The Impact of Market Driven Higher Education Practices on Professional Teacher Development

Abstract

In this paper we describe the growth of private sector involvement in the delivery of postsecondary education, the potential impact of this growth on mainstream IHEs, and the impact of these changes on the development of general and special education teachers. It is our contention that the proliferation and effects of for-profit, convenience-type approaches to postsecondary education run counter to efforts aimed at the improvement and reform of teacher preparation and professional development. In fact, we believe that the movement toward a more corporate approach to activities and governance in the higher education community is antithetical if not hostile to the agenda of teacher education reform. As part of this initial TESE Associate Editor's exchange, we invite comment on this critical issue. ecent articles in a number of professional nd popular publications have highlighted some rather stark realities regarding how postsecondary education is being redefined in the academic marketplace. Although most academics are just beginning to wrestle with concepts such as intellectual property rights and entrepreneurship, as well as the notion that knowledge is a marketable commodity, other more business-minded individuals have already staked a rather large claim to the world of postsecondary education. Specifically, the past few years have seen the rapid growth of for-profit corporations engaged in the delivery of both undergraduate and graduate education programs. In the not too recent past, these programs, typically advertised on matchbooks, billboards, and subways, as well as in the education supplements of newspapers, were peripheral to mainstream college and university programs. These programs were aimed at the &dquo;working professional,&dquo; an individual characterized as being too busy to attend traditional classes, yet seemingly able to complete work independently in the comfort of the home or workplace. Traditional colleges and universities, offering academic degrees, accredited programs, and recognized certificate programs had little to fear from such operations; they were small, often unaccredited, and typically held in low esteem by the general public. Moreover, direct contact with students was minimal, and there was a sense that these primitive distance education efforts for busy professionals were little more than degree factories operating out of obscure post office boxes.Times have changed. For-profit companies offering postsecondary education and at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on June 15, 2015 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Alternative Route Programs for Certification in Special Education: Program Infrastructure, Instructional Delivery, and Participant Characteristics

“…In recent years, a considerable amount of criticism has focused on how IHEs develop teachers (and how long it takes), and corresponding calls have requested that states break the monopoly of universities and consider empowering approved multiple providers for teacher preparation (e.g., Hassel & Sherburne, 2004). Rosenberg and Sindelar (1998) expressed concern that speed, convenience, and practicality are the primary methods used to entice students to change careers in this new marketplace. An even greater concern was the insidious effect that private-sector, for-profit institutions, such as the University of Phoenix, might have on mainstream providers of teacher preparation.…”

“…For the most part, those who advocate alternative methods of teacher preparation assert that little evidence links pedagogical training and teacher quality, and they claim that the traits most associated with teacher effectiveness are knowledge of content and verbal ability (Hess, Rotherham, & Walsh, 2004). Although this sentiment for reform has translated into a range of new methods for providing teacher preparation (Hassel & Sherburne, 2004;Rosenberg & Sindelar, 1998), there is little information indicating how these novel approaches would develop teachers for students with disabilities.…”

Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers for Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders: The Impact of NCLB and IDEA

“…Not surprisingly, these groups have urged federal and state policymakers to open more paths into the teaching profession and to encourage individuals who have not attended traditional schools of education to teach. In a market of extreme special education teacher shortages and consumer-minded potential students (see Rosenberg & Sindelar, 1998), there is a willingness among for-profit convenience institutions and financially strapped regional IHEs to offer a range of AR programs. It remains to be seen, however, whether such programs produce competent professionals who remain in the field.…”

Serving too Many Masters

“…How many would opt instead to fulfill minimal licensing requirements through the "6 credit hours by August" path of least resistance? Such options now are readily available in the for-profit marketplace (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 1998). The impact of such a choice may be substantial, especially from the student's point of view.…”

“…In an earlier article (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 1998), we chronicled the rapid growth of for-profit providers engaged in the delivery of both undergraduate and graduate education programs. As noted earlier, these programs cater to "careerminded working professionals," individuals who demand a say in determining the content of their courses and programs and are too busy to attend traditional, campus-based programs.…”