Volume 2, Number 1
Fall 1990

                         CTTE/ITEA NCATE
                        A. Emerson Wiens
               The technology teacher education profes-
          sion has entered a new era not only because
          of the switch to technology as the knowledge
          base, but also because of the adoption of the
          CTTE/ITEA Guidelines by NCATE as the official
          standards against which all technology
          teacher education programs seeking NCATE ap-
          proval will be evaluated.  Although the
          Guidelines are presumed to have a positive
          influence in shaping these programs, one re-
          cognizes that other factors and other groups
          have, perhaps, an even stronger shaping in-
          fluence.  These would include internal admin-
          istration and faculty, other accrediting
          associations such as NAIT, public school
          teacher demand, and last, but not least, the
          state certification requirements and
          entitlement program.  The question being ad-
          dressed by this study is:  To what extent are
          state plans and certification requirements
          complementing the CTTE/ITEA Guidelines, and
          to what extent are the states causing devi-
          ation from the Guidelines?
               In consideration of the impact that the
          state has on teacher education programs, a
          survey instrument was sent to the 50 state
          supervisors of technology/industrial
          technology/industrial arts education in Sep-
          tember, 1989.  Information was sought regard-
          ing (1) the state plan name, (2) curriculum
          design, (3) the degree to which the state
          schools have adopted the state plan
          organizers, and (4) state requirements re-
          garding two technology related academic con-
          tent areas that are included in the CTTE/ITEA
          Guidelines.  Thirty usable responses were re-
          ceived for a 60 percent return.
               Figure 1 lists the various names used by
          the states.  Five states still use Industrial
          Arts in the title while ten states (32 per-
          cent) use the ITEA/CTTE preferred term "Tech-
          nology Education."  The name chosen by the
          largest number of states is "Industrial Tech-
          FIGURE 1.  Name of program (n=30).
               The organizers used in designing the
          curricula in the responding states as identi-
          fied in Figure 2, show a dominant technology
          education bias with considerable variation.
          Only one state still uses the more tradi-
          tional industrial arts subject matter desig-
          nators exclusively, while three others use
          these in addition to some set of technology
          organizers.  But only 40 percent use the
          ITEA/CTTE preferred list of four organizers.
          Teacher preparation programs in all of the
          other states, if they complied with the state
          organizers, would be expected to explain
          their deviation, however slight (which most
          are), from the ITEA/CTTE Guidelines.  Perhaps
          the most interesting set of organizers re-
          ported in this study is being developed by
          Arizona.  In addition to transportation and
          communication are categories such as "mech-
          anisms, controls, structures, etc."
          FIGURE 2.  Organizers used by states (n=30).
               In response to the question regarding
          the date of the organizer change, 23 of the
          30 respondents--a significant majority--
          stated that their states had changed since
          1980 with the dates indicated in Figure 3.
          Nearly 75 percent (17 of 23) had undergone
          the change since 1985.  This is perhaps the
          greatest amount of change in the shortest pe-
          riod of time in the history of state super-
          vision of industrial arts/technology
          FIGURE 3.  Year organizers were changed
               With this much change in the last five
          years at the state level, one would expect
          the public schools to be lagging.  The cold
          reality is that the market still dictates
          which teachers get jobs, i.e., those prepared
          to teach more traditional programs or those
          prepared to teach technology education.  In
          an attempt to determine the degree to which
          the public schools are in step with their re-
          spective state curricula, the respondents
          were asked how many schools in their states
          complied with the new organizers.  Those re-
          sponses, shown in Figure 4, ranged from 25
          percent to 100 percent.  Several supervisors
          responded somewhat cynically with, "Depends
          on whom you ask," "Who knows?" and, "Saying
          it doesn't make it happen."
               Finally, an attempt was made to ascer-
          tain the degree to which states were requir-
          ing prospective teachers to take coursework
          in global studies and the socio/environmental
          impact of technology.  The ITEA/CTTE Guide-
          lines call for content in both of these areas
          in the competencies section.  As shown in
          Figure 5, over half (15 of 26) of the re-
          spondents to this question require neither
          area while only 3 require both.
          Socio/environmental impacts studies were more
          likely to be required (35 percent - Figure 6)
          than were global studies (15 percent - Figure
          FIGURE 4.  Percent of schools following new
          organizers (n=22).
          FIGURE 5.  States requiring related
          coursework in international/global dimensions
          and social/environmental impacts (n=24).
               These data clearly show that the
          ITEA/CTTE NCATE Guidelines are not fully sup-
          ported by state certification requirements
          although considerable progress has been made
          in the last five years.  The ITEA/CTTE Guide-
          lines themselves were developed in the last
          five years, but by a more homogeneous group
          of educators than is represented by the state
          supervisors and the state programs.  How are
          NCATE folio reviewers to respond to such var-
          iations among states?  Certainly, in many ac-
          ademic areas the state does not dictate the
          teacher preparation program.  For example,
          just because the state does not require
          international/global studies and
          socio/environmental impacts as part of the
          certification requirements, does not prevent
          a teacher preparation program in that state
          from requiring them unilaterally.  On the
          other hand, for an institution to serve the
          state and the schools within that state, the
          program must include the state-approved
          organizers in order to certify students.
          FIGURE 6.  States requiring a course on
          socio/environmental impacts of technology.
          FIGURE 7.  States requiring a course on
          international/global dimensions of technol-
               Our discipline is currently in a state
          of flux, although by far the majority of
          movement is in one direction:  technology ed-
          ucation with the four organizers - communi-
          cation, transportation, construction, and
          manufacturing.  States have been slower to
          recognize the need for course work in the
          international/global dimensions and impacts
          of technology.  Considering the relative sta-
          tus of state plans and the necessity for
          teacher education programs to comply with
          state requirements, the rigid application of
          CTTE/ITEA Guidelines by the folio
          reader/evaluators may be three to five years
          Emerson Wiens is Associate Professor, Depart-
          ment of Industrial Technology, Illinois State
          University, Normal, Illinois.
          Permission is given to copy any
          article or graphic provided credit is given and
          the copies are not intended for sale.
Journal of Technology Education   Volume 2, Number 1       Fall 1990