Educational Reform: Imperatives for the Preparation of Education Professionals |
Rodney J. Reed |
Fifteen years ago the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated in its report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983) that—
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre
educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it
as an act of war...we have, in fact, been committing an act of unthinking,
unilateral disarmament. (p. 5)
Since the issuance of A Nation At Risk, the number of reports, journal articles, studies, task forces, commissions and Federal and state initiatives addressing the question of school reform staggers the imagination. But the challenge facing us today is as crucial as it was fifteen years ago. Many of our schools are not effectively providing the quality of education necessary for every student to become productive citizens in the 21st century; to participate fully in our democratic society, to contribute to the public good and to the betterment of the global society of which we are a part; and, to enjoy fulfilled and satisfying lives. Criticisms of schools and mandates for reform did not begin with A Nation at Risk in 1983. For example, in the 1930s, sponsored by the Progressive Education Association, the Commission on the Relation of School and College studied the condition of 30 secondary schools and concluded that graduates of progressive schools did as well in college as graduates of traditional schools. Based on this conclusion, some educators erroneously believed that curriculum was unimportant; that simply participating in school was sufficient. Yet, criticisms of secondary schools emanating from this study, which came to be known as the Eight Year Study, were similar to those voiced today. As reported by Sarason (1993), these criticisms included the following:
The Eight-Year Study not only isolated important problems associated
with secondary schools, but also developed a set of reforms which, not
surprisingly, focused on the preparation of teachers and matters of curriculum
and teaching. The study’s recommendations, however, were never systematically
addressed. If they had been, then perhaps the myriad demands we hear for
school reform today would not be as vociferous. Specifically geared to school reform during the 1950s and 1960s was
the Ford Foundation-funded Comprehensive School Improvement Program and,
during the 1970s, the federal government’s Experimental School Program
(Jansen, 1974). The latter program was located in 18 school districts
and focused on research, demonstration, documentation, evaluation and
dissemination. Unfortunately, neither program had lasting effects on the
schools, and when the funding was discontinued, so too were these improvement
and experimental initiatives. In a later period it was argued that if reform was to occur, decision-making and ownership for those decisions needed to be centered at the school site. Thus, school-based management (SBM), which shifted power and authority from the district level to the school level, became a vehicle for school reform. Although SBM is conceptually compelling, the implementation of this model has been constrained by teacher union contracts and federal, state, district, and school level policies and regulations. SBM has further been constrained by the lack of a clear, shared definition of the concept combined with the lack of principal, teacher and community collaborative management skills (Pelavin Associates, Inc., 1994; Wehlstetter and Mohrman, 1994). Despite numerous school reform and intervention efforts over time, the failure of elementary and secondary schools to successfully educate all students continues to be a persistent problem. Thus, the clarion call for school reform or restructuring, with specific reference to what is taught, how it is taught, what students are expected to learn and demonstrate they know, what teachers are expected to know and demonstrate they can teach effectively, and the organizational and governance structures of schools in which teaching and learning should occur, resonates as clearly today as it did in the past. An underlying theme in the continuing call for school reform is that the nation’s workforce is not being well prepared and thus the competitive edge we enjoy in the global economy is in jeopardy (Johnson and Parker, 1987; Committee for Economic Development, 1985). Comparative international studies such as TIMSS (1998) cite the low school achievement of our public school students, and major colleges and universities complain about the poor preparation of students seeking entry into the academy. It is clear, however, that students attending schools in economically advantaged communities have pursued a rich curriculum of studies and generally attain high scores on college admissions and other performance tests. By contrast, it is equally clear that students who attend public schools in poor communities do not. Thus, the challenge before us is to ensure that the effective education of all students becomes a matter of central, rather than peripheral, concern. |
What do we want to achieve through school reform? For many organizations (the National Governors’ Association, 1986, 1991; the National Alliance of Business, 1989; the William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, et al., 1991; the Education Commission of the States, 1996) the fundamental issue to be addressed in school reform is that of creating a world-class work force for the 21st century. In so doing, it means addressing the needs of all students—majority and minority, male and female, advantaged and disadvantaged, fully abled and differently abled—so that they can make successful transitions from school and post-secondary educational settings to the world of meaningful and economically rewarding employment. In a similar vein, the 1991 U.S. Department of Labor Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills report, What Work Requires of Schools, commonly referred to as the SCANS report, identifies three critical components for the future. In that comprehensive report, the Commission emphasizes that:
In the SCANS conceptualization, the transformed schools should focus on five areas of competence—resources (allocating time, money, materials, space, and staff); interpersonal skills (working on teams, teaching others, serving customers, leading, negotiating, and working well with people from culturally diverse backgrounds); information (acquiring and evaluating data, organizing and maintaining files, interpreting and communicating, and using computers to process information); systems (understanding social, organizational, and technological systems, monitoring and correcting performance, and designing or improving systems); and technology (selecting equipment and tools, applying technology to specific tasks, and maintaining and troubleshooting technologies)—and three foundation areas—basic skills (reading, writing, arithmetic and mathematics, speaking and listening); thinking skills (thinking creatively, making decisions, solving problems, seeing things in the mind’s eye, knowing how to learn, and reasoning); and personal qualities (individual responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management, and integrity). For SCANS, tomorrow’s schools are those which have as their ultimate outcome the ability of all students to perform at high levels. This is achieved through a focus on the
development of thinking skills, using assessment as the basis for teaching,and
through the construction and maintenance of a learning environment in
which a), students actively construct knowledge for themselves; b), students
work cooperatively in problem solving; and c), skills are learned in the
context of real problems. Operationally, such schools are “learner-centered
and teacher-directed rather than supervised by administrators.”
(SCANS Report, p. 22) |
From the Bully Pulpit Committed to improving teaching and learning in America’s schools, the Clinton Administration has expanded the education goals for America which, in a more narrow form, were developed during the Bush administration. Currently, the National Education Goals Panel endorses and advances a comprehensive set of education goals designed to achieve systemic school reform for all children. These goals state that, “By the year 2000,
Embracing the America 2000 National Education Goals, and supporting challenging state education standards are the two areas through which the current presidential administration has focused its education reform efforts. In prescribing standards, however, we must acknowledge and address inequities in educational opportunities and the effect these have on children’s ability to achieve academically. If standards are to be uniformly imposed, then we must ensure that every child has a well-prepared teacher, attends a well-equipped and staffed school, and has the neighborhood and school support necessary to reinforce and value educational attainment and the social and economic mobility that accompanies it. Other voices have also given us reasons to transform our schools. For example, Hodgkinson and Outtz (1992) point out that the top ten states in terms of violent crime (New York, Florida, California, Maryland, Illinois, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Michigan, and New Mexico) are also the states with low graduation rates. Regardless of ethnicity or race, according to Hodgkinson, “82 percent of America’s prisoners are high school dropouts” (1995, p. 54). Moreover, a statistic which should give us cause for alarm is that, between 1980 and 1990, “the fastest growing group in the U. S. was prisoners, up 139 percent, from 466,371 in 1980 to 1,115,111 in 1990. We now have the third highest incarceration rate in the world” (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 14). As we contemplate these statistics, it is readily apparent that schools in which students find little to celebrate, in which encouragement and support for learning are absent or inconsistent, in which the correlation between education and work is not explicit, and in which expectations for success are low and virtually nonexistent, are breeding grounds for school failure and for dropping out of school. When this happens, the nation loses the potential human resources it needs, individuals lose their dignity and self-esteem, and taxpayers feel it in their pocketbooks, for it costs, on average, $22,500 a year (as of fiscal year 1991) to care for a prisoner. By contrast, the average per-pupil expenditure in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools in 1994 was only $5,066 in non-urban districts and $4,500 in urban districts (Quality counts, 1998, p. 20). It makes little sense to spend four to five times as much to maintain prisoners, who are for the most part school dropouts, than to ensure that our educational system is successful with all students. If for no other reason than the return on investment, we must demand that schools provide effective education for every student. When considering the loss of human capital fostered by ineffective schools, it becomes imperative that we transform schools so that teaching and learning is successful for all students. The fundamental questions we must address is not whether school reform must occur, but how and for what reasons. Can we really change schools so that the aims we aspire to achieve will be met? |
Is systematic change possible? Machiavelli’s words in The Prince, written in 16th century Italy, are a poignant reminder of the challenge we face in school reform. He writes on the subject, “Of New Dominions which have been Acquired by One’s Own Arms and Ability,” and indicates that “the difficulties which [individuals] have in acquiring...dominions arise in part from the new rules and regulation that they have to introduce in order to establish their position securely.” He further states:
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out,
nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate
a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit
by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit
by the new order. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity
of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for
attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans,
the others only defend him half-heartedly so that between them he runs
great danger. (pp. 49-50)
Change does not come easily, and when implemented in formal organizations and systems, it is indeed challenging. Yet change is essential if we are to bring about the kind of improvement in our educational system that will ensure the successful education of all students. According to Getzels, (1970; 1973), the impetus for change can come from three sources: First, external pressure as applied through sanctions or court order. This type of change can be categorized as enforced. The response to it is accommodation. A second source derives from external pressures that emanate from the environment in which the organization exists. For example, school districts may embrace a new language curriculum because it is in vogue, simply to diffuse the pressure they believe they will experience if they do not implement it. This can be classified as expedient change, and the response to it is one of reaction. The third category of change is essential change, to which there is a voluntary and honest response to a problem that must be solved. It is this last category in which school reform, restructuring, or transformation must reside and to which many schools across the nation are responding. Will they succeed? This question will be answered over time. What is encouraging, however, is the fact that many school reform initiatives are currently under way. They include: 1) changes in the manner in which students are taught, including the use of active learning techniques, constructivism, using computers and technology creatively, team teaching and independent learning, and the melding of academic and vocational education; 2) new organizational, management and governance models which include school-site-based management, Tech Prep, or 2 + 2 and 2 + 2 + 2 programs, charter schools, school academics, year-round schools, and integrated school services; 3) greater emphasis on accountability through standards-based education, Total Quality Management, and professional standards for educators; and 4) a redefined role for teachers and restructured teacher and administrator preparation programs. School reform is a formidable task, one which is almost overwhelming in its complexity, but one which we nevertheless must embrace. And in this process, it is abundantly clear that schools, colleges and departments of education (SCDEs) have a major role to play in that they prepare the education professionals—the elementary and secondary teachers, early childhood educators, counselors, school psychologists, special educators, school principals and superintendents, vocational and industrial educators, instructional design and educational technology specialists, adult educators, training and development specialists, bilingual and multicultural educators, policy analysts and researchers, college and university professors and administrators, and specialists in testing, measurement and assessment. Given the importance of SCDEs in the efforts to transform schools, attention is finally beginning to shift to the preparation of educational professionals and the centrality of university-based programs. |
Role of Education Schools It is no less difficult to change institutions of higher education and Education Schools than it is to change school systems. Change in Education Schools is influenced by the culture of the institution in which they are located, the fiscal and human resources with which they have to operate, the reward structure for faculty advancement, and the curriculum requirements that are shaped by state and national accreditation standards, as well as by state licensing and certification mandates. It is within these parameters that reform, as regards the preparation of education professionals in general, and teacher education preparation programs in particular, must be structured. As we have pointed out, the need to reform and transform our schools is imperative, even though there are those who correctly argue that, for many students the schools work very well (Hodgkinson, 1991; Bracey, 1997; Berliner, 1995). That fact notwithstanding, the bottom one-third of our nation’s schools do not. These schools are generally located in inner-city neighborhoods and rural settings, and the students who attend them are over represented by minority group children and those from economically disadvantaged circumstances. While it is essential that we improve these schools in which students perform poorly, we must also recognize that most schools need to be improved if we are to ensure that every student will meet challenging educational performance standards. And therein lies the major challenge to teacher educators—the preparation of education professionals who are effective in a variety of public schools located in economically diverse communities and whose student populations are characterized by a wide spectrum of multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual backgrounds. Teachers must be able to effectively teach students whose backgrounds are and will be vastly different from the students of twenty years ago. For example, consider the following facts culled from Hodgkinson, (1991, 1992, 1995):
What these demographic changes mean is that the majority of future teachers must be prepared to teach in schools in which the needs of students will be vastly different from those of the students with whom they grew up and with whom they attended school. These statistics also make clear that tomorrow’s teachers will need to understand and appreciate a variety of student cultural backgrounds and aspirations. The challenge to those of us who prepare education professionals is to prepare educators who can effectively teach all K-12 students so that they are prepared to enter the world of work or college fully capable of participating in, and contributing to, the technological and information-based global society in which we exist; are fully capable of thinking analytically and critically; are able to engage in problem-solving individually and collectively; are infused with a sense of fair play and democratic values; possess a work ethic which includes responsibility, productivity and pride; and are aware of the necessity of lifelong learning. To meet this challenge there are ten imperatives that I believe are fundamental for developing and implementing preparation programs for future education professionals. |
Program Imperatives The first of these imperatives is vision. Educators for the future must develop a clear vision of what we believe education should accomplish differentially at school or developmental levels, and throughout the life span. Within this vision we must be ever vigilant of issues of equity and excellence, individual motivation and aspirations, and the relationship of education and the global environment in which we live. The second imperative is professional ethics. On this dimension we must ensure that the educators we prepare are skillful and good at what they do. They must accept personal responsibility for the learning and development of every student assigned to them and actively protect and promote the health, safety and well being of each of these students. It is also an ethical responsibility of educators to continue to learn and to engage in continuous personal and professional growth activities. The third imperative is respect. Within this concept is included respect for self, for students, for their parents, and for others. This means valuing the uniqueness of oneself and others. It means treating others with dignity regardless of differences in cultural or ethnic background or gender. It further means having the communication skills, including listening skills, to be conversant with and responsive to individuals from other cultural or ethnic backgrounds. It also means that as educators we must understand and internalize the necessity of positive reciprocal relationships between the child and the teacher, the teacher and parent, the teacher and school administrator, the administrator and parent, the administrator and the community. Stated differently, we must understand, develop and maintain positive, respectful and reciprocal relationships between the classroom and the school, the school and the community, and the community and the greater society. We must create a caring environment in which the cruciality of self-esteem and esteem of others is recognized and valued. Importantly, as educators we must free ourselves of stereotypical, xenophobic, and homophobic beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. One of the most significant requirements for effective teaching and learning is building trusting, open, and positive relationships with those we seek to teach. To accomplish this, it means being respectful of self and others, establishing and nurturing high expectations for teaching and learning, and believing in the worth and promise of all students. The fourth imperative is knowledge and understanding of the socio-cultural environment and backgrounds of individuals with whom we work as professional educators. We must understand how socioeconomic circumstances and cultural backgrounds influence readiness to learn, motivation to learn, and perceptions of the value-addedness of education to one’s life. It is also necessary to understand and use positively, community resources to reinforce and enhance the teaching and learning process. And it is mandatory that as professional educators we acquire the knowledge and understanding of cultures different from our own. This may require that we become fluent in other languages and become immersed periodically in other cultural settings. Subject matter or academic area specific knowledge represents the fifth imperative. Here I refer to in-depth knowledge of the subject matter to be taught. Knowledge must be viewed as a tool for inquiry, problem solving and critical reflection. In this context, it signifies depth as well as breadth, and interconnectedness rather than fragmentation. As educators we must view subject-matter knowledge within a framework that permits learners to see the relevance of its application to their present and future lives. Among the most promising means for linking knowledge to present and future growth and development are those associated with the movement toward integrated academic and vocational education curriculums, and student-centered and activity-based learning strategies. In this regard, the words of Whitehead (1929) are instructive: “...education is the acquisition of the art of the utilization of knowledge” (p. 16). Yet, we must ensure, in Sarason’s words, that we “...teach children and not subject matter” (1992, p. 124). In-depth knowledge of subject matter must not replace the love and respect that should be extended to all children. Children and adults learn best when they are motivated to learn, when they see the relationships between knowledge and life, and when they recognize the necessity of continuous and lifelong learning as a condition of their future well-being and self-fulfillment. The sixth imperative is pedagogy—the art and science of teaching; the techniques of teaching as supported by a solid research, theory and effective practice. In some respects this might be referred to as the technology of teaching. Included in this technology are: strategies and models of teaching; cooperative learning; mastery learning; theories of cognitive growth, human development and socialization; assessment and diagnosis of student learning needs; curriculum design and sequencing; cultural pluralism; the effect of teacher attitude, expectations and respect on students’ school performance; the intrinsic and extrinsic relationships of motivation on teacher and student behavior; problem solving vs. solving problems; school and classroom climate effects; testing, measurement and assessment; education for students with special needs; classroom management; the use of computers and telecommunications in teaching and learning; and, so forth. Importantly, as educators we need also to foster creativity within ourselves and within our students. The excitement and joy of teaching and learning is, in part, a function of our ability to stimulate and engage students in active learning experiences. This can be enhanced by building on their sense of inquiry, discovery and imagination. To do less not only stifles the desire to learn, but also may diminish the willingness of learners to seek creative solutions to future challenges they will encounter in formal learning, occupational and life situations. Leadership is the seventh imperative we must include in the preparation
of educators. Effective leadership has, I think, seven components, some
of which have already been mentioned as imperatives for educators. These
components are: vision, knowledge, integrity, perseverance, enthusiasm,
respect for self and others, and humility. The eighth imperative for the preparation of educators focuses on the clinical applications of knowledge. This imperative speaks to the need to integrate theory and practice; to hone the skills of teaching in field settings that provide the opportunities for observation, analysis, assessment and critical reflection. In addition, through work with peers and teacher supervisors, important problems and challenges in practice can be systematically examined, self-confidence nurtured, and excellent teaching and learning techniques engendered. The ninth imperative is that educators assume the role of change agent. Our preparation programs must produce educators who are risk takers and who understand how to change educational settings in ways that reflect our knowledge and understanding not only of the teaching-learning process, but also of desired educational outcomes. Educators must be empowered to challenge and to change the status quo when such actions are warranted. To do so effectively, they must understand the process of change and have the skills and abilities to implement positive change in the interest of effective teaching and learning policies and practices for all students. The tenth and final imperative centers upon the need to have educators view themselves as lifelong learners. Clearly, preservice professional preparatory programs cannot impart the depth and breadth of knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes and behaviors in a four- or five-year period. It is mandatory, therefore, that our preparation programs seek to instill recognition of the necessity of continuous growth and specialized professional development in all future educators. These are the ten imperatives I believe are the necessary foundation areas for programs designed to prepare tomorrow’s educators. By way of summary, these imperatives are: 1) vision, 2) professional ethics, 3) respect, 4) knowledge and understanding of the socio-cultural environment and backgrounds of the learners entrusted to us, 5) subject matter or academic specific knowledge, 6) pedagogy or the art and science of teaching, 7) leadership, 8) clinical applications of knowledge, 9) change, and 10) continuous growth, learning and specialized professional development. In embracing these imperatives, it is assumed that effective preparation programs for educators will not be equated exclusively with time-bound, traditional college courses. Rather, these programs should be based on demonstrated performance outcomes using the highest standards of excellence in those areas we consider to be essential for effective teaching and learning for all students. In other words, we must move from inputs to agreed upon and proven outcomes associated with successful teaching and learning. This is truly a time of challenge to professional education, in general, and schools, colleges and departments of education engaged in the preparation of education professionals, in particular. It is also a time in which opportunities to make significant contributions to the field of education abound. But most important, it is a time to finally ensure excellence in teaching and student performance in all public and private schools for all students. We can seize the opportunity for leadership and the accomplishment of these ends, or we can sit by and become mediocre as a nation. We have little choice but to meet the challenges we face. We must do so with full confidence and knowledge that we can make a difference. We must be bold in our approach and fearless in our resolve to prepare the best professional educators that we can—those who will effectively develop the excellence we seek in all present and future students whom we have the privilege to teach. |
References Anderson, J. I. (1992). The distribution of Chapter I services: Which
school districts and schools serve students in Chapter 1? Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
Office of Research. |
| Rodney J. Reed is the Dean of the College of Education at |