester, except for the teacher education faculty. The issue is also a
matter of total workload, not just teaching load. Each school and its faculty,
administration and governing board should establish what is an appropriate
workload. Also, the State regulation ignores the issue of balance between
teaching, scholarship and service. Schools that have a teaching load of less
than 24 hours per year also tend to have more rigorous expectations for
scholarship.
- Faculty
cannot conduct research and writing if their teaching load is too heavy.
- The
University needs flexibility in faculty assignments. Among the many issues that are
considered in making faculty assignments is adherence to our Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
- Flexibility
is important to the strength of the program and its personnel.
- In our opinion, any imposition of a
universal ceiling on the number of semester hours a professor may teach does
more harm than good. It
constrains program development and/or growth at a time when more trained
teachers are needed in the schools; it bans certain dedicated faculty from
doing what they most love to do at a level of involvement where they have the
broadest impact; it blurs irrationally the distinction between inexperienced
faculty who are still finding their way (and who have no business spending
time on an overload course) and highly experienced faculty who have taught the
course in question numerous times, are expert in it, and want to take it on as
an overload; it tells experienced faculty that they are in a profession in
which--unlike their colleagues in every other discipline--they can never earn
any overload compensation for their dedication to teaching; and it sends this
message on the basis of the most questionable of notions about the
relationship of faculty workload to program quality.
Our institution has no qualms about a ceiling
on the number of semester hours "assigned" to faculty in the sense of being
required; that concept is built into our faculty contracts. But a ceiling on teaching assignments
requested by faculty, of benefit to our students, and imposed by a third-party
agency that knows neither our faculty nor our students--that is a serious
concern. We recommend flexibility in this regard and a focus on student outcomes
as the measure of program quality.
- The
requirement provides the faculty time needed for curriculum development,
teaching, advising, mentoring, providing feedback to students,
etc.
- Hours are already defined by union
contract.
- Needs
to be consistent with the workload of all faculty in the college and with the
mission of the institution.
Comments in response to: specific
programmatic limitations the faculty load requirement has created for
institutions
- Inequities among
faculty.
- Morale
of faculty; standards for promotion and tenure not consistent university wide.
§
Our faculty are accustomed to
being able to earn more money by occasionally going above the limit of 12.
§
Over the long haul, faculty
workload requirements will drive up tuition rates for students since it will be
impossible to limit such a state requirement only to teacher education faculty.
The long-term implication for this College is a budget issue. Also, this State
requirement currently creates a two-tier faculty and most definitely interferes
with collective bargaining.
§
Impacts the ability to bring
a more diversified pool of faculty to the institution
§
Creates disparity between
programs at the institution.
§
Removes flexibility to
respond to illness, sabbaticals, special skills, unanticipated enrollments,
etc., etc.
§
The specialized knowledge
possessed by a specific professor requires sometimes that the professor go on
overload.
§
It conflicts with our desire
to have more full-time faculty involvement in the field (student teaching
supervision).
§
Controlled by
contract.
§
The contract calls for a 21
credit workload even when a faculty member teaches only graduate courses.
§
We cannot afford for the new
teacher education requirement to have a material effect on faculty in
non-education programs. It is not generally known at this time that our current
faculty members will be joined in the future by faculty whose teaching loads are
higher than theirs. When it becomes known, teacher education faculty will become
identified as an unfairly privileged elite.
Comments in response to: the proposal that provides performance-based flexibility on the full-time faculty requirement and the maximum number of semester hours faculty are permitted to teach to institutions with programs that have achieved accreditation and meet or exceed the 80 percent pass rate on teacher certification exams.
§
The current arrangement
penalizes institutions that are effective, as demonstrated by the State's own
indices.
§
Evidence shows this is an
effective mechanism.
§
We will continue to maintain
an appropriate balance between full and part-time faculty through our Flagship
and Cluster Hire programs and through individual campus
initiatives.
§
NCATE Accreditation, in
particular, is a very strong indicator of quality programs, which support strong
candidate performance.
§
Accreditation status and test
scores are just two indicators of program quality. Others include student satisfaction on
mentoring, advising, and interactions with faculty. Feedback from student surveys support
the premise that full-time faculty are more effective in filling these roles
than are part-time faculty, who are not expected to advise or facilitate
long-term mentoring programs for students.
§
As education moves toward a
greater emphasis on outcomes assessment, such a regulation change would seem
appropriate.
§
The requirement that teacher education
programs be accredited, and the periodic review requirements for accredited
programs represent sufficient and appropriate assurance of program quality. Duplication of this review by NYSED is
redundant and increases the burden of oversight needlessly. We need to simplify and streamline all
review processes, including new program registration - accreditor approval
should be sufficient without additional NYSED review.
§
There has been too much over-regulation by
SED of teacher education programs.
Meeting approved accreditation standards should be sufficient. In addition, public institutions are
required to respond to the recommendations under New Visions adding an
additional set of regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity respond to these important
issues.
§
Our college
elected TEAC as its teacher education accreditor. TEAC requires annual reports which I
believe should also be accepted by NYSED as evidence of continuing
quality.
§
Flexibility is key to both the ratio of
full-time to part-time faculty and teaching loads. If institutions continue to demonstrate
acceptable performance, then it seems reasonable to allow them to make
professional decisions regarding means for that achievement. NYSED and the Regents have set an agenda
that is outcome based. It is
consistent with the agenda to allow each institution to determine its own path
to the expected outcomes.
§
By meeting national and professional
accreditation by NCATE and Specialized Professional Associations, universities
demonstrate the quality of their programs, faculty teaching in the programs, and
teacher candidates graduating from these programs and obtaining certification
through time.
§
We applaud the high standards the Regents
have adopted for teacher education and have worked assiduously to meet and
exceed them. It would not be in the
public interest to reduce standards.
§
Thank you for inviting our input on the
regulations on teacher preparation that are under review. First of all, let me
say that I believe all accredited programs in American higher education should
be more outcomes-based rather than emphasizing inputs or resources devoted to
the program. I believe that any institution that is producing well-qualified
teachers should have the flexibility to determine how they retain the professors
in their program and the hours that they teach. That said, in our case, we don’t
regard the current regulations on the number of full-time faculty and faculty
workload to be excessively restrictive; rather, these regulations provide
reasonable benchmarks that should be attainable for all institutions that
prepare teachers in New York State. Second, with regard to the regulations that
“teachers must now complete a master’s degree or higher within three years of
receiving an initial certificate” we are also supportive of revisiting this
policy. It seems that granting candidates additional time to complete the
master’s degree would be entirely appropriate given the realities of many
teacher candidates’ life circumstances. We also agree that graduate study in
education may take on special value and meaning for teachers who have completed
a few years of teaching experience. Nevertheless, we remain fully supportive of
the requirement that all professionally certified teachers in New York State
must be prepared to at least the master’s degree level. There should be no drift
from this essential goal, even if we are able to allow new teachers additional
time to meet it.
§
We believe that sufficient data now exist to
revisit the issues of full-time requirements, workload, and three-year master’s
degree requirements. Based upon our
experiences, we support retaining the full-time faculty requirement with the
possible exception of hard-to-staff/retain areas. We support retaining the workload
limitations and lengthening the time for master’s degree completion to five
years. In both cases, we believe
that students will be best-served and the quality of programs and experiences
will be enhanced. As stated
previously, faculty now must divide their time and energy among teaching,
research, and service. To add more
teaching responsibility may negatively impact quality of teaching. The same principle applies to the
master’s degree requirement.
Inservice teachers must fill many roles and responsibilities, only one of
which is that of a graduate student.
Allowing them more time to complete advanced degree requirements will be
in their best professional interest, as well as in the best interest of their
students in grades Pre-kindergarten- 12.
Overall,
the new certification regulations are sound and a significant improvement over
the past. They do require
institutions to become more serious about teacher education and begin allocating
the resources needed to prepare future teachers.
Comments in
response to: concerns that the three-year Master’s degree requirement has
presented
- The requirement of a Master’s degree in
three years detracts from the attention a new teacher can give to his/her
job. It may negatively affect
teaching performance.
- More
experienced students make for richer class discussion and better learning.
- The
first year of teaching is uniquely challenging with a significant number of
adjustments – new teachers should not have an additional obligation to take
graduate courses – let them become good teachers!
- Need
for flexibility due to complex lives.
- Students
are moving directly to graduate work rather than going into the schools.
- Retention
of new teachers in the profession.
- Students
express considerable concern about this requirement. Five years would be a
much more reasonable requirement. This requirement also puts at risk the
State's ability to produce the number of qualified teachers it will need over
the next decade.
The Regents
and the Department appreciate the feedback received from the
colleges and universities that responded to the Presidents’ survey
including: