"Quality Assurance Program in Georgia"
T.C. Chan
本文旨在說明喬治亞州教師及行政員保證計劃的產生背景，要旨和內容，以反映該計劃作為一個教育績效責任模式，並評論其優劣。最後更以模式的特點為中心，去批判該計劃可行及空泛之處．結論中指出教師及行政員保證計劃的成功，全有賴於大學教育學院和學校區之間的衷誠合作，以實質方法來改進這個教育績效責任的模式。
Introduction
In response to the nationwide educational accountability movement, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in recent years, has focused on teacher preparation: "studying its current status, developing principles, and taking actions to assure that teachers prepared by the University System are able to promote the kind and level of learning desired in those they teach." (Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 1998, April 8.) The Board is particularly interested in knowing who Georgia's teachers are, how they choose to become teachers, how they learn in their teacher preparation program, and how they teach after graduation. The Board also examines the knowledge, skills and responsibilities of counselors and school administers who set the school conditions to the success of teachers. As a result, the "Principles for the Preparation of Educators for the Schools" were approved on April 8, 1998 to emphasize the knowledge and skills educators need to teach, support and administer effectively. By the "Quality Assurance" Section of the approved document, the Board also calls on universities to assure "that their graduates can integrate and apply the knowledge and skills to advance student learning before they are recommended for certification." (Board of Regents of theUniversity of Georgia, 1998, April 8.) The implementation plan of Quality Assurance was finalized and approved in June 1998.
The Quality Assurance Program
By Quality Assurance Program (QAP), the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia holds Georgia's universities responsible for mentoring and for assuring the success of their graduates who major in education. Each university that prepares educators for the schools will develop a Quality Assurance Program to guarantee the quality of its graduates (teachers, school counselors, and school administrators). A university will recall any of its teacher graduates if a school district in Georgia determines that the performance of the teacher is less than effective. If recalled, a teacher will receive additional preparation by the university at no cost to the teacher or to the school district. The same principle applies to school administrators and school counselors under the guarantee. Each educator preparation university must submit an implementation plan of the Quality Assurance Program. The plan must ensure that all the graduates it recommends for certification to work in Georgia's schools can demonstrate accomplishment in the following areas:
1. Knowledge of subject matter:
Graduates have sufficient subject matter knowledge in all areas included on their teaching certificates to help students meet high academic standards.2. Assisting students with diverse background:
Graduates can demonstrate success in bringing students from diverse-cultural, ethnic, international, and socio-economic groups to high levels of learning.3. Technological skills:
Graduates are able to use telecommunication and information technologies to improve student learning.4. Competencies in teaching the basics:
Graduates can demonstrate accomplishment in teaching children to read and to do Mathematics (early childhood programs).5. High standard of teaching:
Graduates are able to meet the National Board for professional Teaching Standards (education specialist programs for experienced teachers).6. Supportive learning environment:
Graduates are able to create learning environments in schools that support teacher success in bringing students from diverse groups to high levels of learning (preparation programs for school administrators, counselors, and other support personnel). (Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 1998, May 13.)Implementing the Quality Assurance Program To implement the Quality Assurance Program, a university must maintain contact with, assess the progress of, and provide support for its graduates whom it recommends for certification in education. A Quality Assurance Coordinator must be designated to ensure that all follow-up functions are carried out. Other faculty members will have quality assurance responsibilities at the program level and will work directly with the Coordinator to implement the university's Quality Assurance Program. They will maintain contact with all individuals recommended for certification in education at least twice each year during the first two years after graduation. When the Quality Assurance Coordinator is notified by a school district of a university graduate experiencing difficulty, a Quality Assurance Team will be formed to consist of a pool of qualified representatives from the university and the school district. The Quality Assurance Team will evaluate the referral and makes an assistance recommendation that includes specific assistance goals and specific experiences to meet the goals. The Quality Assurance Coordinator may arrange for the individual up to 20 hours of additional course work, seminars, internships, or field-experiences free of charge to the school district and to the individual. Furthermore, the school district will be compensated up to five necessary days to release the individual for additional professional development. To cover expenses associated with the Quality Assurance Program, the Board of Regents will provide universities with funds calculated at $75 times the number of candidates recommended for initial certification who are working in Georgia's schools during the first two years following graduation. (Board of Regents of the University of Georgia, 1998, November.)
Implications of the Quality Assurance Program
Implications to the universities:
Each university in Georgia having educator preparation programs will be held accountable for its effort of educator preparation. Each needs to reexamine the course contents of its program and realign its curriculum to reflect the requirements of the Quality Assurance Program. This is to ensure that all individuals recommended for certification must be able to demonstrate accomplishment in specified areas. Each university will tighten its admission criteria for incoming students of education programs, strengthen its current efforts to increase the number of minority students to study in education programs, and increase the course contents of preparation of new teachers, administrators, and counselors, especially in extensive internship experiences in school settings. To implement the Quality Assurance Program, each university will develop its strategies to be included in an implementation plan for submission to the Board of Regents.
Implications to the school districts:
When universities strengthen their education program requirements, their graduates will be better prepared to assume teaching, administrative, and counseling positions in the school districts. The two year quality guarantee offered in the Quality Assurance Program is considered by the school districts as an extension of university services to assist school districts in the mentoring program for beginning educators. To take advantage of this Quality Assurance Program, a school district needs to prepare its staff to participate in joint assistance efforts as planned by the Quality Assurance Team.
Implications to the students:
Students enrolled in an educator preparation program can be assured of a quality education to prepare them for any teaching, administrative, and counseling positions. The extended experiences in teaching and administrative internship will better prepare them to manage education problems of the real world.
Additionally, graduates in their first two years of teaching, administrative, or counseling positions will be followed up with university contacts or mentoring programs to assure their success in the profession. When they are found with difficulties in performing their daily duties, timely assistance will be offered to them by the Quality Assurance Team.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Quality Assurance Program
The Quality Assurance Program as a model of accountability draws a great deal of criticism. While it helps strengthen the educational program by holding the universities accountable for its graduates, it creates other difficulties for both universities and school districts at the same time.
Strengths:
The Quality Assurance Program is intended to call the attention of the universities to take a closer look at planning their education programs to meet the job demands. Each university having educator preparation programs needs to evaluate its programs so that it can be better prepared to guarantee its graduates. In implementing the Quality Assurance Program, the university is not fighting a lonely battle. It will be assisted by the reporting school district to form a Quality Assurance Team to provide assistance to the graduate. In addition, the follow-up effort of the university to contact all education program graduates is a proactive means to address potential problems. It assures that the graduates with job difficulties will receive timely assistance from the QualityAssurance Team.
Weaknesses:
The basic weakness of the Quality Assurance Program lies in its attempt to require universities to guarantee their graduates' performance. Unlike other businesses and industries, universities do not technically write up specifications of their products, their graduates. In fact, during the education process, each unit of production, the graduate, comes from a unique background of his/her own. Therefore, universities find themselves in a difficult position to guarantee the quality of their graduates like what industries guarantee their products. When a university is contacted about a problematic graduate, the university is required by QAP to offer assistance to the graduate. However, it is not stated anywhere in the Quality Assurance Program how problematic graduates are handled when remedial effort fails. In fact, school districts may sometimes find it more convenient to discontinue the employment of an undesirable employee than to contact his/her university for guarantee.
QAP as An Accountability Model
In evaluating Quality Assurance Program (QAP) as a model for educational accountability, six criteria need to be considered:
(1) What are the parities involved in accountability?
(2) What is accounted for?
(3) What are the acceptable standards of accountability?
(4) How can the accountability model be implemented?
(5) How is the accountability model assessed?
(6) What are the consequences of accountability?In light of the six criteria above, QAP has met the first criterion by identifying the Georgia universities as the party accountable for the preparation of quality educators. The parties the universities are accountable to are the graduates, the public, and the Georgia Board of Regents. QAP also passed its second test by clearly spelling out the quality teachers, administrators, and counselors to be guaranteed by the universities. In establishing acceptable standards of accountability, QAP specifies knowledge base, technical skills, diverse students and teaching basics as the focus of teacher preparation.
However, no standard is mentioned about the preparation of administrators and counselors in QAP. This lack of specific standard will cause confusion to the assessment process of QAP later on. On the other hand, QAP calls for each university to follow basic guidelines in preparing its QAP implementation plan for the Board of Regents. By recognizing individual differences, the QAP implementation plan seems to be workable. But, the assessment of guarantee activities is not mentioned anywhere in the QAP documents. The Office of Accountability, recently established by the Governor's 2000 Education Reform Act, hopefully will fill in this missing link. The weakest area of QAP as an accountability model is the consequence component. It does not lay out the consequences of universities that fail to meet accountability standards. This is clearly an oversight from the office of the Board of Regents. The consequence component of the QAP remains a blank area to be worked on.
Conclusion
The Quality Assurance Program as an accountability measure for higher education is welcomed by many public school administrators who perceive it as an opportunity for universities to help beginning teachers and administrators address deficiencies which might lead to non-reappointment. However, some school administrators do not lend support to the Quality Assurance Program because they perceive "guarantee" as an infringement on their right to make reappointment decisions and thus are unwilling to share evaluative information on their beginning teachers and administrators with university personnel.
Basically, the Quality Assurance Program was developed to offer assistance to assure success of beginning teachers, administrators, and counselors. However, it is clear that the success of the Quality Assurance Program as an accountability model depends to a great extent on the cooperation of the universities and the school districts to work as a team. Universities alone could not implement the Quality Assurance Program without leaving it as a political showcase. (The author is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadering, Georgeia Southern University)◆
References
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (1998, April 8). Principles for the preparation of educators for the schools. Atlanta, GA.: Author.
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (1998, May 13). Recommended implementation plan for the principles for the preparation of educators for the schools. Atlanta, GA.: Author.
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (1998, November). 1998 Policy for the reparation of educators for the schools. Atlanta, GA.: Author.
Bibliography
Davison, R. (1999, April 13). Guarantee requirements (memo to Dr. T. C. Chan). File No.: AVISON/CHAN/GUARANTEE/001.
Educational Commission of the States (2000). Performance based accountability. Available at http://www.granite.cc:3009
Darling-Hammond, L. & Ascher, C. (1999). Creating accountability in big city schools. Available at http://eric.web.tc.columbia.edu/mongraphs/uds102_index.html
Georgia Southern University (1999). Proposal for assuring quality for educator preparation programs. Statesboro, GA. Author.
Reeds, C. B. (1999). Taking action on K-12, university cooperation. Education Week, March 24, 1999.
Rhode Island Education Exchange (2000). School accountability for learning and teaching --URI. Available at http://riedx.uri.edu/SALTdocs.htm
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational evaluation. Boston, MA.: Allyn and Bacon. Washington State Department of Public Instruction (1999). Educational reform and accountability. Available at http://www.k12.wa.us/reform.