TESOL/NCATETeacher EducationStandards: Why TheyDon't Work and Howto Fix Thern

by David Hanauer & Michael Newman

TESOL recently decided to contributeto the strengthening of ESL teacher edu-cation in the United States by "articulating,'

and "advancing" a series of"standards,, incollaboration with a general P-12 teachereducation body called NCATE (NationalCouncil for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation). TESOL provides the contentfor evaluation and NCATE enforces thiscontent by withholding its national accredi-tation ifthese standards are not met. Thispower is entwined with that of the gov-emment in New York State, where na-tional accreditation has become mandatory.

The concept of standards is bonowedfrom industry where they are used to en-sure "quality control;" indeed, NCATEdefines itself as "the professional qualitycontrol mechanism for teacher prepara-tion" (www.ncate.org). Similarly, NCATEspeaks of "professional education unitls],"standards as "mechanismfs]," and teachereducation as "teacher preparation.', Aswith, for example, soup production atCampbell, a standard allows explicit dem-onstration and gradation in relation to ob-jective criteria, i.e. percentage of chicken.

The problem, of course, is that teach-ers are not objects, and their competencecamot be broken down into predefinedsets of invariant atomic attributes.

TESOL and NCATE, can use themetaphor and terminology of industry, butit is inappropriate for what they are try-ing to describe. In addition, even ifusingthis metaphor and terminology were fea-sible, we do not really know what idealcompetencies would be. While significantadvances have been made in relation towhat we know about teaching, there arestill many gaps and areas of contention. Inaddition, a lot of what there ls professionalconsensus about includes qualitative and/or contingent factors, not explicit observ-able criteria. We are afraid that the best

TESOL canhope forby followingthe in-dustrial is an illusion ofaccountability, akind ofeducational house ofcards, in whichclaims of competence may have littlerelation to the classroom. Furthermore,because standards define competence,they promote educational monoculture.

The TESOL standards start out in-nocently enough by identiS'ing five gen-eral areas called domains. These are:l. Language2. Culture3. Plaruring, Managing, and

Implementing Instruction4. Assessment5. Professionalism

The domains are then divided into 13"standards," which are in tum subdividedinto 70 perforrnance indicators. Qualityemerges in how PIs can be rcalized atthree levels-Approaches Standard,Meets Standard, or Exceeds Standard,each described in detail.

This exhaustive detail effectivelydeprofessionalizes teacher educators byusurping our right and duty to define ourinstructional objectives. Moreover,TESOL's formulation describes adeprofessionalized view ofESL teaching.

For instance, Standard 1 is titled"Describing Language," an ordering im-plying that metalinguistic knowledge is afoundational area of competency. yet,rather than indicate that candidatesmust achieve a professional level ofun-derstanding oflanguage, the PIs speci$,only that they must be able to use lin-guistic knowledge instrumentally in in-struction. This is done by placing de-scriptive and theoretical knowledge atthe approaches level, use of it to teachsuccessfully atthe meets level, andteaching strategies atthe exceeds IeveI.Standard 2, titled "LanguageAcquisition

and Development," similarly managesto only obliquely mention second lan-guage acquisition theory and the twoCulture (Domain 2) standards alsoavoid any in-depth knowledge of cultureoutside of direct instructional applica-tion. Domain 5, Professionalism, simi-larly marginalizes what would seem tobe intuitive-professionalism issues suchas respect for diversity, ability to readresearch, respect for theory and so on.

These criticisms zre not meant to under-estimate the importance of instructionalskills. Instruction already has its own en-tire domain, however, makingthe cover-age in other domains redundant ifnot inco-herent.

We, like many teacher educators, holda different view. We believe that ESLteachers should be able to draw on a deepknowledge of language, literacy, and cul-ture for a wide variety of purposes, manyof which cannot be anticipated duringcoursework. We think the best teachersare able to make connections to novel orunanticipated instructional sifuations, ad-vise parents, administrators, and non-ESLcolleagues, and serve as effective advo-cates for ESL sfudents in classrooms,schools, commwrities, and public policydebates. Teaching skills are necessary butnot sufficient.

In faimess, TESOLA{CATE stan-dards committee members have claimedin various venues that their criteria forprogram accreditation are, in reality, flex-ible guidelines. However, TESOL's ownstandards document belies such claims.On page T2wefindthe following warn-ing: "Each performance assessment mustbe described to reflect the relationshio ofthe activity to the performance inclicaiorsfor the standards being addressed. . . .Reviewers of the program report willcheck the performance indicators, the as-sessments, and program outcome mea-surements to determine whether or notthe performance expectations for eachstandard have been adequately met." Ifthe intent was not prescriptive, why pre-scribe?And why in such equivocation?

We believe that the standards modelis, like the factory-model school before it,a wrong-headed attempt by educators toimitate the forms of another, arguablymore prestigious, domain ofhuman activ-ity. Yet we do see the need for TESOL toreview and accredit programs educatingESLteachers. Also, given political realities,it may not possible to escape the standardsmodel entirely. Those realities however,are no excuse to follow it slavishly.TESOL's imposition ofmicromanagedcriteria that cannot adequately describeprofessional practice impairs the ability toevaluate the quality ofprograms.

(continued on page 2l)NYS TESOL ldion 1 0 Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fall 2005)

Visual and oral dictations are also

very helpful in getting students to enter

the target language through the sounds

they hear. I always found dictations

useful when studying French and often

wonder why dictations have fallen into

such disfavor, because leamers at the

beginning and even intermediate and

sometimes more advanced levels of

proficiency are still trying to master

these sound-let ter correspondences in

a language like French or English.

Having to write what you hear brings

your.attention to sounds and requires

that you make those associat ions nec-

essary to learn to write the language.

Using the Silent Tools in a dictation can

be extremely effective in making those

connect ions. You can sound out a re-

duced expression like /lr'adayadu:/ on

the sound-color chaft. The learners are

sounding out the exPression as the

teacher constructs it on the chart,

sound by sound. making sure to sound

out the reduction of "What do Youdo?" Students repeat the question and

then are asked to write it out. A follow-

up question is /wadayadu:ing/. This is

almost the same phrase /wadaya/, but

the present participle at the end of the

expression means that this reduced

phrase is written differently: "What are

you doing?" Students are amazed and

bewildered: "Why didn't I notice this

before? You mean You say those two

expressions in the same waY? WhY

didn't someone tell us that before?"

As ESL teachers, we are often faced

wi th the cha l lenge o f meet ing manY

curricular objectives' Today we are fac-

ingthe challenges ofreadying our students

for writing and reading assessments so

often we dive straight into the standards

so that we can check offanother teach-

ing objective to prepare for the test. We

need to remember what we know about

leaming a second language. Leaming

another language involves stringing

sornds together to make words, phrases

and even sentences. We need to know

those sounds and how to make them

before we can sPeak and esPeciallY

before we can write effectivelY.

ReferencesCe M., Brinton, D. M. &

Goodwin, J. M. (1996)- kaching

pronun ciation. Cambtt dge U.K. :

Cambridge UniversitY Press.

Gattegno. C. (19721. Teaching forcignlanguages in schools: The Silent

Zay. New York: E ducational Solutions.

Gattegno, C. (1976)" The common

sense of teaching foreign languages

New York: Educational Solutions.

Cynrhia Wisemart has heen teaching

English as a second and foreign lan-

guage for the last thirtY ltears in

various learning contexts. She has

prescnted on slrut(gies for teachirtg

nrontmciation and accent correction

at NYSTESOL and TESOL. Ctrrrently'

she is instructor of ESL Ltnd intensive

vtriting in the Department of Devel-

opnrental Skills cn Borough o.f Man'

hctttan Contmttnity College, CUI{Y'

< engsp eak@,ao l. c om> S;

(continuetl from Page l0)

We need to establish a profbssional

model of teacher education accredita-

tion that is grounded within accepted

educational practices, not industrial

ones. Withinthe profession, high stakes

questions, such as grant funding, publi-

cation, andpromotion, are decided

through professional, qualitative peer

evaluation of carefully prepared docu-

ments based on relevant research and

theory. Programs could be asked to re-

spond to a framework such as TESOL s

five domains. The evaluationwould con-

sider grotmding in theory, reference to

relevant research, and consistency of

practice. Their self-descriptions could

be triangulated through evaluations of

the program made by candidates, past

and present, as well as local school ad-

ministrators and referees from other

institutions. Faculty would be treated as

professionals, and nothing less thanprofessionalism would be expectedfrom them.

David Ian Hqnauer's research em-ploys lheoretical, qualitative and'quintitative

melhods and focuses onihe connections between readingauthentic texts and social functionsin first and second languages. Amongother issues, his research has inves-tigared the genre specific aspects ofpoetry reading in Ll and L2' cogni--tive

aspects of literary education,cros s-iultural understandings of

fable reading and academic literacy"across disciitines. His articles have

been publishbd in Applied Linglistics'Discourse Processes, TESOL Quarterly,Canadian Modem Language Review,Research in the Teaching of English,Teaching and Teacher Education, Lan-guage Awareness, Cognitive Linguistics'fne arts in Psychothetapy,Poetics, andPoetics Today. He is the author tvvorecent books, The Balanced Approachto Reading Instruction and PoeIry andthe Meaning of Life. In 2003, Dr.Hanauer functioned as the sPecialeditor of the Canadian Modem Lan-guage Review for a special isstre onihe relationship between literatureancl applied linguistics. He w-as therecipient of a l{ational Science Foun-dation Grant for 2003-2005 for thestudy oJ science-literctcv connectionsin the elementary school classroom'<hanauer@iuP.edu>

Michael Newnton is associale profes-sor of applied linguistics at QtreensCollege and the Graduate Center'CUI{Y and a.fellow of The CU{YResearch Institute for the Study ofLanguage and (Jrban SocietY. Aloni-tiie member of NYSTESOL' histeaihing is mainly the in Queens Col;lege programs in TESL, where he ledpieparation for TESOL/NCATE ac-^rriditotion

qnd was involved in the

QC Education LJnit's application for .llC,qf\ accreditation. He has studiedacademic and vernacular literacY,socio-linguistics, and language shift,mostly among Young first- and sec'ond-generation immigrants- He re--cently returned from a Fulbright fe.l- -towship in Barcelona, where he studiedthe language attitudes of young im-migranls and is currently involved inloig+erm studies of I'lew York Latino

English..in"**on\@nyclr. com> Q

Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fal l 2005) 2T NYS TESOL ldlon