Jump To

The TeachStrong Theory of Change

The TeachStrong coalition has adopted nine principles we believe must be put in practice in order to modernize and elevate the teaching profession. This policy proposal from the TeachStrong coalition explains how we can reimagine teacher preparation to make it more rooted in classroom practice and a professional knowledge base, with universal high standards for all candidates. This proposal builds out Principle Two, the second of the nine TeachStrong principles. Although this proposal addresses just one principle, the nine principles affect and build upon one another and must be aligned to achieve systemic changes to the teaching profession.

Thoughtful changes across the teaching career continuum are necessary to improve teaching and learning for all students—especially students of color and those from low-income families. While higher expectations for students and schools have heightened the demands placed on teachers, the systems that are designed to support teachers have not kept pace. These gaps are especially apparent in high-needs schools.

This campaign seeks to promote changes that span a teacher’s career, starting with recruitment and preparation and continuing on through compensation and career pathways, paying particular attention to the importance of the professional context in which teachers work. The TeachStrong coalition believes that all aspects of the teaching profession must be addressed in a systemic way; only then can we create a self-reinforcing cycle through which the status of the profession is raised along with the quality of teaching and learning in our nation’s classrooms.

We need a comprehensive approach to addressing the teacher pipeline because we have seen that piecemeal policy changes do not work. In the past, there have been attempts to address singular aspects of the teacher pipeline, and while these efforts may have made significant changes to one area, the system as a whole remained largely unchanged. For example, if we were to focus solely on preparation programs, it might give beginning teachers a stronger start. But student learning will not significantly improve if teacher training and development are ineffective or if teachers do not have opportunities to lead. In combination, however, changes in these areas could have powerful, lasting effects. Moreover, if we are to ensure that great teaching consistently reaches all students, we must explicitly address inequities in access to our strongest educators for low-income students and students of color.

No one simple policy fix will be enough to move the system as a whole. Many of the institutions responsible for educating, training, and setting policy for teachers operate in isolated silos that are sometimes disconnected from teachers themselves. The work is not easy: Policymakers must strive for a comprehensive system while factoring in other realities, such as existing political landscapes and the unique situations and contexts of individual states. However, as demonstrated by the consensus achieved by the diverse TeachStrong coalition around these nine principles, success is possible.

To achieve the kinds of dramatic changes we need for student achievement—and for those changes to be sustainable for teachers, students, and taxpayers alike—we need dramatic changes to all aspects of the systems designed to support teachers.

Challenges facing teacher preparation

The profession of teaching has changed significantly since a generation ago. Teachers are now teaching to new, more challenging standards; working to provide more personalized learning experiences that better meet the individual needs of all students; and adjusting their instruction to appropriately incorporate new technologies that enhance and expand student learning. Traditional teacher preparation programs, which continue to prepare the vast majority of new teachers, and alternative preparation programs alike are therefore being asked to prepare new teachers to meet these higher standards.2

While the field of teacher preparation has made significant advances in recent decades—creating stronger clinical partnerships, developing better performance assessments, making better use of newly available data sources, meeting more demanding state approval and national accreditation standards, and developing new models and patterns of preparation—not all of these advances have been universally adopted at the program level.3 To consolidate the gains and to overcome challenges to implementing universal high standards for admission and academic rigor in teacher preparation, states, school districts, and teacher preparation programs must work together to enact key policy changes. Too few teacher preparation providers incorporate rigorous admission requirements, fully integrate theory and practice, and provide sufficiently rich clinical preparation.4

Entry requirements for candidates into teacher preparation programs vary widely. Many elite colleges and universities no longer offer undergraduate teacher preparation programs, and many teacher preparation programs are housed within less selective colleges.5 Nonetheless, the academic profiles of teaching candidates in regional comprehensive universities are high relative to other programs offered in those schools.6 Furthermore, many teacher preparation programs do not have admission criteria beyond those of their home institution, and only have access to a pool of candidates already admitted to the overarching college or university.7 For these reasons among others, the average SAT scores of students going into education have historically been lower than those of their peers entering other professions, although there is some evidence that this is shifting.8

The public believes that we should increase the selectivity of teacher preparation programs: 60 percent of Americans say that entrance requirements for preparation programs should be more rigorous.9 While 85 percent of undergraduate teacher preparation programs require a GPA for admission and more than half of graduate programs include an essay as an application requirement, there is still a long way to go.10 The average GPA entrance requirement for a bachelor’s degree in education in 2013 was 2.6—even though the average GPA of bachelor’s degree candidates admitted to teacher preparation programs was more than 3.2.11 Formal expectations lag behind practice, as 13 states now mandate that all teacher preparation programs acquire accreditation through the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, which requires teacher preparation programs to institute a minimum cohort GPA—or the minimum average of the incoming class—of 3.0.12

SAT scores and GPAs are important measures of the academic abilities of incoming prospective teachers, but they are only moderate predictors of later teaching performance.13 Both teacher preparation programs and alternative certification programs are beginning to search for other traits and dispositions that may be better predictors of teachers’ abilities to drive student learning once in the classroom. For example, some programs screen for traits such as grit and cultural competency as a way to get a more holistic view of a teacher candidate’s abilities and potential.14

In addition to varying entry requirements, the relevance of the training teacher candidates receive also varies greatly. Coursework in some programs is overly focused on theory, without demonstrating its practical applications in classrooms.15 There may also be gaps in the content of the curriculum, as compared to the skills teachers will be expected to have once they enter the classroom. For example, a focus on literacy across the content areas is now considered best practice and is standard in many school districts, but many programs need to strengthen coursework on literacy instruction for prospective teachers seeking a content-area certification.16 Furthermore, all teacher preparation programs have yet to coalesce around a common understanding of accomplished practice, though the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, or the National Board, has taken steps to provide teacher preparation programs with access to model teaching lessons. In part due to this lack of consensus around the characteristics of expert teaching, some preparation programs have been criticized for not providing students with appropriately rigorous coursework that sets them up to be successful in what can be an extremely challenging profession.17

Despite progress, too many candidates still lack access to rigorous and meaningful clinical experiences. Excellent clinical placements—through which teachers-in-training have the opportunity to learn and practice skills under the supervision of master teachers—must be central to any teacher preparation program. However, the length and rigor of clinical training experiences in teacher preparation programs vary. Some programs require that students complete 600 clinical training hours through student teaching. As recently as 2010, other programs—all of which are alternative certification programs—reported that their students did not complete any clinical training hours.18 While changes to state and program policies have increased the extent of clinical experiences, barriers remain to ensuring the desired quality in all placements.

Both new and experienced teachers repeatedly cite classroom-based experiences and student teaching as the most critical elements of their preparation.19 Surveys of new teachers demonstrate that one in three feels unprepared on his or her first day, and that they believe their preparation could have been improved with clinical preparation earlier in their training process.20 Sixty-two percent of all new teachers say they were unprepared for the classroom after they graduated from their teacher preparation program.21

While many states require a student teaching experience that lasts at least 10 weeks, there are few states that set specific requirements on the quality of that clinical training.22 Though quantity of clinical training matters for new teachers, quality is paramount. Clinical experiences should start as early as possible, provide varied opportunities for teachers to learn, and include supervising teachers with exemplary teaching and mentoring skills. Developing this kind of program requires a great deal of collaboration between teacher preparation programs and local school districts that current policy frameworks do not adequately support.

Clinical experiences can be incorporated within traditional teacher preparation or high-quality alternative certification programs, and should be coupled with extensive support at the school level once teachers begin leading classrooms of their own. In order to develop their skills in the classroom, teachers should undergo clinical experiences that include a gradual release of responsibility, high-quality coaching and feedback, and the opportunity to observe mentor and other skilled teachers. These clinical experiences must provide the opportunity for teachers “to practice the application of their developing knowledge and skills.”23 Resident doctors undergo years of clinical training, during which they cultivate new skills and gradually assume increased responsibility.24 All teachers should receive similarly structured and extensive clinical preparation.

As the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Blue Ribbon Panel noted, “This demanding, clinically based approach will create varied and extensive opportunities for candidates to connect what they learn with the challenge of using it, while under the expert tutelage of skilled clinical educators.”25 Through clinical experiences that include embedded coaching and high-quality supports, prospective teachers can learn from veteran and mentor teachers with exemplary teaching skills, and acquire skills from teachers with track records of success. Including high-quality clinical experiences in teacher preparation programs can ensure that teachers are better prepared to confront the myriad challenges of teaching when they are first handed the keys to their classrooms.

Successful teacher preparation programs, along with high-quality alternative certification programs, are critical to ensuring that all of America’s classroom teachers are prepared to serve their students. Many programs struggle to prioritize selectivity, rigorous coursework, or clinical training, often due to a lack of collaboration with universities and school districts or because they lack the data to determine how program features affect graduates’ outcomes once in the classroom. Though some states, including Tennessee and Louisiana, have systems in place to collect this information, most states do not collect useful data about preparation program performance.26 In order to move the needle on teaching quality and student achievement, policymakers and teacher preparation programs must address these key challenges together.

How reimagining teacher preparation can modernize and elevate the teaching profession

Countries that have higher standards for prospective teachers are able to attract very high-caliber candidates to the profession. For example, in South Korea, teacher preparation programs recruit primary school teachers from the top 5 percent of high school students.27 In Finland, teacher preparation programs accept only 10 percent of applicants.28 Adopting universal high standards for all candidates who enter teacher preparation programs, whether measured by GPA or more performance-based criteria, can help guarantee that future teachers are high-achieving individuals with track records of success. These high-performing countries also prioritize other components of the teaching profession—including providing teachers with ample time to collaborate and plan.

Ensuring universal high standards for all candidates in teacher preparation programs, along with professional salaries and improved working conditions that raise the status of teaching, can increase the number of high-potential entrants into the profession. Other professions, such as medicine, are models of this strategy. The medical field maintains a high bar for entry, ensuring that future practitioners have records of academic excellence. In 2013—with enrollment at an all-time high—only 20,055 of the 48,014 applicants to medical school matriculated.29 Further, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, medical school applicants had an average undergraduate GPA of more than 3.5.30

Additionally, when teacher preparation includes high-quality clinical training, it provides an opportunity for veteran teachers to advance along a career pathway other than a position in administration—assuming leadership roles by becoming mentor teachers. Mentor teachers with track records of success can take on additional responsibilities, including modeling lessons and providing thorough, actionable feedback and one-on-one support to new teachers. When states and school districts also pair these additional responsibilities with mentor training and higher pay, they ensure that mentor teachers are compensated fairly for their new role.

By taking these steps, teacher preparation programs can elevate the teaching profession, making teaching a more attractive career choice. In countries with high standards for teacher candidates, the teaching profession is highly respected. In Finland, for instance, teaching is one of the most admired professions; in South Korea, teaching is the most popular career choice among young people.31 Thirty-three percent of a representative sample of college students in the United States—excluding education majors—said they would be much more likely to consider teaching if we “raise standards for teacher preparation programs to make them more competitive.”32 It is essential that teacher preparation programs acknowledge and respond to students’ perception of teacher training. Improving the status of the profession, especially when combined with increased compensation and other changes to working conditions, can encourage more prospective teachers to enter teacher preparation programs.

Most importantly, improving the pipeline of novice teachers will help better serve students of color and students in low-income communities, who need great teachers the most. Because students in high-poverty schools are more likely to be taught by first-year teachers, the dearth of high-quality preparation may contribute to the achievement gap.33 Improving educational opportunities for low-income students and students of color can ultimately lead them to pursue post-secondary education and teaching careers at higher rates. This, in turn, could both strengthen and diversify the teacher pipeline.

Examples of high-quality teacher preparation

Though many teacher preparation programs still have room to grow, there are numerous programs that can serve as exemplars. These model programs attract strong candidates, incorporate clinical training, have strong relationships with local school districts, and utilize performance-based assessments to determine the effectiveness of teachers-in-training.

For example, Colorado State University, or CSU, has partnered with the Poudre School District, or PSD, to provide clinical practice opportunities for future teachers. The partnership allows students in CSU’s preparation program to spend two years completing integrated school experiences through which they gain exposure to classroom settings and gradually assume greater teaching responsibilities. Through their partnership with CSU, PSD ensures that CSU’s preparation program is training teachers to meet PSD’s unique district needs—CSU prepares teachers for the necessary subject and grade level positions.34 The partnership has helped place one-third of the faculty at Fort Collins High School, all of whom graduated from CSU’s teacher preparation program.35

Ohio University has developed a teacher preparation program that focuses on clinically based preparation through sustained, yearlong clinical experiences, teacher mentoring, and school performance-based outcomes.36 The program develops students’ understanding of cultural issues by giving students the opportunity to complete a field exercise in a diverse, urban school setting.37 This kind of clinical experience is critical for teachers-in-training to gain a deeper knowledge of the challenges faced by urban schools.38 A recent survey of teachers showed that student teaching opportunities provided new teachers with critical, on-the-job experience working with high-need populations.39 Many teachers reported that these experiences were even more meaningful than classes.40 Despite the value of these experiences, more than half of teachers reported that they did not receive any instruction in their preservice programs related to serving in areas of high-need/persistently low-achieving populations.41

Arizona State University, or ASU, has also prioritized clinical training, and in doing so has established strong relationships with local schools. ASU pioneered the iTeachAZ program, which the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement recognized as a model program in 2014.42 The program partners with local schools to utilize school sites for its undergraduate classes, where clinical faculty are based, and encourage practical applications of more theoretical pedagogy.43 The program places student teachers in local elementary and middle schools for an academic year, and partners students with mentor teachers to facilitate learning and provide guidance. Additionally, students at Arizona State must prove classroom mastery through a series of performance-based assessments developed by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, or NIET.44 During these assessments, a mentor teacher observes and records a teacher candidate; both the mentor teacher and the teacher candidate then use the video and student work to analyze the lesson together.45 The partnership between the university, participating schools, and the nonprofit NIET has created the opportunity to integrate effective teaching practices into practicum and coursework.46

Some school districts have also cultivated strong relationships with teacher preparation programs to provide teacher candidates with clinical experiences. In Oregon, Salem-Keizer Public Schools partners with Corban and Western Oregon universities to provide clinical training to prospective and new teachers.47 The school district disaggregates data on the success of their teachers by preparation provider, allowing each preparation program to access the data and reflect on their areas for improvement. As part of the partnership, university faculty members are embedded at clinical schools, and all mentor teachers are prepared through an intensive summer training program. Lastly, the Salem-Keizer school district and its partner universities prioritize the recruitment and support of diverse teacher candidates through a so-called grow-your-own program. University faculty and Salem-Keizer teachers lead Teacher Cadet classes at the high-school level; the partnership then supports these high-school students as they transition to one of the university’s teacher preparation programs by providing both mentorship and work experiences.

TNTP, formerly The New Teacher Project, is an example of an alternative certification program that is prioritizing clinical training, strong district partnerships, and performance-based assessments. TNTP runs the Teaching Fellows program, which has trained more than 24,000 teachers in more than 20 urban areas nationwide.48 To ensure a high-achieving, diverse teacher cohort, TNTP actively recruits high-qualified candidates and provides them with intensive training.49 Preservice training for Teaching Fellows focuses on foundational teaching skills and classroom experience.50

TNTP’s Teaching Fellows program meets rigorous selectivity and training standards: Before candidates enter the program, TNTP Teaching Fellows complete a three-phase selection process, during which Teaching Fellows must demonstrate content mastery and the traits of successful teachers.51 Teaching Fellows enroll in a teacher preparation program concurrently with their service, and have the opportunity to collaborate with other Fellows, staff, and experienced teachers. Expert coaches provide feedback throughout summer training, and also during Teaching Fellows’ first year of teaching.52 The program also streamlines the pathway to teaching for career changers and recent graduates to build a larger pool of talented teachers for high-need schools and subjects, without sacrificing teacher quality.53

These programs, traditional and alternative alike, can serve as models for the multitude of teacher preparation programs that seek to attract strong candidates, increase selectivity, incorporate quality clinical training, and form crucial partnerships with local school districts. When all teacher preparation programs prioritize high standards for entry and coursework, and collaborate with school districts to provide clinical preparation and maximize teacher placements, new teachers will begin their careers prepared to excel.


States and teacher preparation programs should maintain a high bar for entry and use data to improve. States and teacher preparation programs must work together to ensure that all teacher candidates are well-prepared to serve students. States and teacher preparation programs, both traditional and alternative, have a powerful role to play in setting high standards for program selectivity and quality.

All states should require a cohort average undergraduate GPA of 3.0 for teacher candidates as well as a screening exam that measures students’ academic skills. By increasing selectivity into the profession, states and school districts can make teaching a more attractive professional option for high-achieving candidates. Though a high GPA does not necessarily predict teaching ability, it is important that candidates who will be responsible for students’ academic growth meet a reasonable academic threshold themselves.

Traditional teacher preparation programs
Traditional teacher preparation programs and the institutions that host them should consider applicants more holistically, beyond just GPA, including their disposition for the classroom. Many programs that employ more comprehensive selection processes enjoy more diverse cohorts of teacher candidates.54 Teacher preparation programs should screen candidates for traits associated with being an effective teacher, including responsiveness to feedback.55 All programs should carefully analyze data on the placement and success of teacher candidates, and report these key data to their respective states.

Alternative teacher preparation programs
Though alternative teacher preparation programs adopt a variety of models, they should adhere to high standards of selectivity and quality. This includes ensuring that teacher candidates possess a disposition for success as a teacher, and receive high-quality clinical training from well-trained mentors with track records of success. Alternative teacher preparation programs should have flexibility to create and adhere to their chosen model, while also being held accountable for their outcomes. All programs should carefully analyze data on the placement and success of teacher candidates, and report these key data to their respective states.

States, school districts, and teacher preparation programs should work together to provide teachers-in-training with high-quality clinical preparation, including residency experiences. As part of their monitoring and approval process for teacher preparation programs, states should prioritize identifying sustainable funding strategies in cooperation with local education agencies and institutes of higher education, and should incentivize both teacher preparation programs and school districts to provide teachers-in-training at least one full year of clinical experience prior to a teacher becoming the teacher of record. Such clinical placements should ensure that this clinical training incorporates significant classroom time, gradual release of responsibility, and trained mentor teachers with exemplary teaching skills and proven track records of success. These efforts should include support for preparation program faculty who engage deeply with local schools and educators who host teacher candidates.

Title II of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 allows state and local education agencies to dedicate funds to develop induction programs and residencies for new teachers and school leaders. States and school districts should take advantage of Title II funds to create programs that allow new teachers to experience clinical training. In collaboration with their state and school district, teacher preparation programs should provide prospective teachers with several opportunities to observe accomplished teachers, gradually develop their skills in a classroom setting, and receive valuable feedback from well-trained, skilled mentors with track records of success. Schools and school districts should provide mentors and mentees with common planning time and provide mentors with additional compensation. High-quality performance assessments should serve as a capstone clinical experience and be part of improving the quality of preparation programs.

Teacher preparation programs should provide students with rigorous coursework and use models of excellent teaching. Teacher preparation programs and undergraduate institutions should provide students with high-quality, rigorous coursework aligned with the pedagogical skills and content knowledge proven to influence their students’ future success. For example, the nonprofit Educators 4 Excellence suggests that teacher preparation curricula should cover five areas of knowledge: strategies, content, diversity, context and theory, and design.56 Many other organizations have similar recommendations for teacher preparation programs that seek to provide students with high-quality, rigorous coursework. Research suggests that curricula should include strategies for classroom organization and behavior management, tools for linking assessment and instruction, and research-based instructional methods and frameworks, including increased attention to literacy instruction.57 States should incentivize the inclusion of rigorous coursework within teacher preparation, and can require these essential components as part of their accreditation processes.

Preparation programs should also provide prospective teachers with many chances to see expert practice modeled. When possible, this learning should take place in K-12 classrooms, but these experiences can also be supplemented by live classroom demonstrations, videos and reflective papers of National Board certified teachers, peer learning labs, and student-teacher simulations. These resources can provide a common understanding of what accomplished practice requires and set prospective teachers on a path to such achievement. For example, the National Board has expanded the use of these types of videos and reflective papers through its Accomplished Teaching, Learning and Schools, or ATLAS, library, which is currently used by more than 50 preparation programs nationwide.58

In other professions, the content of preparation programs is standardized around principles of accomplished practice, and the faculty are themselves accomplished practitioners. Similarly, teacher preparation programs should ensure that they have faculty who are expert teachers. Therefore, hiring and tenure rules at universities should support accomplished clinical faculty and include opportunities for faculty to stay active and engaged in K-12 classrooms.

States, school districts, and teacher preparation programs should work together to collect and connect data on the performance of graduates, teacher vacancies, graduate retention, teacher salaries, and principal satisfaction of teacher preparation program graduates. Districts, states, and teacher preparation programs should work together to determine which institution is best suited to collect which data. Each state should be responsible for organizing and collating data on a statewide level so that a more holistic view of teacher preparation can be provided to both preparation programs and individual districts. These data can feed a system in which teacher preparation programs undertake continuous improvement and can receive government grant funding or regulatory relief if they demonstrate success.

When data on the success, placement, and retention of graduates as teachers of record can be linked to program admission and candidate performance data, teacher preparation programs will have enhanced capacities to study and improve curricula and clinical experiences to ensure that graduates are well-trained to serve students. Teacher preparation programs should collect data from program graduates on job satisfaction and how preparation schools may improve their programming. Applicants can use data on student satisfaction, job placement, and teacher effectiveness to select and apply to the strongest teacher preparation programs. Lastly, school districts can use these data to improve their induction programs and to identify which teacher preparation programs are most effective at preparing teachers for their context.

States should link new program accreditation to labor market demand. States should require each teacher preparation program seeking accreditation to conduct a needs assessment to show that their program meets labor market demand. Some states have already demonstrated success in implementing this type of approval process. Massachusetts, for example, prevented 60 to 80 new programs from opening in existing teacher preparation schools because they were not able to establish a regional need for the additional program.59 This process ensures that teacher candidates are ultimately able to enter the workforce and begin their careers, having been prepared by programs that meet their regional or state labor needs.


  1. Amanda Ripley, “The U.S. Needs More Rigorous and Selective Teacher Colleges,” The New York Times, March 3, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/03/how-to-ensure-and-improve-teacher-quality/the-us-needs-more-rigoruous-and-selective-teacher-colleges.
  2. Office of Postsecondary Education, Enrollment in Teacher Preparation Programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2015), available at https://title2.ed.gov/Public/44077_Title_II_Issue_Brief_Enrollment.pdf.
  3. Sharon Robinson, “‘Building Better Teachers’: Advances in Teacher Preparation,” American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education EdPrepMatters blog, October 3, 2014, available at http://edprepmatters.net/2014/10/building-better-teachers-advances-in-teacher-preparation/.
  4. CTQ TeacherSolutions Teacher Prep Team, “TEACHING 2030: Leveraging Teacher Preparation 2.0” (Carrboro, NC: Center for Teaching Quality, 2013),available at http://www.teachingquality.org/sites/default/files/TEACHING_2030_Leveraging_Teacher_Preparation.pdf.
  5. Dan Goldhaber and Joe Walch, “Gains in Teacher Quality,” EducationNext 14 (1) (2014), available at http://educationnext.org/gains-in-teacher-quality/.
  6. Ibid.
  7. CTQ TeacherSolutions Teacher Prep Team, “TEACHING 2030: Leveraging Teacher Preparation 2.0.
  8. Goldhaber and Walch, “Gains in Teacher Quality.”
  9. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, “PDK/Gallup Polls Shows Public Support for Quality Teacher Preparation,” Press release, September 16, 2014, available at https://aacte.org/news-room/press-releases-statements/476-pdk-gallup-poll-shows-public-support-for-quality-teacher-preparation.
  10. Yupin Bae and Michelle Kotek, “Entry Requirements for Teacher Preparation Programs: Another Look at Title II Data,” American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education EdPrepMatters blog, May 23, 2016, available at http://edprepmatters.net/2016/05/entry-requirements-for-teacher-preparation-programs-another-look-at-title-ii-data/.
  11. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, “The Changing Teacher Preparation Profession” (2013), available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiCnK25ndfKAhWFHR4KHew0DugQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.aacte.org%2Fapps%2Frl%2Fres_get.php%3Ffid%3D145&usg=AFQjCNHASlDGREoV43HeoEdsbdmTnWkdDg&sig2=pbwBBJRY6f4eVpOcxcRL-g.
  12. Personal communication from Tiffany Erickson, director of communications and public relations, Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, April 5, 2016.
  13. Jonah E. Rockoff and others, “Can You Recognize an Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?” Working Paper 14485 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008), available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/12/12hiring.h34.html.
  14. Stephen Sawchuck, “Study: Close Screening Process Can Improve Teacher Hires,” Education Week, November 11, 2014, available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/12/12hiring.h34.html.
  15. Educators 4 Excellence, “Accelerating the Learning Curve: Re-Envisioning the Teacher Preparation Experience” (2015), available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/286436720/Accelerating-the-Learning-Curve-Re-envisioning-the-Teacher-Preparation-Experience#fullscreen.
  16. Vicki Urquhart and Dana Frazee, “Reading Across the Content Areas,” ASCD Express 8 (6) (2012), available at http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol8/806-urquhart.aspx; International Literacy Association, “Preliminary Report on Teacher Preparation for Literacy Instruction” (2015), available at available at http://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/teacher-preparation-report.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
  17. Educators 4 Excellence, “Accelerating the Learning Curve.”
  18. Office of Postsecondary Education, Preparing and Credentialing the Nation’s Teachers: The Secretary’s Ninth Report on Teacher Quality (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), available at https://title2.ed.gov/TitleIIReport13.pdf.
  19. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, “Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers” (2010), available at http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3D&tabid=7.
  20. American Federation of Teachers, “Raising the Bar: Aligning and Elevating Teacher Preparation and the Teaching Profession” (2012), available at http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/news/raisingthebar2013.pdf.
  21. Ibid.
  22. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, “Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers.”
  23. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, “Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice,” available at http://caepnet.org/standards/standard-2 (last accessed June 2016).
  24. American Federation of Teachers, “AFT Report on Teacher Preparation Recommends Bar-Like Exam and Demonstration of Teaching Competency,” Press release, December 2, 2012, available at http://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-report-teacher-preparation-recommends-bar-exam-and-demonstration.
  25. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, “Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers.”
  26. Tennessee Higher Education Commission, “Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs” (2014), available at https://www.tn.gov/thec/article/report-card; Board of Regents for the State of Louisiana, “Teacher Preparation Education Policy and Guidelines,” available at http://www.regents.la.gov/page/teacher-preparation-accountability-system (last accessed May 2016); Laura Bornfreund and Melissa Tooley, “Time to Improve: How Federal Policy Can Promote Better Prepared Teachers and School Leaders” (Washington: New America, 2014), available at https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/time-to-improve/.
  27. Byron Auguste, Paul Kihn, and Matt Miller, “Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top third graduates to a career in teaching”(New York: McKinsey & Company, 2010), available at http://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gap/.
  28. Ibid.
  29. Association of American Medical Colleges, “Medical School Applicants, Enrollment Reach All-time Highs,” Press release, October 24, 2013, available at https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/358410/20131024.html.
  30. Ibid.
  31. Pasi Sahlberg, “The Secret to Finland’s Success: Educating Teachers” (Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, 2010), available at https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/secret-finland%E2%80%99s-success-educating-teachers.pdf; Auguste, Kihn, and Miller. “Closing the talent gap.”
  32. Third Way, “National Online Survey of College Students – Education Attitudes,” April 28, 2014, available at http://www.thirdway.org/polling/national-online-survey-of-college-students-education-attitudes.
  33. Rebecca Klein, “These Are The States Where Poor Students Are Most Likely to Have Inexperienced Teachers,” HuffPost Politics, December 23, 2014, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/23/state-educator-equity-profiles_n_6368302.html .
  34. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, “Research-to-Practice Spotlight – Series 2: Building Partnerships” (2015), available at https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/resource.php?resid=552&ref=rl/.
  35. Christine DeGregory, “A Visitor’s View: Clinical Practice at Colorado State University,” American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education EdPrepMatters blog, November 17, 2015, available at http://edprepmatters.net/2015/11/a-visitors-view-clinical-practice-at-colorado-state-university/.
  36. Ohio University, “Traditional Teacher Preparation vs. Reimagined Clinical Model of Preparation: What’s different about the Clinical Model?” (Athens, OH: The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education’s Clinical Model of Preparation), available at https://www.ohio.edu/education/academic-programs/upload/clinicalmodelhandout_2print.pdf (last accessed June 2016) .
  37. Ohio University, “Rural/Urban Collaborative,” available at https://www.ohio.edu/education/college-offices/office-of-student-affairs/field-experiences-and-professional-internships/rural-urban-collaborative.cfm (last accessed February 2016).
  38. Hope Street Group, “On Deck: Preparing the Next Generation of Teachers” (2016), available at http://hopestreetgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/On-Deck-Preparing-the-Next-Generation-of-Teachers.pdf .
  39. Ibid.
  40. Ibid.
  41. Ibid.
  42. Arizona State University, “ASU’s iTeachAZ program praised by US Department of Education,” available at https://asunow.asu.edu/content/asus-iteachaz-program-praised-us-department-education (last accessed February 2016).
  43. Arizona State University, “iTeachAZ,” available at https://education.asu.edu/iteachaz (last accessed February 2016).
  44. Stephen Sawchuck, “Nation’s Biggest Teacher-Prep School Revamps Training,” Education Week 31 (12) (2011), available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/11/16/12azteach_ep.h31.html.
  45. iTeachAZ, “Teacher Prep Toolkit: ASU’s Teachers College’s iTeachAZ program,” available at http://teacherpreptoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/iTeachAZ-Five-Principles.pdf.
  46. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching and Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, “Growing Better Teachers and Students,” available at http://teacherpreptoolkit.com/ (last accessed May 2016).
  47. Education First, “Ensuring High-Quality Teacher Preparation,” available at http://education-first.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Ensuring-High-Quality-Teacher-Talent.pdf (last accessed May 2016).
  48. The New Teacher Project, “Teaching Fellows Programs,” available at http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTPTeachingFellowsPrograms11410F.pdf (last accessed April 2016.
  49. Ibid.
  50. NYC Teaching Fellows, “Training New Fellows,” available at http://www.nycteachingfellows.org/program/training.asp (last accessed April 2016).
  51. The New Teacher Project, “Teaching Fellows Programs.”
  52. TNTP Teaching Fellows, “Why Teaching Fellows,” available at http://tntpteachingfellows.org/why-teaching-fellows#training(last accessed April 2016).
  53. Ibid.
  54. Teach For America, “Workforce Diversity and Inclusiveness,” available at https://www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/careers/life-at-tfa/workforce-diversity-and-inclusiveness(last accessed May 2016).
  55. TNTP “The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development” (2015), available at http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf.
  56. Educators 4 Excellence, “Preparing for the Classroom: A Vision for Teacher Training in the 21st Century” (2013), available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/148818377/Preparing-for-the-Classroom-A-Vision-for-Teacher-Training-in-the-21st-Century.
  57. Jane G. Coggshall, Lauren Bivona, and Daniel J. Reschly, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Programs for Support and Accountability” (Washington: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2012), available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543773.pdf.
  58. Personal communication from Seth Gerson, director, government relations, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, February 24, 2016.
  59. Carmel Martin, Lisette Partelow, and Catherine Brown, “Smart, Skilled, and Striving: Transforming and Elevating the Teaching Profession” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2015), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/11/03/123747/smart-skilled-and-striving/ .