Tuesday, May 16, 2006

 

Politics and Teacher Education

This is my response to a debate at the "Wall of Education" website for teacher educators: http://thewallofeducation.blogspot.com/2006/05/educating-teachers.html

Marilyn Cochran-Smith (2005) summarized two major problems concerning the debate over teacher education and the policy at large: reform rhetoric and the complexity of teaching. Basically, current “reformers” who oppose the process of teacher certification speak in slogans—simplistic, reductive statements about teacher education and education in general. They make outrageous statements, such as the current system is “broken” (US DOE 2002) and reduce teaching to a bottom line: achievement via standardized testing (Hanusek 2002, Ballou & Podgursky 1998 & 2000), as if learning only manifests itself on achievement tests. Rhetoric from people like George Wills (2005) in Newsweek arguing against the role of beliefs and dispositions (and anything cognitive really) in teacher education claim a commonsense-speak, a simple-right-in-front-of-your-nose (duh!) answer.

Like the “reform” movements of the past, a crisis is being generated, but this time generating this crisis comes with real significant costs. This isn’t just report making that Berliner and Biddle (1995) described in their Manufactured Crisis. Legislation has been built around these reductive notions: learning achievement is tested achievement, knowing your content makes a person a good teacher, research is only about numbers, and if schools ran like businesses (and within a free competitive market) then they would be better. These quick-fix, easy-to-bear, slogan-like ideas are being imposed on our current system of education with equally lofty goals of 100% perfection.

The second problem facing teacher education and the fight for public awareness deals with the complex nature of teaching. Nestled within the rhetoric of reform is the “commonsense” belief that teaching is all about imparting knowledge. However, teachers know that teaching is a complex, dynamic process. Lampert (2001) discussed ways that teaching is a challenging profession: teaching is never routine, has multiple goals, involves forming relationships with diverse groups of students simultaneously, and requires to the teacher to integrate different types of knowledge (pedagogy, content, developmental, psychological, organizational, motivational, etc) to teach effectively. Now, try to create a slogan for that!

The act of teaching (students or teachers or anyone else for that matter) always exists within the context of politics. Questions of who determines what is taught, by whom, to whom, and for whose benefit always surround institutions that bear a major responsibility for regulating society in general. These “reformers” control the dialogue, the conversation at the dinner table. It is a conversation that most people, non-teacher educators, can understand and happily join in. “Can you believe it, those teachers at it again…Oh, my….”

The real issue at hand, unfortunately, involves much more than just a marketing problem. The very conception of what is legitimate knowledge for students (testing) and for scholars (scientifically-based research, research funding) is being altered and, in the process, limits what counts as legitimate discourse.

Note on sources: Cochran-Smith (2005) Politics of teacher ed and the curse of complexity. JTE 56 (3)...; USDOE (2002) Rod Paige's 1st report...; Hanushek (2002) Teacher Quality in Izumi & Evers (ed) Teacher Quality; Ballou & Podgursky (1998) Case against teacher certification. Public interest; Ballou & Podgursky (2000) Reforming teacher prep and licensing. TchrCollegeRcd; Lampert (2001) Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale U. Press.


Comments:
This is a very thoughtful and helpful overview of the problem. One question: how do those of use with more familiarity with the real issues of school reform and teacher education begin to influence the public debate in a way that finds its way into the dinnertable conversation of average Americans? (Comment also posted to http://thewallofeducation.blogspot.com.)
 
As I have elaborated in my initial post, these “reformers” have managed to direct the conversation at the dinner table by encapsulating dialogue in simplistic, reductive language. Power politics is a politics of language. It is a game that even the most prolific scholars of teacher education, the Darling-Hammond’s and Cochran-Smith’s and Kenneth Zeichner’s, can’t seem to compete in. Although popular books such as “A Good Teacher in Every Classroom” sponsored by the National Academy of Education and “Many Children Left Behind” edited by Meier and Wood have reached the bookstores, they drive little fan-fare. The reality beyond this is we must seek a different approach.

This afternoon I had lunch with colleagues and the topic of NCLB came up (and I wasn’t the one to bring it up!). A woman who worked in accounting explained how her sister, an elementary school teacher, had four students who failed the state standardized test. She was instructed to inform each student individually and felt heartbroken when one of her most hardworking students, who has a learning disability, cried profusely upon receiving the news. What was she to do?

I make reference to this conversation because it illustrates a fundamental concept of those on the “inside” versus those on the “outside.” Insiders have access to special knowledge, they are part of a greater whole, and speak with authority and legitimacy upon that situation. Outsiders approach the issue from a distant, location—much like a commentator reporting on a basketball game or (even better) the thirty-something-year-old sitting in front of the television, holding a beer, and yelling out strategies to the television as if they know better. What made this conversation unique is that inside knowledge had been introduced into the discussion. This knowledge is concrete, specific, and local. My colleagues (none of them educators) became drawn into the situation and expressed concern.

(Recap: Outside knowledge is public, simplistic, and easy to broadcast. Inside knowledge is concrete, specific, local, and, in many cases, private.)

Sounds simple? Here’s the catch: Many scholars/professors (and grad students who blog!) also exist as outsiders. We get so got up in public discourse, that we ignore the power of the every day, localized knowledge. We think we are the only insiders to teacher education and teaching.

I suggest that inside knowledge exist in at least three different communities, which overlap in many cases, but function separately and without alliance. The teacher education community finds fault with the public schools; whereas, the community of public school teachers lament the lack of parental involvement; whereas many parents and community members remain uninvited into the public schools.

I do not view it as a question of how we influence the “public debate,” but rather the private debate. This means as teacher educators we must seek alliances within these three communities. Although Robert Yinger’s (2005) recently advocated for a community-centered context to teacher education, a “whole community” including home, schools, museum, libraries, churches, and local media, I found that he did not address specific strategies for teacher educators. So I will offer a few.

For example, in a central Texas urban, school district, representatives from the local certification programs have formed an advisory group with school district officials, community leaders, and a parent advocacy group to discuss issues of induction and retention for new teachers. Through these quarterly meetings, consensus is being built around the local needs and issues for teachers and students.

In a South Texas school district, professors at the university and public school teachers have established a program to recruit high school students interested in being teachers. This area suffers from a shortage of teachers and this program attempts to promote parent involvement, volunteer activities for youth as tutors, basic instruction on pedagogy offered by university professors and public school teachers, and college preparation.

Here’s another example. Texans For Quality Assessment began as a local, central Texas organization that aligned university professors, teachers, parents, and even students to rally against the state standardized test (see www.texas-testing.org). Although growing to involve more central Texas cities, this inclusive organization builds heavily on insider knowledge. Here we have people speaking to policy within the context of their own schools and neighborhoods.

In my opinion, the professional development schools movement offers many possibilities for building these connections. A key component, however, must be that parents are afforded serious roles as stake-holders with real, pertinent issues of teacher education and quality.

(Comment also posted on thewallofeducation.blogspot.com.)

note on source: Yinger (2005) A public politics for a public profession. JTE...
 
Dear James,

I am interested in learning more about this foundation course that you have taken and what was "too hard" for students. It appears that this may be an issue of pedagogy instead rather than policy. However, I would like to learn more about the nature of this course before I can share my thoughts on it. (Of course, these are just thoughts, personal musing about the situation, and a productive to enage in meaningful dialogue.) Thanks.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?