School-college relationships

School-college relationshipsAuthor(s): DAVID M. CLARKSONSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 5 (MAY 1968), pp. 447-449Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41185807 .

Accessed: 22/06/2014 23:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.174 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:26:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41185807?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Forum on teacher preparation Francis J. Mueller

► A county mathematics consultant comments on school-college relationships and speculates about a better arrangement.

► A supervisor of mathematics describes a university-district in-service program that made a difference.

School-college relationships DAVID M. CLARKSON Woodstock, New York

Mr. Clarkson is consultant in mathematics for the Ulster County (New York) Board of Cooperative Educational Services. He has used the first article published in this department, "The Launching of a Forum" (January 1968), to launch his own remarks about the preparation of elementary mathematics teachers, remarks which many schoolmen will find both perceptive and cogent.

JL/uring the past decade the mathematical community has been prolific in offering ad- vice to teachers colleges and schools of education concerning the preservice and in-service education of elementary mathematics teachers. Their recommendations, most notably those of the CUPM (Prepara- tion in Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers [rev. ed.; MAA, 1966]) and the Cambridge Conference on School Mathe- matics (Goals for School Mathematics [Houghton Mifflin, 1967]), have focused attention on the course content in mathematics currently offered new and senior teachers. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that these committees of mathematicians have not looked more deeply into the rather

complex business of teaching mathematical ideas to young children, particularly since the effect of their recommendations so far has been less than overwhelmingly satis- factory.

If one looks at the curricula of any typical teachers college, he finds a plethora of prescribed "professional" courses. The sheer bulk of these requirements should explain, in a practical way, why many of these colleges have so far failed to provide, say, the twelve semester hours of mathematics recommended in the Level I course, and why some may even have de- creased their offerings. Beyond this unfortunate case of the "crowded curriculum," we must acknowledge the scarcity

May 1968 AA1



of competent mathematics instructors at the college level, a scarcity that is likely to increase in severity. If we face the question honestly as to why a two-to-one majority of new elementary teachers prefer further courses in methods to further courses in mathematics, we must consider the possi- bility that poorly taught mathematics courses may not be making the contribu- tion to improved instruction that they were intended to make.

What is perhaps most unfortunate about the present situation of elementary-teacher preparation is the lack of divergent thinking about ways to improve it. The recommendations of mathematicians for more and better mathematics courses are really quite conventional recommendations, the sort one would expect to come from pro- fessorial ranks. Is it possible that the times call for attempted solutions that will be much more closely related to the elementary school situations which these teachers will enter? Indeed, isn't it about time we begin to think of truly cooperative school- college programs of teacher preparation, where the preservice and in-service aspects are inextricably linked?

It is still true, in many parts of the country, that a single institution of teacher preparation provides a large majority of the new teachers employed by nearby school systems. It is therefore quite fea- sible, in these cases, to think of developing an educational process for the prospective elementary school teacher that would not end with the baccalaureate degree but would extend through the usual probationary period of full-time teaching. In some cases, it might well be the heart of an advanced-degree program. Such a plan would provide at least two considerable advantages: First, the pressures of the four-year curriculum for elementary education majors would be substantially re- lieved so that more, and more-adequate, courses could be offered. Second, a struc- ture that involved a truly cooperative effort between schools and colleges would be an educational experience for college person-

nel as well as for those of the school. We are all too familiar with the stand-

ard school-college buck-passing game. College professor: "This is the way you

should teach children, but you won't find it being done that way in the schools!"

School administrator: "Forget what you heard your professor say; he doesn't know how it really is, here."

We all recognize these types as both archaic and ubiquitous. How much better it would be if the professor had more of an opportunity to meet the schoolman on his own ground - for example, to discuss a teacher who had been given her methods course by the professor and was under the probationary evaluation of the schoolman. Is it unrealistic or unreasonable to go even further and to consider a situation in which the same discussion takes place but, in this instance, where the schoolman has given the methods course and the professor has been on loan from the college to aid in evaluating the work of the probationary teacher?

Surely the intimacy of such a school- college association would vary consider- ably with the locale and its traditions, and it would be unproductive to attempt to de- fine such a relationship too precisely. Do the academic standards of a college de- cline when a master teacher from the schools comes to teach a methods course (even though he lacks the doctorate) and replaces an Ed.D. who has little practical experience in the classroom? Perhaps. Will a Ph.D. mathematician be able to relate to a class of six-year-olds, and through this relationship make a significant con- tribution to a primary-grade teacher's un- derstanding of this learning process? Per- haps not. But wilder things have been happening lately in education.

We are already witnessing the trend, and a healthy one it is, toward joint responsibility between the subject depart- ments and the education department for the preservice education of elementary and other teachers. In many cases this joint

448 The Arithmetic Teacher



responsibility has resulted in the creation of joint appointments. Now perhaps it is time to consider another effort - the effort to broaden this responsibility to include the schools where these teachers will work and even to consider joint appointments between these institutions.

Let us imagine, for a moment, what could result from such a cooperative school-college effort: Mary Jones is a probationary teacher with a class of fourth graders. Mary is having some problems because she finds both a wide range of ability among the children in her class of thirty-two and a new curriculum in elementary mathematics which is straining her cognitive faculties. The person who taught her in the math-methods course and the one who supervised her in practice teaching are both available as consultants to her principal, who has, himself, taught a methods course at the college. These consultants and advisors recognize Mary's need for another elementary course in

mathematics, and they recommend that she take one during the summer or in the evening. One of Mary's colleagues, a second-grade teacher in the same school, also teaches a course on methods of in- dividualized instruction at the college. This teacher arranges a series of consultations with Mary, based on visits to her classroom. The principal provides some re- leased time for these talks and visits. Mary masters her problems, begins to enjoy teaching, and becomes a bright prospect for a permanent post in elementary teaching.

If we contrast this admittedly idealized picture with the typical situation of a probationary teacher today, we should gain considerable motivation for thinking of a move in the direction of more school-college cooperation in the future. Instead of piling more courses on the back of the prospective teacher, why don't we think of piling more teachers on the back of the course?

A cooperative university-district in-service program A. EARL CATMULL Salt Lake City, Utah

Dr, Catmull is supervisor of mathematics in the Granite School District, Salt Lake County, Utah. He describes here a cooperative university-district in-service program that received heartfelt kudos from teachers and administrators alike.

jljl new series of textbooks came into the mathematics programs of the forty-four elementary schools of Granite School Dis- trict in the 1965/66 academic year. During the previous school year, the district had sponsored an in-service television program one afternoon each week. Each elementary principal and teacher was expected to take

advantage of this opportunity in order to prepare for the coming new programs. It was a step in the right direction, but it was quite insufficient.

The effect of the new programs in the schools was dramatic. Teachers who under- stood what they were teaching did well, but many tried to continue to teach mod-

May 1968 449



Documents

School-college relationships