Student Teaching : District of Columbia
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy
Analysis of District of Columbia's policies
For teacher candidates who do not complete a state-approved program, the District of Columbia requires a minimum of six semester hours in student teaching. Candidates must be in classrooms for at least 200 clock hours, which must include a minimum of 120 clock hours in direct teaching activities in their senior year. Observation and participation prior to the student teaching experience comprise the remaining hours.
However, the District does not articulate specific student teaching requirements for candidates in its approved preparation programs.
The District also does not specify any requirements for cooperating teachers.
Recommendations for District of Columbia
Require all teacher candidates to spend at least 10 weeks student teaching.
Student teaching should be a full-time commitment, as requiring coursework and student teaching simultaneously does a disservice to both. Alignment with a school calendar for at least 10 weeks ensures both adequate classroom experience and exposure to a variety of ancillary professional activities.
Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness as measured by student learning.
In addition to the ability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers should also be carefully screened for their capacity to further student achievement. Research indicates that the only aspect of a student teaching arrangement that has been shown to have an impact on student achievement is the positive effect of selection of the cooperating teacher by the preparation program, rather than the student teacher or school district staff.
Explicitly require that student teaching be completed locally, thus prohibiting candidates from completing this requirement abroad.
Unless preparation programs can establish true satellite campuses to closely supervise student teaching arrangements, placement in foreign or otherwise novel locales should be supplementary to a standard student teaching arrangement. Outsourcing the arrangements for student teaching makes it impossible to ensure the selection of the best cooperating teacher and adequate supervision of the student teacher and may prevent training of the teacher on relevant state instructional frameworks.
State response to our analysis
The District of Columbia was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis. The District asserted that although its regulations do not impose specific requirements on the length and composition of student teaching for approved program completers, field experience expectations for accredited educator preparation units and state approved programs are established in the individual subject-area standards for each program.
The District added that individual subject-area standards by which approved programs are designed outline specific internship requirements that vary depending on the discipline but in all cases require a clinical student teaching experience of at least 10 weeks, with most programs requiring a 12-15 week internship. Further, the Non-Degree Post-Baccalaureate accreditation and program approval pathway is designed to encourage more rigorous and intense field experiences. As a result, most units accredited via this pathway have as a central component of their programs field experiences that extend the length of the program, the minimum for which is one full academic year.
-
District of Columbia
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Preparation Programs
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Research rationale
Further evidence and discussion surrounding the impact of student-teaching on student achievement can be found in NCTQ's report: Student Teaching in the United States (2011) which includes citations of all of 34 studies published since 1997 in peer-reviewed journals on student teaching. They include: Anderson, N. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2001). The value of feedback in an early field experience: Peer, Teacher, and Supervisor coaching. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 66-74; Brink, B., Laguardia, A., Grisham, D. L., Granby, C., & Peck, C. A. (2001). Who needs student teachers? Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 33-45; Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 319-343; Bullough Jr., R.V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., Berrie, C. F., Hales, V. & Smith, G. (2002). Rethinking Field Experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68-80; Cochran-Smith, M . (1991). Reinventing Student Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (2), 104-118; Connor, K. R., & Killmer, N. (2001). Cohorts, Collaboration, and Community: Does Contextual Teacher Education Really Work? Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 46-53; Danne, C. J. (2000). Clinical Master Teacher Program: Teachers and Interns Perceptions of Supervision with Limited University Intervention. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 93-100; Fresse, A. R. (1991). The role of reflection on pre-service teacher's development in the context of a professional development school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 429-442. Grossman, P., Hammereness, K. M., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Structural Predictors of Perceptions of Coherence in NYC Teacher Education Programs. Journal on Teacher Education, 20(10), 273-287; Hopkins, W. S., Hoffman, S. Q., & Moss, V. D. (1997). Professional development schools and pre-service teacher stress. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4), 36-46; Lesley, M. K., Hamman, D., Olivarez, A., Button, K. & Griffith, R. (2009). "I'm Prepared for Anything Now." Student teacher and cooperating teacher interactions as a critical factor in determining the preparation of quality elementary reading teachers. The Teacher Educator, 44 (1), 40-55; Justen, J. E., III, Mc Junkin, M., & Strickland, H. (1991). Supervisory beliefs of cooperating teachers. The Teacher Educator, 34(3), 173-180; Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of Student Teachers: Practices of Cooperating Teachers Prepared in a Clinical Supervision Course. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16, 228-244; Knight, S. L., Wiseman, D. L., & Cooner, D. (2000). Using collaborative teacher research to determine the impact of professional development school activities on elementary student's math and writing outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 26-38; Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2008). "Maybe I can teach those kids." The influence of contextual factors on student teachers efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 166-179. Knudson, R. E., & Turley, S. (2000). University supervisors and at-risk student teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 175-186.Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-1041. McNay, M. & Graham, R. (2007). Can Cooperating Teachers Help Student Teachers Develop a Vision of Education? The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 224-236.Student Teaching in the United States, 2011; Mewborn, D. S. (1991). Learning to Teach Elementary Mathematics: Ecological Elements of a Field Experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(1), 27-46. Mule, L. (2006). Preservice teacher's inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 205-218; Nguyen, H.T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 655-662; Pence, H. M., & Macgillivary, K. I. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 14-25; Peterson, B. E., & Williams, S. R. (2008). Learning Mathematics for Teaching in the Student in Teaching Experience: Two contrasting cases. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 459-478. Putman, M.S. (2009). Grappling with Classroom Management: The Orientations of Preservice Teachers and Impact of Student Teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 232-247. Richardson-Koehler, V. (1988). Barriers to the Effective Supervision of Student Teaching: A Field Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 28-34; Ridley, D.S., Hurwitz, S., Hackett, S. & Miller, K.K. (2005). Comparing PDS and Campus Based Preservice Teacher Preparation: Is PDS-based preparation really better? Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 46-56; Rodgers, A., & Virginia, K. L. (2007). Restructuring a traditional student teacher supervision model: Fostering enhanced professional development and mentoring within a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 63-80; Roth-McDuffie, A. (2004). Mathematics Teaching as a Deliberate Practice: An Investigation of Elementary Pre-service Teachers