Abdal-Haqq - Unraveling the Professional

8/7/2019 Abdal-Haqq - Unraveling the Professional

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/abdal-haqq-unraveling-the-professional 1/17

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)

Unraveling the Professional Development School Equity AgendaAuthor(s): Ismat Abdal-Haqq Source: Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 74, No. 3/4, Professional Development Schools:Historical Context, Changing Practices, and Emerging Issues (Parts 1 & 2) (1999), pp. 145-160Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493129Accessed: 08/09/2009 12:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Peabody Journal of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493129?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493129?origin=JSTOR-pdf



PEABODY OURNAL FEDUCATION, 4(3&4), 45-160Copyright 1999,Lawrence rlbaum ssociates, nc.

Unraveling the ProfessionalDevelopment School Equity Agenda

Ismat Abdal-Haqq

While preparing this article, I received a circular eaturing some of thelatest releases from a well-known publisher of books and journals on edu-cation. Being constitutionally incapable of tossing out announcementsabout new books unread, I scanned the offerings and encountered a shortdescription of a book, which remains nameless, devoted to cultural aware-ness in schools. The one-line blurb read, "Help everyone cope with diver-sity." What caught my attention was the use of the word cope. t triggeredrecollection of a meeting of a small Professional Development School(PDS) working group (which also remains nameless) that I attended sev-eral years ago.

The session began with introductions and brief statements aboutPDS-related work in which participants were involved. One universityprofessor shared with us the information hat her institution had recentlyreceived funds from a well-endowed foundation to work with an affluentlocal school district to find ways of reversing the decline in the district'sheretofore sterling reputation for educational excellence. This decline had

ISMAT ABDAL-HAQQ s Associate irectorfor esearch nd nformation t the American ssociation fColleges or Teacher ducation n Washington, C, and Coordinator f the Adjunct ERIC Clearing-house n Clinical chools.

Requests or reprints hould be sent to Ismat Abdal-Haqq, 705 Second Street NW, Wash-

ington, DC 20012. E-mail: [email protected]

145



I. Abdal-Haqq

apparently been brought on by an influx of poor and working-class mmi-grant students, many of whom were not proficient in English. The pres-ence of these new students had lowered mean achievement

scores andupset the admirable teacher-to-student ratio, both of which were promi-nent contributors o the district's reputation. My reaction at the time wasthat the school district, he university, and the foundation might more pro-ductively employ their collective resources in reconsidering their defini-tion of educational excellence.

The two occurrences llustrate a lamentable, but not uncommon, incli-nation to regard student diversity as a problem or obstacle with which ed-ucators must cope (Nieto & Rolon, 1997). This view of

diversitydoes not

appear to include any recognition of the possibility that student diversitymight promote learning among professionals and peers, stimulate ex-panded capacity for educators and schools, or provide opportunities foreducators to exercise their responsibility to assist in advancing social jus-tice or to support democratic principles (Ligons, Rosado, & Houston,1998). Neglect of possibilities with regard to diversity is one of several cri-tiques that have surfaced in PDS literature on equity.

In this article I relate some of the major critiques found in the literatureon the PDS equity agenda and accomplishments. Because several of thesecritiques reflect multicultural education and critical pedagogy themes, Ireference works from the more general literature on diversity, urban, andmulticultural education, as well as illustrations from PDS literature onpartnership work that speaks to equity programming. also attempt to sit-uate considerations of equity within a broader context, suggesting that ne-glect of explicit equity programming is simply one consequence, albeit amajor one, of questionable attention to and/or limited perspectives on ac-

countability, purpose, and responsibility n PDS work.Equity has many dimensions and has relevance for various partici-

pants, practices, and policies associated with schooling. In this article, I fo-cus on issues related to poor or working-class earners n PDS settings andlearners who are from non-European acial, ethnic, and linguistic groups.

The Place of Equity in the Language and Life of PDSs

Although the basic configuration of PDS partnerships, as well as theircore goals and principles, s well known, I offer a brief summary of missionand structure as a prelude to the equity discussion for two reasons. First, asignificant critique of PDS potential to address equity issues, as they relateto the previously mentioned learners, centers on the limitations of the typi-cal bilateral configuration of PDS partnerships. Second, the broad issues of

146



Unraveling he PDS Equity Agenda

accountability, purpose, and responsibility just mentioned are rooted inboth the structure and mission of these partnerships.

PDSs are collaborativepartnerships,

whichgenerally

include one ormore schools, colleges, or departments of education and one or moreschool districts. Although schools and colleges are the partners of record nmost PDSs, some partnerships also have teachers unions and human ser-vices agencies as partners. Some existing partnerships operate only 1 P-12school as a PDS, whereas others may have more than 40. Recent counts bythe Clinical Schools Clearinghouse indicate that more than 1,035 P-12schools have been designated as PDSs in 47 states (Abdal-Haqq, 1998b).

PDSs have a four-part mission: (a) maximizing student achievement andwell-being, (b) initial preparation f teachers and other school-based educa-tors, (c) professional development of teachers and other school-based edu-cators, and (d) applied inquiry designed to improve and support studentand educator development (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). The draft standards forPDSs, developed and now being pilot tested by the National Council for Ac-creditation of Teacher Education PDS Standards Project, dentify three corecommitments shared by PDSs: "(1) an environment which integrates adultand children's earning; 2) parity for university and school partners on all

issues of practice and policy in the PDS; and (3) the simultaneous renewal ofthe school and the university" Levine, 1998a, p. 193).From the earliest days of the movement, commitment to equity has been

prominent in the language of PDS theorists and practitioners. ndeed, ad-dressing inequities in schooling has consistently been presented as an ex-plicit purpose, goal, rationale, commitment, or guiding principle. The firsttwo shared beliefs listed in the National Network for Educational Renewal(NNER) Compact or Partner Schools are (a) "Partner chools of the NNER

assure that all learners have equitable access to knowledge," and (b) "Part-ner schools recognize and honor diversity, commit to multicultural curric-ula and culturally responsive practice, prepare individuals for activeparticipation n a democratic society, and promote social justice" (Clark,1995, pp. 236-237).

The vision statement, which emerged from the work of the PDSs Net-work based at the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools,and Teaching, articulated a set of core beliefs to which PDSs should be com-mitted, including "commitment o inclusive, adaptive approaches to chil-dren and their earning and the full participation of all learners n expandededucational opportunities, with respectful consideration of gender, class,race, and culture" Vision Statement, 993,p. 3). Principle 3 of the six PDS de-

sign principles promulgated by the Holmes Group (1990, p. 7) in Tomorrow'sSchools s "Teaching and learning for everybody's children. A major com-mitment of the Professional Development School willbe overcoming the ed-

147



I. Abdal-Haqq

ucational and social barriers raised by an unequal society." Equity s one offive critical attributes or which draft quality standards have been devel-

oped bythe PDS Standards

Project:"A PDS is characterized

bynorms and

practices which support equity and learning by all students and adults" Le-vine, 1998a, p. 209). These statements, which speak to general organizingprinciples for PDSs, are echoed in countless individual partnership visionstatements, nstitutional agreements, and project descriptions.

How these principles play out in practice varies from setting to setting.Many partnerships deliberately establish PDSs in low-income and ethni-cally or racially diverse communities. For example, in Texas, the majorityof PDSs are members of a statewide network of Centers for ProfessionalDevelopment of Teachers (CPDTs), originally called Centers for Profes-sional Development and Technology. Among the selection criteria forCPDT school sites is "a student population representative of the diversityin the state" (Resta, 1998, p. 6), a response to the growing minority studentpopulation in the state, which in 1996 was 51% African American and His-panic (Izquierdo, Ligons, & Erwin, 1998). CPDTs are required to includelow-performing schools in their partnerships, and teacher candidates areexpected to work with students considered at risk for school failure

(Izquierdo et al., 1998).The stated intent of locating PDSs in such schools is most frequently to

offer teacher candidates field sites that mirror he student populations andconditions found in an increasing number of the country's schools, partic-ularly inner-city schools (Izquierdo et al., 1998). The intensity of the clinicalexperience, with regard to engagement with students from diverse cul-tural backgrounds, ranges from "exposure" n some settings to "immer-sion" experiences, which extend beyond the classroom and the school

building, in other ocalities (Cal Poly Goes o School, 995). In some cases, theentire preservice program has an urban or diversity focus, and workingwith racial, ethnic, or linguistic minority children is the theme binding to-gether coursework, field placements, and clinical experiences. Examplesinclude the Houston (TX) Consortium of Urban Professional Developmentand Technology Centers (Ligons et al., 1998) and the graduate teacher edu-cation program, Teach for Diversity, at the University of Wisconsin-Madi-son (Zeichner & Miller, 1997).

PDS literature documents a few innovativeprograms

thattarget

thelearning needs of racial, thnic, or linguistic minority children Abdal-Haqq,1998a). One example is the Students as Authors project, an award-winningliteracy enhancement program nitiated by teachers at Central ElementaryPDS in Morgantown, West Virginia, which has a large percentage of immi-grant students who have at least 10 different non-English first languages(Barksdale-Ladd & Nedeff, 1997).

148




Despite notable exceptions, mainstream PDS literature suggests that di-versity-related earning activities for preservice and practicing eachers nPDSs are

fairlyconventional and do not

depart significantlyfrom the tra-

dition of isolated staff development workshops and courses in multicul-tural education. There is little in discussions of these offerings to suggestthat they do more than try to promote "awareness" (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a).Mainstream literature offers even less encouraging news about explicitprogramming hat targets the needs of African, Asian-Pacific, Hispanic, orNative American children (Wilder, 1995; Zeichner & Miller, 1997). Fromthe fugitive literature (e.g., internal or limited circulation documents, un-published reports, audiovisual and electronic sources, newsletters, pro-motional material) we occasionally catch encouraging glimpses of suchprogramming (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a), but overall, the literature documentsfew relevant instructional or cocurricular nnovations. In sum, there is lit-tle evidence in PDS literature of widespread foregrounding of equity or di-versity issues in either preservice or inservice teacher development,student development, or inquiry in or about PDSs (Valli, Cooper, &Frankes, 1997; Wilder, 1995).

Critical Voices

Few resources in PDS literature have equity issues as their primary fo-cus. Perhaps the most detailed examination of the PDS equity agenda isfound in the work of Valli et al. (1997), who investigated the research andadvocacy literature on PDSs, identified seven basic reform themes, soughtevidence of documented change in each category, and considered the im-

plications of the changes (or absence of change) for the equity agenda artic-ulated in the literature. The seven themes include teacher education,teaching and learning, school organization, equity goals, professional de-velopment, inquiry, and collaborative alliances. They found no separateresearch studies that focused primarily on equity issues and concludedthat, overall, "broad ssues of equity and social justice are often absent inboth PDS research and practice" p. 252). The authors offered four possibleexplanations for limited accomplishments n this area, including the real-

itythat most PDSs are in the

early stagesof

developmentand the

possibil-ity that the vision articulated by the Holmes Group and others is notsufficiently concrete to provide effective guidance. They also questionedwhether educators widely share or are even aware of the commitment toequity, which is incorporated nto major conceptualizations of the PDS.Shen (1994) and Bullough, Kauchak, Crow, Hobbs, and Stokes (1997) areamong the researchers who have studied educator perceptions of the PDS

149



I. Abdal-Haqq

mission and found that many of their informants see the function of thePDS in very limited terms, primarily as a venue for preservice teacher

training along fairlyconventional lines.

Valliet al. also wondered if the

conditions of teaching and teacher education, as they currently exist, en-able the radical ransformation f schooling envisioned in the advocacy lit-erature, a concern echoed by Fullan, Galluzzo, Morris, and Watson (1998).

The possible inhibiting effects of the sociopolitical context of both publicschooling and teacher education are an issue raised by two other works de-voted to equity in PDS settings. Murrell and Borunda (1997) questionedwhether the prevailing PDS model can substantively address equity is-sues, as they relate to vulnerable or marginalized students, because of themodel's preoccupation with teacher change as the engine that will driveschool change and because of an apolitical conceptualization of equity,which seems to be common currency within the movement. Murrell 1998)provided what is perhaps the most expansive treatment of the theoreticalunderpinnings of the current PDS model's approach to equity and schoolchange and contrasted this approach with more emancipating and em-powering approaches that may offer more hope for meaningful change inurban settings. He advocated a re-visioning of the PDS model and sug-gested an alternate collaborative concept that diverges from the PDSmodel in nine areas. Key aspects of the approach Murrell advocated are re-defining relevant stakeholders, ituating collaborative work in communityconcerns, and clarifying and sharpening the purpose of PDS work to re-flect the broad social and political context in which the work takes place.

In reviewing PDS literature, Wilder (1995) found it to be "situated n amanagerial ontext devoid of how race, class, and cultural relations connectto desired PDS goals" (p. 254). She argued that this managerial ocus is in-

sufficient to bring about change in teacher preparation or the learning out-comes of African American or other historically marginalized tudents. Sheexamined the PDS track record on increasing he number of teachers fromunderrepresented thnic, racial, and linguistic groups; explored the connec-tion between substantive multicultural ducation or teachers and culturallyrelevant teaching for children; and questioned the inattention of PDS litera-ture to this connection n light of avowed interest n equitable schooling.

Unlike the four works just mentioned, which focus specifically on eq-

uity issues,the bulk of

commentaryon

equityin PDSs is

generallyfound in

discussions of the broad PDS or reform agenda. Recent reviews of PDS lit-erature Abdal-Haqq, 1998a; Teitel, 1998) revealed concerns about both theadequacy of concepts and practices or addressing equity issues and a lackof widespread attention o explicit, focused equity programming. Fullan etal. (1998) conducted a study of the Holmes Group's work and accomplish-ments related to teacher education reform. Utilizing multiple data sources,

150




the authors examined the appropriateness of goals and principles formeeting the needs of teacher education, progress in achieving the Holmes

agenda,and the

impactof the

group'swork on teacher education in

gen-eral. One focus of the study was progress in meeting equity goals forteacher development and P-12 schooling and the accomplishments ofPDSs in this regard. The authors concluded that "PDSes as prototypes ofequity-based reform are not in evidence" (p. 41).

More general school change, education reform, and diversity literatureoften question the value for culturally diverse learners of certain sacredcows of common contemporary approaches o improving schooling-ap-proaches such as teacher empowerment and participation nd school-basedmanagement (Fullan, 1995; Lipman, 1997) or discrete teacher educationcourses in multicultural education (Guillaume, Zuniga, & Yee, 1998;Zeichner, 1996). To the extent that PDSs rely on such approaches o schooland teacher education renewal, and the literature suggests that there is con-siderable reliance (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a), they will have limited success inachieving equity goals. Although these authors did not suggest that suchapproaches are without merit, their effectiveness s limited if they are notlinked to concomitant examining of the social and political context of publiceducation or questioning the attitudes, assumptions, values, and prioritiesof the organizations and individuals who are involved in schooling (Banks,1997; McLaren, 998; Nieto & Rolon, 1997).

Critiques of equity-related PDS accomplishments nd potential generallyreflect one or more of four major hemes, which are discussed briefly next.

The first theme is that the prevailing bilateral configuration of most part-nerships is inadequate or bringing about meaningful improvement n theperformance f vulnerable, marginalized tudents. This is a central hesis of

several authors (Lawson, 1996; Murrell, 1998; Murrell & Borunda, 1997).Children who live in poverty and children who are members of historicallydisadvantaged racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups are victims of systemicand relentless assaults on their health, safety, civil rights, economicwell-being, and self-esteem. Efforts o increase he academic performance fsuch students will achieve marginal and transient improvements, at best, ifthese efforts do not incorporate an understanding of how and why thesechildren become vulnerable o school failure or underachievement, s wellas the role schools

playin

perpetuatingsocietal inequities. School-univer-

sity partnerships need to be recast as community-school-university part-nerships or alliances that focus on community development and removingsystemic constraints on children's earning.

In practical terms, this involves working with parents, students, rele-vant community stakeholders, and human services agencies as equal part-ners in change. Fullan et al. (1998) observed, "it is increasingly clear that

151



L Abdal-Haqq

parent and community reform must be closely linked to teacher and schoolreform" (p. 42). Meaningful engagement with parent and community part-ners is constrained

bythe

prevailingPDS model's bilateral

design.Murrell

(1998) asked,

What possibility is there for a PDS collaborative o become a "democraticpublic sphere" ... given the congenital asymmetries of power that leaveparents and community stakeholders out of the question? How can PDSpartnerships deal responsively and democratically with wider constitu-encies of parents and community stakeholders when the design categor-ically excludes them? (p. 27)

Limiting the partners in collaborative school change efforts to uni-versities and schools is an inherently problematic, if not doomed, exer-cise, in part because schools and universities are themselves part of theproblem. Myers (1996) wrote, "They [PDSs] try to build better connec-tions and smoother relationships between university-based teacher ed-ucation and 'real' schools when both need to be seriously transformed"(p. 2). If this transformation is to lead to benefits for children, particu-larly historically marginalized children, then the focus of PDS workshould extend beyond its current preoccupation with teacher develop-ment (Lawson, 1996; Murrell & Borunda, 1997; Myers, 1996). Murrell(1998) maintained,

Structuring he collaborative as an enclave of professionals (i.e., teachersand university people), instead of predicating structure on a problem tobe solved or a movement to be energized, will continue to privilege pro-

fessionalism above the interests of the community. (p. 33)

The second theme is that prevailing definitions and conceptualizationsof equity are limited, apolitical, and insufficient. Conventional notions ofequity frequently define it as equal access to resources and opportunity(Murrell & Borunda, 1997). In the classroom, this often translates nto a be-lief that if all children receive the same materials, he same opportunity towork with qualified teachers, and the same curricular offerings and in-structional

practices,the school has done its

partand is absolved of re-

sponsibility for children's failure to achieve. This "color-blind" policy,with respect to racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority children, s criticizedby some PDS educators (Ligons et al., 1998) as well as advocates of multi-cultural education (Banks, 1997). Although equal access is important andessential, it is not necessarily sufficient to bring about more equitable andempowering learning experiences (Valli, 1994). Murrell (1998) suggested,

152




Critical interrogation of the conception of "educational equity" has beenconspicuously absent in both the advocacy and research literature on

PDSs.An

urban-focused approach .. shifts from an "equality of school-ing" or "everyone-gets-the ame" perspective, to a "quality of teachingand learning" perspective. On this account, we would no longer look atequity merely in terms of "racial balance" or equivalent numbers ofbooks and computers, but primarily in terms of effect-whether chil-dren's experiences of the curriculum and scholastic achievement are ac-tually improved. (p. 49)

In practice, he goal of rethinking he concept of equity, as it relates o di-verse learners, would be to achieve "equity in excellence for all learners"(Izquierdo et al., 1998); what Valli et al. (1997) referred o as "equity of out-comes ... the equitable distribution f the benefits of schooling" p. 255). Thedefinition of excellence would be broadened through employment of "eq-uity pedagogy" (Banks, 1997, p. 78) that sees a multicultural approach o ed-ucation not in remedial terms but as a basis for teaching everybody'schildren. Rethinking quity would bring issues of race, class, privilege, andpower into the conversation Nieto & Rolon, 1997;Valli, 1994;Wilder, 1995).Fundamentally, asting equity in terms that have meaning for vulnerableand marginalized tudents requires articulating systematic equity agenda,which the movement currently acks (Murrell & Borunda, 1997).

Third, even judging by definitions articulated n the literature, equitygoals have been marginalized n PDS work. For the most part, attempts toaddress equity issues have produced curricula, structures, and practicesthat are relatively shallow and, in general, do not appear to acknowledgemore liberatory epistemologies and practices. There s very little evidence

in PDS literature of widespread progress in two key areas of the move-ment's equity agenda, as articulated by the Holmes Group (1990) and oth-ers: increasing the diversity of the teaching force and implementingculturally responsive practice in schools (Fullan et al., 1998; Murrell &Borunda, 1997; Valli et al., 1997; Wilder, 1995; Zeichner & Miller, 1997).

Demographic trends clearly indicate that the growing percentage of ra-cial, ethnic, and linguistic minority students is far outstripping he percent-age of teachers from these groups (Hirsch, 1998). Teachers who share theirstudents'

anguage, traditions,and

historyare more

likelyto be able to mine

the cultural capital that all students bring with them (Nieto & Rolon, 1997;Wilder, 1995). Instead of enabling more low-income, working-class, andculturally diverse teachers o enter the new teacher pipeline, PDS structures,in the interest of raising standards, often create conditions (e.g., longer in-ternships or degree programs, more stringent entry requirements) hat mayrestrict access (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). Although some partnerships have in-

153



I. Abdal-Haqq

stituted proactive programs to recruit and retain teachers of color-pro-grams that address some of the PDS model's structural onstraints CalPoly

Goes o School, 995; Torres-Karna &Krustchinsky, 998)--overall, the litera-ture reveals little progress or attention to this issue.With regard to culturally responsive teaching, again there are few ex-

amples in the literature of programming hat develops or employs respon-sive practices (Wilder, 1995; Zeichner & Miller, 1997). In part, this lack maybe attributed o the shortcomings of the teacher development curriculum.Nieto and Rolon (1997) reminded us that teachers cannot teach what theydo not know, and they cannot learn what they need to know from teachereducators who are themselves deficient in knowledge of diverse commu-nities (Zeichner, 1996). The coursework and clinical experience thatpreservice teachers do receive is often superficial, solated, and not linkedto opportunities for teacher candidates to probe their own attitudes, be-liefs, values, and expectations with regard to diverse learners (Guillaumeet al., 1998; Izquierdo et al., 1998; Myers, 1996; Wilder, 1995).

Fourth, the prevailing PDS model, the view of equity enshrined in themodel, and widespread acceptance of the sufficiency of surface ap-proaches to addressing equity have acquired a formidable momentum

that may obscure, trample, or render stillborn alternate, and possibly moreproductive, attempts to craft working alliances between schools and uni-versities. Wilder (1995) suggested that current conceptualizations of thePDS promote "an illusion of change" (p. 254). Murrell (1998) wrote,

The evidence to date ... suggests that without significant re-examinationof the PDS patterns of institutional organization and practices, any exten-sion of the PDS model will pave over, not repair, the fatal flaws in the

foundations of urban schooling. The more appropriate metaphor or PDSwork at this point is not the leading dgeof innovative and improved prac-tice, but rather he shroud which hides, and perhaps perpetuates, unda-mental problems and issues from the light of critical inspection. (p. 26)

Murrell and Borunda (1997) decried the hegemonic presence of the cur-rent PDS model and the prospect that it may become the exclusive patternfor structuring working alliances between schools and colleges. Their con-

cern is not unfounded when we consider the increasing number of part-nerships that have succeeded in making the PDS model the only model ofpreservice teacher education offered at a partner schools, colleges, or de-partments of education, or the growing trend to advocate internships inPDSs as requirements for initial licensure (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a; Dar-ling-Hammond, 1998). An even more high-stakes undertaking s the moveto develop and institute standards for PDSs, which is presently being car-

154




ried out by the PDS Standards Project Levine, 1998b). An examination ofthe draft standards reveals that guidelines for achieving a quality standardof

equityare less

developedthan

comparable guidelinesfor the other four

quality standards. Given the movement's record of performance to date,the trend to institutionalize current structures and practices prompts eq-uity-minded individuals to question exactly what is being institutional-ized (Teitel, Reed, & O'Connor, 1997).

Whither Goest the PDS? Purpose, Responsibility,and Accountability

Murrell and Borunda (1997) suggested that the PDS's limited success inpromoting true equity in education is a function of having no real destina-tion with regard to equity. In my view, equity is not the only stepchild inthe PDS family, and its neglect is one consequence of a more fundamentalneglect and lack of clarity about direction. Pechman's (1992) chapter onstudent learning in professional practice schools (a variant of the PDSmodel) is called "The Child as Meaning Maker: The Organizing Principlefor Professional Practice Schools." Her thesis is present in the title. She out-lined the manner in which what is known about productive learning envi-ronments for children can be used to guide school restructuring, nquiry,and teacher education renewal in professional practice schools. The evi-dence to date suggests that, overall, PDSs have neglected to place childrenat the center of partnership activity; hey have not made children the orga-nizing principle for the work.

The bulk of documented PDS work focuses on teacher development

and the collaborative processes and structures hat enable that work; rela-tively little attention is given to student learning issues (Abdal-Haqq,1998a; Teitel, 1998). The literature suggests that there is a touching, butdangerous, faith in the power of teacher professionalization, kill enhance-ment, and empowerment to produce improvements n children's earning(Fullan et al., 1998; Murrell, 1998; Murrell & Borunda, 1997; Myers, 1996).

To a considerable degree, the movement has tacitly, and at times explic-itly, taken medical education and, in particular, he teaching hospital as itsmodel for

enhancingthe status of teachers and

improvingthe

qualityof

teaching (Levine, 1998b; Teitel, 1998). Doctors consider themselves, andare considered by others, to be professionals; most are skilled; and there isno doubt they have power. However, it requires very little reflection to seethat, although teaching hospitals may produce technically skilled healthprofessionals, the hospitals, the professionals they train, and the industryare not monuments to caring, democratic, enabling, or empowering rela-

155



L Abdal-Haqq

tions with patients (Murrell, 1998). Health care professionals and institu-tions are accountable o licensing boards, regulatory bodies, stockholders,

and other professionals, but it has never struck me that they considerthemselves especially accountable to patients or the communities fromwhich their patients come.

As long as PDSs see themselves primarily as institutions for turning outteachers, however skilled, there will be a tendency to feel accountable onlyto the producing partner and the hiring partner and possibly to someguardian of professional standards. They will see no need to seek the judg-ment of parents, students, and communities about the work that they do or

bringthese

neglectedstakeholders into conversations about what work

needs to be done or how to do it. School change (Freiberg, 1998;McLaughlin, 1994), diversity (Nieto, 1994), and PDS literature (Galassi,Thornton, Sheffield, Bryan, & Oliver, 1998; Kimball, Swap, LaRosa, &Howick, 1995; Webb-Dempsey, 1997) offer many examples of the benefitsof seeking guidance from children and parents about enablers of and con-straints on learning.

A persistent concern or PDSs s the absence of substantial impact or out-come evaluation and documentation. The research we do have focusesmainly on outcomes for preservice and inservice teachers. Very little can befound in the literature about student outcomes (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a, 1998b;Teitel, 1998; Valli et al., 1997). PDS implementers have justifiable concernsabout relying on conventional measures to assess student achievement, butthere s scant evidence of efforts o develop alternative measures hat inspireconfidence. The practical onsequences of continued neglect in this area areobvious. If we refocus PDS work on children and derive responsibility romthat focus, then the moral and ethical implications of this neglect also be-

come obvious. Kimball et al. (1995) observed, "The success of a partnership... should be gauged by the extent to which examination and assessment re-veal that student learning has improved" p. 24).

PDSs, particularly hose located in communities with large populationsof children in need, have unique opportunities as well as awesome chal-lenges. Sewell, Shapiro, Ducette, and Sanford (1995) suggested, "The in-ner-city PDS is uniquely positioned to question contemporary educationaltheories and practices .. It can expose the gap between democratic princi-

ples and the social realities reflected n the schools that constitute a micro-cosm of society" (p. 182). To be content with achieving only a portion of themission is to neglect the possibilities and succumb to what Teitel (seeTeitel, 1998) calls the "plateau" ffect. Resisting this malady requires clearthinking about the purpose of partnership work.

156




There is currently relatively widespread agreement among improve-ment-minded groups of teacher educators that producing better teach-ers to ensure better schools

requiresa close collaboration of universities

and school districts n developing partner or professional developmentschools. But for what? Partnerships re formed to bring together the totalarray of resources thought necessary to a shared purpose. The sharedmission of the partnership or teacher education arises not out of teachereducation but out of schooling. (Goodlad, 1998, p. 20)

Goodlad suggested that schools have a higher purpose than cranking outworkers. Schools play a key role in socializing the young. Therefore, heyhave a moral purpose consistent with democratic deals.

In clarifying he purpose of schools and the role of PDSs n promoting hatpurpose, partnerships might engage in a form of "backwards ssessment,"which Kimball et al. (1995, p. 39) illustrated n their discussion of studentlearning n partner chools. Backwards ssessment s based on the "planningbackwards" model, which calls on school personnel o first consider what stu-dents should know and be able to do before restructuring urricula, ched-ules, student groupings, and other aspects of the school environment.

Taking this approach to defining PDS purpose, key questions then be-come, What kind of society do I want to live in? What kind of neighbor do Iwant to have? What kind of doctor, awyer, or civil servant do I want to de-pend on? It is not only the poor and the disenfranchised who learn lessonsfrom the hidden curriculum; children of privilege also learn them. Theylearn that it is acceptable o exclude, deny, and exploit those who are with-out power. When we who now labor n PDS vineyards are old, infirm, andpossibly helpless, who do we want in charge? We want our society to be

led, managed, and guided by persons of skill, but we also want those per-sons to be caring, ust, honest, and fair.

References

Abdal-Haqq, . (1998a). Professional evelopment chools:Weighing heevidence. housand Oaks,CA: Corwin.

Abdal-Haqq, . (1998b, October). Professional evelopment chools.What o we know? What o weneed o know? How do we ind out? Whodo we tell? Paper presented at the National Profes-sional Development School Conference, Towson University, Towson, MD.

Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating itizens n a multicultural ociety. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Nedeff, A. R. (1997). The worlds of a reader's mind: Students as au-thors. The Reading Teacher, 0, 564-573.

157



I. Abdal-Haqq

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., Hobbs, S., & Stokes, D. (1997). Professional devel-opment schools: Catalysts or teacher and school change. Teaching nd Teacher ducation,13, 153-171.

Cal Polygoes oschool: artnerships. 995annual report. 1995).San Luis Obispo: California Poly-technic State University, University Center or Teacher Education.

Clark, R. W. (1995).Evaluating partner chools. In R. T. Osguthorpe, R. C. Harris, M. F. Harris,&S. Black Eds.), Partner chools: entersfor ducational enewal(pp. 229-262). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, .(1998, September). How can weensure caring, ompetent, ualified eacherfor every hild? Strategies or solving hedilemmasof teacher upply, demand, nd standards. a-per prepared or Shaping he Profession hat Shapes he Future: An AFT/NEA Conferenceon Teacher Quality, Washington, DC.

Freiberg, H. J. (1998).Measuring chool climate: Let me count the ways. Educational Leadership,56(1), 22-27.

Fullan, M. (1995). Contexts: Overview and framework. n M. J. O'Hair & S. Odell (Eds.), Edu-cating eachersfor leadership nd change. Teacher ducation earbook II (pp. 1-10). ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin.

Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., &Watson, N. (1998). The ise and stall ofteacher ducation e-form. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Galassi, J. P., Thornton, B., Sheffield, A., Bryan, M., & Oliver, J. (1998, Fall). Reaching agree-ment on advisory goals using a card sorting and a goal ranking approach: A profes-sional development school inquiry. Research n Middle Level Education Quarterly, 2(1),1-15.

Goodlad, J. I. (1998). Teacher ducation: For what? Teacher ducation Quarterly, 5(4), 16-23.Guillaume, A., Zuniga, C., &Yee, I. (1998).What difference does preparation make? Educating

preservice eachers or learner diversity. n M. E. Dilworth Ed.), Being esponsive oculturaldifferences: owteachers earn (pp. 143-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hirsch, E. (1998).Recruiting uality eachersfor henext century-State rends. Paper prepared orNational Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's chools: rinciples or the design of professional evelopmentschools.East Lansing, MI: Author.

Izquierdo, E., Ligons, C., & Erwin, B. (1998). Preparing eachersfor culturally luralistic ociety.Restructuring exas Teacher Education Series, No. 6. Austin: State Board or Educator Cer-tification.

Kimball, W. A., Swap, S. M., LaRosa, P. A., & Howick, T. (1995). mproving student learning.In R. T. Osguthorpe, R. C. Harris, M. F. Harris, & S. Black Eds.), Partner chools: Centersforeducational enewal (pp. 23-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawson, H. A. (1996). Expanding he Goodlad agenda: nterprofessional ducation and com-munity collaboration n service of vulnerable children, youth, and families. Holistic Educa-tion Review, , 20-34.

Levine, M. (1998a). Appendix: Draft standards or professional development schools. In M.Levine (Ed.), Designing tandards hat workfor rofessional evelopment chools(pp. 193-210).Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation f Teacher Education.

Levine, M. (1998b). Designing standards hat work for professional development schools. InM. Levine (Ed.), Designing tandards hat workfor rofessional evelopment chools(pp. 1-10).Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation f Teacher Education.

Ligons, C. M., Rosado, L. A., & Houston, W. R. (1998).Culturally iterate eachers: Preparationfor 21st century schools. In M. E. Dilworth Ed.), Being esponsive ocultural differences: owteachers earn (pp. 129-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

158




Lipman, P. (1997). Restructuring n context: A case study of teacher participation and thedynamics of ideology, race, and power. American Educational Research ournal, 4(1),3-38.

McLaren, P. (1998). Life n schools: n introduction ocritical pedagogy n thefoundations feduca-tion (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.McLaughlin, M. W. (1994, Fall). Somebody nowsmy name Issues in Restructuring chools Is-

sue Report No. 7, pp. 9-11). University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Education, Cen-ter on Organization and Restructuring f Schools.

Murrell, P. C. (1998). Like tone soup: The ole oftheprofessional evelopment chool n the renewal ofurban chools.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Murrell, P. C., & Borunda, M. (1997). The ultural nd community olitics feducational equity: To-ward newframework fprofessional evelopment chools.Unpublished draft manuscript, Na-tional Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Teachers College, Co-

lumbia University, New York.Myers, C. B. (1996, April). Beyond DSs: Schools s professional earning ommunities. proposal

based n an analysis f PDS efforts fthe 1990s. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New York. ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 400 227)

Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance o dream. Harvard ducational e-view, 64(4), 392-426.

Nieto, S., & Rolon, C. (1997).Preparation nd professional evelopment of teachers: A perspec-tive from wo Latinas. nJ. J. Irvine Ed.), Criticalknowledgefor iverse eachers nd earners (pp.89-124). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Pechman, E. (1992). The child as meaning maker: The organizing principle for professionalpractice chools. In M. Levine Ed.), Professional ractice chools: inking eacher ducation ndschool eform pp. 25-62). New York: Teachers College Press.

the Resta, V. K. (1998). Professional evelopment chools s a catalyst or reform. RestructuringTexas Teacher Education Series, No. 2. Austin: State Board or Educator Certification.

Sewell, T. E., Shapiro, J. P., Ducette, J. P., & Sanford, J. S. (1995). Professional developmentschools in the inner city: Policy implications or school-university collaboration. n H. G.Petrie (Ed.), Professionalization, artnership, nd power: Building professional evelopmentschools (pp. 179-197). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Shen, J. (1994, February). A study n contrast: isionsofpreservice eacher ducation n the context ofa professional evelopment chool.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American As-sociation of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago. ERIC Document Reproduction er-vice No. ED 368 677)

Teitel, L. (1998).Professional development schools: A literature eview. In M. Levine Ed.), De-signing tandards hat workfor rofessional evelopment chools(pp. 33-80). Washington, DC:National Council for Accreditation f Teacher Education.

Teitel, L., Reed, C., & O'Connor, K. (Eds.). (1997). Institutionalizing rofessional evelopmentschools.Unpublished anuscript. ational Center or Restructuring ducation, Schools, andTeaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

Torres-Karna, H., & Krustchinsky, R. (1998). The Early Entry Program. An innovative pro-gram for recruiting and training new bilingual teachers. Teacher ducation nd Practice,14(1), 10-19.

Valli, L. (1994, April). Professional evelopment chools:An opportunity oreconceptualize choolsand teacher ducation s empowering earning ommunities. Paper presented at the Interna-tional Seminar on Teacher Education annual meeting, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 381 484)

159



I. Abdal-Haqq

Valli, L., Cooper, D., &Frankes, L. (1997).Professional development schools and equity: A crit-ical analysis of rhetoric nd research. n M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review fresearch n education 2(pp. 251-304). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Vision statement: rofessional Development School Network. Purposes, ommitments, nd en-abling onditions or professional evelopment chools. 1993).PDS Network ews,1(1),3-6.

Webb-Dempsey, .(1997). Reconsidering ssessment o be reflective of school reform. n N. E.Hoffman, W. M. Reed, & G. S. Rosenbluth Eds.), Lessons rom restructuring xperiences:Stories fchange n professional evelopment chools(pp. 269-294). Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Wilder, M. A. (1995).Professional development schools: Restructuring eacher ducation pro-grams and hierarchies. nH. G. Petrie Ed.), Professionalization, artnership, nd power: uild-ing professional evelopment chools (pp. 253-268). Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating eachers or cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents f reform n preservice eacher ducation (pp. 133-175). New York:Teachers College Press.

Zeichner, K., & Miller, M. (1997).Learning o teach n professional development schools. In M.Levine & R. Trachtman Eds.), Making rofessional evelopment choolswork: Politics, prac-tices, and policy pp. 15-29). New York: Teachers College Press.

160

Documents

Abdal-Haqq - Unraveling the Professional