At the Twitter Town Hall with Education Secretary Arne Duncan (related: the full transcript of that dialogue is online) on August 24, he promised some new initiatives regarding schools of education. In the hope that the suggestion box is still open, I have a suggestion -- not for the Secretary but for schools and colleges of education.
Full disclosure: I do write as a graduate of one (Harvard) and a Trustee of another (Teachers College at Columbia University), but nothing I say should be construed as either representing those institutions or having their stamp of approval.
Regarding both undergraduate and graduate schools of education, I begin with six premises so the reader knows where I am coming from.
Premise No. 1: The world of teaching has to change -- and is slowly changing. Despite the harsh attacks on the profession by too many shrill voices, others are working to improve pay and working conditions. When these changes take effect, the exodus from the profession will slow down. That will change the economics of training, simply because the system will not need as many new teachers. Right now, too many schools and colleges of education resemble diploma mills that actually benefit from the churn in the profession. That's a disgrace, and the leading colleges and schools of education must be working for teachers. Teaching and learning and cannot be beholden to 'the three Ts' -- companies that sell technology, tests and textbooks -- or anyone else.
Premise No. 2: Schools of education are an endangered species. Somewhere around 1,400 institutions now prepare teachers, and that's about twice as many as we will need in the future, because the profession is changing -- even the best are at risk if they don't adapt.
Premise No. 3: The old way of paying teachers -- based on years of service and graduate credits -- is dying, with only the date of death yet to be decided. That means the end of a 'cash cow' for the schools and colleges of education that now get a lot of cash from teachers who take a course here and there to get a pay boost. Moreover, no reputable school of education can afford to be seen as hanging on to this way of doing business just because it's currently profitable. In some districts, contracts are being negotiated that 'front-load' the rewards, a practice in countries and regions that are now outperforming the United States.
Premise No. 4: Today most schools of education, especially graduate schools with their subject-specific 'silos' and tenure-driven organization, are insufficiently nimble to survive and prosper. They are constructed around tenured professors, a small tenure track, and lots and lots of adjunct (part-time) teachers. Leadership must challenge this structure, but not head on. Instead, schools and colleges of education should create an alternative path in addition to the tenure track and adjunct appointments.
Premise No. 5: Schools and colleges of education don't do enough to develop brand loyalty among their graduates. Most students enroll in order to have their tickets punched and not much more. They may leave with loyalty to their 'silo' or their professors, but they have not been sufficiently changed or challenged by the experience in ways that make them loyal graduates (and contributors, as donation records reveal). That can be changed.
Premise No. 6: The time to change is now. Soon many 'baby boomer' teachers will be retiring and need to be replaced. The new generation will be digital natives, of course, but they must also be drawn into the profession because it promises opportunities to make a difference (not to 'raise achievement' or some other mechanistic formulation). Higher pay will help, but of greater value to teachers are opportunities to collaborate, to develop curriculum and to grow professionally. Colleges and schools of education need to take the lead in attracting this new breed, but they cannot do this by merely making cosmetic changes.
Enough of premises and preaching. Time for specifics.
I suggest a seven-part strategy.
1. "Agents of change and inspiration:" Visits to the campus by people like Sir Ken Robinson and Tim Brown of IDEO, who will spend a week (at the very least) in close contact with students. For this series to be meaningful, the graduate school must host at least five of these thought leaders every year. Each of these bright lights will be paid handsomely for their week and will be expected to be enthusiastic and responsive. This is the epitome and exemplar of "Nimble."
2. Taking on tenure: A significant number of five-year contracts for men and women who want to do cutting edge work at the intersection of teaching and policy and don't care about tenure and the accompanying restrictions of that track (publish or perish, do research and so on). While this won't end tenure, it will reduce the institution's dependence on tenure and adjunct faculty, which has budget and pedagogical implications. It will also attract a new breed of teacher.
3. A new course for students: A required one-year course for all students, to be recreated each year by leading faculty (including some of the five-year folks in No. 2 above). One year this course (call it something like "The Heart of the Matter") might focus on neuroscience and the brain, the next year on schooling's public purpose, and so on. It will be cutting edge. Every education student must take this, but the small group seminars will be arranged randomly and not by department, so that students with different interests are forced to work together. Part of the curriculum will be lectures by the Agents of Change and Inspiration, above. This is not a dreaded 'core course' in the History of Education. Instead, it will be new every year, and it will be up to the President or Dean to select the men and women who will work together to create this course. To be chosen will become a badge of honor among faculty. If this is done well, this course will change the thinking and perspective of students (and create the kind of loyalty that, eventually, will be reflected in annual giving).
4. Engagement: All of the school's graduates must be invited to share in this new curriculum electronically. They will be able to 'attend' the lectures by the likes of Sir Ken and others on line. Because these will be scheduled in advance, everyone will be able to submit questions electronically.
5. Necessary changes: Teacher training must change, because the world of education has changed. Prospective teachers must spend more time in real classrooms, working with capable teachers who themselves are not locked into 'direct instruction' but who practice collaborative teaching. Since we tend to do what was done to us, future teachers must be taught in ways other than direct instruction. Eliminate lectures on the importance of not lecturing! The job of the teacher of the future is more complex, but their focus will on formulating questions, helping students separate wheat from chaff. Those who train teachers must themselves change. One step would be for their classes to meet AT the public schools where the education students are doing their practicum. And -- to repeat myself -- much, much more training of the fledgling teachers must occur in real schools!
6. Evaluation: What school districts do now is inadequate, but it's not enough to be cursing that darkness. Schools and colleges of education need to be in the forefront of developing complex measures of student learning and teacher effectiveness. Teach for America 'walks back the cat' to see how well its teachers do. Why can't schools of education do this?
7. Payment: Because the old way of paying teachers is dying, graduate schools of education must get out in front on this issue as well. They should be able to say "Because you are attending our graduate school, you will be a BETTER teacher, and therefore will make more money under the new system."
May the nimble and deserving survive and prosper. To the rest, adios, sayonara, farewell.
As always, remember that John's book The Influence of Teachers is for sale at Amazon.
Two quick programming notes: if you live around the New York City area, I will be doing a live conversation event at the JCC in Manhattan with Eva Moskowitz of Harlem Success Academy and Dave Levin of KIPP; it'll be on Wednesday, September 21 at 7:30 pm. It should be a great night of discussion about charter schools and their impact -- so if you can be there, please click here to purchase tickets.
In addition, our team at Learning Matters -- specifically, our summer intern -- just produced a brand-new piece about a remarkable young man in Brooklyn. Watch it here.
Thanks -- and have a great Labor Day weekend, all.
Follow John Merrow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/john_merrow
LaVar Young: Education Reform Now, Not Later
Lisa M. Dabbs M.Ed.: New Teachers: Twenty Tips for Success
I would like to suggest another class that will improve teaching.
Improvisation theatre.
It's fun. It helps you think on your feet. You learn "yes, and ... (explore and heighten) And if you CAN work in some stand up comedy styoings, your cool factor will go way up.
Try it.
6) Evaluation: Many education schools already do such evaluation. All schools should of course follow.
7) Pay: The writer doesnt really go into detail about this issue.
While education schools certainly do need to make improvements it really boils down to making sure their students are masters of their subject areas, understand educational psychology and policy, and feel comfortable in the classroom. What Merrow presented will not necessarily improve teachers in the classroom (especially the "agents of change" points). Note the "Agents of change" is basically professional development in the schools, whereby reformers and educationalist come to schools and "teach" the teachers how to act, what to do, etc.
2) Why end tenure? Why not reform tenure to make it easier to fire bad or "underperforming" teachers? Tenure protects teachers from being arbitrarily fired, for actually teaching the students rather than following "one size fits all" curriculum.
3) New courses: Everyone wants new and interesting courses, but once again the lectures by the "Agents of change" is ridiculous. Why not lectures by proven masters of the teaching profession, or of a certain subject?
4) Engagement: Is engagement really sitting on a computer, emailing in questions? Who will answer all the questions? Will there be follow up questions to allow for further clarification? The computer network is far from ideal and less perfect than a classroom/live session for engagement in debate and understanding...
I earned my credential 13 years ago and since that time, the requirements for a credential have nearly doubled here in California (without, in my opinion, any quantifiable change in teacher quality). We are third only to doctors and lawyers when it comes to continuing education beyond certification and that's just ridiculous.
Further thoughts:
http://credulantmusings.blogspot.com/2011/08/pay-me-more.html
http://credulantmusings.blogspot.com/2011/09/one-big-union.html
I remember a teacher training class where the instructor told of her first year of teaching...fifth grade, and all her students were the ones that no one else wanted (she was the last hired) She used Junior Scholastic newspaper to determine the topic choices of the week and the students dove into research and read everything they could find on the topics and discussed them. At the end of the year, every one of her students passed the basic standardized test, and the one kid who seemed to be out to lunch got every question right. The teacher just didn't know what a challenge she faced and no one had any real expectations for her.
Somehow she latched onto the one method that seems to work to pique interest...topics relevant to the students, and an integration of learning about a topic by APPLYING math, science, history and language arts skills in a real life environment. The children were invested in gaining insight and information, not pushed into memorizing material in a vacuum.
Of course, this is insane....
It is true that some people, no matter how content-knowledgeable, cannot teach. I'm not sure that any number of methods courses can fix that. But in most of our region's teacher diploma mills, teachers are emerging with nothing but teacher courses and only two or three content courses. The balance between the two sides is way out of whack.
More to the point, they miss one of the major problems with teachers on the grade 7-12 end of the spectrum: education diploma mills are still cranking out grads who do not know diddly squat about their subject matter.
You cannot develop nifty new approaches to teaching and learning, you cannot collaborate with colleagues, you cannot help your students find multiple pathways to understanding, if you do not know what the hell you are talking about. I've been teaching for thirty-plus years-- I'm pretty good at it and I left the lecture to the rows of desk model behind decades ago. But I remain more nimble and adaptable than many of the newbies because they simply don't know the content.
How can you chart interesting and engaging new paths to your destination when you have no idea what that destination is? If you have only one (or none) ways of grasping a superficial understanding of the content you are supposed to teach, how can you show your students anything else?
Future teaching diploma holders are spending far far too much time in pointless methods courses and not nearly enough time in courses about their subject matter. Changing that should be job one for education departments across the country.