Redesigning Teacher Education as a Shared Responsibility of Schools and Universities

Bibliographic Data

ID4307084
AuthorsNancy Burstein (California State University, Northridge), D Kretschmer (0000-0002-8702-3007, California State University, Northridge), Christine Smith (0000-0001-6719-7678, California State University, Northridge), Phyllis Gudoski (Los Angeles Unified School District)
Year1999
Volume50
Issue2
Pages106-118
Publication date1999-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Teacher Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-4871 • E-ISSN: 1552-7816
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/002248719905000204
OpenAlexW2092683287
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited11

The impetus for school and university collaboration began in the mid-1990s with the Carnegie Forum (1986) and Holmes Group (1986) recommending the establishment of school-university partnerships to improve teaching and learning. The Carnegie report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (1986), proposed that the best learning environment for teacher preparation was a clinical school linking school and university faculty. The Holmes Group recommended the establishment of professional development schools (PDSs) in which practicing teachers and administrators would work in partnership with university faculty to improve both schools and the preparation of teachers. Winitzky, Stoddart, and O'Keefe (1992) describe this relationship: A program of teacher education cannot be excellent without an excellent school in which to place student teachers. A school cannot be excellent without teachers graduated from excellent programs (p. 5). School and university systems are dependent upon each other for excellence, simultaneously facilitating renewal and change. Despite these efforts, little has changed in the last decade in K-12 schools and the preparation of teachers (Goodlad, 1990; Grant, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995). The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996) found that although the quality of teaching significantly affects student learning and educational reform, the teaching profession has suffered from decades of neglect (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Like the Carnegie Forum and Holmes Group a decade earlier, the commission has called for major restructuring of teacher education and professional development (Darling-Hammond, 1996) and emphasized the importance of school-university partnerships in improving student learning and teaching. Many believe restructuring teacher education programs is long overdue (Fullan, 1994; Metcalf-Turner & Fischetti, 1996; Rigden, 1996). In California, a study of the major teacher training institutions (Hart & Burr, 1996) revealed a number of concerns in teacher education including disconnection between universities and K-12 school districts, poor quality of student teaching experiences, weak links between schools of education and liberal studies, and limited early clinical experiences. As a result of state and national research findings and a series of meetings held by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing for educators and community members on teacher education, Senate Bill 1422 was recently approved in California to restructure teacher education. This bill recommends that teacher education create shared responsibilities through K-12 and university partnerships, support faculty work with K-12 schools, build on preservice and induction experiences, and expand and enrich clinical experiences. Mounting pressure for institutions of higher education to assume a major role in serving the larger community is contributing to the movement toward school-university partnerships. Universities across the country are developing central missions emphasizing engagement in society, integrating community service in the academic curricula, and encouraging faculty to address important problems in the larger community (Rice, 1996). The role and reward structure of university faculty is beginning to change with a shift toward collaborative faculty work contributing to the central mission of the university and responding to community needs (Boyer, 1990; Rice, 1996). Although many universities are involved in reform efforts with school partners, much of their work has little effect on the redesign of teacher preparation. Some programs increase clinical preparation but maintain much of the traditional preparation program. Others develop collaborative courses but continue to implement an existing credential program. Still others offer collaborative programs but involve few tenureline faculty. Although these partnerships may improve aspects of teacher preparation programs, they generally result in existing program modifications or are tangential to business as usual at universities

Commission · Curriculum · Excellence · General partnership · Pedagogy · Political science · Professional development · Restructuring · Sociology · Teacher education · Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion · Diverse Educational Innovations Studies · Teacher Education and Leadership Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub