Friday, September 15, 2006
What's Wrong with Traditional Teacher Education
Zeichner (2006) most recently addressed the current status of university-based teacher education in the May/June addition of the Journal of Teacher Education. He acknowledged that “the legitimacy of education schools to engage in preparing for our nation’s schools is under question in an intense way.” The forces building against teacher education have used popular media such as magazines and editorial pieces in widely read newspapers. They have acquired the favor of the political powers that be. But are they right? Is teacher education at the university level flawed? Although Ken Zeichner discusses four areas for improving teacher education, he fails to address other fundamental problems in teacher education.
The attack on teacher education lead by members of the “deregulators” have focused on the charge that university-based teacher education forces courses full of ideological, brainwashing, fluff. George Wills (2006) lambasted teacher education programs with their view of constructivist learning and the use of dispositions, harkening back to a simpler notion that teacher involves imparting knowledge—end of story. The call for more “field-tested” practices champions a skill-based, practical approach to teacher education, debasing undergraduate programs as being too theoretical.
Let’s take a moment now to determine the legitimacy of these charges against teacher education. Do undergraduate programs teach skills? Do they prepare competent teachers?
Darling-Hammond (1996) and the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future issued a statement about five flaws in teacher education in their What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. These include:
1. Inadequate time for learning subject matter, child development, learning theory, and teaching strategies.
2. Fragmentation of key elements of teacher education so that course work does not relate to practice teaching, and separate courses often do not relate to one another.
3. Uninspired teaching methods of traditional lecture format by faculty who do not practice what they preach.
4. Superficial curriculum where candidates do not have opportunities for in-depth understanding of how to apply theory or methods to real problems of practice.
5. Traditional view of schooling where prospective teachers work in isolation to teach in schools as they are.
Unfortunately, I believe many of these flaws still plague teacher education programs. I want to spend some time to discuss the concept of fragmentation and uninspired teaching. Then I will address other problems of teacher education including distribution (or lack of) for new teachers, lack of qualified teacher educators, the scarcity of professional development schools, and lack of follow-through induction programming.
First, fragmentation refers to the very real concern that professors and, in many cases, graduate students or adjuncts teach classes in isolation to the entire program. For example, one instructor may advocate a particular viewpoint in a foundations class about what makes for good teaching; whereas, another instructor might focus on a completely different approach in another course. Furthermore, a course may not address particular needs of teacher education students as they work through field based experiences. Both Zeichner (1996) and McIntyre, Byrd, & Fox (1996) have stressed the fact that field-based experiences, though helpful, many have less than ideal results. Zeichner, in particular, stressed the need for reflection, especially against the potential of socialization. A program that exists in fragments cannot be effective in advocating a consistent message about good teaching.
Second, some professors (maybe graduate students or adjuncts) can’t teach worth a flip. The old adage “Those who can’t do, teach; those who can’t teach, teach teachers” (or something like that) has had a bit of truth to it. In an introductory chapter of the first Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Doyle (1990) lamented about the common fact that many professor don’t want to teach teachers and instead what to do more prestigious jobs like teaching grad school or researching. (I can say I have a few professors that would cause utter dread if I had as an undergraduate—boring as hell!) I once had a professor who used to say, “Do as I say, not as I do. You see, you will be a teacher and, therefore, you must teach. I’m a professor, so I profess.” It seemed funny at the time, but boy did I have a hard first year.
Third, okay let’s say we get the all the bugs worked out of teacher education at the university level, this still doesn’t guarantee that teacher education students will teach in the high needs urban schools. Zumwalt & Craig (2005) noted that as much as 50% of those who graduate from undergraduate institutions with teaching degrees never teach. Even worse, Jennifer NG (2002) reported that most of the teacher are Anglo females who attempt to teaching within a 100 miles of where they grew up, in nice suburban areas and avoid the urban or high-needs school. Darling-Hammond and Cobb (1996) noted that many of those would-be teachers who don’t get desired positions simply don’t teach. In an article in Education Week, Haberman (2004) ranted about the added cost placed on urban schools for needing to constantly recruit and retain teachers. How can undergraduate teacher education address this need? Can it?
Fourth, many teacher educators haven’t “been there, done that.” I’m sorry folks, but the truth hurts. How can a teacher educator who has never taught in an urban school district, isn’t a person of color, has little to no background in the public schools, actually prepare future teachers? Take for example, the following scenario (based on a real teacher educator): Graduated from an affluent high school, enrolled in Harvard for an undergraduate degree with an emphasis in education, immediately transferred to Stanford to begin graduate work in education; worked at a nearby school for two years, then moved to Teacher College to finish a Ph.D. Then got hired a big tier one research school in a large urban area and is assigned to teach new teachers working in this context. So where are the folks who have “been there, done that”? They are either still in the classroom or have left the field for good. They are most likely not in graduate school.
Fifth, earlier this year, I had an occasion to hear Dr. Sharon Robinson, the CEO of AACTE, speak at the National Association for Alternative Certification conference in Chicago. I found her message of promoting partnership between traditional undergraduate programs and alternative programs. She spent a considerable amount of time stresses the promise of professional development schools (PDS). Originally advocated by a group of conservative reforms in the Holmes Group Report, PDS does offer many advantages. One of these advantages includes the possibility of preservice teachers to work directly in the nearby schools throughout their schooling experience. However, despite the appeal of such programs, they are costly and, therefore, are not as widespread as journal articles would have us believe.
Finally, I have always had trouble with the fact that once a student graduates with a teaching credential the ties between the education department and the students are severed for good. Although Zeichner (2006) claimed that the practice of offering warranties was “silly,” I actually like the idea. What I find most appealing is the idea that the education provides support for the induction process. Currently, especially for urban schools, the schools are expected to take on too much of the induction process for new teachers, taxing very much needed resources. Supporting new teachers during the first year is on one thing that traditional education can learn from some, successful alternative programs (such as Banks Street College, for example).
As a product of undergraduate teacher certification, I recognize the merits of this form of preparation; however, we must be aware of the deficiencies in many such programs. Furthermore, alternative certification routes offer some advantages, but are plagued by several other problems (see Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske 2005 for a good analysis).
Sources:
Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 3-24). NY: Macmillan.
Haberman, M. (2004). Where the public schools can find $2.6 billion more—every year. Education Week. Retrieved on February 1, 2006 from
http://www.educationnews.org/Haberman/where-the-public-schools-can-fin.htm.
Johnson, S.M., Birkeland, S. & Peske, H. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs. Retrieved on August 1, 2006 from www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/
McIntyre, D., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. (2nd ed, pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan.
NG, J. (2003). Teacher shortages in urban schools: The role of traditional and alternative certification routes in filling the voids. Education and Urban Society, 35 (4), 380-398.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 57(3), 326-340.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 215-234). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zumwalt, K. & Craig, E. (2005). Teacher demographics. In Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (eds). Studying Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The attack on teacher education lead by members of the “deregulators” have focused on the charge that university-based teacher education forces courses full of ideological, brainwashing, fluff. George Wills (2006) lambasted teacher education programs with their view of constructivist learning and the use of dispositions, harkening back to a simpler notion that teacher involves imparting knowledge—end of story. The call for more “field-tested” practices champions a skill-based, practical approach to teacher education, debasing undergraduate programs as being too theoretical.
Let’s take a moment now to determine the legitimacy of these charges against teacher education. Do undergraduate programs teach skills? Do they prepare competent teachers?
Darling-Hammond (1996) and the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future issued a statement about five flaws in teacher education in their What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. These include:
1. Inadequate time for learning subject matter, child development, learning theory, and teaching strategies.
2. Fragmentation of key elements of teacher education so that course work does not relate to practice teaching, and separate courses often do not relate to one another.
3. Uninspired teaching methods of traditional lecture format by faculty who do not practice what they preach.
4. Superficial curriculum where candidates do not have opportunities for in-depth understanding of how to apply theory or methods to real problems of practice.
5. Traditional view of schooling where prospective teachers work in isolation to teach in schools as they are.
Unfortunately, I believe many of these flaws still plague teacher education programs. I want to spend some time to discuss the concept of fragmentation and uninspired teaching. Then I will address other problems of teacher education including distribution (or lack of) for new teachers, lack of qualified teacher educators, the scarcity of professional development schools, and lack of follow-through induction programming.
First, fragmentation refers to the very real concern that professors and, in many cases, graduate students or adjuncts teach classes in isolation to the entire program. For example, one instructor may advocate a particular viewpoint in a foundations class about what makes for good teaching; whereas, another instructor might focus on a completely different approach in another course. Furthermore, a course may not address particular needs of teacher education students as they work through field based experiences. Both Zeichner (1996) and McIntyre, Byrd, & Fox (1996) have stressed the fact that field-based experiences, though helpful, many have less than ideal results. Zeichner, in particular, stressed the need for reflection, especially against the potential of socialization. A program that exists in fragments cannot be effective in advocating a consistent message about good teaching.
Second, some professors (maybe graduate students or adjuncts) can’t teach worth a flip. The old adage “Those who can’t do, teach; those who can’t teach, teach teachers” (or something like that) has had a bit of truth to it. In an introductory chapter of the first Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Doyle (1990) lamented about the common fact that many professor don’t want to teach teachers and instead what to do more prestigious jobs like teaching grad school or researching. (I can say I have a few professors that would cause utter dread if I had as an undergraduate—boring as hell!) I once had a professor who used to say, “Do as I say, not as I do. You see, you will be a teacher and, therefore, you must teach. I’m a professor, so I profess.” It seemed funny at the time, but boy did I have a hard first year.
Third, okay let’s say we get the all the bugs worked out of teacher education at the university level, this still doesn’t guarantee that teacher education students will teach in the high needs urban schools. Zumwalt & Craig (2005) noted that as much as 50% of those who graduate from undergraduate institutions with teaching degrees never teach. Even worse, Jennifer NG (2002) reported that most of the teacher are Anglo females who attempt to teaching within a 100 miles of where they grew up, in nice suburban areas and avoid the urban or high-needs school. Darling-Hammond and Cobb (1996) noted that many of those would-be teachers who don’t get desired positions simply don’t teach. In an article in Education Week, Haberman (2004) ranted about the added cost placed on urban schools for needing to constantly recruit and retain teachers. How can undergraduate teacher education address this need? Can it?
Fourth, many teacher educators haven’t “been there, done that.” I’m sorry folks, but the truth hurts. How can a teacher educator who has never taught in an urban school district, isn’t a person of color, has little to no background in the public schools, actually prepare future teachers? Take for example, the following scenario (based on a real teacher educator): Graduated from an affluent high school, enrolled in Harvard for an undergraduate degree with an emphasis in education, immediately transferred to Stanford to begin graduate work in education; worked at a nearby school for two years, then moved to Teacher College to finish a Ph.D. Then got hired a big tier one research school in a large urban area and is assigned to teach new teachers working in this context. So where are the folks who have “been there, done that”? They are either still in the classroom or have left the field for good. They are most likely not in graduate school.
Fifth, earlier this year, I had an occasion to hear Dr. Sharon Robinson, the CEO of AACTE, speak at the National Association for Alternative Certification conference in Chicago. I found her message of promoting partnership between traditional undergraduate programs and alternative programs. She spent a considerable amount of time stresses the promise of professional development schools (PDS). Originally advocated by a group of conservative reforms in the Holmes Group Report, PDS does offer many advantages. One of these advantages includes the possibility of preservice teachers to work directly in the nearby schools throughout their schooling experience. However, despite the appeal of such programs, they are costly and, therefore, are not as widespread as journal articles would have us believe.
Finally, I have always had trouble with the fact that once a student graduates with a teaching credential the ties between the education department and the students are severed for good. Although Zeichner (2006) claimed that the practice of offering warranties was “silly,” I actually like the idea. What I find most appealing is the idea that the education provides support for the induction process. Currently, especially for urban schools, the schools are expected to take on too much of the induction process for new teachers, taxing very much needed resources. Supporting new teachers during the first year is on one thing that traditional education can learn from some, successful alternative programs (such as Banks Street College, for example).
As a product of undergraduate teacher certification, I recognize the merits of this form of preparation; however, we must be aware of the deficiencies in many such programs. Furthermore, alternative certification routes offer some advantages, but are plagued by several other problems (see Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske 2005 for a good analysis).
Sources:
Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 3-24). NY: Macmillan.
Haberman, M. (2004). Where the public schools can find $2.6 billion more—every year. Education Week. Retrieved on February 1, 2006 from
http://www.educationnews.org/Haberman/where-the-public-schools-can-fin.htm.
Johnson, S.M., Birkeland, S. & Peske, H. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs. Retrieved on August 1, 2006 from www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/
McIntyre, D., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. (2nd ed, pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan.
NG, J. (2003). Teacher shortages in urban schools: The role of traditional and alternative certification routes in filling the voids. Education and Urban Society, 35 (4), 380-398.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 57(3), 326-340.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 215-234). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zumwalt, K. & Craig, E. (2005). Teacher demographics. In Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (eds). Studying Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
# posted by A.J. Castro @ 1:26 AM 
