← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

Ed Schools in Texas

Many of the schools under review have already haughtily dismissed the entire report.

Some of the largest colleges of education in Texas offer poorly designed programs that leave prospective teachers unprepared for the job, according to a new report that suggests more rigorous and meaningful coursework.

The two-year study from the National Council on Teacher Quality, a research and advocacy nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., slams eight of the largest education schools, including the University of Houston’s, for seriously shortchanging aspiring teachers, particularly with inadequate math and reading instruction.

“The most consistent feature of teacher education in Texas is a lack of consistency,” according to the 500-page report, which is being officially released today. “Rather than consensus there is inter-institutional confusion as to what it means to fully prepare a teacher for the classroom.”

Some programs, for example, require aspiring middle school science teachers to take one biology course while others mandate as many as nine, according the report. At the same time, the report said, some classes and assignments don’t seem relevant or tough enough.

Texas Wesleyan University, for example, allows students to take a class called Local Spring Flora to satisfy a science requirement…

Margaret Soltan, April 29, 2010 7:09AM
Posted in: the university

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=22920

4 Responses to “Ed Schools in Texas”

  1. Phiala Says:

    I’m not trying to claim that these schools are doing it right, because I have no way of knowing. But “Local Spring Flora” caught my eye, so I looked at the link. I couldn’t find a syllabus on a quick search, but the class in question meets for 4 hours a session for 14 weeks and is taught by a biology PhD.

    If I taught it, it would be a rigorous science class – that’s plenty of classroom hours. And framing a nonmajors course around something that sounds interesting is a good way to engage students, then sneak in the taxonomy, ecology, evolution, physiology.

    I am certainly not “haughtily dismissing the entire report” and I have no experience whatsoever with the Texas university system or colleges of education anywhere. That one thing seemed a strange item to pull out for critique without further information.

  2. Margaret Soltan Says:

    Phiala: I agree with you that there’s not enough information in the article to dismiss this course – I too looked for more information, which was why I was able to link to the schedule of classes. But I couldn’t find more than that. I agree that we need at least a syllabus to be sure this is a gut course.

  3. Mr Punch Says:

    There are actually some pretty good arguments for teaching science in the early grades with reference to observable natural phenomena. Local spring flora isn’t just botany — it ties to weather, soil, insect behavior, etc., etc., as well as to agriculture, which is a science-based activity that is very important in much of Texas.

  4. theprofessor Says:

    My department is responsible for a chunk of the educational content required by a common ed major track. The state standards are impressive, and I think most graduate schools would be pleased if their MA students could meet them, let alone undergraduate elementary ed students. But–the whole thing is a joke. These students are required to take exactly ONE course in an area that is an integral part of their supposed specialty. Why no more? Something has to give so that they can take the 75+ hours of education classes.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories