Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)

Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)

 The TETCs should be viewed as a first step in a larger reform effort to better address technology integration in teacher preparation programs. The release of the TETCs provides future research opportunities including, but not limited to, implications for course design, relevant faculty development for teacher educators, and policy implications.

The TETCs have been written by insiders, and seemingly for insiders.  

There’s a lot hidden between the lines. The problem with that is that while it makes it easier to write a set of competencies with a team of people with different experiences and expertise, it is sometimes harder to know what the ideal would look like. 

The TETCs were supported by a number of organizations:

·         The United States Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (US DoE)

·         International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE)

·         Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE)

·         Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)

·         National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC)

·         American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE)

But what’s missing may have, in part, been determined by who’s missing.

When I look at the competencies, I see issues not addressed which are important components of  K-12 education  Here are terms I’d hope to see used in the next iteration of these competencies:

·         Accessibility,

·         Adaptive technology,

·         Disability,

·         Equity Online learning,

·         WCAG,

I know that the curriculum in teacher educator programs is largely determined by the state education agency (SEA) and their certification and program standards. That, unfortunately doesn’t guarantee it to be relevant to today.   When I was teaching the required instructional technology course in an undergrad educator prep program, I recommended that we incorporate instructional technology into the other courses as a way of having an option for a new course.  I proposed that I’d create the instructional technology modules for the other courses.  My offer was declined because the other professors weren’t interested in seeing that happen.  So instructional technology was siloed rather than integrated.   While I can see that the TETCs might be seen as encouraging integration within teacher education programs, it’s not explicit. 

I don’t see how the TETCs help teachers select the best tech tools for remote instruction.  One survey asked teachers how they selected the tools they used for during Spring 2020.  The overwhelming response was ease of teacher use, not student learning.  Administrators threw remote instruction onto teachers without support, and many districts still didn’t provide professional development for teacher use of remote instruction tools over the summer.  Did they not know that technology does require training and support, and remote teaching isn’t just something to be picked up and happen magically?  It’s no wonder many students and parents have been frustrated by the remote learning experience.