Is the National Council on Teacher Quality an advertising agency?
Another day, another piece of neoliberal propaganda from K-12 deep dive. A recent article there spotlights a new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality identifies wide variations amongst US states in implementing policies and programmes to support teaching literacy through “scientifically-validated methods.” Whilst 12 states like Florida and Colorado have “strong” policies backing such ‘science of reading’ (SOR) approaches (click here and here for refreshers on SOR), 19 states lack ‘robust’ policies in this area. Specifically, the report highlighted 5 key policy domains - setting detailed literacy competency standards for teacher training programmes, reviewing programmes’ implementation of science of reading, requiring a rigorous literacy test for elementary teacher licensure, mandating high-quality reading curricula for districts, and providing teacher professional development in the science of reading. States like Maine, Montana and South Dakota were termed "unacceptable" with minimal policies in these areas. However, they say, some states like Utah and Mississippi implemented ‘exemplary’ practices in certain domains. The report argues teacher effectiveness is key to lift literacy achievement, estimating over 90% of students could become proficient readers with high-quality reading instruction.
Who is the National Council on Teacher Quality to opine on such issues?
Upon consulting the Book of Knowledge, I found that the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) is a non-profit organisation in the United States that focuses on research and policy issues related to the quality of teacher preparation and teacher effectiveness. Founded in 2000, the NCTQ aims to provide ‘objective evaluations’ and recommendations to improve the quality of teacher education programmes, teaching standards, and policies that affect the teaching profession.
The organisation is known for its reports and studies, including its Teacher Prep Review, which evaluates the quality of teacher preparation programs across the U.S. The NCTQ also advocates for reforms in teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, and compensation, with a goal of ensuring that every child has access to effective teachers. According to the Book of Knowledge, the NCTQ’s work often involves collaborating with educators, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the education field.
Follow the money down the rabbit hole
Again, the Book of Knowledge tells us that the NCTQ was founded by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Education Leaders Council. These organisations initiated the creation of the NCTQ with the goal of ‘promoting reforms’ and ‘improving the quality of teacher preparation and effectiveness’ in the United States. The founding of NCTQ was part of a broader movement to address ‘concerns’ about the state of teacher education and to advocate for higher standards and accountability in the teaching profession.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, also known as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is a nonprofit education policy think tank. It focuses on research, analysis, and advocacy in education reform, particularly in the areas of educational standards, accountability, school choice, charter schools, and urban education. The Foundation works to promote ‘high-quality’ education for all students, with a particular emphasis on improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged children. It is known for publishing reports, analyses, and policy recommendations on various aspects of education policy.
Education Leaders Council (ELC): The Education Leaders Council was an organisation composed of state education leaders, including state superintendents and other education officials. Formed in the late 1990s, the ELC aimed to advocate for education reform at both the state and national levels. The organisation focused on promoting ‘standards-based’ reform, accountability, and school choice as means to ‘improve’ public education. The ELC was particularly active in the early 2000s but has since become less prominent in the education policy landscape.
Both organizations have been influential in shaping education policy debates and reforms in the United States. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation continues to be active, whilst the Education Leaders Council's visibility and activity have decreased over time.
Further down in the muck …
Back to the NCTQ. Critical perspectives on NCTQ often point to concerns about the biases and influences from its very politically-oriented funding sources. Key points from the research and discussions include:
Concerns Over Biased Methodology: Fuller (2014) in “Shaky Methods, Shaky Motives” criticises the methodology used by the NCTQ in evaluating teacher preparation programs, raising questions about the motives behind their reports and whether these are influenced by their funders’ preferences.
Critique of NCTQ’s Teacher Preparation Reports: Paulson and Marchant (2012) note that NCTQ has been criticized for publishing non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces under the guise of policy analysis, suggesting an agenda aligned with their funders’ views.
Questioning the Influence of Funders: Critics argue that the reliance on funding from specific foundations may lead to research and policy recommendations that reflect the priorities of these funders, potentially overlooking broader factors that contribute to educational outcomes.
Thus, whilst the specific details of NCTQ’s funding sources are not outlined in the available research, the concerns raised by critics suggest a perception that the organization’s work may be influenced by the interests of its financial supporters. This reflects ‘broader debates’ in education policy over the role and influence of private foundations in shaping public education reform.
And the point is?
Whilst organisations like the NCTQ present themselves as impartial arbiters of “quality” and “effectiveness” in education, a deeper analysis suggests many of these groups aim to promote a neoliberal vision for education aligned with privatisation and profit motives rather than truly enhancing outcomes for students (aka, propagada outlets).
The language of “reform,” “standards,” and “accountability” cloaks an underlying agenda focused on ‘market-based solutions’ and private sector leeching off public education. The innocent-sounding notions of “school choice” and “high standards” translate to policies that divert funding towards private charter schools, high-stakes testing regimes, and a narrowing of curricula to tested subjects.
Meanwhile, the villification of teacher preparation programmes and calls for “higher standards” undermine confidence in public school teachers as professionals and pave the way for non-credentialed staff from private providers. Rather than empowering educators, the system disempowers them.
The key beneficiaries of this vision are not students or teachers, but rather the educational testing industry, edtech firms, foundations and groups like the NCTQ, and corporate charter school chains eagerly anticipating entry into a lucrative market under the guise of providing “high quality” alternatives. Yet evidence on learning outcomes suggests otherwise.
Genuine reforms to serve students’ interests would involve very different approaches, from reducing child poverty rates to increasing wraparound services in schools to providing teachers with greater preparation, resources, pay, and respect.
However, the unfortunate reality is the outsized influence of moneyed interests in shaping education policy debates to promote their preferred market-oriented solutions. Reclaiming education as a public good will require great effort.