There’s an interesting discussion happening in a comment thread over at Will Richardson’s blog. If I could summarize, I’d say the conversation is about how large-scale, future-oriented school change might happen. Will and others are searching for ways to make change happen consistent with what he and we know about what’s possible. I particularly like the idea of folks like Will delivering keynotes at conferences such as AASA and ASCD. I think the ed. tech. echo chamber needs to “infiltrate” the general ed. world.
It occurs to me, though, that someone (me?) also needs to infiltrate higher education and schools of education in particular. I can’t speak for all schools of education, and what evidence I do have is anecdotal. But, here’s what I believe to be happening in the places that serve pre-service teachers and school leaders:
- Courses on school change or school reform, if they are offered at all, are typically taught in departments of educational leadership. That’s understandable, but shouldn’t pre-service teachers understand theories of change?
- The school reform courses typically focus on reform per se; i.e. how does change happen (theories of change). However, there’s not much emphasis on the “why” or the “towards what”. There might be some discussion of changing school climate or school culture, but I don’t know of many education faculty members who are leading courses on future-oriented change.
- The technology courses are just that, courses. Typically, a pre-service teacher ed. program will include one (maybe two) standalone tools-oriented courses (here’s how you can use PowerPoint with your kids!). The use of technology is not integrated across the teaching methods courses. You’ll typically find one faculty member in each department of teaching and learning who is the “tech. prof.” She/he teaches those standalone courses.
- I know that in the school of education in which I currently work, and the one I left last year, there are no cross-department conversations about the future of education. Everyone is so focused on the here and now, meeting accreditation demands and other practical matters of making sure our students are prepared to work with their students.
So, my number one priority for this year is to make change happen locally. I’m going to insist that my colleagues join me in learning about the future of education and the future of schooling. As that happens, we’ll discuss the implications for us as professors of education. I will argue that we are preparing educators for an outmoded system; others will push back. That would be wonderful.
photo credit: MarmotChaser
Jon,
I couldn’t agree more! Pre-service education is more about creating lesson plans and curriculum units than it is about changing student achievement.
Bright, motivated, and passionate teachers are entering the system without full recognition and appreciation of all that is involved in impacting student achievement.
Adding a course in school reform is one small step that could be taken to make incoming teachers more aware of the issues at play and ultimately more involved participants in the change conversations!
Thanks, Angela. What if we took that a step (or two) further? That is, I wonder if focusing on “student achievement” per se gets us (me?) where I think we need to be. I want pre-service educators to step up to the balcony and look down on their schools within the greater context of society. Are those institutions still relevant? Are they fostering learning in ways consistent with the changing nature of knowledge and learning? Etc.
I am not sure another pre-service class is the answer. The pre-service curriculum is already packed (minimum 5 year commitment at a lot of places). We have to fight tooth and nail just to get an undergraduate ed. law/policy/ethics class in most places. I think a class dedicated only to school reform would be a hard sell. But, that said, you could probably combine a lot of these issues into a relevant class that is reform oriented.
However, your idea of using the Schools of Ed. is highly important. If there is a place that should be engaged in school reform, it should be schools of ed. I think everyone there is trying to reform schools in their own way, but there is an almost complete lack of coordination amongst these entities and individuals. Perhaps that is good, as Schools of Ed. pushing particular reform agendas doesn’t quite sit right either, but at a minimum Schools of Education could stress ed. reform as a valuable goal that is valued by society encouraging future practitioners to engage in reform actions in their schools.
Hmmm…Justin, I’m guessing from your response that my post wasn’t clear enough. Additional discussions of school reform within coursework would be welcome for sure. But, even there, I’m not talking about the usual fare; i.e. Michael Fullan, etc. I’m talking about Schooling 2.0 (for lack of any better term). My real point, though, is that we the faculty need to be having interdepartmental conversations about the future of schooling. I’m thinking of showing up in the fall and instituting regular, informal brown-bag type meetings where we discuss the following question: WHAT IS THE ROLE/PLACE OF SCHOOLING WITHIN THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION? If I can get the VCU SoE faculty to be having those conversations this coming year, I feel like I will have done pretty well.
Yeah, I was responding as much to Angela’s post as yours. But, I get your point.
Your idea is certainly a good one. Schooling 2.0 conversations would certainly be welcome and are pretty much totally absent from schools of ed., but I do think you will get some resistance. My feeling about it though, would just be to let your tenure decision come through first, if it hasn’t already. You know, the whole rocking the boat thing. I think everyone feels that if people would only discuss their reform agenda that schools would be much better off. For instance, if there were only an additional 1000 lawyers in education … ok, well, maybe not that one.
I think there is room to make a push for this in leadership programs, though, too. Scott’s leadership day post sort of brought that up. I think we could gain some ground at UCEA, for instance, if several of us made a concerted effort to push that agenda, not that Scott is not already doing well. I do think we could hook in some younger professors (such as myself) that see the value in thinking about Schooling 2.0 issues. Anyway, I think UCEA could be a place to have this kind of discussion. It is not going to supplant the social justice discussions at UCEA, but it would give a lot of people that feel put out at the moment (and I know several) a place to grab hold in UCEA.
P.S. – I am tempted to join the weight loss blog. I think I put on 10-15 pounds doing the dissertation. Nervous eating … never good.