IN THIS ISSUE:
Profiles in Leadership
Lilian Katz: Reflections
Current Early Care
and Education Initiatives
Winter 2008 Homepage
Past Issues
Send a message
to a friend
about Gateways!
|
Lilian Katz: Reflections
Does Teacher Training Matter?
Introduction
The question “Does teacher training matter?” is not new. The question can be
traced back at least 50 years in reference to training for teachers at every
level. In fact, criticism of the effectiveness of professional training in all
fields goes back a long way.
For example, years ago, while we were living in California, my late husband
completed a degree in civil engineering, studying for years the science of how
to design buildings to withstand earthquakes, fires, and other stresses. But on
the first day of his employment, his boss said, “OK, you’re in the real world
now. We have to meet the state building code standards, but if we want to win
contracts, our designs have to come up with much lower construction costs than
our competitors do.” As Grossman1 points out in a
recent review of research challenging the effectiveness of teacher education at
every level, lawyers and social workers also report that they learn what is
really needed to practice their professions only after they are “on the job.”
But not all of the problems with teacher education are common to all
professions. In discussions of elementary and secondary teacher training, there
is much emphasis on teachers’ “really knowing the subject” they are to teach.
But what would that be for pre-K teachers? How much expertise should they have
in all the subjects likely to be involved in an early childhood curriculum?
Most early childhood teacher education programs emphasize learning child
development and teaching methods rather than mastery of subjects like
mathematics and science. These subjects are usually covered in methods or
curriculum courses.
Another big issue in assessing the effectiveness of teacher training in early
childhood education is what criteria of effectiveness should be used. Should
preschoolers be given tests in order to evaluate teacher effectiveness and, by
implication, the education that the teachers have received? Even if useful
tests were available, many possible factors might account for the test scores.
First and foremost, young children are notoriously poor test-takers. Second, a
wide range of factors contribute to test results—differences in the mother’s
education, family socioeconomic status, and second language learning, among
others. In addition, evidence points to relationships between the training,
qualifications, and pay of preschool teachers and the kinds of settings in
which they are likely to be employed (e.g., private schools, public schools,
Head Start programs, laboratory schools). These diverse settings vary in the
quality of the environment, equipment, support services, parental involvement,
teacher salaries, in-service training opportunities, mentoring, and in many
other ways that may over-ride the effects of teacher training.
In a review of research studies published between 1980 and 2005,2
the authors reported significant positive effects of specialized training on
the competence of caregivers in child care facilities. They found some support
for a “causal link between caregiver training, caregiver competencies and child
behavior in childcare…” (p. 294). Their findings led them to advocate emphasis
on “the inclusion of instruction related to teacher-child interaction in the
curriculum of vocational training for caregivers” (p. 294). They conclude that
their study provides “support for the direct causal link from caregiver
training to improvement of caregiver competencies” (p. 305) and the quality of
provisions for young children (see also de Schipper et al., 2007).3
In order to be able to make sound scientifically based claims about the
contribution of teacher training to the effectiveness of an early childhood
program, we would need extensive studies of teachers with a wide range of
experience and training. The teachers would need to be randomly assigned to
diverse kinds early childhood settings (e.g., private, public, Head Start,
parochial) in which a wide variety of variables were controlled (e.g., quality
of space, equipment, ratio of adults to children, curriculum being
implemented). The cost and complexity of such a research undertaking is
daunting, to say the least, and to the best of my knowledge, such studies have
not been attempted to date.
The issues here might be clarified by taking time to share retrospective
evaluations of our own training. Which experiences do we, in retrospect, think
contributed most to our own professional competence?
The individuals featured in the “Profiles in Leadership” section of this issue
of Inside Gateways — Holly Knicker
and Anne Wharff — and those featured
in the previous issue — Cass Wolfe and
Jeanne Anderson — illustrate the important interplay of formal
education and on-the-job experiences that help to prepare early care and
education professionals for leadership positions. If you know of someone whose
experience would be useful to share in future “Profiles in Leadership”
features, please let us know.
Notes
-
Grossman, Pam. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis
to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education
, 59(1), 10-23.
-
Fukkink, Ruben G., & Lont, Anna. (2007). Does training
matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly
, 22(3), 294-311.
-
de Schipper, Elles J.; Riksen-Walraven, J. Marianne; &
Geurts, Sabine A. E. (2007). Multiple determinants of caregiver behavior in
child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3),
312-326.
|