Search

The 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act requires all states to report annually to the U.S. Department of Education the number of prospective teachers at each teacher training institution who pass their own state tests for licensure. However, the law left decisions on what tests to require in each field, what to assess on them, and their passing scores up to each state. To determine the content knowledge in reading and mathematics that subject tests for prospective special education teachers assess, this study drew on information available on the Web sites for Educational Testing Service, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, and National Evaluation Systems. It examined the extent to which these tests address three research-based components of reading pedagogy (instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and vocabulary knowledge), the weights attached to knowledge of these three components, and the quality of the sample questions provided for them. It estimated the percentage of test items addressing mathematics content and these three components on each test. It also analyzed the descriptions of ETS's tests of "principles of teaching and learning" to see whether these tests assess understanding and use of educational theories that underlie effective research-based practices. The findings of this study suggest that one solution for ensuring that prospective special education teachers begin their teaching careers with a substantial amount of research-based knowledge of reading instruction is to require them to take a dedicated test of research-based reading instructional knowledge, as do California, Massachusetts, and Virginia, in addition to any other tests required for their license. To ensure an adequate amount of relevant mathematical knowledge, states might consider replicating the 40-item test of mathematics content that Massachusetts will require of all aspiring elementary and special education teachers in 2009. States will also need to design their own tests of basic principles of teaching to ensure that they assess knowledge of educational theories that underlie effective research-based practices. Profiles of Thirteen Tests for Elementary and Sometimes Other Teachers are appended. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables and 5 footnotes.)

In the positive theory of public bureaucracy, the prevailing view is that the structure of public agencies is designed from the top down by political superiors. Faced with bureaucrats who may disagree with them on policy and who are advantaged by private information, superiors choose rules and procedures to try to ensure that agencies do what they are supposed to do. At least some portion of bureaucratic structure, however, cannot be explained in this way. It emerges from the bottom up through collective bargaining, it is driven by the organizational power of ordinary bureaucrats rather than by their information power, and it results in work rules intended to promote their occupational interests rather than to have any specific effects on implementation or policy--although the unintended consequences for the latter may be significant. When this happens, the theory overlooks an aspect of structure that is essential for understanding the way government operates. This paper begins to explore the connections between collective bargaining, bottom-up structure, and bureaucratic behavior. The empirical focus is on the public schools, the bureaucrats are public school teachers, and the analysis shows that a very common type of contract rule--which gives senior teachers transfer rights over jobs--affects the way teachers distribute themselves across schools, and leads to a situation in which disadvantaged schools (those with high percentages of minorities) find it especially difficult to attract quality teachers. What the analysis shows, more generally, is that even very simple types of bottom-up structure can have significant effects on bureaucrats and their agencies--and the current theory needs to recognize as much. (Contains 5 tables and 23 footnotes.)

Little scholarly attention has been paid to what aspiring principal are actually reading in the preparation courses or whether the texts prepare them for the demands of accountable management. We examine eleven of the thirteen most commonly assigned educational administration texts in a sample of 210 principal preparation syllabi. In the texts studied, of thirteen terms tracked, "performance" and/or "achievement" were the most commonly used, appearing 44.3 times per 100 pages of text. Meanwhile, the terms "efficiency," "accountability," and "termination/dismissal" were mentioned less than six times per 100 pages. The texts generally encourage the use of data but are more skeptical when it comes to using results to make tough management decisions. Three possible approaches to enhancing the content of preparation are proposed: authors broadening discussion in existing texts, publishers issuing new texts, or faculty taking steps to diversify their assigned readings. (Contains 8 tables and 5 footnotes.)