Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

The Reconstruction of Teacher Education


by John I. Goodlad - 1970

Ideas are presented on ways to upgrade the qualifications of today's teachers. (Source: ERIC)


This paper begins with identification of some problems pertaining to edu­cational change, with special refer­ence to the education of teachers. Then it briefly presents the thesis with which the paper concludes: namely, that nothing short of a simul­taneous reconstruction of preservice teacher education, in-service teacher education, and schooling itself will suffice if the change process is to be adequate. The paper then sets forth some observations on the state of the field with respect to both teacher education and schooling. It concludes with a series of recommendations for improvement which, taken together, are designed to constitute a compre­hensive strategy for getting to the jugular vein of the educational system. At the outset, let me emphasize that what follows is incomplete in several significant ways. For example, I give little attention to the critical matter of what shall constitute pro­cess and substance in the basic se­quence for the preparation of future teachers. It is difficult to avoid even as glaring an omission as this in an ef­fort designed to deal, in a somewhat balanced way, with major compo­nents of the educational structure. Further, there are some exemplar programs pertaining to various parts of this whole. But to my knowledge, no existing model represents total reconstruction of the kind argued for here. However, some of the models currently being fostered and devel­oped under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Educational Personnel De­velopment of the United States Of­fice of Education (Triple T pro­grams) perhaps come closest in de­sign to what is proposed.

Educational Change and Improvement: A Point of View

The most striking feature of any ef­fort to improve education is its piecemeal character. The curriculum reform movement of the 19SO's be­gan auspiciously with both the pro­duction of new materials for elemen­tary and secondary schools and the re-education of teachers to deal with new content and method. Within a very few years, unfortunately, the teacher education component was falling by the wayside.


As a conse­quence, much of the intended thrust of what might have been a compre­hensive effort at curriculum reform was lost in the classroom. Similarly, there have been significant recent ef­forts to restructure the school both vertically and horizontally so that pupil progress will be more continu­ous and so that teams of teachers will work with students as indi­viduals and in groups of various sizes. Regrettably, however, these efforts at school reorganization have not been accompanied by the kinds of curricular and pedagogical changes needed to effect them fully. In gen­eral, teachers have not been prepared for nor educated in these redesigned schools and classrooms, but rather, are trained in and for yesterday's classrooms. Forward-looking admin­istrators have difficulty finding the innovative teachers needed to rede­sign schools. Forward-looking teach­er educators, on the other hand, ex­perience comparable difficulty in seeking to identify innovative schools in which to prepare new personnel. More often than not, efforts to im­prove the schools and efforts to im­prove teacher education proceed with very little mutual awareness. The in­terlocking character of the system serves to keep it clanking along but provides neither for effective com­munication nor for reconstruction.

Ironically, within this system of ex­treme complexity, specific proposals for change are conveyed in the rhe­toric of complete solutions. The clas­sic panacea is the teaching of more "liberal arts" courses to end the as­sumed proliferation of "methods" courses—and sometimes this panacea is offered when there are no methods courses at all. A sad consequence of this folly is that teachers are turned out for the elementary school who have little idea, for example, of how to teach reading. Many of the same people who blindly recommended more liberal arts courses now con­demn the teachers for their inability to teach children to read. A favorite set of recommendations pertains to student teaching. There should be more of it, or it should be placed earlier or later, or it should occur at several times in the teacher education sequence. There has been a lot of de­bate, too, as to whether the intro­ductory course for teachers should be historical, philosophical, or sociologi­cal in orientation or whether it should combine all of these into something called cultural founda­tions. The debate includes whether the course should be at the begin­ning or at the end of the sequence or whether it should be before or after student teaching. Imbedded in all of these proposals are significant issues which must be resolved and resolved more effectively than in the past. It is the preoccupation with them, how­ever, at the expense of all else, that gives one pause. Teacher educators must get above this myopic dialogue to face the fact that the solution to any one of these issues, no matter how sound or profound, is minuscule in the face of the gargantuan prob­lems of educational improvement now facing us.

Nothing short of total reconstruc­tion will suffice: of the courses in education, of the relationships be­tween courses and practice, of the "mix" of faculty conducting the pro­gram, of the school setting for prac­tice, of in-service education of teach­ers, of the school year, and of all the rest. We must develop comprehensive change strategies which take account of the fact that preservice teacher education, in-service teacher educa­tion, and the schools themselves are dependent, interrelated, and interact­ing components of one social system, albeit a malfunctioning one.


State of the Field: Some Observations

After long participation in and scru­tiny of the so-called professional edu­cation sequence for teachers,1 I con­clude that most of the courses in it have developed out of accretions of knowledge presumed to be relevant to education rather than out of fresh observations and interpretations of teaching and schooling as naturalistic processes. The courses in education, with a few notable exceptions, are very much like the courses in most other departments of the university in that they are about something—in this case, about education. As such, they probably are no better or no worse than these other courses. There is a place for them even in teacher education, just as there is a place for courses about things in surgery, business management, and law. But the subject matter must be as rele­vant as possible to teaching and the promotion of learning.  There must be courses devoted directly to this practice, courses which involve the student in it and which are "about something" only to the degree that they seek to improve and develop understanding of what he is doing right now as a beginning teacher. In effect, then, the   teacher   education program must be both academic and clinical   in   character.   The   future teacher   must   teach   individuals   in groups; he must manage a class; he must become a participating member of a faculty group, seeking to change a segment of school practice; and he must, simultaneously, inquire into all of these as he experiences them. The courses   about   education, in   turn, must place all of this in perspective without    losing    either figure or ground.

But this is not how teacher edu­cation courses have been constructed and taught. One result is the sub­stantial disillusionment of the student who comes into them. He expects to get his hands dirty and his feet wet in real classrooms with real children or youth. At least this is what literal­ly thousands of young men and women told us when we interviewed them during James B. Conant's study of the education of American teach­ers. Instead, they find themselves to be largely passive recipients of learn­ing fare not too unlike that in psy­chology, philosophy, history, or whatever. Consequently, they con­demn their education courses, not so much for their intellectual impover­ishment as for their failure to bring them into the nitty-gritty of teaching itself.

A glaring aspect of this irrelevance has come sharply into view in re­cent years. Until very recently, most teacher education programs were conducted as though urban blight and human inequities did not exist. Except in a few urban universities, future teachers were protected from harsh environments and the problems pertaining to them by being placed in safe, homogenized city or suburban schools for their student teaching as­signments. All of this is now chang­ing, but the reconstruction required to make the courses relevant to social realities is formidable, indeed.


Another area of neglect is in "ped­agogy." Students study principles of learning in their educational psychol­ogy courses. Rarely, however, are they provided an opportunity to carry these learnings directly into teaching situations where they may test and receive constructive feed­back regarding their efforts to ap­ply. The problem is partly—but only partly—one of numbers. Classes in educational psychology and methods of teaching usually are large. At the very time the future teacher needs a truly clinical orientation, he finds himself in a large lecture class with very little opportunity to see and analyze let alone participate in teach­ing processes employing the princi­ples being studied. It must be admit­ted, also, that educational psycholo­gists frequently are far removed from the classroom in their own work and interests and not well equipped to spell out the practical implications of what they teach.

Another set of problems in the teacher education sequence arises out of the several differing sets of values with which the future teacher must cope as he moves through his intro­ductory courses into student teaching in neighboring schools. No consistent, agreed-upon set of values or approaches to valuing pervade the prep­aration program. In chameleon-like fashion, the student adjusts to one set of values pertaining to the use of theory, research, and inquiry within the university context and then to another, pertaining to survival and the perpetuation of existing practices during his apprenticeship. Since he hopes and expects to be employed by the school system in which this apprenticeship is obtained, the values of the school and classroom where he is placed are powerful and per­vasive. In general, then, he is directed not toward what schools could be but toward what they are.

In contrast to the professions of medicine, law, and dentistry, profes­sional attitudes in teaching—and, in fact, professional skills—are left in large measure to chance. In the ma­jority of teacher-preparing institu­tions, the future teacher takes a few scattered courses in education as an undergraduate while pursuing his degree. The education courses are re­garded by many simply as necessary requirements to be met. For vast numbers of students, teaching is not yet a firm goal, but is rather a kind of insurance, especially for young women who anticipate marriage at or soon after graduation. Securing the degree is the major goal, and teach­ing—at least until the student enters into the student-teaching part of his program—is secondary, at best.

We know that it is exceedingly dif­ficult to change the behavior of young children. It is many times more difficult to change the behavior of young adults. Nonetheless, we proceed on the implicit assumption that significant change will and does, occur through a process of osmosis involving lectures, textbooks, and in dependent study. These techniques are reasonably effective in promoting low-level cognitive changes. It is ex­ceedingly doubtful that they make any profound differences in attitude formation. A student motivated to­ward the attainment of the degree, dividing his time between this pur­suit and scattered courses in educa­tion, will develop only by happy chance the commitment necessary for effective teaching in modern society.

Certain conditions built into the conduct of teacher education pro­grams and into the professorship also work against the development of professional attitudes and skills. In major universities there is a high premium on inquiry designed to advance knowledge. This probably is as it should be, since there are few other institutions in our society as­suming such a role. Conscientious professors are troubled by a schizo­phrenic situation in which they see little possibility for research produc­tivity if they give to future teachers the attention professional develop­ment deserves. To move beyond anything other than lecturing in seeking to individualize instruction is to take on an exceedingly difficult role and no certain recognition. Assistant pro­fessors learn from older colleagues the fate of idealistic young teachers who chose to go the individualized instruction route in teacher education programs. Others are insightful enough to realize that their academic preparation to be students of the edu­cational process is not adequate prep­aration for the clinical role of guiding neophytes in pedagogy. This latter situation, which many professors caught in the dilemma will quickly recognize, is not likely to be dissipat­ed simply by placing more stress on and giving greater recognition to teaching in universities. Improvement will come only when we recognize that teacher preparation is not some­thing to be done on a mass basis but is akin to other professions in its demands for individualized instruc­tion. To educate teachers properly will require financial outlays for aca­demic and clinical personnel of a kind not yet contemplated in educa­tional planning.


In-service Teacher Education

Turning to in-service education of teachers, we find little to reassure us that constructive educational change is likely to occur as a result of it. Large numbers of teachers on the job are preparing themselves not to be­come better teachers but to leave the classroom. In one of the studies re­ferred to in footnote 1, we found that large numbers of teachers en­rolled in graduate programs were preparing to be administrators. It is questionable that preparing to be­come an administrator, when no prospect of employment is in the offing, constitutes a sound basis for teacher morale or professional im­provement. It is worth noting, also, that securing a degree in educational administration usually serves just as well as a degree emphasizing teach­ing in gaining salary advancements. Our study of sixty-seven elemen­tary schools in the United States (footnote 1) revealed a formidable gap between the in-service education­al pursuits of teachers and the critical problems of the schools as identified in interviews with principals and teachers. A substantial number was engaged in some kind of extra-school activity, such as an evening class in a neighboring university, a research project with a professor, or some kind of district committee seeking to make recommendations for curricular improvement. But we found few in­stances of planned faculty attack on the vast array of problems identified by the staff as critical. In only four of sixty-seven schools was there any­thing resembling a critical mass of personnel engaged in systematic planned attack on these problems. It would appear then that relatively few school faculties are actively en­gaged in reconstruction. Given this fact, we cannot expect our schools to do a more effective job in their com­munities simply by doubling and re­doubling the kind of in-service edu­cation currently under way. A more carefully designed strategy focused directly on the problems of the schools themselves is called for.


Conduct of Schooling

 In the same way that certain condi­tions surrounding the professorship and the education of teachers in uni­versities are not conducive to change, certain conditions surrounding the conduct of schooling contribute more to maintaining the status quo than to facilitating effective change. Education probably is the largest en­terprise in the United States that does not provide for the systematic up­dating of its personnel. After basic requirements for certification are met, further study often is optional and at one's own expense. Forward-looking industries, by contrast, make certain that their employees are updated in the latest ideas and tech­niques, on company time and at com­pany cost. Employees who do not take advantage of these oppor­tunities find themselves unemployed or stalled on the advancement ladder.

Schooling is geared to self-main­tenance and not to change. Tackling the problems facing schools today demands team work. But the princi­pal and his staff are engaged in es­sentially individualistic activities which keep them occupied and sep­arate from morning until late after­noon. It is unrealistic to expect a staff, with tag ends of energy left over, to enter enthusiastically and vigorously into the business of chang­ing schools after school is out. Keep­ing school is, in itself, exceedingly demanding. It is not at all surpris­ing, then, that the efforts of school staffs, under present conditions of limited time and energy, result in peripheral but not basic changes.

Studies suggest that principals are chosen, not because of their recog­nized leadership abilities, but with the expectation that they will maintain the system. A nationwide prejudice against women as administrators-changing very slowly—results in the selection of men over women regard­less of qualifications. Many elemen­tary school principals have had lit­tle or no experience in the class­room and simply are lacking in abil­ity to help teachers with their ped­agogical problems. In general, the training of school principals has not been directed toward the develop­ment of leadership skills needed for unleashing the creative talents of teachers. Consequently, the principal often tends to routine matters of keeping school while teachers work largely independent of each other in classroom cells. The time, setting, leadership, and resources for recon­structing the school too seldom come together in such a way as to produce the fundamental changes our times and problems demand.


Because only a few school faculties are systematically engaged in im­proving the school environment for learning, we have in this country sur­prisingly few models of what rede­signed schools could and should be like. The thrust of significant changes recommended for American school­ing during the past decade or two has been blunted on school and class­room door.

When one brings into perspective all of these conditions—pertaining to preservice teacher education, in-service education, and school im­provement—one sees that the total system is designed for self-mainte­nance, not self-renewal. Teachers for schools of today and tomorrow are trained in settings encrusted in the mold of yesterday. Shaking free of this mold necessitates the injection of change into each component part of the system. Because envisioning and dealing with this system as a whole is so essential, each of us must make the effort to rise above myopic con­centration on minuscule portions of immediate but relatively minor im­portance.

A Strategy for Improvement

It is obvious that no single change or innovation is adequate to cope with this complex array of problems. Although no single change will suf­fice, we must proceed on the assump­tion that an interrelated series of proposals, if effected, might bring about significant improvement. Most of the proposals enumerated below have been set forth, at one time or another, for the improvement of teacher education. It is not the virtue of any one of them that is significant here. Rather, significance rises out of the potentiality for manipulating simultaneously all or most of the ma­jor components of an interacting sys­tem.

The first recommendation calls for admission of future teachers into a program requiring full-time commit­ment. The student accepts the fact that he is entering, full time, upon a professional program designed to prepare him to teach in schools. In the process of engaging in such prep­aration, he may complete a bache­lor's degree in the arts or sciences. But this is now a secondary rather than a primary goal. Whether taking a course in education or in a sub­ject field such as mathematics, the goal is to learn to teach and to be­come a functioning member of a faculty responsible for the education of young people. This is different from the kind of commitment that usually characterizes participation in a teacher education program today.

Having been admitted, the future teacher immediately joins a teaching team in a teacher education center— a collaborating school—affiliated with the college or university in which he is enrolled. At the outset, participa­tion is limited but specific with re­spect to authority and responsibility. He receives a small but ascending stipend as a teacher aide. With in­crease in responsibility, he moves to the role of intern, and ultimate­ly, resident teacher, with the stipend steadily increasing at each level of preparation and responsibility. Even as a resident teacher, however, his salary is substantially lower than that of a beginning teacher today. The concept being implemented here is that passage from the status of col­lege student to schoolteacher is ac­companied throughout by responsible involvement and financial recognition, with both advancing commensurately.


Just as beginning teachers in train­ing are apprentice teachers, collabo­rating personnel in the schools are ap­prentice teachers of teachers. In the preceding   analysis   of   the   current teacher education scene, the point is made    that    professors    of    educa­tion often are ill-prepared to provide the clinical component which is so critical in the education of future teachers.  The best potential source of such personnel is the schools. Con­sequently, schools of education must recruit from the schools those per­sons who appear to offer promise for becoming   clinical   members   of   the faculty. Clinical faculty members so recruited would retain, their basic ap­pointments in the schools while af­filiated with colleges or universities. It   is   characteristic   of   many   good teachers that they  simply  lack  the capability of transmitting their skills or  the  reasons  underlying them  to those in training. It would seem ap­propriate, therefore, that schools of education seek to bring out these tal­ents by assisting outstanding teachers in interpreting their procedures to beginning teachers on the job. Those experienced teachers in the schools who prove to be most competent in this process should   be   selected   as short-term or part-time clinical facul­ty to work with the academic faculty of teacher-preparing institutions. We see then the emergence of a teacher education effort shared appropriate­ly by persons trained in research and inquiry and persons possessing unusu­al skills in teaching and, ultimately, ability to transmit these skills to be­ginners.

It is proposed next that the aca­demic and clinical faculty join in the development and conduct of seminars organized around problems encoun­tered by beginning teachers in the schools. The substance of teacher ed­ucation courses must emerge, not from the analysis of subject matter assumed to be relevant and selected from appropriate disciplines, but from continuing analyses of the real world of teaching. Although prob­lems of the beginning teacher con­stitute the initial focal point for bringing to bear relevant knowledge, such problems constitute only the be­ginning and not the end. It will be the responsibility of the joint faculty to bring into juxtaposition both the theoretical knowledge and the clini­cal skills needed to cope with the specific problem at hand and related problems likely to emerge in the fu­ture. Thus on the surface the cur­riculum is organized around pressing problems of teaching. Looking deep­er, however, one discovers that these problems are merely departure points. Beginning with them, the stu­dent is brought into knowledge from many disciplines increasingly seen as relevant to teaching.

To develop a required sequence of courses out of such a process, how­ever, is to return us, ultimately, to the sterility and irrelevance now pre­vailing. Beginning teachers do not en­counter problems in orderly se­quences. It is unrealistic to believe that any sequence of courses, how­ever carefully prepared, will suffice for all students. Therefore, it is rec­ommended that the faculty prepare a number of interchangeable modules on teaching designed to provide spe­cific knowledge and skills pertaining to the needs of beginning teachers, needs identified through a feedback system. These modules might include instruction in the specification of educational objectives, evaluation, ap­plication of learning theory, use of audiovisual aids, teaching of specific aspects of various subjects, and so on. Stored on videotape, filmstrip, microfiche, and programmed lesson, such modules would serve to satisfy specific needs of individual students arising out of their guided teaching experience.


Next it is recommended that stu­dents participate regularly in cri­tiques of teaching taking place daily in their schools. Each day, one or more lessons taught by academic or clinical faculty, teachers, aides, or interns would be subjected to critical analy­sis by some member of the total team. This activity is missing from the conduct of schooling today. Be­cause it is likely to be threatening to experienced teachers, it is sug­gested that initial critiques be con­ducted on the lessons of volunteers. Subsequently, more and more teach­ers would be willing, experience sug­gests, to permit their teaching to be used for critical analysis. In time, the teacher education center becomes a place of inquiry into teaching.

A major responsibility of the aca­demic faculty, in the reconstruction proposed here, would be to join the staffs of teacher education centers hi the business of school improvement. Specialists in the teaching of read­ing, the preparation of curricula, the organization of schools, and the role of values in making decisions would regard the teacher education centers as laboratories for extending their academic interests to the schools. The prime in-service activity of each staff member in the teacher educa­tion centers would be the identifica­tion and resolution of the central problems residing in their schools. The goal would be to engender a process of self-renewing change in which college professors, expe­rienced schoolteachers, and beginners at several different stages of prepara­tion would play their respective roles.

For such a proposal to become functional, it is necessary that con­siderable responsibility for decision-making now centralized in school districts be decentralized to individu­al schools. I have long believed that a single school with its principal, teachers, students, and parents is the largest organic unit for change in our educational system. If individual schools are caught up in dynamic self-renewal, then the school system as a whole is potent. If the school is to be the key unit for change, then the principal must become the key agent for change, since he occupies a posi­tion through which he can effectively block or facilitate the process.

If the principal is to provide con­structive leadership for change, he must be trained in what is required. It is unrealistic, however, to expect the principal to possess those peda­gogical skills required for assisting the staff to teach. In the structure proposed here, this is quite unneces­sary. But it is essential that the prin­cipal understand the interacting so­cial system of which he is a part and the dynamics of effecting planned change. Instruction in these matters should be at the heart of leadership training.

As stated earlier, the structure of schooling effectively restricts the kind of staff planning required for educational improvement. There simply is not time both to maintain the ship and to redesign it. Consequently it is proposed that teachers be em­ployed on a twelve-month basis, with at least two months of the year de­voted to both personal improvement and total school planning. There are many ways of implementing such a proposal. Under one scheme, teachers teach for six weeks, have a planning week with children out of school, teach for an additional six-week pe­riod, engage in a period of planning, and so on throughout the twelve­month year. With teachers employed for twelve months (with a month's vacation) and with children attend­ing school only nine months, approx­imately two months of non-teaching time are available for the planning activities essential to the self-renewing school.


If teachers are to make effective use of this period of non-teaching, how­ever, they must be part of a team-teaching structure. By teaching in teams, it is possible for members of each group to devote a considerable proportion of their time to planning, preparing instructional materials, evaluating, and replanning. Whatever other arguments there may be for team teaching, a critical one is to provide the kind of flexibility neces­sary for effective planning to pro­ceed. Also it is difficult to see how beginning teachers can be introduced into responsibility for teaching on a limited basis unless they are members of teaching teams.

Clearly, the commitment and in­volvement of teachers-in-training called for here requires a substantial period of full-time preparation. It is recommended that the total time span from entry to graduation as a full-fledged teacher be from two to three years and culminate in a terminal professional degree. One possible alternative is to begin the teach­er education program with the senior year in college. Students would re­ceive the baccalaureate after one year in the program but would continue into an additional year of post-bac­calaureate work. Another alternative is to begin such a program at the post-baccalaureate level with the candidate pursuing two years of work leading to the Master of Arts in teaching. To repeat, it is essential that students enter into a full-time com­mitment at the outset and that all other goals become secondary. It is essential, also, that the degree award­ed be regarded as terminal. From this point on, the educational system should provide for professional up­dating at the cost to the enterprise. Persons desiring to move into some other aspect of education would leave teaching in order to pursue ad­vanced, specialized professional edu­cation.

It is recommended, also, that there be moderate salaries throughout the training period. Initial stipends would be increased gradually to a level of perhaps $2,000 below present first-year salaries. With completion of the program, however, and admis­sion to the teaching profession, truly professional salaries would prevail. It is proposed that such salaries begin at $10,000 per year and move upward to more than $20,000 over a period of from ten to twelve years. The net ef­fect would be to attract committed persons into a profession of lifelong reward and appeal.

The reader is reminded that the reconstruction proposed here results in reducing the ratio of full-fledged professional teachers to children. The proportion of adults in the pupil-teacher mix is more than made up, however, through the inclusion in each team of aides, interns, and resi­dents, all assuming some responsibil­ity for instruction. Cost estimates re­veal that such staffing patterns cost little or no more than conventional arrangements.


A program of the kind outlined here necessitates nonspecification of courses for certification. Approval of individuals for teaching by a state agency would be replaced by ap­proval of teacher-preparing consortia involving colleges and public schools. The decision to award teaching cer­tificates to individuals would belong to the collaborating faculty, after careful observation and evaluation of candidates. Reliability in such apprais­als could be improved through pe­riodic use of outside evaluation teams.

Finally, at the heart of the whole, there should be a research center committed to the study of the entire enterprise. Such a center would en­gage in studies of pedagogy, the ef­fects of experimental programs, the efficacy of various self-renewing strategies in the schools, and so on. Instead of there being a monolithic program, there would be several ex­perimental ones, each with differing entrance requirements, course arrange­ments, balance of academic and clini­cal work, and so on. Every compo­nent part of the teacher education enterprise would be conducted as an hypothesis to be tested rather than as established assurance of what is ef­fective education of the future teacher.

Conclusion

No part of what is proposed here is startling or unusual. Every element has been proposed; many have been tried. What is unique and unusual, however, is the proposition that all of these ingredients be put together simultaneously in a single collabora­tive enterprise designed for the in-service and preservice education of teachers and the improvement of schooling.

Clearly, the tasks proposed, taken together, are enormous—perhaps over­whelming. There are two ways to cut down the size of any problem. One is to eliminate some of the component parts in focusing on a few. The other is to focus on the whole by reducing the order of magnitude with regard to each component part. The second alternative is proposed here. The first has been tried and found wanting.

This means then that the arena in which the component parts are to develop, interact, and be studied must be kept as small as possible. Instead of many teacher education centers at the outset, there should be only a few. Instead of spreading the resources of the academic faculty across dozens of schools in an ad hoc process of school improvement, ener­gy and talent should be focused on the few schools selected to serve as teacher education centers. Instead of endeavoring to move the entire teach­er education program on an even front, existing programs should be allowed to phase out while new pro­grams of a controlled and experi­mental sort are phased in. Instead of endeavoring to serve many individu­als at varying stages in their prepara­tion to teach, teacher-preparing in­stitutions should focus on precise delineation of the group to be served, admitted at a specific time in the college or university hierarchy, with provision for individualization taking place within a defined structure. The principle of unity of structure and diversity of programs thus emerges.

 There is no way of knowing at the outset whether a commitment to the kind of attack suggested here will correct the current deficiencies in teacher education and schooling. Nor is there experimental evidence to commend the directions proposed. But until one has created alternatives, there is no way of comparing alternatives. The problems which the strategy proposed here is designed to correct are formidable and of long standing. Redoubling our efforts to deal with them along present lines of endeavor will not suffice. The time is come to break out of old molds, to get beyond immediate preoccupa­tions, in a comprehensive effort to deal with the whole


.

Endnotes

1   The observations in this section are based primarily on direction of or participation in the following stud­ies: the organization of schooling (1963) for the Center for the Study of Instruction of the NEA; James B. Conant's study of the education of American teachers (1963); two stud­ies of the curriculum reform move­ment (1964 and 1966); a study of school and classroom practices in sixty-seven elementary schools (in press); and a study of the process of change in eighteen elementary schools (in process).



Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 72 Number 1, 1970, p. 61-72
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 1675, Date Accessed: 12/8/2021 10:21:27 PM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
Article Tools
Related Articles

Related Discussion
 
Post a Comment | Read All

About the Author
  • John Goodlad
    University of California, Los Angeles
    With special focus on the education of teachers, John Goodlad, dean of the Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, here presents an innovative plan for the total reconstruction of the educational structure. Dean Goodlad's article is based on a speech he gave at the Centennial Lecture Series at Southern Illinois University.
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS