CSUMB receives F rating in teacher preparation in math, new report finds
MONTEREY BAY, Calif. (KION-TV) - California State University, Monterey Bay received an F rating for its teacher preparation course when it came to math preparation, according to a new report.
The new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality shows that 30 percent of undergraduate programs in California on teacher preparation standards were in the F grade region, a five percent increase from the last report in 2022.
The methodology used to determine the grades was based on the number of instructional hours required for teachers in these programs, with 150 or above being deemed adequate.
Anything between 135 and 149 hours is considered "nearly adequate," and anything less than 135 hours is considered "not adequate."
No hours were detailed for CSUMB's program.
Despite the rating, most CSU undergraduate teacher programs earned A's and B's for their math preparation components.
A campus spokesperson for CSUMB released a statement on the F rating:
Cal State Monterey Bay is committed to providing high-quality teacher education to ensure the success of K-12 students across our region and state through our undergraduate teacher-preparation program in liberal studies and our teaching credential and graduate programs. In fact, Cal State Monterey Bay’s Master of Arts in Education program recently received a 5-star rating from Money Magazine, one of only 12 schools to receive this distinction. As the CSU Chancellor’s Office noted, the NCTQ report relied on flawed methodologies that do not reflect the true outcomes of our California Commission on Teacher Credentialing-accredited programs or the success of our graduates.
Amy Bently-Smith, director of Media Relations, also released a statement:
The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs.
In their review and grading of teacher preparation programs, the (National Council) relies on a narrow and flawed methodology, heavily dependent on syllabi and document reviews, rather than on dialogue with program faculty, students and employers or a systematic review of meaningful program outcomes.
