Preparing Teachers Around the World

50
POLICY INFORMATION REPORT Research and Development Policy Information Center Preparing Teachers Around the World

Transcript of Preparing Teachers Around the World

Page 1: Preparing Teachers Around the World

POLICYINFORMATIONREPORT

Research andDevelopment

Policy InformationCenter

Preparing TeachersAround the World

88503 • 023480 • U73E6I.N. 997443

Page 2: Preparing Teachers Around the World

1

CONTENTS

This report was written by:

Aubrey H. WangAshaki B. ColemanRichard J. ColeyRichard P. PhelpsEducational Testing Service

The views expressed in this reportare those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of theofficers and trustees of EducationalTesting Service.

Additional copies of this report can be orderedfor $15.00 (prepaid) from:

Policy Information CenterMail Stop 04-REducational Testing ServiceRosedale RoadPrinceton, NJ 08541-0001(609) [email protected]

Copies can also be downloaded from:www.ets.org/research/pic

Copyright © 2003 by Educational TestingService. All rights reserved. EducationalTesting Service is an Affirmative Action/EqualOpportunity Employer. Educational TestingService, ETS, the ETS logo, are registeredtrademarks of Educational Testing Service.The modernized ETS logo is a trademark ofEducational Testing Service.

May 2003

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Some Previous Research on International Comparisons . . . . . . . 11 A Model of Teacher Education and Certification Policy . . . . . . . 14 Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Providers of Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Entry Requirements: Undergraduate Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Entry Requirements: Graduate Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Mathematics and Science Teacher Education Curriculum . . . . . 19 Exit Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Practical Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Degree Earned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Teacher Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Initial Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Advanced Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Alternative Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Continuing Education and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Beginning Teacher Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Teaching Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Outcomes of Teacher Education: Preparation and Confidence . . . . . 35

Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix A: Country Demographic Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix B: Classification Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Page 3: Preparing Teachers Around the World

2

PREFACE

For at least two decades, U.S. policymakers and thepublic have been concerned about student achieve-ment in mathematics and science. In the 1980s, aseries of reports raised concerns about our ability tocompete in an increasingly global economy with apopulation less well prepared than their peers in othercountries. Then, the Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade(TIMSS 1999) documented not only the mediocreperformance of U.S. students, but also revealedsystematic differences in the practices of teachers inthis country compared with that of other nations.

More recently, significant attention has beengiven to policies governing the supply and quality ofteachers. Strong debate, together with legislativeinitiatives, has focused on the need for nationwidestandards in licensure testing, the quality of teachereducation programs, alternate routes into teaching,academic requirements, induction programs, andhiring and tenure practices. In one way or another,any one of these issues has been viewed as a root causeor possible solution to inadequate teacher quality andconsequent student performance.

In Preparing Teachers Around the World, ETSresearchers Aubrey Wang, Ashaki Coleman, RichardColey, and Richard Phelps take a systematic look atthe kinds of policies and control mechanisms thathigh-performing countries use to shape the quality ofthe teaching force. They surveyed the teaching policiesof seven countries whose students performed as well orbetter than students from the United States in math-ematics and science. The study is exploratory innature, and no causal explanations can be made but,nevertheless, the findings suggest certain policy pathsthat may be more or less likely to bear fruit.

This study makes clear that while there is no oneway that the best performing countries manage theteacher pipeline, by and large, they are able to controlindividuals who enter teacher education programs

through more rigorous entry requirements and higherstandards. One of the most striking findings is thatstudents in the countries are more likely to haveteachers who have training in the subject matterthey teach.

The authors present the idea of filters, points inthe teacher pipeline where individuals might be forcedto exit the profession of teaching. They note that somefilters that have come under withering criticism in theUnited States, such as teacher education programs andtenure, are accepted and universal practices in thecomparison countries. Indeed, while some call for thederegulation of teaching as a means of improving theteaching force, every high-performing country in thisstudy employs significant regulatory controls on theirteaching force. While the primary regulatory controlin the United States is teacher licensure testing, othercountries include controls at additional career points.

For more than 50 years, ETS has been involvedwith efforts to measure and improve teacher quality.We are a strong proponent of high quality, research-based professional development for teachers at alllevels (student, beginning, and experienced) and,through studies such as this, we aim to inform policiesthat will strengthen America's teaching force andimprove our nation's schools.

Preparing Teachers Around the World is not meantto be a “best practices” resource, complete with answersand solutions. But, while not definitive, the filter modelit describes provides a framework that we can use tostudy further issues associated with teacher quality.What is most helpful is that the pipeline is viewed asa system rather than a series of discrete steps. Thisreport offers up the possibility that, as a country withlocal educational decision-making, we can adopt avariety of systems as long as the outcome is a sufficientsupply of qualified teachers who can provide America'schildren with the best education possible.

Drew GitomerSenior Vice PresidentResearch and DevelopmentEducational Testing Service

Page 4: Preparing Teachers Around the World

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the result of the efforts of many peopleand the authors are indebted to the many contribu-tors. First, we wish to thank the following individualsfrom the participating countries who responded to thesurvey, provided information and materials, andanswered questions from project staff. For Australia,Elizabeth Kleinhenz, Australian Council for Educa-tional Research. For England, Joanna Le Metais andJenny Loose, International Project Development,National Foundation for Educational Research, andElizabeth McNess, Malcolm Lewis, and Jan Winterfrom the University of Bristol, Graduate School ofEducation. For Hong Kong, Kit Tai Hau, The Chi-nese University of Hong Kong. For Japan, MasakataOgawa, Research Institute for Higher Education,Hiroshima University. For Korea, Chung Park of theKorea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, andJeong Hwang Kim, the Korea National University ofEducation. For the Netherlands, Andreas Oranje,Educational Testing Service (ETS) and Dr. Nico vanKessel, University of Nijmegen. For Singapore, AgnesChang, National Institute of Education, NanyangTechnological University.

The following individuals reviewed and providedadvice about the data collection instrument: Arthur E.Wise, National Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation; Joost Yff and Mary E. Dilworth, AmericanAssociation of Colleges of Teacher Education; andRichard Tannenbaum and Marnie Thompson, ETS.

This report benefited from the reviews ofthe following individuals: Drew Gitomer, KelvinGregory, Mari Pearlman, and Marnie Thompson,ETS; Bella Rosenberg, American Federation of Teach-ers; Shari L. Francis, National Council for Accredita-tion of Teacher Education; and Dan Goldhaber,University of Washington.

These individuals helped us connect with ourinternational contacts: Eugene Gonzalez, BostonCollege; Marcus Broer, Irwin Kirsch, Yong-Won Lee,Andreas Oranje, and Kentaro Yamamoto, ETS; SusanZammit and Lawrence Ingvarson, Australian Councilfor Educational Research; and Yuji Saruta and YukikoSawano, National Institute for Educational Research.

Lynn Jenkins was the editor. The cover wasdesigned by Joe Kolodey. Carla Cooper provided desk-top publishing. Any errors of fact or omission arethose of the authors.

Page 5: Preparing Teachers Around the World

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an exploratory analysis of teachereducation and development policies in a group ofcountries that participated in the Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at theEighth Grade (TIMSS 1999) and scored as well as orhigher than the United States in eighth-grade math-ematics or science. In addition to the United States,the report provides information on the systems ofAustralia, England, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, theNetherlands, and Singapore. While the focus is oneighth-grade mathematics and science teacher educa-tion and development policies, most of the issuesdiscussed are also related to teachers of other subjects.

A teacher education and development model,which encompasses the entire “pipeline” from admis-sion to teacher education programs to the award oftenure, was used to guide the data collection andanalysis. Based on this model, the report is structuredaround the following components:

� Control and governance

� Standards for entrance into and exit from teachereducation programs

� Characteristics of the education programs foreighth-grade mathematics and science teachers

� Certification requirements

� Availability of advanced certification

� Alternative teacher certification programs

� Hiring and compensation

� In-service and professional developmentrequirements

In addition, the report examines some of theoutput of these systems in terms of teacher qualifica-tions and teachers’ confidence to teach mathematicsand science. The final section of the report attemptsto draw some conclusions and provide some judg-ments about the choices that countries make about

where along the pipeline they place filters and aboutthe density of the filters applied.

While many of the components that comprisethe pipeline are generally similar across the countriessurveyed, we found substantial differences acrosscountries in certain aspects of the teacher educationand certification process. Some of these similaritiesand differences are highlighted below.

Governance

� In contrast to the decentralized systems in theUnited States and Australia, the other nationssurveyed have centralized systems of teachereducation and certification, which allow tightercontrol over the systems.

� While teacher education governance is theresponsibility of the states in the United States,there are large, non-governmental, influentialaccreditation and standard-setting organizationsthat result in teacher education and certificationsystems that are more alike than different.

Teacher Education

� There are large differences in the scale of the teachereducation enterprise across the countries surveyed.The number of institutions preparing teachersranges from one in Singapore to about 1,500 inthe United States.

� Compared to the United States, screening criteriaare more rigorous and are applied earlier in theteacher education and certification pipeline inmost of the countries surveyed. Unlike the UnitedStates, most of the countries use high schoolGPA and scores on national exit examinationstaken in high school to select students for teachereducation programs, including graduate programs.In the United States, the high school record istypically irrelevant to entry into teacher educationprograms, although it is usually a factor in admis-sion to higher education.

Page 6: Preparing Teachers Around the World

5

� The structure and content of undergraduateteacher education programs are quite similar acrossthe countries surveyed. These include courses insubject area content, courses in educational theoryand pedagogy, and experiences observing andteaching students.

� Exit requirements are similar across the countriessurveyed. They typically include completion ofan approved program, tests and acceptable grades,and student teaching experience.

� While all countries require student teaching experi-ence as part of the teacher education curriculum,the duration of such programs ranges from three tofour weeks in Japan to between 12 and 18 monthsin the Netherlands.

� Graduate-level teacher education programs in theUnited States have less stringent and more variedentry requirements for subject content mastery thando those in the other countries surveyed.

Teacher Certification

� In most states in the United States, teachers areawarded an initial teaching certificate after theyhave completed the course requirements of theirteacher education program and have successfullypassed the state teacher-licensing exam.

� England is the only country other than the UnitedStates that requires a licensure examination inaddition to the examinations given by the teachereducation institution.

� England and the United States (most states) werethe only countries surveyed that require a test forcertification after the completion of the teachereducation program.

� The initial teaching certificate is valid for life inall of the countries except the United States (moststates) and Australia, where a specified length of

teaching experience serves as the prerequisite for apermanent license.

Hiring, Compensation, and Tenure

� Teacher hiring practices in the United States arecharacteristic of a decentralized educational system,with hiring done at both the school district andschool level. Local schools are also responsible forhiring teachers in Australia, England, Hong Kong,and the Netherlands. Hiring is centralized in Japanand Singapore. Korea hires at the school districtlevel and requires an employment test measuringmastery of subject matter content and pedagogicaltheory and methods. Singapore requires a test inEnglish-language skills.

� In some countries, decisions about teacher compen-sation are made at the national level. In others, likethe United States, school districts set teacher com-pensation (for public and charter schools). In Koreaand Japan, teacher compensation is also set locally.

� Teacher salaries vary widely across U.S. states and,as in the other countries surveyed, vary with educa-tional attainment and certification levels. Beginningteacher salaries are higher than salaries for similarlyeducated professionals in Australia, Japan, andHong Kong, and comparable in Singapore. InEngland, Korea, and the United States, teachersearn less than other similarly educated professionals.

� Teacher tenure is a practice in all the countriessurveyed, although most require a probationaryperiod of some time.

Beginning Teacher Induction

� Teacher induction programs for new teachers inthe United States are fragmented due to widevariation in legislation, policy, and type of supportavailable. Such programs are required in England,Singapore, Japan, and Australia. Korea and theNetherlands do not provide support programs fornew teachers.

Page 7: Preparing Teachers Around the World

6

Professional Development

� Professional development for teachers is commonand varied across U.S. school districts and is some-times used for certificate renewal. All countriessurveyed provided professional development eitherthrough their education ministries or by providingteachers free time or compensation to participate inthe offerings of other providers.

Advanced and Alternative Certification

� Advanced certification is voluntary in all of thecountries that recognize such certification (of thosesurveyed, all but the Netherlands and Hong Kong).Such certification generally requires additionalcourse taking and external assessments. In somecountries, advanced certification results in addi-tional compensation.

� The United States and England are the only coun-tries surveyed that recognize an “alternative” routeto teacher certification.

Teacher Qualifications and Confidence

� Eighth-grade students in the United States andHong Kong were less likely than students in theother countries surveyed to have teachers with amathematics or mathematics-education major ora science or science-education major.

� Overall, students were more likely to have teacherswho were highly confident about teaching math-ematics than about teaching science. U.S. teachersexpressed higher confidence than teachers in theother countries surveyed to teach both mathematicsand science.

While the components of the “pipeline” areconsidered separately above, it may be more useful toview the “pipeline” as a sequence of policies related tothe teacher education and development process, frombeginning to end. At each part of the pipeline, filterscan be placed to control the flow of candidates into

teaching. These filters can be dense (or high-stakes)or porous (low-stakes). The summary table on thenext page summarizes and characterizes the filters thatcountries use to control the teacher education anddevelopment pipeline (rationales and rubrics for theseclassifications are provided in the report).

A major finding of this study was the variationamong countries with respect to where they chooseto place “pipeline filters” where candidates can bescreened out from the profession. Most countries(like the Netherlands) “front load” their requirements,emphasizing selection into and exit from teachereducation programs. Others (like Japan) also “backload” their requirements, emphasizing rigorousinduction programs during a probationary period afterwhich some teachers will not receive permanent posts.

Each country’s “pipeline” differs in someimportant and interesting ways from that of othercountries, for reasons ranging from cultural to politi-cal to practical. In searching for lessons from othercountries, a range of factors limit the transportabilityof certain features. For example, while countries likeSingapore, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands canstandardize teacher education programs nationwidewith an executive decision, such standardizationruns contrary to the politics of education in theUnited States.

While several countries filter out prospectiveteachers based on their high school records, castingthe die early runs contrary to the American philoso-phy of ever-open possibilities. Some practices that arecommon in the United States, like alternative andemergency certification, are much less common in thesurveyed countries, and thus, offer no lessons, asidefrom what policymakers can glean from their con-spicuous absence.

Several overall findings may provide lessons forU.S. policymakers.

� Other countries tend to use more filters than theUnited States;

� Other countries use more high-stakes filters thanthe United States;

Page 8: Preparing Teachers Around the World

7

� In the United States nearly all of the high-stakesfiltering is applied before or during initial certifica-tion. After that, the filters in place might be consid-ered “pro forma” or low-stakes;

� U.S. policymakers might find it instructive tosee how other countries filter teacher candidatesat those parts of the pipeline the U.S. systemneglects; and

� Efforts to extract lessons from other countries basedonly upon comparisons of individual segments ofthe pipeline should be considered inconclusive;conclusive judgments can be derived only afterconsideration of the entire length (i.e., the entireteacher education and development process).

As policymakers and educators in the UnitedStates continue to search for effective ways to expandand improve the supply of qualified mathematicsand science teachers in the coming years, it will beimportant to examine the U.S. pipeline closely todetermine whether the mechanisms that currentlygovern the flow of prospective teachers are the properones, and whether they are succeeding or failing toachieve their intended goals: to train desirable candi-dates for the teaching profession and to ensure theirsuccess once there.

It is also important to recognize the factorsthat affect the attractiveness of teaching as a professionand the tension that can result between the impact ofimposing more high-stakes filters along the pipelineand the need to staff the nation’s schools adequately.

Filters Used Along the Teacher Education and Development Pipeline

● High-Stakes Medium-Stakes � Low- or No-Stakes

*Since teacher education and certification are the responsibility of individual states, practices can differamong them. See Appendix B for the rubrics for the classifications in the table

Page 9: Preparing Teachers Around the World

8

INTRODUCTION

The mathematics and science performance of U.S.students is a perennial concern among educators,education policymakers, and the public. While math-ematics scores on the National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress (NAEP) improved between 1990 and2000 for all three grade levels assessed, only aboutone-fourth of students reach the proficient level, a levelthat many policymakers assert should be a target forall of our students.1 In science, the situation is simi-larly worrisome. NAEP science achievement did notchange significantly between 1996 and 2000, and lessthan one-third of U.S. students reach the proficientlevel in science. Figure 1 shows the percentage ofstudents reaching the proficient level in mathematicsand science at each grade level assessed by NAEPin 2000.2

The performance of U.S. students in mathematicsand science not only falls below expected levels; it alsolags behind that of students in many other developedcountries. Data from the Repeat of the Third Interna-tional Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 1999)allow us to see how the mathematics and scienceperformance of U.S. eighth-grade students comparesto their international counterparts.

Figure 2 shows the average TIMSS mathematicsscores for 38 participating countries in 1999.Although the U.S. score of 502 is higher than theinternational average of 487, 14 of the 38 countriesscored significantly higher than the United States.Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei,and Hong Kong had the highest average scores, withSingapore’s and Korea’s significantly higher than allother participating countries, and Chinese Taipei’sand Hong Kong’s significantly higher than all the rest

1 NAEP defines proficient as follows. “This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level havedemonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-worldsituations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.”

2 U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s ReportCard: Mathematics 2000, NCES 2001-517, by J.S. Braswell, A.D. Lutkus, W.S. Grigg, S.L. Santapau, B.S.-H. Tay-Lim, and M.S. Johnson.Washington, DC: 2001.

3 For complete TIMSS mathematics results, see Ina V.S. Mullis et al., TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat ofthe Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade, The International Study Center, Boston College, Lynch School ofEducation, December 2000.

4 For complete TIMSS science results, see Michael O. Martin et al., TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade, The International Study Center, Boston College, Lynch School of Education,December 2000.

except Japan. Japan and Flemish Belgium also scoredsignificantly higher than most other countries.3

In science, the story is similar, as seen in Figure 3.While the average science score for the United States(515) is higher than the international average (488),14 of 38 participating countries scored significantlyhigher than the United States. Chinese Taipei andSingapore had the highest average performance,closely followed by Hungary, Japan, and the Republicof Korea. Other countries that performed well includethe Netherlands, Australia, the Czech Republic, andEngland.4

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

0 20 40 60 80 100

26

27

17

29

32

18

Percentage of Students

Mathematics

Science

Figure 1: Percentage of Students at or abovethe “Proficient” Level in NAEP Mathematicsand Science, 2000

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Page 10: Preparing Teachers Around the World

9

Figure 2: Average Mathematics Performance of Eighth Graders for 38 CountriesParticipating in TIMSS, 1999

Singapore

Chinese Taipei

Japan

Netherlands

Hungary

Slovenia

Australia

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

United States

New Zealand

Average

Lithuania

Cyprus

Moldova

Israel

Macedonia

Jordan

Indonesia

Philippines

South Africa

0 200 400 600 800

604587585582579

558540534532531530526525520520519

511505502496491

487

482479476472469467466

448447

429428422

403392

345337

275

Korea

Hong Kong

Belgium (Flemish)

Slovak Republic

Canada

Russian Federation

Finland

Malaysia

Latvia

England

Italy

Romania

Thailand

Tunisia

Turkey

Iran

Chile

Morocco

Higher than United States

Not different than United States

Lower than United States

TIMSS Mathematics Scale Score

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2002.

Page 11: Preparing Teachers Around the World

10

Figure 3: Average Science Performance of Eighth Graders for 38 Countries Participating inTIMSS, 1999

Chinese Taipei

Hungary

Korea

Australia

England

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Hong Kong

Bulgaria

New Zealand

Italy

Lithuania

Average

Thailand

Israel

Moldova

Jordan

Indonesia

Tunisia

Philippines

South Africa

0 200 400 600 800

569568

552550549545540539538535535535533533530529

518515510503

493492488

488

482472468

460459458

450448

435433430

420345

323243

Singapore

Japan

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Finland

Belgium (Flemish)

Canada

Russian Federation

United States

Latvia

Malaysia

Romania

Cyprus

Macedonia

Iran

Turkey

Chile

Morocco

TIMSS Science Scale Score

Higher than United States

Not different than United States

Lower than United States

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2002.

Page 12: Preparing Teachers Around the World

11

While there has been healthy debate about thereasons the United States does not do better in theseinternational comparisons, there is broad consensusthat the quality of teachers is essential to improvingperformance, not just in mathematics and science,but across the entire elementary and secondary schoolcurriculum.5

In fact, increasing the quality of teachers in thiscountry is a key goal of the No Child Left BehindAct of 2001, recently passed by the U.S. Congress.According to an ETS report on the law’s provisions:

States and/or local education agencies will receive fundingto reform teacher and principal certification; provideprofessional development, including mentoring andinduction; create alternative routes for entry into theprofession; and to recruit and retain highly qualifiededucators. Funds appropriated for professional developmentactivities, which are authorized in a variety of sections ofthe bill, have increased for FY ’02 by about one-third overFY ’01. A series of national activities to strengthen theprofession is also authorized to include support for advancedcertification or credentialing programs, a national principalrecruitment program and a program to improve the skills ofearly childhood educators.6

Thus, teacher education, certification, andprofessional development are important to the currenteducation reform movement. The new law requiresthat all teachers in core academic subjects be highlyqualified by the end of the 2005-6 school year. Thismeans that the teachers are fully certified and havean academic background in the subject they teach.

According to a recent report from EducationWeek, the nation has far to go.

� Almost a quarter of secondary school students(22 percent) take at least one class with a teacherwho did not even minor in the subject he or she

teaches. In high-poverty secondary schools, 32percent of students take a class with a teacherwho lacks even a minor in the subject.

� About 44 percent of middle school students nation-wide, and more than half of students in high-poverty middle schools, take a class with a teacherwho hasn’t acquired even a minor in the subject.7

This confluence of factors casts a renewed focuson teacher education and certification at an especiallycritical time. Over the next decade, many teachersfrom the “baby boom” generation will leave theclassroom and enter retirement. The National Centerfor Education Statistics (NCES) estimates that theUnited States will need 2 million new teachers overthe next decade.

This study aims to inform the debate overimproving teacher education and certification ineighth-grade mathematics and science in the UnitedStates by describing teacher education and certifica-tion policies in other developed countries. The follow-ing sections describe some of the previous researchconducted in this area and then go on to provideinformation on how we selected the countries andhow we gathered the relevant information.

Some Previous Research on InternationalComparisons

The depth and sophistication of internationalcomparisons of education systems have grown steadilyand substantially over the past couple of decades.International student assessments 40 years ago werebrief and included less than a dozen countries at onegrade level. Now, several dozen countries participate atseveral grade levels in several different subject areas.Meanwhile, comparisons of national educationsystems have evolved from descriptive narratives

5 For a recent, brief summary of the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement, see Dan Goldhaber, “The Mystery of GoodTeaching,” Education Next, Spring 2002. (http://www.educationnext.org/20021/50.html)

6 Educational Testing Service, State and Federal Relations Office, The No Child Left Behind Act, A Special Report, Washington, DC, February 2002.7 Education Week, Quality Counts 2003: “If I Can’t Learn From You,” January 9, 2003.

Page 13: Preparing Teachers Around the World

12

written according to a standard outline to arrays ofmeasures conforming to negotiated, well-ordered,standardized benchmarks.

Some international education indicators haveevolved more quickly than others, however. Perhapsit was most important that topics related to students,such as academic achievement, enrollment, andattainment, and those related to finance, such asrevenues, expenditures, and salaries, accumulate themost refined sets of international indicators first. Bycontrast, international indicators pertaining to teachereducation and development remain in the develop-mental stage.

Some of these first efforts have been very good,however, and deserve noting here. Indeed, our studyboth benefits from and complements the informationaccrued in these previous studies of teacher education.Our study is different from the others in three respects:

� we examine a different set of countries—the topperformers in the TIMSS;

� we study the entire length of the teacher educationand development “pipeline;” and

� our work, for the time being, is the most currentand therefore most reflective of rapidly evolvingchanges in teacher education practices.

Perhaps the first large-scale effort to developinternational indicators on classroom teachers wasundertaken by the American Federation of Teachersin 1993, under the direction of F. Howard Nelsonand Timothy O’Brien.8 They compared teachersalary levels, salary and benefit structures, and somemeasures of education requirements and working

conditions across 19 industrialized countries, includ-ing most of those from our sample.

A couple of years later, David F. Robitaille, oneof the key, early organizers of the TIMSS, assembleda compendium of standardized reports from expertsin 38 participating countries, including all thoseincluded in our study.9 The standard country reportformat of the Robitaille collection is oriented towardthe TIMSS areas of focus, such as curriculum andinstruction, pedagogy, school system structure, andtextbooks. Each country expert did include, however,short sections on “Certification of Mathematics andScience Teachers” and “Teacher Profile” (essentially, ademographic description of the teacher population).While brief, these sections were useful to our study aspoints of comparison, although, in a few instances, thecertification system details have changed in the six orseven intervening years.

About the same time David Robitaille was assem-bling his collection, the APEC Education Forum, ofthe Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization,sponsored a series of case studies of the teacher induc-tion process in Japan, New Zealand, and Australia’sNorthern Territory.10 A summary chapter, based onthe results of a survey of APEC member countries,provides some basic comparisons of teacher inductionsystem structures across many countries with diverseeducation systems. All countries in our own surveygroup, except for England and the Netherlands, areAPEC members.

A similarly structured and detailed companionstudy was undertaken at the same time by LindaDarling-Hammond and others pertaining to teacherpreparation and professional development in APECcountries.11

8 F. Howard Nelson and Timothy O’Brien, How U.S. Teachers Measure Up Internationally: A Comparative Study of Teacher Pay, Training, andConditions of Service, American Federation of Teachers, July 1993.

9 David E. Robitaille (ed.), National Contexts for Mathematics and Science Education: An Encyclopedia of the Education Systems Participating in TIMSS,Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Education Press, 1997.

10 Jay Moskowitz and Maria Stephens (eds.), From Students of Teaching to Teachers of Students: Teacher Induction Around the Pacific Rim, Washington,DC: APEC Education Forum and the U.S. Department of Education, January 1997.

11 Linda Darling-Hammond and Velma L. Cobb (eds.), Teacher Preparation and Professional Development in APEC Members: A Comparative Study,Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1995.

Page 14: Preparing Teachers Around the World

13

Also in the mid-1990s, EURYDICE, theresearch and statistics division of SOCRATES, theEuropean Union’s education group, published theresults of their survey.12 The compendium is struc-tured much like the Robitaille collection: countryexperts were asked to complete sections of the reportaccording to a standardized format, and summarycomparison tables are assembled as well. The result issubstantial, with considerable detail provided on thetopic of in-service training. Of the countries in ourown survey group, only England and the Netherlandsare European Union members.

In 1997, Dorothy M. Gilford and Mary Rollefsonassembled a compendium on professional develop-ment, drawing information from sources such as thosejust mentioned above and responses gathered fromrelevant survey items posed to teachers in some inter-national surveys, such as the TIMSS, the Computers inEducation Study, and the Reading Literacy Study.13

More recently, the Milken Family Foundation andthe Council for Basic Education (CBE) published areport that assembled responses of experts in the ninecountries participating in the CBE’s Schools Aroundthe World Project, an ongoing effort in communica-tion and collaboration among teachers on the topic ofclassroom and homework assignments. As the titleimplies, the report focuses on aspects of teachers’careers, post-graduation, such as recruitment, reward,retention, and job quality. The nine participatingcountries were Australia, Czech Republic, France,Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Portugal, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States. Australia, HongKong, and Japan were also part of our study and, ofcourse, England is part of the United Kingdom.14

Richard Phelps compared a group of the top-performing TIMSS countries to a group of their low-performing counterparts according to the number of“quality control” measures, or high-stakes decisionpoints, each education system employed. Most of thequality control measures he counted involved deci-sions about students, but two involved decisions aboutteachers: examinations in subject areas required forentry into the profession and the presence or absenceof curriculum-based classroom inspections. Phelps’study was similar to this one in that it identifiedpressure points along the student career pipeline anddescribed various combinations of quality controlmeasures that different countries used.15

Still to come is a study by Edward Britton andSenta Raizen of WestEd and others affiliated with theNational Center for Improving Science Education andMichigan State University. They are investigatinginduction experiences in the first years of middlegrades mathematics and science teaching in severalcountries (China [Shanghai], France, New Zealand,and Switzerland).

Of all the studies mentioned above, one examinesteacher education or certification, two focus oninduction programs, and three look at professionaldevelopment (inservice training included). One of theaforementioned studies compares the populationdemographics of practicing teachers and another looksat characteristics of their working lives.

Aside from the fairly incidental and mundanecontrasts of selecting a different comparison groupand conducting our study at a different time, ourstudy offers one clear and, as it turns out, very instruc-tive point of departure from these other studies—our

12 EURYDICE European Unit, In-Service Training of Teachers in the European Union and the EFTA/EEA Countries, Brussels: EURYDICE, January1995.

13 Dorothy M. Gilford and Mary Rollefson, International Comparisons of Inservice Professional Development, 1997.14 Carol F. Stoel and Tin-Swe Thant, Teachers’ Professional Lives—A View from Nine Industrialized Countries, Council for Basic Education and the

Milken Family Foundation, Washington, DC: March 18, 2002.15 Richard P. Phelps, “Benchmarking to the World’s Best in Mathematics: Quality Control in Curriculum and Instruction Among the Top Perform-

ers in the TIMSS,” Evaluation Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2001.

Page 15: Preparing Teachers Around the World

14

study encompasses the entire teacher education anddevelopment process, from admission to teachereducation programs, through graduation, induction,and certification, to tenure. We put the entire lengthof the pipeline under examination and comparison.This “pipeline” model is described below.

This study would be most properly classified asan exploratory analysis or development of indicatorsabout the teacher education and certification policiesin a selected group of countries. It is not an evaluationof these policies nor an analysis that attempts to relatethe policies to other aspects of the education system,like student achievement. Developing valid andreliable indicators is only a first step among severalthat could support the testing of hypotheses about therelationship, for example, between different teacherdevelopment practices and student achievement. Suchstudies would need to use controls for other factorsthat might play a role, including family background,community characteristics, curriculum, instructionalmethods, and so on. While data on teacher preparationalone will never be sufficient to test hypotheses aboutstudent achievement, they are likely to be necessaryto include in a truly comprehensive analyses ofstudent achievement.

A Model of Teacher Education and CertificationPolicy

Figure 4 illustrates a “pipeline” model, adaptedfrom one developed in earlier ETS research, thatidentifies various points where “filters” or “screens”can be installed to control the flow of individuals intoand through the teacher education and certificationsystem.16

The authors used this model as a guide forstructuring the questionnaire development. Oncedrafted, the survey instrument was reviewed and thenrevised based on suggestions from representatives ofleading teacher education and research organizations,such as the American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education (AACTE), the National Councilfor Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),and the Educational Testing Service.

The questionnaire included the following the-matic sections:

� Control and governance

� Standards for entrance into and exit from teachereducation programs

16 Margaret E. Goertz, Ruth B. Ekstrom, and Richard J. Coley, The Impact of State Policy on Entrance into the Teaching Profession, National Institute ofEducation, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, October 1984.

Policies affecting

entrance into teacher

education

Policies affecting teacher

education curriculum

Policies affecting

completion of teachereducation

Policies affecting entry level

certification

Policies affecting

hiring, tenure,and

compensation

Policies affecting

professionaldevelopment

Policies affecting advanced

certification

Figure 4: Policy Model of the Teacher Supply Pipeline

Page 16: Preparing Teachers Around the World

15

� Characteristics of the education programs foreighth-grade mathematics and science teachers

� Certification requirements

� Availability of advanced certification

� Alternative teacher certification programs

� Hiring and compensation

� In-service and professional developmentrequirements

Selection Criteria

The initial criteria for selection into this studywere: the country outperformed the United States onthe TIMSS 1999 mathematics or science assessment,and it had an integrated curriculum in science at theeighth grade.17 Eight countries met these criteria. TheNetherlands also scored higher than the United States,and, although it does not have an integrated eighth-grade science curriculum,18 it was included in thestudy because it can provide important contrasts.Finally, while Canada met the selection criteria,officials there were unable to participate in the study.

As a result of this selection process, eight coun-tries participated in the study: Australia, England,

Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore,and the United States. While this study focuses ontheir teacher education and development policies, it isimportant to recognize that these countries differ in anumber of areas. Appendix A provides a basic demo-graphic profile.

Survey Methodology

At least two contacts in each participating coun-try were identified on the basis of expertise in teachereducation and certification policy, willingness toparticipate, and proficiency in English. These sourcestypically work in ministries of education, leadingeducational research organizations, or research univer-sities. At least one contact in each country completeda detailed questionnaire on teacher education andcertification policies, provided references to relevantmaterials, and responded to additional questions.

All selected countries responded. Responses tothe questionnaire were combined with other relevantinformation into summary documents for eachcountry. The summary sheets were then reviewedfor accuracy and thoroughness by each country’soriginal respondent(s).

The following sections of this report describe thesurvey findings—comparing eighth-grade mathemat-ics and science teacher education and certificationpolicies and practices.

17 In an integrated science curriculum, science is taught as a single, general subject, as opposed to separate courses in different science subjects.18 Eighth-grade students in the Netherlands can choose to take biology, chemistry, or other science courses, while students in other participating

countries would be taking a more general science course.

Page 17: Preparing Teachers Around the World

16

Governance

Who is responsible for teacher education and certifica-tion? What aspects are regulated?

United States. The United States has a decentral-ized system of teacher education and certification, inthat each state is responsible for initial credentialing ofits teachers. Some states refer to this initial credentialprocess as certification. Certification requirements varygreatly across the states, depending on local needs andavailable resources. However, there are probably morecommonalities than differences in state teacher educa-tion and certification systems. This is due, in part, tothe existence of national accreditation bodies likeNCATE that have established standards for teachereducation and certification programs.19 NCATE hasbeen recognized by the U.S. Department of Educationand the Council for Higher Education Accreditation asthe professional accrediting body for teacher educationprograms. NCATE’s professional standards for entryinto the program include demonstrating contentknowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and afocus on student learning.20

Other Countries. In contrast to the UnitedStates, the other nations surveyed have more central-ized systems of teacher education and certification,with the exception of Australia. As in the UnitedStates, education in Australia is a state responsibility.Teacher registration is carried out by statutory teacherregistration bodies in four states and two territories.The registration bodies do not conduct any formalassessments in addition to, or separately from, thoseof the universities. Only teachers who are registeredare permitted to teach in those states that have

registration bodies. In the two states that do not haveregistration bodies, teachers must meet employers’requirements for employment.

Among the centralized systems, governanceof teacher education and certification may be theresponsibility of one government agency or multipleagencies. In Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore,the Ministry of Education or department of educationgoverns almost all aspects of the teacher educationand certification process. In the Netherlands, theresponsibility is shared between the Ministry ofEducation and the Inspector of Education. TheMinistry sets minimum guidelines on entry andexit requirements and curriculum content for teachereducation programs, while the Inspector monitorscompliance with these guidelines.

In England, several national departments andagencies share responsibility for teacher education andcertification, including the Teacher Training Agency,the Department for Education and Skills, the Officefor Standards in Education, and the General TeachingCouncil for England. These agencies regulate variousaspects of the teacher education and certificationprocess, including accreditation of teacher educationprograms, entry and exit requirements, initial certifi-cation, and induction programs.

Providers of Teacher Education

What types of institutions prepare teachers? How manyare there? Is teacher education provided at the under-graduate or graduate level?

United States. Across the states, there areapproximately 1,500 teacher education programs,

TEACHER EDUCATION

19 While NCATE accreditation is voluntary, a recent survey of 50 states found approximately 1,400 teacher education programs received approval oraccreditation based on either state, regional, or NCATE standards (National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification(NASDTEC), Manual on the Preparation and Certification of Educational Personnel, 7th Edition. Sacramento, CA: School Services of California,2002.)

20 Though NCATE is the largest, there are other accrediting bodies, both regional and national, for teacher education programs (e.g. TeacherEducation Accreditation Council (TEAC)). National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Quick Facts: About NCATE. RetrievedOctober 4, 2002. Available at www.ncate.org/ncate/fact_sheet.htm. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, ProfessionalStandards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education, Washington, DC, Retrieved October 1, 2002. Available at http://www.ncate.org/2000/unit_stnds_2002.pdf.

Page 18: Preparing Teachers Around the World

17

and almost all of them provide mathematics andscience education programs.21 Most are four-yearundergraduate programs, but some five-year programsexist that add a fifth year to a standard undergraduateliberal arts program.22

Other Countries. All of the nations surveyedoffer programs for prospective eighth-grade math-ematics and science teachers at the undergraduate andgraduate levels at colleges and universities. The onlyexception is England, where a small number of insti-tutions, such as school-centered initial training pro-viders, provide teacher education. Singapore is theonly participating country that requires all prospectiveteachers to complete a graduate program for initialcertification. Japan requires prospective teachers tocomplete an undergraduate teacher certificationprogram and offers graduate programs to teacherswho seek advanced certification.

The Netherlands provides teacher educationthrough two different programs, depending on theacademic track of the students they will teach. Forteachers preparing to teach non-university-boundstudents, teacher education is provided at the under-graduate level through the professional colleges. Forteachers preparing to teach university-bound students,teacher education is provided at the graduate levelthrough universities.

Across the countries participating in this study,the number of teacher education providers ranges fromone in Singapore to approximately 1,500 in the UnitedStates. The Singapore National Institute of Education’sNanyang Technological University is the country’s onlyteacher education institution. In the Netherlands,teacher education programs are offered by 12 publicuniversities and 13 professional colleges. In Australia,35 institutions offer teacher preparation courses.In England, there are 123 initial teacher training

institutions. In Japan, a total of 138 institutions wereapproved for mathematics teacher education andcertification, and 149 institutions for science.

Entry Requirements: Undergraduate Level

What are the requirements for entry into under-graduate teacher education programs?

United States. There is wide variation acrossU.S. states and higher education institutions inentry standards for undergraduate mathematics andscience education programs and in their enforce-ment.23 In some instances students may begin teachereducation coursework upon enrolling at the under-graduate institution. In other cases, prospectiveeducation students must complete two years of generalor liberal arts studies and then apply for admissioninto the teacher education program. Some institutionsrequire that prospective students pass an examination,such as Praxis I (a basic academic skills test for pro-spective teachers), before enrolling in the teachereducation program.

In general, the majority of teacher educationprograms now require a minimum college GPA,recommendations, interviews, and experience workingwith children as requirements for entry. Many institu-tions also require prospective candidates to pass a basicskills test.24 In fact, a recent survey found that 28states required an exam for entry.25

Other Countries. Across the nations surveyed,there are important differences in entry requirementsfor teacher education programs, by level of programand criteria used. However, competency in mathemat-ics and science knowledge is typically required,as demonstrated by grades and/or examinations.Entrance requirements are summarized in Table 1.

21 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2002-130, Washington, DC,2002.

22 American Council on Education, To Touch the Future: Transforming the Way Teachers Are Taught: An Action Plan for College and University Presidents,Washington, DC, 1999.

23 National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, New York, NY, 1996.24 Emily Feistritzer and D.T. Chester, The Making of a Teacher: A Report on Teacher Preparation in the U.S., Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Information, 1999.25 NASDTEC, 2002.

Page 19: Preparing Teachers Around the World

18

Most nations require prospective teacher candi-dates to pass a competitive national high schoolsubject area examination in addition to exceeding aminimum high school grade point average threshold.England, Japan, and Hong Kong require prospectiveteachers to pass competitive national examinations inmultiple subject areas. In England, candidates musthave, at a minimum, passes in English and Mathemat-ics at grade C or above on the General Certificate ofSecondary Education, a test given in high school.

In Japan, all candidates must take the NationalEntrance Examination, which is composed of fiveareas: Japanese language, foreign language, mathemat-ics, the sciences, and social studies. Candidates scoringhighest on the National Entrance Examination aremost likely to attend the most prestigious teachereducation programs. Most national universities also

administer their own entrance exams in addition tothe National Entrance Examination. Each under-graduate program can have its own exam, whichconsists of specific subjects (i.e. the mathematicsmajor program may have an advanced mathematicsexam). Performance on both types of exams is consid-ered when determining whether or not to accept anapplicant. In some cases, interviews are also used as anentrance requirement.

In Korea, entry requirements for teacher educa-tion programs are based on students’ senior highschool records (achievement level in each subject areaand homeroom teacher’s recommendation) and theirperformance on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT).Higher education institutions also interview incomingstudents and ask them to take tests of teaching atti-tudes and ethics.

Xb X

X X X

X X

X

Xc X

Xd

X X

Xe X X X

Graduate

Bas

ic S

kills

Tes

t

Inte

rvie

w

Nat

iona

l Sub

ject

Are

a E

xam

Hig

h S

choo

l Rec

ord

Bac

helo

r's D

egre

e

Bac

helo

r's D

egre

e in

S

ubje

ct A

rea

Exa

min

atio

n

Undergraduate

England

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

Netherlands

Singaporea

United States

Australia

Table 1: Entrance Requirements for Teacher Education Programs

aTeacher education is studied at the graduate level.bThe university entrance score may include some combination of high school courseperformance and state test.cThe SAT is the test used.dMaster’s degree in education is required.e28 states require a basic skills test as a prerequisite for some or all applicants(Feistritzer and Chester, 1999).

Page 20: Preparing Teachers Around the World

19

Australia also has entry requirements based onstudents’ performance in secondary school. Eachstudent has a university entrance score that is calcu-lated based on an amalgam of marks attained onassessments and examinations of the final year ofsecondary schooling and, for some states, results froma state-wide assessment. Each university sets its owncut scores for acceptance with more competitiveprograms having higher cut scores than less competi-tive programs. Teaching courses in some universitiesrequire a higher score than in others.

In most other countries, too, university entry ismore difficult than it is in the United States. Fewerplaces are available for students, and these slots areoften allocated through high-level and high-stakesupper secondary examinations and individual univer-sity entrance exams. Since entry to teacher educationprograms usually requires university student statusfirst, the relative difficulty of university entry ispertinent to any comparison of the rigor of teachereducation program entry across countries.

Entry Requirements: Graduate Level

What are the requirements for entry into graduate teachereducation programs?

United States. Graduate-level teacher educationprograms in the United States require at least abachelor’s degree. Compared with the other nationssurveyed, these programs have the least stringent andmost varied requirements for subject content mastery.

Other Countries. By contrast, most of the othercountries surveyed require an undergraduate degreeand, in some cases, a master’s level degree in thesubject area (see Table 1). For instance, Singaporerequires students entering graduate-level teachereducation programs to be university graduates withdegrees and at least an A or B grade on the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (GCE)Advanced “A” Level Mathematics/Science subjects,which is taken at the end of Grade 12.

Hong Kong requires prospective candidates to beuniversity graduates with a major in the chosen area.England requires a university degree or its equivalent

and at least a C grade or above on the national highschool examination in English and mathematics.Although England formerly required a degree inthe subject content area, new requirements effectiveSeptember 2002 do not. Entry requirements forgraduate study are especially rigorous in the Nether-lands: a master’s degree in the subject area priorto a 12- to 18-month graduate level teacher educa-tion program.

Mathematics and Science Teacher EducationCurriculum

What courses or curriculum are required in teachereducation programs? What is the balance betweencourses in mathematics and science and courses ineducation and pedagogy? What are the differencesbetween undergraduate and graduate programs?Who determines the requirements?

United States. In the United States, thecurriculum content of teacher education programsis determined by individual teacher training institu-tions, within the context of state and national accredi-tation policies.

There are similarities across institutions, however.In addition to subject area content courses, institutionstypically require courses on education theory andpedagogy and some student teaching experience.Courses in special education, health and nutrition,and computer science may also be required.

Math and science majors in university liberalarts colleges focus on mathematics and sciencecontent knowledge and theory in addition to anumber of liberal arts requirements. At most univer-sities, the content courses for majors are more numer-ous and can be different than those taken by teachereducation majors.

A typical undergraduate teacher education pro-gram might consist of 120 credit hours (the averagerequired for graduation from most undergraduateliberal arts programs), or 134 credits (required tocomplete an undergraduate teacher education pro-gram). On average, 51 credits of general studies,38 credits of major credits (includes courses in

Page 21: Preparing Teachers Around the World

20

certification teaching subject area), 28 credits ofprofessional studies (includes school, college, ordepartment of education courses), and 14 clinicalcredit hours (includes student teaching and other field-based experiences) are required to complete initialpreparation for middle-school teaching.26

Some national organizations have developedstandards for mathematics and science teacher prepa-ration programs, and these documents can be quitelengthy and detailed (an example would be the stan-dards developed by the National Science TeachersAssociation). The nature of those standards is thesource of some controversy, however. The teacherpreparation standards do not make any specificreferences to content knowledge but, rather, tend toemphasize preparing teachers to behave in certainways in the classroom and manage certain instruc-tional processes in a certain manner. Content knowl-edge, after all, is presumed to be assured by the pas-sage of course requirements and, in some states,subject matter tests.27

Other Countries. In all of the countries surveyed,individual teacher education institutions determinethe curriculum content of their degree programs formathematics and science teachers. The curriculum isthen approved or accredited by a national agency in allbut the two federal countries, the United States and

Table 2: Organizations Responsible for Reviewing andApproving Teacher Education Curriculum

Australia, where independent national organizationsand state statutory committees accredit (see Table 2).

The curricular content of teacher educationprograms can differ by level, with undergraduateteacher education programs focusing on both contentknowledge and pedagogy. Graduate teacher educationprograms typically last one to two years and focus onpedagogy and practice.

For instance, in Japan, the curriculum typicallyconsists of general education (26 credit hours) andprofessional education (20 credit hours in contentcourses, 22 credit hours in education courses, 12credit hours in methods, 40 credit hours in othereducation electives, and 5 credit hours in studentteaching).

Similarly, in Korea, prospective teachers musttake at least 42 credits in their subject area, 14 creditsin general education, 4 credits in subject-relatedpedagogy, and 80 credits of electives including meth-ods. Hong Kong has a stronger emphasis on contentknowledge, requiring students in the four-year Bach-elor of Education (secondary) programs to minor inmathematics or science.

In Singapore, the Postgraduate Diploma inEducation program consists of education modules,curriculum modules, a practicum, and the use ofEnglish in teaching, as well as two modules of

Australia Independent national organizations; state statutory committeesEngland Teacher Training AgencyHong Kong Department of EducationJapan Council for Educational Personnel TrainingKorea Ministry of EducationNetherlands Inspector of EducationSingapore Ministry of EducationUnited States Independent national organizations; state statutory committees

26 Feistritzer and Chester, 1999.27 For example, see U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The

Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality, Washington, DC, 2002.

Page 22: Preparing Teachers Around the World

21

content-specific pedagogy. In the Netherlands, the 12-to 18-month graduate level teacher education programoffers practical experience for interested teachers whohave a master’s degree in mathematics or in one of thesciences (e.g. physics, biology, or chemistry).

Exit Requirements

What requirements must be met to complete the teachereducation program? Who determines these requirements?

United States. In the United States, exit stan-dards for mathematics and science teacher educationprograms vary by state and institution, and are gener-ally determined at the institutional level. Standardstypically include such things as an adequate GPA,completion of required courses, and student teaching.In addition, virtually all institutions require passage ofa content area test for completion of their teachereducation programs. The types of tests used and theminimum scores required for passing vary consider-ably, however, with some states setting very lowcut-scores.

Other Countries. Similar exit requirements arefound across all nations studied, typically set byindividual institutions and including completion ofrequired courses and passage of classroom and institu-tion examinations. For instance, in Australia, the exitstandards for teacher education programs includeexaminations, assignments, a teacher practicum, andother forms of assessment. In Japan, prospectiveteachers who have completed the required set ofcourses above the pass level, graduate from the pro-gram with a bachelor’s degree. In Singapore, the exitrequirements are written tests, project assignments,fieldwork, and practicum in school. England is theonly country studied that requires prospective teachersto take a national test in literacy, numeracy, andinformation and communication technology.

Practical Experience

What kinds of classroom experiences are required? Whatis the nature and duration of these requirements?

United States. In the United States, there are twotypes of practical experiences for teacher candidates:field experiences and student teaching. Programspecifics vary by state and institution. Field experi-ences normally consist solely of observations and arerequired by most states prior to student teaching.28

Other prerequisites for student teaching may includethe completion of specific courses and an adequateGPA.

A university faculty member and a classroomteacher, or the school principal, typically supervise astudent teacher. Student teachers may first spend timein the school observing classes and assisting teachers.They are then paired with an experienced teacher, wholikely is paid for assuming the supervisory role. Thelength of time required for student teaching rangesfrom six weeks in Louisiana to a semester or more inMinnesota and Wisconsin. A recent survey found 21states requiring at least 12 weeks.29 Student teachingevaluation practices also vary by state.

Other Countries. All countries surveyed requirestudent teaching or other in-school practical experi-ences. The duration of the practical experience rangesfrom three to four weeks in Japan, to 12 to 18 monthsin the Netherlands (see Figure 5). Supervision andevaluation of the practical experiences is most oftenshared among several individuals, including a univer-sity faculty member, an experienced teacher, andsometimes the principal of the school.

In Korea, students are required to teach full-timefor four to six weeks toward the end of their teachereducation program. In Hong Kong, students arerequired to teach a minimum of eight to ten weeksbefore graduation. In Australia, all programs require a

28 Except for Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey and Rhode Island (NASDTEC, 2002).29 Education Week, October 8, 2002.

Page 23: Preparing Teachers Around the World

22

supervised practical teaching experience in schools fora period of no less than 80 days. In Singapore, pro-spective teachers are required to participate in a com-pulsory practicum (nine weeks) and school experience(one week). In England, prospective teachers arerequired to student teach for at least 24 weeks.

Supervision and evaluation of the student teach-ing experience also vary across countries. In Korea,student teachers are supervised and evaluated by anexperienced classroom teacher, principal, and univer-sity advisor. Similarly, in Japan, student teachers aresupervised and evaluated by an experienced teacherunder the approval of the principal; in addition, acommittee composed of members from the teachereducation program formally examines these evalua-tions. In Singapore, the practicum is supervised byspecially selected collaborating teachers and by profes-sors. Principals can choose to sit in to observe traineesin the classroom.

In Hong Kong, field experience performance isassessed via supervisor ratings and a portfolio thatincludes observations, reflections on classroom teach-ing, and reflective teaching journals. In one of theteacher programs, lecture staff conduct nine supervisoryvisits of student teachers during the two-year period.

In England, student teachers are observed,evaluated, and supervised by experienced teachers andstaff from the higher education institutions. In theNetherlands, student teaching is supervised by univer-sity staff and evaluated by school staff. Prospectiveteachers teach part-time, observe other teachers, andare, in turn, observed by other teachers.

In Australia, student teachers are supervisedand formatively evaluated by an experienced teacher.Their practicum includes a variety of experiences inaddition to teaching (e.g., observation of lessons,conferences with teachers), including participationin extracurricular and professional development

Figure 5: Duration of Practical Experience Requirement

Netherlands

England

United States

Australia

Singapore

Hong Kong

Korea

Japan

0 20 40 60 80 100

4872

24

12

16

10

810

46

34

MinimumMaximum

Number of Weeks

No specified maximum

No specified maximum

No specified maximum

No specified maximum

Page 24: Preparing Teachers Around the World

23

Undergraduate

Australia

Graduate

Bachelor of Science (B.Sc);Bachelor of Education/Bachelor of Science (B.Ed./B.Sc.)(double degree in education and science/mathematics;Bachelor of Education in Secondary (B.Ed. Secondary)(4 to 5 year degree in secondary teaching)

Post-graduateDiploma of Education(PGDE); GraduateDiploma of Education(Dip. Ed.); Masters ofEducation

EnglandBachelor in Education (B.Ed.);Bachelor of Arts with Qualified Teaching Status [B.A.(QTS)]

Post-graduateCertificate in Education(PGCE)

Hong Kong

Bachelor for Education (Secondary) (B.Ed. Secondary);Bachelor of Science (Mathematics and InformationTechnology Education) (B.S. Mathematics/IT);Certficiate in Education (CE)

Post-graduate Diplomain Education (PGDE);Post-graduate Certificate in Education(PGCE)

Japan Bachelor's Degree Not applicable

Korea Bachelor of Science (B.S) Master's

Netherlands Bachelor's Degree with restricted certificationMaster's Degree in Mathematics or Science

Singapore Not applicablePost-gradate Diplomain Education (Secondary)

United States Bachelor in Education, Science, or Arts Master's in Education

Table 3: Teacher Education Degree Titles

activities. The university determines the evaluationcriteria. Though the summative assessment is legallythe responsibility of the school principal, in practicethe supervising teacher typically exercises this respon-sibility, in consultation with visiting universitystaff observers.

Degree Earned

What degrees are awarded upon completion ofteacher education programs? In what fields are theyawarded?

United States. At the completion of traditionaleducation programs for beginning eighth-grade

mathematics and science teachers, U.S. graduates areawarded a bachelor’s or a master’s degree, dependingon whether they completed their teacher training atthe undergraduate or graduate level. All graduatedegrees are in education, while undergraduate degreesmay be in education or in an arts and sciences field.

Other Countries. Similarly, across all countriessurveyed, graduates receive a bachelor’s degree or amaster’s degree depending on the level of teachereducation program completed. At the graduate level,most countries award a graduate degree in education(see Table 3).

Page 25: Preparing Teachers Around the World

24

Initial Certification

What are the requirements for the initial certification ofteachers? Are tests used? Who sets the standards? For howlong is the initial certificate valid?

United States. In the United States, individualstates are responsible for certifying or licensing teach-ers. Most states award an initial teaching certificateafter completion of an approved program of requiredcourses, student teaching experiences, backgroundchecks, and successful passage of the state teacherlicensing examination. States set their own cut scoreson these examinations.

Requirements for initial certification vary widelyin terms of the number of credit hours required inparticular subject areas, the content of the licensingexam, and the acceptable exam passing score. Twenty-three states require at least 30 credits in a subject areaor a subject area major. Thirty-seven states requirepassage of a basic skills test, 29 a test of subject knowl-edge, and 24 a subject-specific pedagogy exam; inaddition to completion of a specified level of course-work.30

The teacher licensing exam used by most states isthe Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for Begin-ning Teachers� developed by the Educational TestingService. The Praxis Series consists of three parts: anacademic skills assessment (Praxis I) commonly usedfor entry to teacher preparation programs; an assess-ment of content knowledge (Praxis II), most often usedas a teacher licensing exam; and a classroom perfor-mance assessment (Praxis III) administered during thefirst year of teaching. Thirty-seven states use either thePraxis I or II as their teacher licensing exam.31 Anotherteacher licensing exam that is used by some states isdeveloped by National Evaluation Systems.

In most states, once a prospective teacher com-pletes an approved program, passes the state licensureexam, completes a criminal background check, and

TEACHER CERTIFICATION

obtains child abuse clearance, he or she is awarded aninitial certificate, valid for approximately two years. Insome states the initial certificate is not renewable.After expiration, teachers must apply for a standard orregular certificate and face additional requirements—usually some type of performance-based assessmentand a specified number of classroom teaching hours.

Other Countries. The process of initial teacherlicensure in the comparison nations is different (seeTable 4). In fact, of all the countries in the study,England is the only one that requires a separatelicensure examination in addition to the examina-tions given by the teacher education institution. InEngland, prospective teachers must pass the TeacherTraining Agency’s skills test in order to obtain Quali-fied Teacher Status (QTS). With QTS, teachers arecertified to teach all age groups, from pre-schoolthrough secondary education.

Hong Kong and Singapore impose no additionalcertification requirements beyond the education andcurriculum requirements described previously. Initialteacher certification is valid for life with no need forrenewal. In the Netherlands, the letter or diploma thestudent receives from the university or college serves asthe teaching certificate. University graduates mayteach either lower or upper secondary school. Profes-sional college graduates may only teach lower second-ary school.

In Japan, the Board of Education of each Prefec-ture issues teacher certificates after approving theuniversity course credits. In Korea, the initial teacher’scertificate is awarded by the university after comple-tion of its program.

The initial teaching certificate, then, is valid forlife in all of the countries except the United States andAustralia, where a specified length of teaching experi-ence serves as prerequisite for a permanent license.Thus, the initial or provisional license serves as anindication that the teacher has completed all of thepreparation necessary to begin teaching. The perma-

30 Education Week, October 8, 200231 The Praxis Series Registration Bulletin, 2002-2003.

Page 26: Preparing Teachers Around the World

25

nent license is only granted after the teacher hasdemonstrated his or her teaching ability. Althoughvalid for life, periodic renewal of certification bypayment of a fee is required in some Australian states.

Advanced Certification

Is certification beyond the initial level available?Is it required or voluntary? How is it obtained? Whatincentives are offered for teachers who pursue advancedcertificates?

United States. Advanced certification in theUnited States is voluntary, offered by the NationalBoard for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), a voluntary professional certification board. Keycomponents include a candidate’s assembly of aportfolio and participation in on-demand tasks atassessment centers.

Some states also offer a master teacher certificate,a voluntary certification issued to teachers demonstrat-ing advanced competency and achievement. In somejurisdictions, NBPTS certification may be a prerequi-site for a master teacher certification. This type ofadvanced certificate is usually held in conjunction witha professional license and often extends the validity of

the professional license. Master teachers often providementoring to other teachers and play roles in curricu-lum development and other leadership activities.Incentives for achieving advanced certification vary bystate, but usually include salary increases or bonusesand promotions.

Other Countries. Most nations in this study offersome form of advanced certification, Australia, HongKong and the Netherlands excepted (see Table 5).

England provides two routes to advancedcertification: Threshold and the Advanced SkillsTeacher (AST). The “Threshold” is a means to rewardgood teaching by enabling experienced and effectiveteachers access to an upper pay scale. Introduced inEngland and Wales in September 2000, two payranges are available for classroom teachers; a perfor-mance threshold at the end of the first range giveshigh-performing teachers access to a second range. Inother words, teachers who have reached the top of themain pay scale are eligible to apply for a performanceassessment against the national “threshold” standardsand, if they are successful, they move to the beginningpoint on the upper pay scale.

The AST route allows excellent teachers toprogress as classroom teachers, without taking onmanagement responsibilities, and to be rewarded

Table 4: Initial Certification Status

Additional Requirements Beyond Teacher Education

ProgramValid for Life

Australia Xa

England X

Hong Kong XJapan XKorea XNetherlands XSingapore XUnited States Xb Xb

aMust be renewed annually by payment of a fee. The length of time requiredbefore renewal varies among states and ranges from every year to every threeyears.bOver 40 states have additional requirements for obtaining a second-stagecertificate, which is required in 30 states (NASDTEC, 2002).

Page 27: Preparing Teachers Around the World

26

accordingly. It requires teachers to participate in anexternal assessment before being appointed to an ASTpost. ASTs spend 80 percent of their time in teachingtheir own classes and 20 percent working with teachersfrom other schools on their classroom organization andteaching methods, and developing teaching materials.

In Singapore, the advanced certification process ismore centralized. The University, in consultation withthe Ministry of Education, administers in-servicecourses and postgraduate degree programs. It offersAdvanced Postgraduate Diplomas in Guidance andCounseling, Life Sciences, and Science Education.In-service courses can be taken at any time after ateacher has received certification. All teachers inSingapore are entitled to 100 hours per year of trainingpaid for by the Ministry of Education. Professionaldegrees, such as M. Ed. (Mathematics Education)require two years of teaching experience. The Institutealso offers a Ph.D. program. All advanced training isvoluntary and portends no immediate salary increase.However, additional qualifications are taken intoconsideration when a teacher seeks promotion.

Similarly, in Japan, the Ministry of Educationand/or Boards of Education in each Prefectureestablish voluntary advanced certification policies for

teachers. Japan is unique in its requirement of enroll-ment in a Master of Education program at an accred-ited university. Two routes to advanced certificationare available in Japan. The first is through selection bythe Board of Education of the Prefecture, and is verycompetitive. Every year, about 10 in-service teachers areaccepted. Normally, these teachers receive 12 months(in some cases, 24) of paid leave. The Board of Educa-tion subsidizes the schools so they may hire instructorsto cover the in-service teachers’ classes for a year. Thosewho take 24 months of leave go to campus a half-dayper week to meet with their supervisor-professors, asrequired for a Master’s degree. Other teachers in theirschool compensate for their release time.

The second option is very new. Teachers seekingadvanced certification apply for a “study leave” with-out pay for a maximum of two years without losingtheir teaching position. In this case, the school hiresan interim instructor with money from the Board ofEducation. Although the Ministry of Educationrecommends this option, to date few teachers havetaken advantage of it.

Korea’s voluntary system of advanced certificationis established and regulated by the Ministry of Educa-tion. After three years of teaching, teachers are eligiblefor 180 hours of training at programs approved by theMinistry of Education. Upon successful completion,they become “full” teachers with a better chance forlater promotion to head teacher (an administrationposition), and a small salary increase.

In Australia, no professional body has responsibil-ity for advanced certification nor is the term “advancedcertification” commonly used.32 Teachers may chooseto pursue graduate study or advanced professionaldevelopment but, unlike in the United States andEngland, there is no link to any possible salary increaseshould they do so.

Table 5: Availability of AdvancedCertification

AdvancedAustraliaEngland XHong KongJapan XKorea XNetherlandsSingapore XUnited States X

32 In the late 1980s Australia attempted to set up a new voluntary career structure for teachers working in the state education systems. This was calledthe Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) classification. It envisaged three levels—AST1, AST2, and AST3—which would provide a classroom-based,non-administrative career path for teachers (of all subjects at all grades) based on teachers’ ability to demonstrate advanced teaching skills. Somestates still have a form of AST, but on the whole, the initiative failed. For the states that still have AST, these teachers receive salary increases in theorder of $3,000 to $5,000 (Australian) over two or three years.

Page 28: Preparing Teachers Around the World

27

Alternative Certification

Are there ways for individuals to become teachersoutside of traditional teacher education programs? Howdo these operate?

United States. In response to critical teachershortages in the United States, often in low-incomeschool districts and in certain fields, such as math-ematics and science, 45 states and the District ofColumbia offer alternative teacher certificationprograms.33 A recent survey estimated that more than175,000 persons have been licensed through theseprograms, most of them in just the past several years.34

The alternative certification route typicallyprovides on-the-job training to college graduates whoare placed in teaching jobs and offered the necessarycoursework, support, time, and supervision requiredfor full certification. This training ranges from inten-sive summer programs to year-round programs thatmirror regular teacher education programs. Mostoften, prospective teachers pursuing alternative certifi-cation have a bachelor’s degree in a subject other thaneducation, but have neither taken any educationcourses nor done any student teaching. Requirementsfor full licensure vary widely across states, dependingon regional needs and local resources.35 However, most

states require that alternative route candidates achieve apassing score on state examinations and take additionalcoursework before a teaching credential is issued.

Alternative teacher certification programs aregrowing in popularity as many states use them toincrease their pool of teachers from under-representedcultural groups; meet the staffing needs of urban andhigh-poverty schools; and attract mid-career profes-sionals to teaching by avoiding the lengthy and argu-ably cumbersome certification process.36 A number ofsuch programs exist, such as Teach for America, Troopsto Teachers, and Transition to Teaching.

Other Countries. England is the only othercountry with alternate teacher certification, with fouralternate routes to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS):the Graduate Teacher Program, the Registered TeacherProgram, the Fast Track Recruitment Initiative, andthe Flexible Graduate Postgraduate Teacher Training.Approximately 5 percent of QTS teachers receive theircertification through these alternate routes. As in theUnited States, these alternate routes were designed toencourage other individuals to enter the teachingprofession. These employment-based routes enableschools to employ teachers who are not yet qualifiedand to support them through an individual trainingprogram leading to Qualified Teacher Status.

33 National Association of State Boards of Education, The Numbers Game: Ensuring Quantity and Quality in the Teaching Workforce, Alexandria, VA,1998.

34 Feistritzer and Chester, 2002.35 NASBE, 1998.36 NASBE, 1998.

Page 29: Preparing Teachers Around the World

28

Beginning Teacher Induction

Are there support programs for new teachers?How do they operate?

United States. In much of the United States, newteachers become oriented to their school when theyfirst start teaching. These orientations tend to last, atthe most, a few days. Many school districts also offerstructured support programs for beginning or firstyear teachers. Recent analysis of national data onAmerican teachers found that 56 percent of publicschool teachers in their first three years of teachinghave participated in a formal beginning teachersupport program.37 These systematic efforts to supportbeginning teachers are known as induction programsand may involve a mentor or experienced teacherworking with the beginning teacher.

There is a wide variety in induction programpolicies and components, however.38 According to arecent review, only 22 of the 33 states with policies fundand mandate induction programs, and most of thesestates allow exemptions to participation that preventmany new teachers from receiving this support.39

A review of state induction policies and programsfound that induction programs vary across thesedimensions: availability and length of training formentors or support teams, focus and degree of struc-ture for the beginning teacher, availability and extentof additional funding, evaluation of the beginningteacher, evaluation of the induction program, andvoluntary status of individual and district participa-tion in the program.40

In sum, although many states have inductionpolicies, the overall support for new teachers in theUnited States is fragmented due to wide variation inlegislation, policy, and type of support available.

Other Countries. The existence or characterof beginning teacher induction programs in othercountries can vary for several reasons, but a key reasonis the potential for overlap of functions across thethree stages of teacher education, induction, andongoing professional development. For example, sometraining systems may require a long period of practiceteaching with a mentor before a teaching credential isawarded, while other systems may require the sameafter the credential is already obtained. In the formercase, the mentoring activity is part of the teachereducation process; in the latter, it is part of the teacherinduction process.

Of the countries surveyed, only Korea and theNetherlands do not provide new teacher supportprograms (see Table 6). In Hong Kong, there is nonational policy, and participation in such programs isnot required, but the state does offer seminars andworkshops oriented toward new teachers. In Englandand Singapore, the support programs are required bythe national government; in Japan and Australia, theyare required by the state (prefecture in Japan). InEngland and Australia, programs are organized byindividual schools and not monitored. In Japan,programs are closely monitored, while Singapore’sformal induction program is run by the nationalministry itself.

Most teacher induction support programs consistof two separate components: in-school tutoring andmentoring, and out-of-school inservice workshops andseminars. In-school mentoring is common in England,Australia, and Japan, but is only closely monitored bythe state in Japan. Out-of-school workshops andseminars are provided by all countries with inductionprograms, but are not mandatory in Hong Kong andnot closely monitored in England or Australia.

CONTINUING EDUCATION AND SUPPORT

37 E. Hirsch, J.E. Koppich, and Michael S. Knapp, Revisiting What States Are Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching: An Update on Patterns andTrends, Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, February 2001.

38 National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996. American Federation of Teachers, “Beginning Teacher Induction: The EssentialBridge, AFT Educational Issues Policy Brief, 13, 1-13, 2001. Aubrey H. Wang, Alison Tregidgo, and Venus Mifsud, Analyzing State Policies andPrograms for Beginning Teacher Induction: A Comprehensive Framework (RR-02-21), Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Research Report,2002.

39 American Federation of Teachers, 2001.40 NASDTEC, 2002.

Page 30: Preparing Teachers Around the World

29

Teachers may be compensated for their participa-tion in induction programs in either of two ways: bypayment above their regular salary or by reducedworkload. Of the countries with induction programs,only Hong Kong requires teachers to pay fees forparticipation and, even there, the fees are usually eitherpartially or fully reimbursed. Singapore provides a2-day workshop before the school year starts. England,on the other hand, mandates first-year teachers to havea 10 percent reduced workload, and Japan mandates aday per week free for 30 weeks. Compensation policiesare left up to the individual schools in Australia.

Professional Development

Are there additional educational programs or opportuni-ties for practicing teachers? Are they required or volun-tary? Are there incentives for participation?

United States. Some states issue a life teachingcredential, and all professional development after that

is up to the employer and/or the certificated staffmember. Other states issue a permanent credentialthat must be verified periodically by the employer toensure that the teacher has met the school district’sprofessional development requirements. Other statesrequire verification of professional developmentfor renewal of the certificate. Delaware, Hawaii,Nebraska, New Mexico, and New York are the onlystates that do not require professional development.41

For decades, professional development programsin the United States largely have been organized byindividual schools or districts and, typically, haveconsisted of one-day long or evening workshopsscattered throughout the school year, on a wide varietyof topics. In some districts and states, longer work-shops might precede the school year, particularly whena major new program is being introduced. Some havecriticized this system for its alleged sporadic andincoherent nature, lacking in alignment and adequatefollow-up procedures.42

41 NASDTEC, 2002.42 M. Fullan and S. Steigelbauer, The New Meaning of Educational Change, New York: Teacher’s College Press, 1991. Laurie Lewis et al., Teacher

Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, NCES 1999-080, U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 1999. J. Mullens et al., Student Learning, Teacher Quality, and Professional Development: TheoreticalLinkages, Current Measurement, and Recommendations or Future Data Collection, (NCES 96-28), U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 1996.

Beginning Teacher Induction Professional DevelopmentAustralia Required Required

England Required Voluntary

Hong Kong Voluntary Voluntarya

Japan Required Required

Korea No program Required

Netherlands No program Voluntary

Singapore Required Voluntary

United States Variesb Requiredc

Table 6: Continuing Education and Support

aRequired for those teachers seeking promotion.b16 states require and finance induction programs for teachers, and 30 have programs (Education Week,Quality Counts 2003: "If I Can't Learn From You," January 9, 2003)c43 states issue a life credential and all professional development after that is up to the employer and/orthe teacher (NASDTEC, 2002).

Page 31: Preparing Teachers Around the World

30

A recent NCES survey of teachers on their profes-sional development activities discovered the following:

� The most common topical focus of professionaldevelopment activities was curriculum and perfor-mance standards, with educational technologyintegration, subject-area study, new instructionalmethods, and student performance assessmentbeing the next most popular topics.

� Less common professional development topicsconcerned addressing the needs of disabled orlimited-English proficient students, encouragingcommunity involvement, classroom managementand student discipline, and addressing the needsof students of diverse backgrounds.

� Given any of the topical areas mentioned above,with only one exception, the amount of timedevoted to the topic during the year for any giventeacher was, most commonly, about one day.

� More experienced teachers were less likely toparticipate in professional development activitiesconcerning in-depth study of their subject area orclassroom management, but just as likely to partici-pate in other topics.

� 56 percent of teachers who participated in profes-sional development activities indicated they werelinked to other program improvement activities to amoderate or great extent. 44 percent indicated theywere linked to no or only a small extent.

� 43 percent of participants asserted their professionaldevelopment activities were followed by schooladministration support in applying what waslearned to a moderate or great extent. 35 percentindicated the activities were followed by neededfollow-up sessions or additional training to amoderate or great extent. 32 percent claimed the

activities were followed by school activities in whichteachers help other teachers put the new ideas touse to a moderate or great extent.43

Other Countries. All countries provide profes-sional development opportunities, either through theireducation ministries or by providing teachers the freetime or compensation to partake in the offerings ofother providers (Table 6).

In Japan and Korea, the state or school districtrequires and operates professional developmentactivities. In Japan, teachers participate in six-dayworkshops after their fifth and tenth years as teachers;in Korea, all third-year teachers must complete aformal ministerial training program of four consecu-tive weeks, six days a week, during their winter orsummer break, with some financial aid available. Thestate of South Australia requires all teachers to partici-pate in 30 hours of professional development eachyear. In Hong Kong, professional development partici-pation is required only of those teachers who wish toattain higher rank.

In England, Singapore, and the Netherlands,teachers are encouraged to participate in professionaldevelopment activities through the granting of paidleave each year: five days for teachers in England, 100hours in Singapore, or over a month in the Nether-lands. Teachers may use this time to pursue theofferings available from numerous providers, bothpublic and private. Participation, however, is notmonitored in the Netherlands.

Hong Kong and most Australian states have noformal requirements for participation. In Hong Kong,teachers who wish to partake in programs offered bythe ministry can obtain partial reimbursement. Inmost Australian states, professional developmentrequirements, activities, and compensation are theresponsibility of each school, though some substantialparticipation is a fairly standard expectation of first-year teachers.

43 Basmat Parsad, Laurie Lewis, and Elizabeth Farris, Teacher Preparation and Professional Development: 2000, U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2001-088, Washington, DC, 2001.

Page 32: Preparing Teachers Around the World

31

Hiring

Who is responsible for hiring teachers? What are thecriteria?

United States. Schools and school districts areresponsible for recruiting and hiring teachers. Thereare approximately 88,000 public elementary andsecondary schools in 15,000 school districts thatemploy 2.7 million teachers throughout the nation.The size of these schools and school districts rangesfrom very small to very large, resulting in great differ-ences in hiring needs and hiring processes.44

The system for recruiting and hiring teachersis not universal and has been characterized as frag-mented by policy bodies like the National Commis-sion for Teaching and America’s Future. The mostcommon hiring criteria are completion of an under-graduate program, an application, and an interview.

Even in geographic locations or in subject areassuffering from a shortage of qualified applicants, veryfew school districts offer differential incentives toattract teachers. In some cases, districts are restrictedby labor contracts from doing so, in other cases,obtaining a waiver from the credential requirementsfrom the state may seem an easier alternative.45

Other Countries. Hiring practices differ acrossthe countries surveyed (see Table 7). In Korea, theschool district decides whom to hire; in Japan, theprefecture (state) decides; and in Singapore, theEducation Ministry does the hiring. The state makesdecisions regarding permanent positions in mostAustralian states, through the mechanism of “Appoint-ment Panels.”

Korea’s hiring criteria include the appropriateuniversity degree and subject matter specialization,plus a teacher induction test (that only 40 percentpass, on average) including subject matter content(70 percent of the test) and pedagogical theory and

TEACHING PROFESSION

44 Feistritzer and Chester, 2002.45 Susan P. Choy et al., America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, (NCES 93-

025), Washington, DC, 1993.46 Robert P. Strauss, “Who Gets Hired to Teach? The Case of Pennsylvania,” in Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn, Jr. (Eds.), Better Teachers,

Better Schools, Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, July 1999.

Vignette: Teacher Hiring Practices inPennsylvania In one of the few systematic studies of teacherhiring practices and procedures, Robert Strausscompiled the results from a Pennsylvania StateBoard of Education survey of every district super-intendent, school board president, and unionpresident. Some of his major findings include:

� About 40 percent of current teachers attendedhigh school in the district where they work;

� Only 49 percent of districts have writtenhiring policies;

� About one-third of districts fill full-time open-ings from substitutes or part-time teacherswhom they already know. Another 14 percentof full-time positions are filled by within-district transfers;

� Only 25 percent of districts advertise openingsoutside of Pennsylvania; and

� Independent evidence on content knowledgeand caliber of certifying institution was aboutas important in recruiting as indications ofcommunity involvement, willingness to assistin extracurricular activities, and non-teachingwork experience.46

Page 33: Preparing Teachers Around the World

32

methods (30 percent of the test). Hiring criteria inSingapore and Japan include an appropriate universitydegree, subject matter specialization, passage of a testof English language skills (Singapore only), demon-stration of communication skills, proper attitude,and interviews.

In the other countries surveyed, the criteria usedin hiring, and the weight given to each criterion, restwith the individual school. This is the case in HongKong, the Netherlands, England (subject to teacherunion review), and Australia (for contract teachers).

Tenure

What is the job security status of teachers? Under whatcircumstances can teachers be terminated?

United States. In most states, teachers earn theright, after an average probationary period of threeyears, to continue teaching in their school district. Itis very difficult to terminate a tenured teacher, andthis action usually requires proof of misconduct.

Other Countries. Teacher tenure exists in all theother countries surveyed, and is generally automaticonce one is hired into a permanent position. Mostcountries maintain some type of probation period,however. Only in Korea and Singapore, where theinitial entry requirements are very tough, is tenuregranted upon first hiring. In Japan, the probation

period is one year, during which the new teacher mustperform satisfactorily. In Hong Kong, the probationaryperiod is two years. In the Netherlands, new teacherstypically work part-time or as temporary replacementsfor some time before they can obtain permanentpositions. Similarly, in England and Australia, manynew teachers work under contracts at first, until theycan get hired into a permanent position.

As in the United States, it is very difficult to firetenured teachers and usually requires proof of profes-sional misconduct or position redundancy.

Compensation

How are teacher compensation policies determined?What factors influence teacher salaries? How do teachersalaries compare with the salaries of other professionals?

United States. School districts set teacher compen-sation for public schools in the United States. Due todifferences in tax structures, revenue sources, cost-of-living, supply and demand, and union power, salariesfor teachers vary enormously. A recent study cited anaverage minimum salary of $27,989 for beginningteachers in the United States and an average salary of$41,820 for all public school teachers. Across thestates, minimum salary ranges from $20,422 (NorthDakota) to $33,676 (Alaska). Average salary rangesfrom $29,525 (Oklahoma) to $52,410 (Connecticut).47

Table 7: Level of Government at Which Teacher HiringDecisions Are Made

aStates hire for permanent positions; schools hire for contract positions.

National Government

State Government

School District

Individual School

Australiaa X X

England X

Hong Kong X

Japan X

Korea X

Netherlands X

Singapore X

United States X X

47 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Digest of Education Statistics 2001, 2002.

Page 34: Preparing Teachers Around the World

33

Compensation generally differs by the level ofeducation taught, too, with high school teachersearning a slightly higher starting salary than elemen-tary teachers. Teachers typically earn incremental cost-of-living salary increases and one-time increases foradvanced degrees. Teachers at all levels earn less thanprofessionals with similar educational credentials, andthis difference can be substantial.48

Other Countries. As in the United States, teachercompensation is set at the local level in Korea andJapan. In Hong Kong, Singapore, England, and theNetherlands, decisions are set at the national level.Australia’s teacher compensation setting process isdescribed as “industrial agreements that are negotiatedbetween employers and teacher unions in each state.”

In a consistent pattern across the countriessurveyed, salary levels parallel educational attainmentand certification levels. Furthermore, all have sometype of mechanism in place for teachers to earnsalary increases.

Table 8 shows average lower secondary educationteacher salaries for the OECD countries participatingin this study at three career points. Figure 6 showsthese data graphically.

Figure 6 shows that the salary gap among thesecountries widens as teachers go through their careers.While the difference between the highest (the Nether-lands) and lowest (England) starting salary is $6,000,

Table 8: Annual Salaries for Lower Secondary EducationTeachers in U.S. Dollars, 2000

Start After 15 Years Top

Australia $29,946 $38,312 $38,314 England 22,428 35,487 35,487Japan 22,670 42,820 54,663Korea 26,148 43,800 69,666Netherlands 28,443 34,985 43,466United States 27,643 40,072 47,908

48 American Council for Education, 1999.

the difference increases to over $34,000 at the top end(the difference between Korea and England).

Beginning teacher salaries are higher than salariespaid to similarly educated professionals in Australia,Japan, and Hong Kong, and comparable in Singapore.In England and Korea, beginning teachers earn lessthan other comparable professionals. In all of thesecountries except England, the relative position ofteacher salaries, compared with other similar profes-sionals, is stagnant or worsens over time. In England,the salary disparities diminish as seniority progresses.

Another way to compare teacher salaries acrosscountries is to relate salary to gross domestic product(GDP) per capita. The resulting ratio is a measurethat, essentially, compares average teacher salary toa country’s overall wealth. Table 9 shows the ratioof teacher salaries after 15 years of experience toGDP per capita for OECD countries participating inthis study.

Korean teachers do far better (relative to GDP)than U.S. teachers and teachers in the other countries,as well. Average teacher salary in a country could below by comparison to those in other countries, butstill relatively high on this measure, if the country hasa low GDP per capita. Indeed, very poor countries,with relatively low GDP per capita, tend to haverelatively high ratios of average teacher salary to GDPper capita. The practical effect is that one often finds

Note: Salaries are converted to U.S. dollar equivalents using a purchasing power parityindex. Equivalent data are unavailable for Hong Kong and Singapore.Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance:OECD Indicators 2002, Paris, 2002.

Page 35: Preparing Teachers Around the World

34

that some of the brightest and most ambitiousgraduates enter the teaching profession in poorercountries.

Average teacher salary per GDP per capita isassociated with the relative employment opportuni-ties available. In poorer countries, with small privatesectors, a teaching career may be one of the few high-status professions. In richer countries, with very largeprivate sectors, a teaching career must compete forgraduates’ interest with many other attractive,

Beginning After 15 years Top of Scale

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tho

usan

ds o

f Dol

lars

Korea ($69,666)

Japan ($54,663)

U.S. ($47,908)

Netherlands ($43,466)

Australia ($38,314)

England ($35,487)

Figure 6: Annual Salaries for Lower Secondary Education Teachersin U.S. Dollars, 2000

well-paying, and high-status occupations. Generally,the richer a country is, the lower its average teachersalary per GDP per capita.

All that withstanding, two countries can havethe same GDP per capita and different ratios of aver-age teacher salaries per GDP per capita. In that case,one could argue that the higher ratio probably repre-sents a greater “fiscal effort” to support teachers’welfare, or a greater financial commitment to teachingas a profession.

KoreaJapan 1.62EnglandAustralia 1.43Netherlands 1.26United States

2.48

1.48

1.12

Table 9: Ratio of Average TeacherSalary After 15 Years of Experienceto GDP per Capita, 2000

Source: Organization for Economic Coop-eration and Development, Education at aGlance: OECD Indicators 2002, Paris,2002.

Note: Salaries are converted to U.S. dollar equivalents using a purchasing power parityindex. Equivalent data are unavailable for Hong Kong and Singapore.Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance:OECD Indicators 2002, Paris, 2002.

Page 36: Preparing Teachers Around the World

35

As a result of the divergent policies and practicesdiscussed in the preceding sections of this report, onemight expect to find different outcomes across thecountries with the respect to the qualifications ofeighth-grade mathematics and science teachers. Toexplore whether or not this appears to be the case, it ishelpful to compare the qualifications of teachers ineach country. Two indicators of teachers’ preparednessto teach mathematics are presented in Figure 7: thepercentage of students in each country whose teacherspossess a mathematics major as a result of theirbachelor’s, master’s, or teacher training program; andthe percentage of students whose teachers have bothteacher certification and mathematics as their majorarea of study.

Eighth-grade students in the United States andthose in Hong Kong were less likely than those in theother countries surveyed to have teachers with math-ematics and/or mathematics education as a major area

of study. Just 61 percent of students in the UnitedStates and 68 percent of students in Hong Kong weretaught by such teachers. In contrast, 90 percent ormore of the students in England, Japan, Korea, and theNetherlands had teachers with a mathematics major.

Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the studentsin the surveyed countries had teachers with bothteacher certification and a mathematics major. (Thisindicator is not available for the United States.) Again,the vast majority of students in Korea and Japan (97and 93 percent, respectively) are taught by teacherswith these qualifications, while in Hong Kong only 56percent of the students were taught by such teachers.

The data on teachers’ qualifications to teachscience are similar to the findings for mathematics(Figure 8). Across the countries, the percentage ofstudents whose teachers possessed a science majorranged from a low of 71 percent in the U.S. to morethan 90 percent in England, Singapore, and Korea.

OUTCOMES OF TEACHER EDUCATION: PREPARATION AND CONFIDENCE

Australia

England

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

Netherlands

Singapore

United States

50 60 70 80 90 100

7272

9085

6856

9393

9797

9187

8484

61

Percent of students whose teachers have a mathematics majorin their BA, MA, or Teacher Training Program

Percent of students whose teachers have both teachercertification and mathematics as the major area of study

Percentage of Students

NA

Figure 7: Teacher Preparation in Mathematics,1999

Source: Ina V.S. Mullis et al., TIMSS 1999 InternationalMathematics Report, Boston College, International StudyCenter, December 2000.

Figure 8: Teacher Preparation in Science, 1999

Australia

England

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

Netherlands*

Singapore

United States

50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of students whose teachers have a science majorin their BA, MA, or Teacher Training Program

Percent of students whose teachers have both teachercertification and science as the major area of study

8787

9590

8473

8686

9391

9494

71

Percentage of Students

NA

*99 and 99% in earth science; 91 and 85% in biology; and69 and 60% in physics and chemistry, respectively.

Source: Ina V.S. Mullis et al., TIMSS 1999 InternationalScience Report, Boston College, International Study Center,December 2000.

Page 37: Preparing Teachers Around the World

36

Between 86 and 94 percent of students in all but oneof the participating countries (Hong Kong, at 73percent) were taught by teachers with both certifica-tion and science as a major. Data are unavailable forthe United States.

To obtain a sense of how confident teachers areabout their ability to teach science and mathematics,TIMSS constructed an index measuring teachers’confidence in their preparation to teach each of 10science topics and 12 mathematics topics. The per-centage of students in each country who were beingtaught by teachers reporting a high level of confidencein their preparation are shown in Figure 9.

Across all of the surveyed countries, students werefar more likely to have teachers who were highlyconfident about teaching mathematics (63 percent, onaverage) than about teaching science (20 percent).Interestingly, of all the countries surveyed, U.S. stu-dents were most likely to have teachers who were

highly confident about their ability to teach math-ematics (87 percent), followed by the Netherlands (81percent) and Australia (77 percent). In contrast, only8 percent of the students in Japan were taught byteachers with a high level of confidence in their abilityto teach this subject. Part of these differences may beexplained by cultural mores; in Asian countries, forexample, it is considered unseemly to express self-confidence in one’s ability to do something.

Similarly, of all the countries surveyed, studentsin the United States were most likely to have teacherswith a high level of confidence in their preparation toteach science (27 percent), compared to just 9, 6, and3 percent of the students, respectively, in Hong Kong,Korea, and Japan.

In summary, compared to their counterparts inother countries, eighth-grade students in the UnitedStates were least likely to have teachers who hadmajored in mathematics or science and most likely tohave teachers who were highly confident about theirability to teach these subjects.

The apparent lack of congruity between teacherpreparation and confidence in the United States maybe due to many different factors, cultural and other-wise. For example, it may be that teachers who lack amathematics major have nonetheless taken an array ofmathematics courses that have given them confidencein their ability to teach the subject. Alternatively, itmay be that some of these teachers are teaching inschools that use well-developed curricula or that offerstrong professional development opportunities thatstrengthen their confidence. Whatever the reasons, thedifference observed between the preparation andconfidence of teachers in the United States, in contrastto the other countries surveyed, is an interestingfinding that deserves scrutiny.

Figure 9: Percentage of Students WhoseTeachers Reported a High Level of Confidencein Their Preparation to Teach Mathematics andScience, 1999

*Data are unavailable.

Source: Ina V.S. Mullis et al., TIMSS 1999 InternationalMathematics Report, Boston College, International StudyCenter, December 2000.

Australia

England

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

Netherlands

Singapore

United States

0 20 40 60 80 100

7722

619

83

486

8119

6618

8727

Mathematics Science

*

Percentage of Students

Page 38: Preparing Teachers Around the World

37

As part of the larger push for reform in mathematicsand science education in the United States, manyobservers have criticized the ways in which thiscountry trains and certifies teachers and have advo-cated sweeping changes in its policies and practices.This impetus is now being renewed—and indeed,increased—with the passage of the No Child LeftBehind Act, which requires that all teachers in coreacademic subjects be highly qualified by the end of the2005-6 school year. The adoption of this ambitiouslegislation means that all teachers must be fullycertified and have an academic background in thesubject they teach.

The data on teacher qualifications discussed inthe preceding section of this report, in addition to thefindings accumulated from other sources, suggest thatmeeting the requirements of this legislation will beextraordinarily challenging. There is already a greatneed for mathematics and science teachers in thiscountry, and this need will grow even more acute asthe baby boomers retire in the coming years, leavingmany vacant teaching positions behind them. Ensur-ing that all of the teachers who assume these positionsare well qualified to teach will demand creative,energetic solutions that need to begin soon and besustained for many years to come.

As part of the search for successful approaches topursue in the United States, it may be helpful to lookabroad, particularly to those countries that performwell in international assessments of mathematics andscience proficiency. This was the impetus of thecurrent study. The international comparison of teachereducation and certification policies and practicesreported herein reveals some surprising similarities aswell as many striking differences across the countriesexamined.

Our analytical model, or pipeline, can be viewedin at least two ways: as a collection of separate orindependent issues, or as a sequence, from beginningto end, of the teacher training and certification pro-cess. Even if one chooses to concentrate on the issuesseparately, it can be informative to keep the pipelinemodel in mind.

This is especially true if one wishes to makegeneral comparisons across countries that reachbeyond a single stop in the pipeline. Say, for example,country A has very strict, highly structured, andtightly monitored requirements for a new teacher’sfirst year induction requirements. In country B, onthe other hand, new teachers are sent out to theirschools, and it is up to each school to have or not havean induction process. Having only this information,one might be prone to jump to the conclusion thatthe teacher training process as a whole must be morestrict, highly structured, and tightly monitored incountry A than it is in country B. That may or maynot be true, however. It is possible that, in country A,the requirements for entry into and exit from theteacher training colleges are lax (ergo the need forclose monitoring during the induction year), whereasthose in country B are difficult and highly selective,allowing schools more discretion in whether or not toprovide induction programs.

Indeed, as this report shows, countries do seemto vary with respect to where along the teacher-training pipeline they impose pressure points. Somecountries seem to “front load” their requirements—in other words, emphasize selection into and fromteacher education programs. Others seem to “backload” their requirements—that is, emphasize rigorousinduction during a probation period after which someteachers will not receive permanent posts. In others,like the United States, for example, nearly all of thedense filtering is applied before or at the point ofinitial certification. After that, the filters in placemight be considered “pro forma” or low-stakes.

The “valves” and “filters” that line the teachereducation and development pipeline can be used toscreen out certain candidates from the profession. Insome cases, one country may keep a certain valve openall the time, essentially not using that available pres-sure point as a candidate screen, whereas anothercountry might use a dense filter, screening out asubstantial proportion of teacher candidates.

Table 10 describes the situation graphically andcomparatively—across our eight countries, and alongthe pipeline. We identify eight pressure points along

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Page 39: Preparing Teachers Around the World

38

the teacher education and development pipeline: fromentry into a teacher education program to evaluationof probation period (for tenure). Pressure points arearranged sequentially, in the same order as any teacher-trainee would experience them. The density of eachfilter is shown and is classified as being high-, medium-,or low-stakes. Appendix B describes the rubrics usedto determine the stakes of the filters. Briefly, a high-stakes filter requires the candidate to satisfy a certaincriterion or be prevented from continuing. An exampleof a high-stakes filter would be a requirement for a highscore on subject matter or university entrance exams asa requirement for entrance into a teacher educationprogram. A medium-stakes filter would be one wherethe criterion the candidate must satisfy is moderatedis some substantial way or is easier to satisfy than itcould be (or is in other countries). A low-stakes filterwould be characterized as a very minimum or volun-tary requirement.

Interestingly, there are no pressure points atwhich even a majority of our sample countries applyhigh-stakes filters—the locations of the filters varyacross our countries, and the “density” of the filtersvaries, too. All countries use either high- or medium-stakes filters at at least three pressure points. Moreover,all the countries studied have at least two low-stakesfilters; England and the United States lead with five.

We make no claim that these rubrics representthe only reasonable classification scheme of the“density” or rigor of the filters. Other classificationsmay be possible too, though we suspect that theoverall results are likely to be similar. Nor do we claimthat the classifications across filters are equivalent ordirectly comparable. We made cuts between high-,medium-, and low-stakes where clear, practicallydemonstrable, and empirically knowable separationsexisted. But these classifications were idiosyncratic—unique to each filter.

Table 10: Filters Used Along the Teacher Education and Development Pipeline

● High-Stakes Medium-Stakes � Low- or No-Stakes

*Since teacher education and certification are the responsibility of individual states, practices can differamong them. See Appendix B for the rubrics for the classifications in the table.

Page 40: Preparing Teachers Around the World

39

The results of this classification exercise are alsodisplayed in Table 11. Keep in mind that we refer hereto systemwide pressure points. If the level of stakes ata pressure point is left up to each individual school ina country, we cannot know what level of stakes areapplied and, essentially, we assume low- or no-stakes.Hong Kong and the United States both defer manyimportant decisions to local schools or local schooldistricts. In the much larger and more decentralizedUnited States, at least, such deferral is tantamount todispersal and, ultimately, renders the decision low- orno-stakes in our classifications.

Summarizing the information from Tables 10 and11, and reclassifying by country, we count the numberof high-, medium-, and low- or no-stakes pressurepoints for each country in our sample. The result ofthis re-aggregation is displayed in Figure 10. Countriesare sorted from high to low based on the total numberof high- and medium-stakes filters they employed (andsecondarily sorted by the number of high-stakes filters).

One should keep in mind that while we haveattempted to rank the level of stakes for each pressurepoint, we have made no attempt to rank the relativestakes (or density) across pressure points. If, forexample, Korea’s high-stakes professional developmentevaluation represents a denser filter than its high-stakes hiring process, that disparity is not reflected inFigure 10, where both processes are classified simplyas “high-stakes.” Nor have we attempted to rank therelative density of the filters within each cell of Figure10. The high-stakes filter at a given pressure pointfor one country may be more rigorous than thatfor another.

Indeed, a country could make a deliberate policydecision to employ just one filter at a single pressurepoint, but make that filter so “dense” that only a smallproportion of teacher candidates pass through. In thisextreme case, that country might validly be describedas having a more rigorous (or, some might say, morearbitrary) teacher selection process, using only onefilter, than do other countries that employ more filters.

This scenario does not well describe any in ourgroup of countries, however. In the countries includedin this study, there appears to be a strong relationshipbetween the number of pressure points with stakesattached and the number of high-stakes filters used.Nonetheless, the general point is valid. Countries arenot necessarily ranked in Figure 10 in pure order ofrigor (i.e., stakes of the filters). Rather, the rankingcombines rigor (the use of high-stakes filters) andfrequency (i.e., number of filters, or selection points,used).

The information gathered in this study showsthat each country’s teacher education and certificationpipeline differs in some important and interestingways from those in other countries. The reasons forthese differences are numerous, of course, rangingfrom the cultural to the political to the practical.Whether the reasons are valid and the resultingpolicies and practices are accomplishing the desiredends evoke the essential policy questions.

Although U.S. policymakers can learn somevaluable lessons from this study, some words of

Figure 10: Number and Density of FiltersApplied Along the Teacher Education andCertification Pipeline

Japan

Korea

Singapore

Australia

Netherlands

Hong Kong

England

United States

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

High-Stakes Medium-Stakes Low- or No-Stakes

Page 41: Preparing Teachers Around the World

40

Tab

le 1

1: S

um

mar

y o

f F

ilter

s U

sed

Alo

ng

th

e Te

ach

er E

du

cati

on

an

d D

evel

op

men

t P

ipel

ine

Ent

ry to

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n P

rogr

am

(und

ergr

adua

te o

r

grad

uate

)

Eva

luat

ion

of

Pra

ctic

al E

xper

ienc

e R

equi

rem

ent

Exi

t Fro

m

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n P

rogr

amC

ertif

icat

ion

Hiri

ng

Eva

luat

ion

of

Indu

ctio

n P

erio

d

Eva

luat

ion

of

Pro

fess

iona

l D

evel

opm

ent

Eva

luat

ion

of

Pro

batio

n P

erio

d (b

efor

e te

nure

)

Hig

h-S

take

s

Japa

n

Kor

ea

Net

herla

nds

Sin

gapo

re

Eng

land

Ja

pan

N

ethe

rland

s

Aus

tral

ia K

orea

S

inga

pore

E

ngla

nd

U

ntie

d S

tate

sK

orea

Japa

n

Kor

eaH

ong

Kon

g

Ja

pan

Med

ium

-Sta

kes

Aus

tral

ia

H

ong

Kon

g

Unt

ied

Sta

tes

Aus

tral

ia

H

ong

Kon

g

Kor

eaN

ethe

rland

s

U

ntie

d S

tate

sA

ustr

alia

Japa

n

Sin

gapo

reJa

pan

Sin

gapo

reH

ong

Kon

g

Aus

tral

ia

Eng

land

Net

herla

nds

Low

- or

No-

S

take

sE

ngla

ndU

ntie

d S

tate

s

Eng

land

H

ong

Kon

g

Ja

pan

Hon

g K

ong

Ja

pan

K

orea

N

ethe

rland

s

S

inga

pore

Aus

tral

ia

Eng

land

H

ong

Kon

g

Unt

ied

Sta

tes

Aus

tral

ia

Eng

land

H

ong

Kon

g

K

orea

N

ethe

rland

s

Unt

ied

Sta

tes

Aus

tral

ia

Eng

land

N

ethe

rland

s

Unt

ied

Sta

tes

Kor

ea

Unt

ied

Sta

tes

Sin

gapo

re

Sin

gapo

reN

ethe

rland

s

S

inga

pore

Page 42: Preparing Teachers Around the World

41

caution, along with a few caveats, are in order. Justbecause other countries that perform well in interna-tional comparative assessments engage in certainpractices or processes does not, in and of itself, suggestthat the United States should, too. There are severalreasons for this. First, as research analysts are so fondof saying, “correlation does not equal causation.” Ourstudy examines the teacher education and develop-ment process in several countries whose studentsdemonstrated relatively high proficiency in theTIMSS. We cannot say, however, which specificcomponents of each country’s process are causallyrelated to their students’ performance. Some compo-nents might be, some might not be. Some might evenbe negatively related. Ultimately, our study is moreexploratory and descriptive than analytical.

Second, some practices are simply not transfer-able to the United States, no matter how successful orprevalent they might be in other countries. TheUnited States, for example, simply cannot run all of itsteacher education and development programs out of asingle institution, as is done in Singapore, or imitateother practices unique to smaller countries, such asHong Kong, or even the Netherlands, where singlenational programs can be operated that all teacherscan travel to and from within a day’s time. The UnitedStates is too large for such an approach to be practical,and our federal governance structure, with the statesbeing the original founding entities that retain author-ity over education matters, would not allow it simplyas a matter of constitutional law.

Other practices described in our report may notbe transferable to the United States because we have adifferent education tradition and culture, with differ-ent expectations and perceptions of what is acceptableand normal. Some of the “die is cast at an early age”characteristics of other countries’ education systems,for example, might seem out-of-place in U.S. culture,where citizens appreciate the notion that they can bewhatever they want to be at any point in their lifetimeif they decide to devote their effort (and resources) tothat end.

Some practices in the United States seem to beuncommon in other countries and, consequently,other countries provide little information from whichwe can learn. This seems to be particularly true,unfortunately, in some of the more controversialaspects of the teacher education and developmentprocess, such as alternative certification and emer-gency credentialing. For example, among our surveyedcountries, only England offers any alternative certifica-tion routes and, even there, they are either new orchanging in character, and currently account for onlyabout 5 percent of teacher-trainees. In all othercountries surveyed, students become teachers througha fairly standard civil-service-type training process.No other countries surveyed allowed emergencycredentialing.

So, what lessons can this study offer policy-makers? Even though some teacher education anddevelopment practices employed in other countriesmay be good and may be transferable, this study hasnot been extensive enough to recommend which ones.Moreover, most of the other countries surveyed seemto have, generally, quite similar processes and gover-nance structures that regulate those processes.

What does vary substantially across countries,however, is where along the “pipeline” the screens orpressure points are applied. Some countries makeentry into teacher education programs very difficult,while some make it relatively easy. Some countriesmake exit from teacher education programs verydifficult, while some make it relatively easy. In somecountries, induction is a formality, whereas in others itis rigorous and seriously monitored. In some coun-tries, tenure is virtually assured at the end of inductionor even before, whereas, in other countries, a notinsignificant proportion of teachers remain to bescreened from the profession before they can be saidto have tenure.

In any country, policymakers concerned withteacher education and development can choose:

Page 43: Preparing Teachers Around the World

42

� The number of filters to use in the teacher educa-tion and development pipeline;

� Where to locate the filters along the pipeline; and

� The nature and density of each filter along thepipeline.

Lessons for U.S. policymakers derived from thisstudy include:

� Other countries tend to use more filters than theUnited States;

� Other countries use more high-stakes filters thanthe United States;

� U.S. policymakers might find it instructive howother countries filter teacher candidates at thosepressure points we leave unused; and

49 While this study has examined the entire length of the teacher education and development pipeline, teachers’ professional lives do not stop oncethey have attained tenure. As mentioned earlier in the report, the Milken Family Foundation sponsored a recent study by the Council for BasicEducation on that very topic, Teachers’ Professional Lives: A View from Nine Industrialized Countries. Across the countries surveyed, the Milken/CBEsurvey shows an emphasis on teacher qualifications, with rigorous requirements for years of study, content knowledge and certification, and lessconcern with teacher performance. Student achievement is rarely a factor in teacher pay and teachers are not held accountable, collectively orindividually, for student achievement. Yet, as in the United States, there is a growing interest among these countries in linking rewards to studentachievement and mastery teaching. Teacher assessment, where it occurs and involves classroom performance, usually serves as an advisory tool forprofessional development and sometimes for performance-based pay, bonuses or promotion. A teacher can be dismissed for legal infractions, butrarely for reasons of incompetence or for poor performance evaluations.

� Efforts to extract lessons from other countries basedonly upon comparisons of individual segments ofthe pipeline should be considered inconclusive;conclusive judgments can be derived only afterconsideration of the entire length (i.e., the entireteacher education and development process).49

As policymakers and educators in the UnitedStates continue to search for effective ways to expandand improve the supply of qualified mathematics andscience teachers in the coming years, it will be impor-tant to examine our own pipeline closely to determinewhether the mechanisms that currently govern theflow of prospective teachers are the proper ones, andwhether they are succeeding or failing to achieve theirintended goals: to train desirable candidates for theteaching profession and to ensure their success oncethere. There is also a need to recognize the factorsthat affect the attractiveness of teaching as a careerand the tension between the impact of imposing high-stakes filters and being able to adequately staff thenation’s schools.

Page 44: Preparing Teachers Around the World

43

APPENDIX A: Country Demographic Profile

Size (thousand

km2)aPopulation density

(persons/km2)a

Population size (millions)b

Population of students

ages 15-19 (millions)c

Primary and secondary classroom teachers

(% of total labor force)d

Per capita GDP

(US$)a Control

7,700.0 2 18.5 1.3 2.3 17,250aa Federated130.4 372 50.0 3.0 2.4dd 14,058aa National

1.1 5,404 6.5 Not available Not available 13,430bb National377.8 330 126.1 7.6 1.5 31,490aa National99.0 441 46.0 3.7 1.4 7,660aa National41.0 372 15.6 0.9 2.8 18,780bb National0.6 4,481 3.1 Not available Not available 20,414cc National

10,000.0 27 267.6 18.7 2.2 25,744aa Federated

AustraliaEnglandHong KongJapanKorea, Republic ofNetherlandsSingaporeUnited States

aSource: David F. Robitaille (ed.), National Context for Mathematics and Science Education: An Encyclopediaof the Education Systems Participating in TIMSS. Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.bSource: Ina V.S. Mullis et al., Mathematics Benchmarking Report, TIMSS 1999 - Eighth Grade: Achievementfor U.S. States and Districts in an International Context. Boston, MA: International Study Center, Lynch Schoolof Education, Boston College, 2000. P. 27, Exhibit 2.cSource: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators.Table A1.1. Paris, France: OECD Publications, 2001. This is done by multiplying percent of population ofstudents ages 15-19 (around 6 to 7 percent for each country) by total population.dSource: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators.Table D2.4. Paris, France: OECD Publications, 2001.aaGDP per capita for 1993.bbGDP per capita for 1991.ccGDP per capita for 1994.ddThe figure was calculated for United Kingdom.

Page 45: Preparing Teachers Around the World

44

APPENDIX B: Classification Rubrics

High-Stakes Medium-Stakes Low- to No-Stakes

Entry to teacher education

(Undergraduate programs): mustexceed threshold levels on subjectarea examinations, advanced levelnational examinations or universityentrance examinations.(Graduate programs): must hold abachelor's degree in subject area.

(Undergraduate programs): must pass a basic skills test.(Graduate programs): musthold a bachelor's degree or

Evaluation of practical experience requirement

Formal monitoring and enforcement, with successful performance required for graduation.

Formal monitoring. May be required but, generally, no monitoring or enforcement.

Exit from teacher education

Systemwide exit examinations in subject areas and on other topics (e.g., pedagogy).

Institutional examinations in sub- ject area and on other topics (e.g.,pedagogy).

Degree requirements, and no others, other than perhaps a basic skills test.

Certification Systemwide examinations. Some evaluation of teaching isrequired and is reviewed by statutory authorities.

Degree requirements only.

Hiring National examination with high cut-score required; additional testsrequired locally.

Decision is made by state authorities or national ministry (thus, is standardized) with setthresholds for passage requiredon multiple criteria.

Up to individual school.

Evaluation of induction period

Programs are systematically monitored and satisfaction withcandidate performance must exceeda certain threshold level.

Programs are formally monitored by state authorities or national ministry.

Programs are typically required or provided, but are not monitored.

Evaluation of professional development

State authorities or national ministryoperates formal, standardized pro- gram (which can be lengthy) and requires participation.

National authority operatesprograms, but requires participa-only for those seeking promotion.

Programs are offered, but neither monitored nor standardized, and participation is not required.

Evaluation of probation period

One- to two-year waiting periodbefore tenure is considered.

Many new teachers only able to obtain contract employment atfirst, which has no tenure.

Tenure is automatic at first hiring; teacher can lose job only through furloughs or improper personal conduct.

(Undergraduate programs): mustexceed threshold levels on secon-dary school exit examinations ornational examinations.(Graduate programs): must hold abachelor's degree in relevant field.

its equivalent in some field.

Page 46: Preparing Teachers Around the World
Page 47: Preparing Teachers Around the World
Page 48: Preparing Teachers Around the World
Page 49: Preparing Teachers Around the World
Page 50: Preparing Teachers Around the World

POLICYINFORMATIONREPORT

Research andDevelopment

Policy InformationCenter

Preparing TeachersAround the World

88503 • 023480 • U73E6I.N. 997443