A report proposing sweeping changes in teaching and teacher education, set forth by education deans from some of the nation’s leading research universities, elicited both high praise and deep skepticism last week.
“It is one of the most important statements on teacher education to come out ever,” said Hendrik Gideonse, dean of the college of education at the University of Cincinnati. “It identifies the major themes that simply must be addressed for those interested in improving teacher education.”
But another education dean, who asked not to be identified, said he was “underwhelmed” by the report’s “relatively shallow intellectual content” and the prevalence of “sweeping statements without any foundation in research.”
The 95-page document, “Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group,” was released at a press conference in Washington on April 7. (See Education Week, April 9, 1986.)
The Holmes Group, a loosely formed consortium of education deans, has asked 123 research universities, representing all of the 50 states, to indicate by July 1 whether they will join the group and commit themselves to its reform agenda.
Last week, during the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, Holmes Group representatives held regional meetings for deans from the invited institutions. Members of the steering committee subsequently met and decided to write a letter clarifying some organizational issues based on those meetings. (See related story, page 12.)
Education deans from many of those institutions have said that they are still undecided about membership, which carries a $4,000 annual fee.
Although those interviewed generally praised the group’s report, they also expressed serious reservations about whether the reform initiative is doable, or even desirable. “Most of the reaction to the report is very positive,” said David Imig, executive director of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
“There are a number of people, however, who are skittish about being able to deliver on the agenda,” he said. “For a lot of deans, it is overwhelming when they begin to understand the demands that the group is calling for.”
Among other things, the report calls for abolishing undergraduate education majors; strengthening the liberal-arts curriculum for prospective teachers; and creating a three-tiered teaching profession that would differentiate among teachers based on their education, experience, performance, and knowledge.
In addition to requiring revamped graduate-level education programs, the report calls for a rigorous new system of tests and accreditation standards, new state licensing requirements for teachers, and new partnerships between schools and universities in the training of teachers. It also implies the need for substantially increased salaries for at least the top one-fifth of the profession. (For excerpts from the report, see page 13.)
While education deans from as many as 40 universities worked on the Holmes Group’s proposals for more than two years, Judith E. Lanier, chairman of the Holmes Group and dean of education at Michigan State University, said when the report was released that it represented the clear consensus of only the 14 education deans who constitute the group’s steering committee.
The future of the proposals depends, in large part, on how many of the 123 invited institutions can now be convinced to join the effort.
“We knew we were proposing very major changes that would not be easy to accomplish,” said John R Palmer, dean of the school of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and vice chairman of the group, “but that was the real point of it--to set out a program that comes as near to being ideal as we could construct, based on the knowledge and experience we have at this point.”
‘Out of Their Control’
Many of the education deans interviewed last week questioned whether adequate resources would be available to finance implementation of the group’s proposals.
“I have to admire the reach and ambition and sophistication of the report,” said Willis D. Hawley, dean of the college of education at Vanderbilt University.
But he added, “We’re talking about billions and billions of dollars to implement these proposals. Whether that money will be available on other than a pilot basis seems to me to be unlikely.”
Mary D. Griffin, education dean at Boston College, said, “I want to be sure it’s worth the investment. Districts will have to come up with commensurate salaries for people who are prepared in this way.”
Other deans wondered whether they could develop enough support among legislators, governors, and others whose commitment would be needed to make the reforms a reality.
“It is one of the best analyses of some of the problems that face teacher education that I’ve read in a very long time,” said Howard D. Mehlinger, dean of the college of education at Indiana University. “I think it’s a very bold statement and their arguments are well reasoned.”
But the group’s proposed solutions are “troublesome,” he said, because so many of the things that the education deans believe are wrong in teaching and teacher education “are out of their control.”
“I don’t know how it is in the other universities, but I don’t really feel in control of the school of education, let alone of the arts and sciences college,” said Mr. Mehlinger. “They also want state departments of education to change, they want schools to change, and they want the unions to change the way they treat personnel. I can’t speak for other states, but those would be hard things to do in Indiana. Schools of education are not known nationally for being very powerful.”
Undergraduate Major
Still others said there was not enough research to support the elimination of undergraduate education majors, as the Holmes Group’s leaders have advocated.
And some worried about the overall effect of the proposals on the teaching shortage, and on the declining number of minority students interested in teaching.
“They have not provided a strong and consistent research base to support the contention that the person with a master’s degree will be, in fact, a more effective classroom teacher,” said William Dunifon, dean of the college of education at Illinois State University, which has not been asked to join the group.
“Their recommendation is not a research-oriented or data-based recommendation,” he said. “It apparently is more intuitive than it is objective. In the process of developing their recommendations, they have violated some of the very principles of academic inquiry which they say in other places are essential to rigorous professional preparation.”
Other deans said either that they had no desire to abandon their undergraduate education programs or that they did not think it was feasible. “I like my four-year program very much,” said Gary D. Fenstermacher, dean of the college of education at the University of Arizona. “I believe very strongly that we can do a great job educating teachers in four years.”
Said Frank D. Meyers, education dean at the University of Nevada-Reno: “I’m in favor of extending preparation, but I really believe that the undergraduate level is where the student gets a chance to do some career exploration through clinical experience.”
“I think if you really checked into some of the schools that dropped their undergraduate programs in teacher preparation, it hurt them,” he said. “Their enrollments dropped off. There was a lack of interest in teacher preparation overall.”
John D. Pulliam, dean of the college of education at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, said that “in a state like Arkansas, if we don’t do it, someone else will. The salaries are such and the demand is such that we are probably going to have to continue to produce teachers in a four-year format.”
“We are facing tremendous teacher shortages, even with a four-year undergraduate degree,” agreed John W. Kohl, dean of the college of education at Montana State University, which was not asked to join the group.
“I would agree that teacher education needs reform, but I don’t think you can abandon the undergraduate teaching degree at this point in history.”
Some of those interviewed last week also criticized the proposed creation of an “instructor” position in the teaching hierarchy--a plan that would allow people without a graduate degree in education to teach under the supervision of others for up to five years--as not really responsive to concerns about retaining an undergraduate education major.
Many said that such instructors would have “second-class” status in the schools, and that the position would keep open a “back door” to the profession that they would prefer to see closed.
Select List
Some also criticized the Holmes Group’s “elitist” image, and, in particular, its method for selecting the 123 institutions that will have a chance to become charter members of the group.
“I don’t want to sound like sour grapes,” said Dean Kohl, “but we are the largest teacher-training program in the state. We are the research institution of note. They obviously did not choose the institution that has the research reputation in Montana. They knew I would not join them, so I guess they didn’t ask me.”
Ellis A. Joseph, dean of the school of education at the University of Dayton, said he was “extremely surprised” that “some of the strong institutions in the country who subscribe to the ideals of the Holmes Group were omitted,” adding that his own university should have been asked to participate.
“Some of the institutions that· were included in the Holmes Group I don’t even have teacher-education programs,” he continued. “There are some institutions in that group that do not have a reputation as research institutions, nor as institutions which have received even minimum evaluations from peer reviews.”
Carnegie-Mellon University, for example, currently does not have a teacher-education program for either elementary- or secondary-school teachers, but was invited to join the consortium. Edwin Fenton, director of the university’s teaching center, said in an interview that he was not familiar with the Holmes Group.
“We turned to the leading institutions in each state in terms of their research capacities,” said Ms. Lanier, because the first reforms proposed by the Holmes Group require major research and development initiatives.
If some of the invited institutions without teacher-education programs are interested in developing such programs, she said, “we would be delighted.”
One Right Way
Some education deans also complained that the Holmes Group has portrayed its solution to the problems in teacher education as the best or only solution.
“The recommendations of the Holmes Group constitute certainly a viable alternative approach to teacher preparation,” said Dean Dunifon of Illinois State University. “To suggest that that approach, however, is the only proper or right-minded approach is an enormous exaggeration.”
“The Holmes Group clearly suggests that there is a hierarchy in the proper preparation of teachers, rather than suggesting their model is one of three or four or perhaps five of equal value,” he said.
“Politically, what it does is highlight the status differences among institutions of higher education,” said Fred D. Carver, dean of the college of education at the University of Northern Iowa and president of the Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities, which represents education deans from those institutions.
“I’m pleased to see what the report described as leading research universities take an interest in working to improve teacher preparation,” he said. “I am disappointed that the leaders of this group claim unto themselves that responsibility.”
Ms. Lanier noted that in the past, research universities typically have been the ones to provide advanced doctoral studies, which would be required for the most professional teachers under the group’s proposals.
“That’s not to say that there aren’t other good schools that provide advanced study,” she said, “but we I tend to think advanced study is strengthened by this strong leaning toward inquiry.”
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education--the national accrediting agency for many colleges of teacher education--and AACTE have released statements generally supporting the Holmes Group’ work, as well as the attempts of other groups to reform teacher education.
NCATE officials noted, however, that they are “concerned about the risk of a perception by the public that there may be only one kind of institution or one model which is considered appropriate for the preparation of educators. This, in fact, is not true.”
“The Holmes Group,” NCATE added, “bears a social responsibility to the entire education profession, and much of their success in the future will be measured by their ability to work with the broadest representation of teacher-preparation institutions.”
“We’re not trying to be exclusionary,” said Ms. Lanier. “We’re trying to really upgrade what we do in our own institutions. If people have other good approaches, I would hope that they would put them forward and let them have as much scrutiny as the Holmes Group plans.”
Dean Lanier said that the $4,000 annual membership fee will be used in part to link Holmes Group institutions with others, including “outstanding” liberal-arts colleges, institutions serving a large number of minority students, and “outstanding” state universities that “may be less research-intensive but that also could work with us in the research and development activities.”
The primary purpose for the annual fee, however, is to establish the group’s national and regional offices, she said. Holmes Group members have repeatedly said that much of their forthcoming work will have to be coordinated and carried out on a regional basis. Some deans, however, have criticized the dues as too high.
Many of those interviewed last week said they hoped at least some of the 123 invited institutions will pursue the Holmes Group’s agenda.
‘Changed the Rhetoric’
“I think if we can hold together and generate constructive debate and not permit ourselves to be discouraged by the inevitable attacks on grounds of elitism, we can make an impact,” said Bernard R. Gifford, dean of the school of education at the University of California-Berkeley and a member of the executive board of the Holmes Group.
Dean Fenstermacher of the University of Arizona agreed. “I think the Holmes Group goals are doable,” he said. “One goal has already been achieved. Policymakers and decisionmakers and people who have influence and money are talking about the issues surrounding teacher education. They have changed the rhetoric.”
