ACEI: NCATE and TEAC differences and discussion.

As an active participant and leader in the Association for Childhood Education International, I continually hear of the desire to improve the quality of education for Pre-K-6 students. The debate often focuses on the recruitment, reward, and retention of highly qualified educators. ACEI members involved in teacher education are challenged continually to make dramatic improvements and to reevaluate teacher education programs, due to changing institutional, state, and national goals, while remaining committed to our ACEI mission. Clearly, ACEI members have an ongoing obligation to meet the needs of children by supporting a quality accreditation process for teacher preparation programs. And we do! As human rights advocates, ACEI members have supported reforms not only in education but also in health care and equality issues.

Lately, I have been engaged in compelling conversations on accreditation, specifically related to ACEI's partnership with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). We are proud of our joint efforts to improve teacher quality and NCATE's initiatives concerning learning standards/accreditation and professional education accountability. At ACEI, we have developed world-class elementary standards and continue to support the development of appropriate assessments of learning. Our members support the use of rich data to meet children's needs while improving program design/policies.

Founded in 1997 and acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Education in September 2003, the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) has joined the well-established NCATE (1954) as a U.S. accreditation agency, and the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) acknowledges them both (Honawar, 2007). ACEI finds value in the NCATE process and partners with NCATE; however, ACEI members may have an interest in reviewing some history and information about both the NCATE and TEAC processes.

In June 2008, when Arthur Wise retired as president of NCATE, it was announced that the NCATE and TEAC governing boards had agreed to develop multiple pathways to accreditation. Both organizations established design teams to consider specific proposals. At that time, Frank Murray, president of

TEAC, informed members that such planning would not include a merger with NCATE and that there always would be a choice between TEAC and NCATE accreditation. He stated that NCATE and TEAC share general goals "to improve teacher education, to cooperate, to unify the profession and to raise the levels of civility in public and private discourse about accreditation, to learn from each other, to dispel notions that the field is in disarray, to convince the skeptical that accreditation of all programs is an essential ingredient in the building of a true profession of teaching" (Murray, 2008).

However, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), which advocates stronger accreditation in teacher education, appears to promote a single accreditation system. A review of the relationships between NCATE and AACTE and those of TEAC and AACTE show significant differences in methods of collaboration. NCATE and AACTE share principles and governance policy and processes. TEAC has requested technical assistance and financial support for staff but has not articulated an agreement with AACTE.

Also, the governance of TEAC and NCATE is quite different. The various professional associations appoint member institutions to elect the boards of NCATE and TEAC. The TEAC board comprises mostly member college presidents, deans, or directors of teacher education programs.

Both NCATE and TEAC are working toward similar goals, even though there are some striking differences between the two programs. NCATE, which accredits 652 of the nation's 1,200 teacher preparation programs, has protocol agreements with 38 states that clearly outline the roles and expectations of state education officers in the program approval process. It ensures that all educator preparation programs adhere to top standards based on the latest research and professional practice. To read in detail about the differences between the two organizations, please go to www.acei.org/ncateteac.htm.

NCATE has recently encouraged its constituent members, including ACEI, to strengthen its accreditation system. The current president of NCATE says his top priority is to simplify the accreditation process, making it more cost-effective and incorporating more opportunities to focus on self-improvement. ACEI members applaud this direction, while addressing the criticisms and perceptions of the NCATE/ACEI accreditation process.

Quality elementary preparation programs are expensive in terms of time and resources. However, ACEI will continue to applaud nationally recognized programs that strengthen their candidates' preparation by seeking a rigorous review process. It is in the best interest of our children and our profession.

References

Honawar, V. (2007). Teacher-college group presses for single accrediting body. Education Week. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/07/ 26accredit.h26.html&destination=http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/07/ 26accredit.h26.html&levelId=2100

Murray, F, (2008). Joint press release, retrieved from www.TEAC.org.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). NCATE and TEAC boards give green light for future system of teacher accreditation. Retrieved July 14. 2009, from http://ncate.org/public/063008_ NCATE_TEAC.asp

--Ronald P. Colbert, Vice President of Intermediate/Middle Level Education and ACEI/NCATE Elementary Program Review Coordinator