This follow-up study analyzed accountability requirements through the perceptions of university-based teacher preparation leaders. A 2003 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) survey requested that school, college or department of education (SCDE) designated unit heads give their perceptions about 2000-2002 state and national teacher quality accountability policies. A secondary dataset analysis focused on accountability system configurations: internal accountability measures (oversight policies formulated from within the education profession) and external accountability policies (generated from legislation).
Of approximately 600 AACTE members, 200 were randomly sampled. The survey's 61% response rate yielded perceived degree and direction of influence of four post-secondary accountability measures on teacher preparation program changes. Institutional size was shown to affect its leaders' perceptions of an accountability measure's influence. Usually the leadership at smaller SCDEs, department chairs perceived a greater negative influence from the four accountability measures. Smaller private institutions, with fewer than 64 annual initial program completers, were predicted to perceive that national accreditation standards had a lower degree of influence on certain curriculum and instruction program changes.
However, among all respondents for all four accountability measures, national accreditation standards ranked first as having the highest degree and most positive influence. Also, an SCDE's NCATE-status showed a statistically significant difference, a perceived positive influence of state program approval accountability.
The national specialty professional association standards were found to be the least influential of the study's accountability measures. These standards had low ranking comparative mean scores and only one program change showed a perceived difference between SCDEs' leadership.
State program approval standards had high-ranking comparative mean scores among the accountability measures; they were the only measure to yield a perceived greater degree and more positive direction of influence for department chairs. As a hybrid accountability configuration, they interact and reinforce the national accreditation accountability measure.
The Higher Education Act of 1998, Title II reporting requirement was also included in the study and this secondary dataset analysis may provide information for education stakeholders' current debates on teacher quality accountability requirements.
|Commitee:||Schwallie-Giddis, Pat, Shotel, Jay|
|School:||The George Washington University|
|School Location:||United States -- District of Columbia|
|Source:||DAI-A 69/01, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||School administration, Teacher education|
|Keywords:||Accountability, Education policy, Teacher preparation, Teacher preparation accountability, Teacher preparation leadership, Teacher quality, Teacher quality accountability|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be