Unraveling the Professional Development School Equity Agenda

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 15 November 2014, At: 05:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Peabody Journal ofEducationPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

Unraveling theProfessional DevelopmentSchool Equity AgendaIsmat Abdal-HaqqPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Ismat Abdal-Haqq (1999) Unraveling the ProfessionalDevelopment School Equity Agenda, Peabody Journal of Education, 74:3-4,145-160, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.1999.9695379

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1999.9695379

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0161956X.1999.9695379

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1999.9695379

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 74(3&4), 145-160 Copyright O 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Unraveling the Professional Development School Equity Agenda

Ismat Abdal-Haqq

While preparing this article, I received a circular featuring some of the latest releases from a well-known publisher of books and journals on education. Being constitutionally incapable of tossing out announcements about new books unread, I scanned the offerings and encountered a short description of a book, which remains nameless, devoted to cultural awareness in schools. The one-line blurb read, "Help everyone cope with diversity." What caught my attention was the use of the word cope. It triggered recollection of a meeting of a small Professional Development School (PDS) working group (which also remains nameless) that I attended several years ago.

The session began with introductions and brief statements about PDSrelated work in which participants were involved. One university professor shared with us the information that her institution had recently received funds from a well-endowed foundation to work with an affluent local school district to find ways of reversing the decline in the district's heretofore sterling reputation for educational excellence. This decline had

ISMAT ABDAL-HAQQ is Associate Directorfor research and information at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education in Washington, DC, and Coordinator ofthe Adjunct ERlC Clearing- house on Clinical Schools.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Ismat Abdal-Haqq, 6705 Second Street NW, Wash- ington, DC 20012. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

apparently been brought on by an influx of poor and working-class immi- grant students, many of whom were not proficient in English. The presence of these new students had lowered mean achievement scores and upset the admirable teacher-to-student ratio, both of which were prominent contributors to the district's reputation. My reaction at the time was that the school district, the university, and the foundation might more pro- ductively employ their collective resources in reconsidering their definition of educational excellence.

The two occurrences illustrate a lamentable, but not uncommon, incli- nation to regard student diversity as a problem or obstacle with which educators must cope (Nieto & Rolon, 1997). This view of diversity does not appear to include any recognition of the possibility that student diversity might promote learning among professionals and peers, stimulate expanded capacity for educators and schools, or provide opportunities for educators to exercise their responsibility to assist in advancing social justice or to support democratic principles (Ligons, Rosado, & Houston, 1998). Neglect of possibilities with regard to diversity is one of several critiques that have surfaced in PDS literature on equity.

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

Equity has many dimensions and has relevance for various participants, practices, and policies associated with schooling. In this article, I focus on issues related to poor or working-class learners in PDS settings and learners who are from non-European racial, 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 their core goals and principles, is well known, I offer a brief summary of mission and structure as a prelude to the equity discussion for two reasons. First, a significant critique of PDS potential to address equity issues, as they relate to the previously mentioned learners, centers on the limitations of the typi- cal bilateral configuration of PDS partnerships. Second, the broad issues of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Unraveling the PDS Equity Agenda

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

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

PDSs have a four-part mission: (a) maximizing student achievement and well-being, (b) initial preparation of teachers and other school-based educators, (c) professional development of teachers and other school-based educators, and (d) applied inqujr designed to improve and support student and educator development (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). The draft standards for PDSs, developed and now being pilot tested by the National Council for Ac- creditation of Teacher Education PDS Standards Project, identdy three core commitments shared by PDSs: "(1) an environment which integrates adult and children's learning; (2) parity for university and school partners on all issues of practice and policy in the PDS; and (3) the simultaneous renewal of the 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. Indeed, addressing inequities in schooling has consistently been presented as an explicit purpose, goal, rationale, commitment, or guiding principle. The first two shared beliefs listed in the National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) Compact for Partner Schools are (a) "Partner schools of the NNER assure that all learners have equitable access to knowledge," and (b) "Part- ner schools recognize and honor diversity, commit to multicultural curricula and culturally responsive practice, prepare individuals for active participation in 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 to inclusive, adaptive approaches to children and their learning and the full participation of all learners in expanded educational opportunities, with respectful consideration of gender, class, race, and culture" (Vision Statement, 1993, p. 3). Principle 3 of the sixPDS design principles promulgated by the Holmes Group (1990, p. 7) in Tomorrow's Schools is "Teaching and learning for everybody's children. A major commitment of the Professional Development School willbe overcoming the ed-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

ucational and social barriers raised by an unequal society." Equity is one of five critical attributes for which draft quality standards have been developed by the PDS Standards Project: "A PDS is characterized by norms and practices which support equity and learning by all students and adults" (Le- vine, 1998a, p. 209). These statements, which speak to general organizing principles for PDSs, are echoed in countless individual partnership vision statements, institutional 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 majority of PDSs are members of a statewide network of Centers for Professional Development of Teachers (CPDTs), originally called Centers for Profes- sional Development and Technology. Among the selection criteria for CPDT school sites is "a student population representative of the diversity in the state" (Resta, 1998, p. 6), a response to the growing minority student population in the state, which in 1996 was 51% African American and His- panic (Izquierdo, Ligons, & Erwin, 1998). CPDTs are required to include low-performing schools in their partnerships, and teacher candidates are expected 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 the student populations and conditions found in an increasing number of the country's schools, particularly inner-city schools (Izquierdo et al., 1998). The intensity of the clinical experience, with regard to engagement with students from diverse cultural backgrounds, ranges from "exposure" in some settings to "immer- sion" experiences, which extend beyond the classroom and the school building, in other localities (Cal Poly Goes to School, 1995). In some cases, the entire preservice program has an urban or diversity focus, and working with racial, ethnic, or linguistic minority children is the theme binding together coursework, field placements, and clinical experiences. Examples include the Houston (TX) Consortium of Urban Professional Development and Technology Centers (Ligons et al., 1998) and the graduate teacher education program, Teach for Diversity, at the University of Wisconsin-Madi- son (Zeichner & Miller, 1997).

PDS literature documents a few innovative programs that target the learning needs of racial, ethnic, or linguistic minority children (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). One example is the Students as Authors project, an award-winning literacy enhancement program initiated by teachers at Central Elementary PDS 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).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Despite notable exceptions, mainstream PDS literature suggests that diversity-related learning activities for preservice and practicing teachers in PDSs are fairly conventional and do not depart significantly from the tra- dition of isolated staff development workshops and courses in multicultural education. There is little in discussions of these offerings to suggest that they do more than try to promote "awareness" (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). Mainstream literature offers even less encouraging news about explicit programming that targets the needs of African, Asian-Pacific, Hispanic, or Native American children (Wilder, 1995; Zeichner & Miller, 1997). From the fugitive literature (e.g., internal or limited circulation documents, unpublished reports, audiovisual and electronic sources, newsletters, pro- motional material) we occasionally catch encouraging glimpses of such programming (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a), but overall, the literature documents few relevant instructional or cocurricular innovations. In sum, there is little evidence in PDS literature of widespread foregrounding of equity or diversity 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 focus. Perhaps the most detailed examination of the PDS equity agenda is found in the work of Valli et al. (1997), who investigated the research and advocacy literature on PDSs, identified seven basic reform themes, sought evidence of documented change in each category, and considered the implications of the changes (or absence of change) for the equity agenda articulated in the literature. The seven themes include teacher education, teaching and learning, school organization, equity goals, professional development, inquiry, and collaborative alliances. They found no separate research studies that focused primarily on equity issues and concluded that, overall, "broad issues of equity and social justice are often absent in both PDS research and practice" (p. 252). The authors offered four possible explanations for limited accomplishments in this area, including the real- ity that most PDSs are in the early stages of development and the possibility that the vision articulated by the Holmes Group and others is not sufficiently concrete to provide effective guidance. They also questioned whether educators widely share or are even aware of the commitment to equity, which is incorporated into major conceptualizations of the PDS. Shen (1994) and Bullough, Kauchak, Crow, Hobbs, and Stokes (1997) are among the researchers who have studied educator perceptions of the PDS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

mission and found that many of their informants see the function of the PDS in very limited terms, primarily as a venue for preservice teacher training along fairly conventional lines. Valli et al. also wondered if the conditions of teaching and teacher education, as they currently exist, enable the radical transformation of schooling envisioned in the advocacy literature, a concern echoed by Fullan, Galluzzo, Morris, and Watson (1998).

The possible inhibiting effects of the sociopolitical context of both public schooling and teacher education are an issue raised by two other works devoted to equity in PDS settings. Murrell and Borunda (1997) questioned whether the prevailing PDS model can substantively address equity issues, as they relate to vulnerable or marginalized students, because of the model's preoccupation with teacher change as the engine that will drive school 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 theoretical underpinnings of the current PDS model's approach to equity and school change and contrasted this approach with more emancipating and empowering approaches that may offer more hope for meaningful change in urban settings. He advocated a re-visioning of the PDS model and suggested an alternate collaborative concept that diverges from the PDS model in nine areas. Key aspects of the approach Murrell advocated are re- defining relevant stakeholders, situating collaborative work in community concerns, and clarifying and sharpening the purpose of PDS work to reflect the broad social and political context in which the work takes place.

In reviewing PDS literature, Wilder (1995) found it to be "situated in a managerial context devoid of how race, class, and cultural relations connect to desired PDS goals" (p. 254). She argued that this managerial focus is insufficient to bring about change in teacher preparation or the learning outcomes of African American or other historically marginalized students. She examined the PDS track record on increasing the number of teachers from underrepresented ethnic, racial, and linguistic groups; explored the connection between substantive multicultural education for teachers and culturally relevant teaching for children; and questioned the inattention of PDS literature to this comection in light of avowed interest in equitable schooling.

Unlike the four works just mentioned, which focus specifically on equity issues, the bulk of commentary on equity in PDSs is generally found in discussions of the broad PDS or reform agenda. Recent reviews of PDS literature (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a; Teitel, 1998) revealed concerns about both the adequacy of concepts and practices for addressing equity issues and a lack of widespread attention to explicit, focused equity programming. Fullan et al. (1998) conducted a study of the Holrnes Group's work and accomplishments related to teacher education reform. Utilizing multiple data sources,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the authors examined the appropriateness of goals and principles for meeting the needs of teacher education, progress in achieving the Holrnes agenda, and the impact of the group's work on teacher education in general. One focus of the study was progress in meeting equity goals for teacher development and P-12 schooling and the accomplishments of PDSs in this regard. The authors concluded that "PDSes as prototypes of equity-based reform are not in evidence" (p. 41).

More general school change, education reform, and diversity literature often question the value for culturally diverse learners of certain sacred cows of common contemporary approaches to improving schooling--approaches such as teacher empowerment and participation and school-based management (Fullan, 1995; Lipman, 1997) or discrete teacher education courses in multicultural education (Guillaume, Zuniga, & Yee, 1998; Zeichner, 19%). To the extent that PDSs rely on such approaches to school and teacher education renewal, and the literature suggests that there is considerable reliance (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a), they will have limited success in achieving equity goals. Although these authors did not suggest that such approaches are without merit, their effectiveness is limited if they are not linked to concomitant examining of the social and political context of public education or questioning the attitudes, assumptions, values, and priorities of the organizations and individuals who are involved in schooling (Banks, 1997; McLaren, 1998; Nieto & Rolon, 1997).

Critiques of equity-related PDS accomplishments and potential generally reflect one or more of four major themes, which are discussed briefly next.

The first theme is that the prevailing bilateral configuration of most partnerships is inadequate for bringing about meaningful improvement in the performance of vulnerable, marginalized students. This is a central thesis of several authors (Lawson, 1996; Murrell, 1998; Murrell & Borunda, 1997). Children who live in poverty and children who are members of historically disadvantaged racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups are victims of systemic and relentless assaults on their health, safety, civil rights, economic well-being, and self-esteem. Efforts to increase the academic performance of such students will achieve marginal and transient improvements, at best, if these efforts do not incorporate an understanding of how and why these children become vulnerable to school failure or underachievement, as well as the role schools play in perpetuating societal inequities. School-university partnerships need to be recast as community-school-university partnerships or alliances that focus on community development and removing systemic constraints on children's learning.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

parent and community reform must be closely linked to teacher and school reform" (p. 42). Meaningful engagement with parent and community partners is constrained by the prevailing PDS model's bilateral design. Murrell (1998) asked,

What possibility is there for a PDS collaborative to become a "democratic public sphere" . . . given the congenital asymmetries of power that leave parents and community stakeholders out of the question? How can PDS partnerships 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 universities and schools is an inherently problematic, if not doomed, exercise, in part because schools and universities are themselves part of the problem. Myers (1996) wrote, "They [PDSs] try to build better connec- tions and smoother relationships between university-based teacher education and 'real' schools when both need to be seriously transformed" (p. 2). If this transformation is to lead to benefits for children, particularly historically marginalized children, then the focus of PDS work should extend beyond its current preoccupation with teacher development (Lawson, 1996; Murrell & Borunda, 1997; Myers, 1996). Murrell (1998) maintained,

Structuring the collaborative as an enclave of professionals (i.e., teachers and university people), instead of predicating structure on a problem to be 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 conceptualizations of equity are limited, apolitical, and insufficient. Conventional notions of equity frequently define it as equal access to resources and opportunity (Murrell& Borunda, 1997). In the classroom, this often translates into a be- lief that if all children receive the same materials, the same opportunity to work with qualified teachers, and the same curricular offerings and instructional practices, the school has done its part and is absolved of responsibility for children's failure to achieve. This "color-blind" policy, with respect to racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority children, is criticized by some PDS educators (Ligons et al., 1998) as well as advocates of multicultural education (Banks, 1997). Although equal access is important and essential, it is not necessarily sufficient to bring about more equitable and empowering learning experiences (Valli, 1994). Murrell(1998) suggested,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Critical interrogation of the conception of "educational equity" has been conspicuously absent in both the advocacy and research literature on PDSs. An urban-focused approach . . . shifts from an "equality of schooling" or "everyone-gets-the same" perspective, to a "quality of teaching and learning" perspective. On this account, we would no longer look at equity merely in terms of "racial balance" or equivalent numbers of books and computers, but primarily in terms of effect-whether children's experiences of the curriculum and scholastic achievement are ac- tually improved. (p. 49)

In practice, the goal of rethinking the concept of equity, as it relates to diverse learners, would be to achieve "equity in excellence for all learners" (Izquierdo et al., 1998); what Valli et al. (1997) referred to as "equity of outcomes . . . the equitable distribution of the benefits of schooling" (p. 255). The definition of excellence would be broadened through employment of "equity pedagogy" (Banks, 1997, p. 78) that sees a multicultural approach to education not in remedial terms but as a basis for teaching everybody's children. Rethinking equity would bring issues of race, class, privilege, and power into the conversation (Nieto & Rolon, 1997; Valli, 1994; Wilder, 1995). Fundamentally, casting equity in terms that have meaning for vulnerable and marginalized students requires articulating a systematic equity agenda, which the movement currently lacks (Mumell& Borunda, 1997).

Third, even judging by definitions articulated in the literature, equity goals have been marginalized in PDS work. For the most part, attempts to address equity issues have produced curricula, structures, and practices that are relatively shallow and, in general, do not appear to acknowledge more liberatory epistemologies and practices. There is very little evidence in PDS literature of widespread progress in two key areas of the movement's equity agenda, as articulated by the Holmes Group (1990) and others: increasing the diversity of the teaching force and implementing culturally 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 racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority students is far outstripping the percentage of teachers from these groups (Hirsch, 1998). Teachers who share their students' language, traditions, and history are more likely to 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, and culturally diverse teachers to enter the new teacher pipeline, PDS structures, in the interest of raising standards, often create conditions (e.g., longer internships or degree programs, more stringent entry requirements) that may restrict access (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). Although some partnerships have in-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

stituted proactive programs to recruit and retain teachers of color-programs that address some of the PDS model's structural constraints (Cal Poly Goes to School, 1995; Torres-Karna & Krustchinsky, 1998)--overall, the literature reveals little progress or attention to this issue.

With regard to culturally responsive teaching, again there are few examples in the literature of programming that develops or employs responsive practices (Wilder, 1995; Zeichner & Miller, 1997). In part, this lack may be attributed to the shortcomings of the teacher development curriculum. Nieto and Rolon (1997) reminded us that teachers cannot teach what they do not know, and they cannot learn what they need to know from teacher educators who are themselves deficient in knowledge of diverse communities (Zeichner, 1996). The coursework and clinical experience that preservice teachers do receive is often superficial, isolated, and not linked to opportunities for teacher candidates to probe their own attitudes, beliefs, values, and expectations with regard to diverse learners (Guillaume et al., 1998; Izquierdo et al., 1998; Myers, 1996; Wilder, 1995).

Fourth, the prevailing PDS model, the view of equity enshrined in the model, and widespread acceptance of the sufficiency of surface approaches to addressing equity have acquired a formidable momentum that may obscure, trample, or render stillborn alternate, and possibly more productive, attempts to craft working alliances between schools and universities. Wilder (1995) suggested that current conceptualizations of the PDS promote "an illusion of change" (p. 254). Murrell(1998) wrote,

The evidence to date . . . suggests that without significant re-examination of 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 for PDS work at this point is not the leading edge of innovative and improved practice, but rather the shroud which hides, and perhaps perpetuates, fundamental problems and issues from the light of critical inspection. (p. 26)

Murrell and Borunda (1997) decried the hegemonic presence of the current PDS model and the prospect that it may become the exclusive pattern for structuring working alliances between schools and colleges. Their concern is not unfounded when we consider the increasing number of partnerships that have succeeded in making the PDS model the only model of preservice teacher education offered at a partner schools, colleges, or departments of education, or the growing trend to advocate internships in PDSs as requirements for initial licensure (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a; Dar- ling-Hanunond, 1998). An even more high-stakes undertaking is the move to develop and institute standards for PDSs, which is presently being car-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ried out by the PDS Standards Project (Levine, 1998b). An examination of the draft standards reveals that guidelines for achieving a quality standard of equity are less developed than comparable guidelines for the other four quality standards. Given the movement's record of performance to date, the trend to institutionalize current structures and practices prompts equity-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 PDSs limited success in promoting 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 in the PDS family, and its neglect is one consequence of a more fundamental neglect and lack of clarity about direction. Pechrnan's (1992) chapter on student leaming in professional practice schools (a variant of the PDS model) is called "The Child as Meaning Maker: The Organizing Principle for 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, inquiry, and teacher education renewal in professional practice schools. The evidence to date suggests that, overall, PDSs have neglected to place children at the center of partnership activity; they have not made children the organizing principle for the work.

The bulk of documented PDS work focuses on teacher development and the collaborative processes and structures that enable that work; relatively little attention is given to student leaming issues (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a; Teitel, 1998). The literature suggests that there is a touching, but dangerous, faith in the power of teacher professionalization, skill enhancement, and empowerment to produce improvements in children's leaming (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, the teaching hospital as its model for enhancing the status of teachers and improving the quality of teaching (Levine, 1998b; Teitel, 1998). Doctors consider themselves, and are considered by others, to be professionals; most are skilled; and there is no doubt they have power. However, it requires very little reflection to see that, although teaching hospitals may produce technically skilled health professionals, the hospitals, the professionals they train, and the industry are not monuments to caring, democratic, enabling, or empowering rela-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

tions with patients (Murrell, 1998). Health care professionals and institutions are accountable to licensing boards, regulatory bodies, stockholders, and other professionals, but it has never struck me that they consider themselves especially accountable to patients or the communities from which their patients come.

As long as PDSs see themselves primarily as institutions for turning out teachers, however skilled, there will be a tendency to feel accountable only to the producing partner and the hiring partner and possibly to some guardian 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 bring these neglected stakeholders 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; Kirnball, Swap, LaRosa, & Howick, 1995; Webb-Dempsey, 1997) offer many examples of the benefits of seeking guidance from children and parents about enablers of and constraints on learning.

A persistent concern for PDSs is the absence of substantial impact or out- come evaluation and documentation. The research we do have focuses mainly on outcomes for preservice and inservice teachers. Very little can be found in the literature about student outcomes (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a, 1998b; Teitel, 1998; Valli et al., 1997). PDS implementers have justifiable concerns about relying on conventional measures to assess student achievement, but there is scant evidence of efforts to develop alternative measures that inspire confidence. The practical consequences of continued neglect in this area are obvious. If we refocus PDS work on children and derive responsibility from that focus, then the moral and ethical implications of this neglect also become 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 those located in communities with large populations of children in need, have unique opportunities as well as awesome chal- lenges. Sewell, Shapiro, Ducette, and Sanford (1995) suggested, "The inner-city PDS is uniquely positioned to question contemporary educational theories and practices . . . It can expose the gap between democratic principles and the social realities reflected in the schools that constitute a micro- cosm of society" (p. 182). To be content with achieving only a portion of the mission is to neglect the possibilities and succumb to what Teitel (see Teitel, 1998) calls the "plateau" effect. Resisting this malady requires clear thinking about the purpose of partnership work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


There is currently relatively widespread agreement among improvement-minded groups of teacher educators that producing better teachers to ensure better schools requires a close collaboration of universities and school districts in developing partner or professional development schools. But for what? Partnerships are formed to bring together the total array of resources thought necessary to a shared purpose. The shared mission of the partnership for teacher education arises not out of teacher education but out of schooling. (Goodlad, 1998, p. 20)

Goodlad suggested that schools have a higher purpose than cranking out workers. Schools play a key role in socializing the young. Therefore, they have a moral purpose consistent with democratic ideals.

In clanfyYlg the purpose of schools and the role of PDSs in promoting that purpose, partnerships might engage in a form of "backwards assessment," which Kimball et al. (1995, p. 39) illustrated in their discussion of student learning in partner schools. Backwards assessment is based on the "planning backwards" model, which calls on school personnel to first consider what students should know and be able to do before restructuring curricula, sched- ules, student groupings, and other aspects of the school environment.

Taking this approach to defining PDS purpose, key questions then become, What kind of society do I want to live in? What kind of neighbor do I want to have? What kind of doctor, lawyer, or civil servant do I want to de- pend on? It is not only the poor and the disenfranchised who learn lessons from the hidden curriculum; children of privilege also learn them. They learn that it is acceptable to exclude, deny, and exploit those who are without power. When we who now labor in PDS vineyards are old, infirm, and possibly 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 persons to be caring, just, honest, and fair.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998a). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998b, October). Professional development schools. What do we know? What do we need to know? How do wefind out? Who do we tell? Paper presented at the National Profes- sional Development School Conference, Towson University, Towson, MD.

Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New York: Teachers College Press.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Nedeff, A. R. (1997). The worlds of a reader's mind: Students as authors. The Reading Teacher, 50,564-573.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., Hobbs, S., &Stokes, D. (1997). Professional development schools: Catalysts for teacher and school change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13,153-171.

Cal Poly goes to school: Partnerships. 1995annual report. (1995). San Luis Obispo: California Poly- technic State University, University Center for Teacher Education.

Clark, R. W. (1995). Evaluatingpartner schools. InR. T. Osguthorpe, R. C. Harris, M. F. Harris, & S. Black (Eds.), Partnerschools: Centers for educational renewal (pp. 229-262). San Francisco: . .

Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998, September). How can weensurea caring, competent, qual$ed teacher

for every child? Strategies for solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards. Pa- per prepared for Shaping the Profession that Shapes the Future: An AFT/NEA Conference on Teacher Quality, Washington, DC.

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

Fullan, M. (1995). Contexts: Overview and framework. In M. J. O'Hair & S. Odell (Eds.), Edu- cating teachers for leadership and change. Teacher Education yearbook 111 (pp. 1-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Convin.

Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., & Watson, N. (1998). The riseandstall of teacher education reform. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Galassi, J. P., Thornton, B., Sheffield, A., Bryan, M., &Oliver, J. (1998, Fall). Reachingagree- ment on advisory goals using a card sorting and a goal ranking approach: A professional development school inquiry. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22(1), 1-15.

Goodlad, J. I. (1998). Teacher education: For what? Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(4), 16-23. Guillaume, A., Zuniga, C., & Yee, I. (1998). What difference does preparation make? Educating

preservice teachers for learner diversity. In M. E. Dilworth (Ed.); ~ e i n ~ responsive to cultural diferences: How teachers learn (pp. 143-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hirsch, E. (1998). Recruitingquality teachers for the next centu y-State trends. Paper prepared for National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principlesfor the design of professional dewlopment schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Izquierdo, E., Ligons, C., & Erwin, B. (1998). Preparing teachers for a culturally pluralistic society. Restructuring TexasTeacher Education Series, No. 6. Austin: State Board for Educator Cer- tifica tion.

Kimball, W. A., Swap, S. M., LaRosa, P. A., & Howick, T. (1995). Improving student learning. In R. T. Osguthorpe, R. C. Harris, M. F. Harris, & S. Black (Eds.), Partner schools: Centers for educational renewal (pp. 23-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawson, H. A. (1996). &anding the Goodlad agenda: Interprofessional education and community collaboration in service of vulnerable children, youth, and families. Holistic Educa- tion Review, 9,20-34.

Levine, M. (1998a). Appendix: Draft standards for professional development schools. In M. Levine (Ed.), Designing standards that work for professional development schools (pp. 193-210). Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Levine, M. (1998b). Designing standards that work for professional development schools. In - .

M. Levine (Ed.), Designing standards that work for professional development schools (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Ligons, C. M., Rosado, L. A., &Houston, W. R. (1998). Culturally literate teachers: Preparation for 21st century schools. In M. E. Dilworth (Ed.), Being responsiw to cultural d~ferences: How teachers learn (pp. 129-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Convin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Lipman, P. (1997). Restructuring in context: A case study of teacher participation and the dynamics of ideology, race, and power. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 3-38.

McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: A n introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of educa- twn (3rd 4.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1994, Fall). Somebody knows my name (Issues in Restructuring Schools Is- sue Report No. 7, pp. 9-11). University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Education, Cen- ter on Organization and Restructurinp: of Schools.

Murrell, P. ~y(l998). Like stone soup: he roTe of the professional development school in the renewal of urban schools. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Murrell, P. C., & ~ o r u n d i M. (1997). Thecultural and communitypolitics ofeducational equity: To- ward a newframeworkof professional development schools. 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 PDSs: Schools as professional learning communities. A proposal based on an analysis of PDS efforts of the 1990s. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 227)

Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Re- view, 64(4), 392-426.

Nieto, S, & ~ o l o n , C. (1997). Preparation and professional development of teachers: A perspective from two Latinas. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers a d learners (pp. 89-124). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Pedunan, E. (1992). The child as meaning maker: The organizing principle for professional practice schools. In M. Levine (Ed.), Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school refonn (pp. 25-62). New York: Teachers College Press.

the Resta, V. K. (1998). Professional development schools as a catalystfor reform. Restructuring Texas Teacher Education Series, No. 2. Austin: State Board for Educator Certification.

Sewell, T. E., Shapiro, J. P., Ducette, J. P., & Sanford, J. S. (1995). Professional development schools in theinner city: Policy implications for school-university collaboration. 1n H. G. Petrie (Ed.), Professionalization, partnership, and power: Building professional development schools (pp. 179-197). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Shen, J. (1994, February). A study in contrast: Viswns of preservice teacher education in the context of aprofessional dmlopment school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American As- sociation of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser- vice No. ED 368 677)

Teitel, L. (1998). Professional development schools: A literature review. In M. Levine (Ed.), De- signing standards that workfor s e s s iona l development schools (pp. 33-80). washington; DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Teitel, L., Reed, C., & O'Connor, K. (Eds.). (1997). Institutionalizing professional development schools. Unpublished manuscript. National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

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

Valli, L. (1994, April). Professional development schools: An opportunity to reconceptualize schools and teacher education as empowering learning communities. Paper presented at the Intema- tional Seminar on Teacher Education annual meeting, Maastricht, The Netherlands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 484)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

I. Abdal-Haqq

Valli, L., Cooper, D., & Frankes, L. (1997). Professional development schools and equity: A critical analysis of rhetoric and research. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education 22 (pp. 251-304). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Vision statement: Professional Development School Network. Purposes, commitments, and enabling conditions for professional development schools. (1993). PDS Network News, 1 (I), 3-6.

Webb-Dempsey, J. (1997). Reconsidering assessment to be reflective of school reform. In N. E. Hoffman, W. M. Reed, & G. S. Rosenbluth (Eds.), Lessonsflorn restructuring experiences: Stories of change in professional development schools (pp. 269-294). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Wilder, M. A. (1995). Professional development schools: Restructuring teacher education programs and hierarchies. In H. G. Petrie (Ed.), Professionalization, partnership, and power: Build- ing professional development schools (pp. 253-268). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 133-175). New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeichner, K., & Miller, M. (1997). Learning to teach in professional development schools. In M. Levine & R. Trachtrnan (Eds.), Making professional development schools work: Politics, practices, and policy (pp. 15-29). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

5:10

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Unraveling the Professional Development School Equity Agenda