constructing 21st-century teacher educationconstructing 21st-century teacher education linda...

10.1177/0022487105285962Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. XX, XXX/XXX 2006Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. XX, XXX/XXX 2006

CONSTRUCTING 21st-CENTURY TEACHER EDUCATION

Linda Darling-HammondStanford University

Much of what teachers need to know to be successful is invisible to lay observers, leading to the viewthat teaching requires little formal study and to frequent disdain for teacher education programs. Theweakness of traditional program models that are collections of largely unrelated courses reinforce thislow regard. This article argues that we have learned a great deal about how to create stronger, more ef-fective teacher education programs. Three critical components of such programs include tight coher-ence and integration among courses and between course work and clinical work in schools, extensiveand intensely supervised clinical work integrated with course work using pedagogies linking theoryand practice, and closer, proactive relationships with schools that serve diverse learners effectivelyand develop and model good teaching. Also, schools of education should resist pressures to waterdown preparation, which ultimately undermine the preparation of entering teachers, the reputationof schools of education, and the strength of the profession.

Keywords: field-based experiences; foundations of education; student teaching; supervision; theo-ries of teacher education

The previous articles have articulated a spectac-ular array of things that teachers should knowand be able to do in their work. These includeunderstanding many things about how peoplelearn and how to teach effectively, including as-pects of pedagogical content knowledge that in-corporate language, culture, and communitycontexts for learning. Teachers also need to un-derstand the person, the spirit, of every childand find a way to nurture that spirit. And theyneed the skills to construct and manage class-room activities efficiently, communicate well,use technology, and reflect on their practice tolearn from and improve it continually.

The importance of powerful teaching isincreasingly important in contemporary soci-ety. Standards for learning are now higher thanthey have ever been before, as citizens andworkers need greater knowledge and skill tosurvive and succeed. Education is increasinglyimportant to the success of both individuals and

nations, and growing evidence demonstratesthat—among all educational resources—teach-ers’ abilities are especially crucial contributorsto students’ learning. Furthermore, thedemands on teachers are increasing. Teachersneed not only to be able to keep order and pro-vide useful information to students but also tobe increasingly effective in enabling a diversegroup of students to learn ever more complexmaterial. In previous decades, they wereexpected to prepare only a small minority forambitious intellectual work, whereas they arenow expected to prepare virtually all studentsfor higher order thinking and performanceskills once reserved to only a few.

Given this variety of teacher education goalsand the realities of 21st-century schooling, thetask for this article is to consider what those ofus in the field of teacher education might do tosupport the kinds of learning teachers require toundertake this complex job with some hope of

1

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. X, Month 2006 1-15DOI: 10.1177/0022487105285962© 2006 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

success. In responding to this question, I want todraw on the recently released work of theNational Academy of Education Committee onTeacher Education, a group of researchers,teachers, and teacher educators that worked for4 years to summarize how what we have cometo know about how children and adults learncan inform the curriculum and design of teachereducation programs (Darling-Hammond &Bransford, 2005).1

The National Academy of Education Com-mittee’s report begins with this description:

To a music lover watching a concert from the audi-ence, it would be easy to believe that a conductor hasone of the easiest jobs in the world. There he stands,waving his arms in time with the music, and the or-chestra produces glorious sounds, to all appear-ances quite spontaneously. Hidden from theaudience—especially from the musical novice—arethe conductor’s abilities to read and interpret all ofthe parts at once, to play several instruments and un-derstand the capacities of many more, to organizeand coordinate the disparate parts, to motivate andcommunicate with all of the orchestra members. Inthe same way that conducting looks like hand-wav-ing to the uninitiated, teaching looks simple from theperspective of students who see a person talking andlistening, handing out papers, and giving assign-ments. Invisible in both of these performances arethe many kinds of knowledge, unseen plans, andbackstage moves—the skunkworks, if you will, thatallow a teacher to purposefully move a group of stu-dents from one set of understandings and skills toquite another over the space of many months.

On a daily basis, teachers confront complex deci-sions that rely on many different kinds of knowledgeand judgment and that can involve high-stakes out-comes for students’ futures. To make good decisions,teachers must be aware of the many ways in whichstudent learning can unfold in the context of devel-opment, learning differences, language and culturalinfluences, and individual temperaments, interests,and approaches to learning. In addition to founda-tional knowledge about these areas of learning andperformance, teachers need to know how to take thesteps necessary to gather additional informationthat will allow them to make more grounded judg-ments about what is going on and what strategiesmay be helpful. Above all, teachers need to keepwhat is best for the child at the center of their deci-sion making. This sounds like a simple point but it isa complex matter that has profound implications forwhat happens to and for many children in school.(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, pp. 1-2)

CONTEMPORARY DILEMMAS FORTEACHER EDUCATION

Both the apparent ease of teaching to thenoninitiated and the range of things teachersreally do need to know to be successful with allstudents—not just those who can learn easily ontheir own—are relevant to the dilemmas thatteacher education programs find themselves intoday. On one hand, many lay people and alarge share of policy makers hold the view thatalmost anyone can teach reasonably well—thatentering teaching requires, at most, knowingsomething about a subject, and the rest of thefairly simple “tricks of the trade” can be pickedup on the job.

These notions—which derive both from alack of understanding of what good teachersactually do behind the scenes and from tacitstandards for teaching that are far too low—lead to pressures for backdoor routes into teach-ing that deny teachers access to much of theknowledge base for teaching and often, to thesupervised clinical practice that would providethem with models of what good teachers do andhow they understand their work. It is tragic thatindividuals who are likely to be seduced intoteaching through pathways that minimize theiraccess to knowledge are those who teach high-need students in low-income urban and ruralschools where the most sophisticated under-standing of teaching is needed.

On the other hand, the realities of what ittakes to teach in U.S. schools such that all chil-dren truly have an opportunity to learn arenearly overwhelming. In the classrooms mostbeginning teachers will enter, at least 25% ofstudents live in poverty and many of them lackbasic food, shelter, and health care; from 10% to20% have identified learning differences; 15%speak a language other than English as their pri-mary language (many more in urban settings);and about 40% are members of racial/ethnic“minority” groups, many of them recent immi-grants from countries with different educa-tional systems and cultural traditions.

Not only is the kind of practice needed toteach students with a wide range of learningneeds an extremely complex, knowledge-intense undertaking—demanding of extraordi-

2 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. XX, XXX/XXX 2006

nary personal and professional skills—but alsoU.S. schools rarely support this kind of practice.In contrast to schools in high-achieving Euro-pean and Asian countries, American factory-model schools offer fewer opportunities forteachers to come to know students well duringlong periods of time and much less time forteachers to spend working with one another todevelop curriculum, plan lessons, observe anddiscuss teaching strategies, and assess studentwork in authentic ways. As the National Acad-emy of Education Committee on Teacher Edu-cation observed, “Many analysts have notedthat there is very little relationship between theorganization of the typical American school andthe demands of serious teaching and learning”(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, p. 4).

Thus, schools of education must design pro-grams that help prospective teachers to under-stand deeply a wide array of things about learn-ing, social and cultural contexts, and teachingand be able to enact these understandings incomplex classrooms serving increasinglydiverse students; in addition, if prospectiveteachers are to succeed at this task, schools ofeducation must design programs that trans-form the kinds of settings in which novices learnto teach and later become teachers. This meansthat the enterprise of teacher education mustventure out further and further from the univer-sity and engage ever more closely with schoolsin a mutual transformation agenda, with all ofthe struggle and messiness that implies. It alsomeans that teacher educators must take up thecharge of educating policy makers and the pub-lic about what it actually takes to teach effec-tively in today’s world—both in terms of theknowledge and skills that are needed and interms of the school contexts that must be createdto allow teachers to develop and use what theyknow on behalf of students (Fullan, 1993).

Strides were made on both of these agendasin the late 1980s when the Holmes Group (1986,1990) issued the first of its reports, the CarnegieForum on Education and the Economy TaskForce on Teaching as a Profession (1986) out-lined a major agenda for professionalizingteaching, and the National Network for Educa-tional Renewal was launched (Goodlad, 1990,

1994). Many important reforms of teacher edu-cation that have since taken place owe much ofthe impetus to these initiatives. These havestrengthened both the subject matter and peda-gogical preparation teachers receive (and thecontent pedagogical preparation that joins thetwo), introduced professional developmentschool (PDS) partnerships that have sometimeschanged the nature of schooling along withtraining for teaching, and created signaturepedagogies and more authentic assessments forteacher education that link theory and practiceand are beginning to change the ways in whichteachers are taught.

However, in recent years, under pressurefrom opponents of teacher education and withincentives for faster, cheaper alternatives (see,e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2002),teacher education as an enterprise has probablylaunched more new weak programs thatunderprepare teachers, especially for urbanschools, than it has further developed the stron-ger models that demonstrate what intense prep-aration can accomplish. As a result, beginningteacher attrition has continued to increase(National Commission on Teaching and Amer-ica’s Future, 2003), and the teaching force isbecoming increasingly bimodal. Althoughsome teachers are better prepared than theyever were before, a growing number who servethe most vulnerable students enter teachingbefore they have been prepared to teach and areincreasingly ill prepared for what they mustaccomplish (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).In addition, teacher educators seem to have losttheir voice in arguing for—and helping toshape—the kinds of schools and education thatwill allow teachers to practice well and childrento learn and thrive.

Thus, I would argue that teacher educators,as a professional collective, need to work moreintently to build on what has been learnedabout developing stronger models of teacherpreparation—including the much stronger rela-tionships with schools that press for mutualtransformations of teaching and learning toteach—while resisting the pressures and incen-tives that lead to the creation of weaker modelsthat ultimately reinforce dissatisfaction with the

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. XX, XXX/XXX 2006 3

outcomes of teacher education and underminethe educational system.

BUILDING STRONG MODELS OFPREPARATION

Although reform initiatives have triggeredmuch discussion about the structures of teachereducation programs (e.g., 4 year or 5 year,undergraduate or graduate) and the certifica-tion categories into which programs presum-ably fit (e.g., “traditional” or “alternative”),there has been less discussion about what goeson within the black box of the program—insidethe courses and clinical experiences that candi-dates encounter—and about how the experi-ences programs design for candidates cumula-tively add up to a set of knowledge, skills, anddispositions that determine what teachersactually do in the classroom.

Knowledge for Teaching:The “What” of Teacher Education

There are many ways of configuring theknowledge that teachers may need. In articulat-ing the core concepts and skills that should berepresented in a common curriculum forteacher education, the National Academy of Ed-ucation Committee on Teacher Educationadopted a framework that is organized on threeintersecting areas of knowledge found in manystatements of standards for teaching (see Figure1):

knowledge of learners and how they learn and developwithin social contexts, including knowledge of lan-guage development;

understanding of curriculum content and goals, includ-ing the subject matter and skills to be taught in lightof disciplinary demands, student needs, and the so-cial purposes of education; and

understanding of and skills for teaching, including con-tent pedagogical knowledge and knowledge forteaching diverse learners, as these are informed byan understanding of assessment and of how to con-struct and manage a productive classroom.

These interactions between learners, content,and teaching are framed by two important con-ditions for practice: First is the fact that teachingis a profession with certain moral and technical

expectations—especially the expectation thatteachers, working collaboratively, will acquire,use, and continue to develop shared knowledgeon behalf of students. Second is the fact that, inthe United States, education must serve the pur-poses of a democracy. This latter conditionmeans that teachers assume the purpose of en-abling young people to participate fully in polit-ical, civic, and economic life in our society. Italso means that education—including teach-ing—is intended to support equitable access towhat that society has to offer.

The implications of this framework forteacher education are several: First, like thework of other professions, teaching is in the ser-vice of students, which creates the expectationthat teachers will be able to come to understandhow students learn and what various studentsneed if they are to learn more effectively—andthat they will incorporate this into their teach-ing and curriculum construction. Deep under-standing of learning and learning differences asthe basis of constructing curriculum has not his-torically been a central part of teacher educa-tion. These domains were typically reserved topsychologists and curriculum developers whowere expected to use this knowledge to developtests and texts, whereas teachers learned teach-ing strategies to implement curriculum that waspresumably designed by others. In some ways,this approach to training teachers was ratherlike training doctors in the techniques of sur-gery without giving them a thorough knowl-edge of anatomy and physiology. Withoutknowing deeply how people learn, and how dif-ferent people learn differently, teachers lack thefoundation that can help them figure out whatto do when a given technique or text is not effec-tive with all students. And teachers cannotachieve ambitious goals by barreling from onelesson to the next without understanding howto construct a purposeful curriculum. Thisrequires incorporating subject matter goals,knowledge of learning, and an appreciation forchildren’s development and needs. Connectingwhat is to be learned to the learners themselvesrequires curriculum work, even when teachershave access to a range of texts and materials.


Furthermore, the work of teaching, like thatof other professions, is viewed as nonroutineand reciprocally related to learning; that is,what teachers do must be continually evaluatedand reshaped based on whether it advanceslearning, rather than carried out largely by cur-riculum packages, scripts, and pacing sched-ules as many districts currently require. Thismeans that teachers need highly refined knowl-edge and skills for assessing pupil learning, andthey need a wide repertoire of practice—alongwith the knowledge to know when to use differ-ent strategies for different purposes. Ratherthan being subject to the pendulum swings ofpolarized teaching policies that rest on simplis-tic ideas of best practice—“whole language”versus “phonics,” for example, or inquiry learn-ing versus direct instruction—teachers need toknow how and when to use a range of practicesto accomplish their goals with different stu-

dents in different contexts. And given the widerange of learning situations posed by contem-porary students—who represent many distinctlanguage, cultural, and learning approaches—teachers need a much deeper knowledge baseabout teaching for diverse learners than everbefore and more highly developed diagnosticabilities to guide their decisions.

Finally, teachers must be able continually tolearn to address the problems of practice theyencounter and to meet the unpredictable learn-ing needs of all of their students—and theymust take responsibility for contributing whatthey learn to not only their own practice but alsothat of their colleagues. This means that pro-grams must help teachers develop the disposi-tion to continue to seek answers to difficultproblems of teaching and learning and the skillsto learn from practice (and from their col-leagues) as well as to learn for practice.


FIGURE 1: A Framework for Understanding Teaching and LearningSOURCE: Darling-Hammond & Bransford (2005, p. 11). PERMISSION IS BEING OBTAINED BY AUTHOR

These expectations for teacher knowledgemean that programs need not only to provideteachers access to more knowledge, consideredmore deeply, but also to help teachers learn howto continually access knowledge and inquireinto their work. The skills of classroom inquiryinclude careful observation and reasoned anal-ysis, as well as dispositions toward an open andsearching mind and a sense of responsibilityand commitment to children’s learning(Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Preparing teachers asclassroom researchers and expert collaboratorswho can learn from one another is essentialwhen the range of knowledge for teaching hasgrown so expansive that it cannot be masteredby any individual and when students’ infinitelydiverse ways of learning are recognized asrequiring continual adaptations in teaching.

Program Designs and Pedagogies:The “How” of Teacher Education

Although it is important to have well-chosencourses that include core knowledge for teach-ing, it is equally important to organize prospec-tive teachers’ experiences so that they can inte-grate and use their knowledge in skillful waysin the classroom. This is probably the most diffi-cult aspect of constructing a teacher educationprogram. Teacher educators must worry aboutnot only what to teach but also how, so thatknowledge for teaching actually shapes teach-ers’ practice and enables them to become adap-tive experts who can continue to learn.

Accomplishing this requires addressingsome special—and perennial—challenges inlearning to teach. Three in particular stand out.First, learning to teach requires that new teach-ers come to understand teaching in ways quitedifferent from their own experience as students.Dan Lortie (1975) called this problem “theapprenticeship of observation,” referring to thelearning that takes place by virtue of being a stu-dent for 12 or more years in traditional class-room settings. Second, learning to teach alsorequires that new teachers learn not only to“think like a teacher” but also to “act as ateacher”—what Mary Kennedy (1999) hastermed “the problem of enactment.” Teachers

need not only to understand but also to do awide variety of things, many of them simulta-neously. Finally, learning to teach requires thatnew teachers be able to understand andrespond to the dense and multifaceted nature ofthe classroom, juggling multiple academic andsocial goals requiring trade-offs from momentto moment and day to day (Jackson, 1974). Theymust learn to deal with “the problem of com-plexity” that is made more intense by the con-stantly changing nature of teaching andlearning in groups.

How can programs of teacher preparationconfront these and other problems of learningto teach? A study examining seven exemplaryteacher education programs—public and pri-vate, undergraduate and graduate, large andsmall—that produce graduates who are ex-traordinarily well prepared from their first daysin the classroom finds that despite outward dif-ferences, the programs had common features,including:

• a common, clear vision of good teaching that perme-ates all course work and clinical experiences, creat-ing a coherent set of learning experiences;

• well-defined standards of professional practice andperformance that are used to guide and evaluatecourse work and clinical work;

• a strong core curriculum taught in the context ofpractice and grounded in knowledge of child andadolescent development and learning, an under-standing of social and cultural contexts, curriculum,assessment, and subject matter pedagogy;

• extended clinical experiences—at least 30 weeks ofsupervised practicum and student teaching oppor-tunities in each program—that are carefully chosento support the ideas presented in simultaneous,closely interwoven course work;

• extensive use of case methods, teacher research, per-formance assessments, and portfolio evaluation thatapply learning to real problems of practice;

• explicit strategies to help students to confront theirown deep-seated beliefs and assumptions aboutlearning and students and to learn about the experi-ences of people different from themselves;

• strong relationships, common knowledge, andshared beliefs among school- and university-basedfaculty jointly engaged in transforming teaching,schooling, and teacher education (Darling-Hammond, in press).

These features confront many of the core di-lemmas of teacher education: the strong influ-ence of the apprenticeship of observation


candidates bring with them from their years asstudents in elementary and secondary schools,the presumed divide between theory and prac-tice, the limited personal and cultural perspec-tives all individuals bring to the task ofteaching, and the difficult process of helpingpeople learn to enact their intentions in complexsettings. They help produce novice teacherswho are able, from their first days in the class-room, to practice like many seasoned veterans,productively organizing classrooms that teachchallenging content to very diverse learnerswith levels of skill many teachers never attain.

In addition to the deeper knowledge base Ihave described above, such powerful teachereducation, I believe, rests on certain criticallyimportant pedagogical cornerstones that havebeen difficult to attain in many programs sinceteacher education moved from normal schoolsinto universities in the 1950s. I would like tohighlight three of these here because I thinkthey are essential to achieving radically differ-ent outcomes from preparation programs.

Coherence and Integration

The first is a tight coherence and integrationamong courses and between course work andclinical work in schools that challenges tradi-tional program organizations, staffing, andmodes of operation. The extremely strongcoherence extraordinary programs haveachieved creates an almost seamless experienceof learning to teach. In contrast to the many cri-tiques that have highlighted the structural andconceptual fragmentation of traditional under-graduate teacher education programs (see, e.g.,Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990; Howey &Zimpher, 1989; Zeichner & Gore, 1990), coursework in highly successful programs is carefullysequenced based on a strong theory of learningto teach; courses are designed to intersect witheach other, are aggregated into a well-under-stood landscape of learning, and are tightlyinterwoven with the advisement process andstudents’ work in schools. Subject matter learn-ing is brought together with content pedagogythrough courses that treat them together; pro-gram sequences also create cross-course links.Faculty plan together and syllabi are shared

across university divisions as well as withindepartments. Virtually all of the closely interre-lated courses involve applications in class-rooms where observations or student teachingoccur. These classrooms, in turn, are selectedbecause they model the kind of practice that isdiscussed in courses and advisement. In someparticularly powerful programs, faculty whoteach courses also supervise and advise teachercandidates and sometimes even teach childrenand teachers in placement schools, bringingtogether these disparate program elementsthrough an integration of roles.

In such intensely coherent programs, coreideas are reiterated across courses and the theo-retical frameworks animating courses andassignments are consistent across the program.These frameworks “explicate, justify, and buildconsensus on such fundamental conceptions asthe role of the teacher, the nature of teaching andlearning, and the mission of the school in thisdemocracy,” enabling “shared faculty leader-ship by underscoring collective roles as well asindividual course responsibilities” (Howey &Zimpher, 1989, p. 242).

Programs that are largely a collection of unre-lated courses without a common conception ofteaching and learning have been found to be rel-atively feeble change agents for affecting prac-tice among new teachers (Zeichner & Gore,1990). Cognitive science affirms that peoplelearn more effectively when ideas are reinforcedand connected both in theory and in practice.Although this seems obvious, creating coher-ence has been difficult in teacher educationbecause of departmental divides, individualis-tic norms, and the hiring of part-time adjunctinstructors in some institutions that have usedteacher education as a “cash cow” rather thanan investment in our nation’s future. Fortu-nately, a number of studies of teacher educationreform document how programs have over-come the centrifugal forces that leave candi-dates on their own to make sense of disparate,unconnected experiences (Howey & Zimpher,1989; Patterson, Michelli, & Pacheco, 1999;Tatto, 1996; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon,1998).


Extensive, Well-Supervised Clinical ExperienceLinked to Course Work Using Pedagogies ThatLink Theory and Practice

The second critically important feature thatrequires a wrenching change from traditionalmodels of teacher education is the importanceof extensive and intensely supervised clinicalwork—tightly integrated with course work—that allows candidates to learn from expertpractice in schools that serve diverse students.All of the adjectives in the previous sentencematter: Extensive clinical work, intensive super-vision, expert modeling of practice, and diversestudents are critical to allowing candidates tolearn to practice in practice with students whocall for serious teaching skills (Ball & Cohen,1999). Securing these features will take radicaloverhaul of the status quo. Furthermore, to bemost powerful, this work needs to incorporatenewly emerging pedagogies—such as closeanalyses of learning and teaching, case meth-ods, performance assessments, and actionresearch—that link theory and practice in waysthat theorize practice and make formal learningpractical.

One of the perennial dilemmas of teachereducation is how to integrate theoreticallybased knowledge that has traditionally beentaught in university classrooms with the experi-ence-based knowledge that has traditionallybeen located in the practice of teachers and therealities of classrooms and schools. Traditionalversions of teacher education have often hadstudents taking batches of front-loaded coursework in isolation from practice and then addinga short dollop of student teaching to the end ofthe program—often in classrooms that did notmodel the practices that had previously beendescribed in abstraction. By contrast, the mostpowerful programs require students to spendextensive time in the field throughout the entireprogram, examining and applying the conceptsand strategies they are simultaneously learningabout in their courses alongside teachers whocan show them how to teach in ways that areresponsive to learners.

Such programs typically require at least a fullacademic year of student teaching under thedirect supervision of one or more teachers who

model expert practice with students who have awide range of learning needs, with the candi-date gradually assuming more independentresponsibility for teaching. This allows prospec-tive teachers to grow “roots” on their practice,which is especially important if they are goingto learn to teach in learner-centered ways thatrequire diagnosis, intensive assessment andplanning to adapt to learners’ needs, and a com-plex repertoire of practices judiciously applied.

Many teacher educators have argued thatnovices who have experience in classrooms aremore prepared to make sense of the ideas thatare addressed in their academic work and thatstudent teachers see and understand both the-ory and practice differently if they are takingcourse work concurrently with fieldwork. Agrowing body of research confirms this belief,finding that teachers-in-training who partici-pate in fieldwork with course work are betterable to understand theory, to apply conceptsthey are learning in their course work, and tosupport student learning (Baumgartner,Koerner, & Rust, 2002; Denton, 1982; Henry,1983; Ross, Hughes, & Hill, 1981; Sunal, 1980).

It is not just the availability of classroomexperience that enables teachers to apply whatthey are learning, however. Recent studies oflearning to teach suggest that immersing teach-ers in the materials of practice and working onparticular concepts using these materials can beparticularly powerful for teachers’ learning.Analyzing samples of student work, teachers’plans and assignments, videotapes of teachersand students in action, and cases of teachingand learning can help teachers draw connec-tions between generalized principles and spe-cific instances of teaching and learning (Ball &Cohen, 1999; Hammerness, Darl ing-Hammond, & Shulman, 2002; Lampert & Ball,1998).

It is worth noting that many professions, in-cluding law, medicine, psychology, and busi-ness, help candidates bridge the gap betweentheory and practice—and develop skills of re-flection and close analysis—by engaging themin the reading and writing of cases. Many highlysuccessful teacher education programs requirecandidates to develop case studies on students,


on aspects of schools and teaching, and on fami-lies or communities by observing, interviewing,examining student work, and analyzing datathey have collected. Proponents argue thatcases support both systematic learning fromparticular contexts as well as from more gener-alized theory about teaching and learning.Shulman (1996) suggested that cases are power-ful tools for professional learning because theyrequire professionals in training to

move up and down, back and forth, between thememorable particularities of cases and the powerfulgeneralizations and simplifications of principlesand theories. Principles are powerful but cases arememorable. Only in the continued interaction be-tween principles and cases can practitioners andtheir mentors avoid the inherent limitations of the-ory-without-practice or the equally serious restric-tions of vivid practice without the mirror ofprinciple. (p. 201)

These benefits of connecting profession-wideknowledge to unique contexts can also begained by the skillful use of tools such as portfo-lios, teachers’ classroom inquiries and research,and analyses of specific classrooms, teachers, orteaching situations when teacher educatorsprovide thoughtful readings, guidance, andfeedback.

Although it is helpful to experience class-rooms and analyze the materials and practicesof teaching, it is quite another thing to put idealsinto action. Often, the clinical side of teachereducation has been fairly haphazard, depend-ing on the idiosyncrasies of loosely selectedplacements with little guidance about whathappens in them and little connection to univer-sity work. And university work has often been“too theoretical”—meaning abstract and gen-eral—in ways that leave teachers bereft of spe-cific tools to use in the classroom. The theoreti-cally grounded tools teachers need are many,ranging from knowledge of curriculum materi-als and assessment strategies to techniques fororganizing group work and planning studentinquiries—and teachers need opportunities topractice with these tools systematically(Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999).

Powerful teacher education programs have aclinical curriculum as well as a didactic curricu-lum. They teach candidates to turn analysis into

action by applying what they are learning incurriculum plans, teaching applications, andother performance assessments that are orga-nized on professional teaching standards.These attempts are especially educative whenthey are followed by systematic reflection onstudent learning in relation to teaching andreceive detailed feedback, with opportunities toretry and improve. Furthermore, recentresearch suggests that to be most productive,these opportunities for analysis, application,and reflection should derive from and connectto both the subject matter and the students can-didates teach (Ball & Bass, 2000; Grossman &Stodolsky, 1995; Shulman, 1987). In this way,prospective teachers learn the fine-grained stuffof practice in connection to the practical theoriesthat will allow them to adapt their practice in awell-grounded fashion, innovating andimprovising to meet the specific classroomcontexts they later encounter.

New Relationships With Schools

Finally, these kinds of strategies for connect-ing theory and practice cannot succeed withouta major overhaul of the relationships betweenuniversities and schools that ultimately pro-duce changes in the content of schooling as wellas teacher training. It is impossible to teach peo-ple how to teach powerfully by asking them toimagine what they have never seen or to sug-gest they “do the opposite” of what they haveobserved in the classroom. No amount of coursework can, by itself, counteract the powerfulexperiential lessons that shape what teachersactually do. It is impractical to expect to prepareteachers for schools as they should be if teachersare constrained to learn in settings that typifythe problems of schools as they have been—where isolated teachers provide examples ofidiosyncratic, usually atheoretical practice thatrarely exhibits a diagnostic, assessment-ori-ented approach and infrequently offers accessto carefully selected strategies designed to teacha wide range of learners well.

These settings simply do not exist in largenumbers—and where individual teachers havecreated classroom oases, there have been fewlong-lasting reforms to leverage transforma-tions in whole schools. Some very effective part-


nerships, however, have helped to create schoolenvironments for teaching and teacher train-ing—through PDSs, lab schools, and schoolreform networks—that are such strong modelsof practice and collaboration that the environ-ment itself serves as a learning experience forteachers (Darling-Hammond, in press;Trachtman, 1996). In such schools, teachers areimmersed in strong and widely shared culturalnorms and practices and can leverage them forgreater effect through professional studiesoffering research, theory, and information aboutother practices and models. Such schools alsosupport advances in knowledge by serving assites where practice-based and practice-sensi-tive research can be carried out collaborativelyby teachers, teacher educators, and researchers.

In highly developed PDS models, curriculumreforms and other improvement initiatives aresupported by the school and often the district;school teams involving both university andschool educators work on such tasks as curricu-lum development, school reform, and actionresearch; university faculty are typicallyinvolved in teaching courses and organizingprofessional development at the school site andmay also be involved in teaching children; andschool-based faculty often teach in the teachereducation program. Most classrooms are sitesfor practica and student teaching placements,and cooperating teachers are trained to becometeacher educators, often holding meetings regu-larly to develop their mentoring skills. Candi-dates learn in all parts of the school, not justindividual classrooms; they receive more fre-quent and sustained supervision and feedbackand participate in more collective planning anddecision making among teachers at the school(Abdal-Haqq, 1998, pp. 13-14; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Trachtman, 1996).

Some universities have sought to create PDSrelationships in schools that are working explic-itly on an equity agenda, either in new schoolsdesigned to provide more equitable access tohigh-quality curriculum for diverse learners orin schools where faculty are actively confront-ing issues of tracking, poor teaching, inade-quate or fragmented curriculum, and unre-sponsive systems (see, e.g., Darling-Hammond,

in press; Guadarrama, Ramsey, & Nath, 2002).In these schools, student teachers or interns areencouraged to participate in all aspects ofschool functioning, ranging from special educa-tion and support services for students to parentmeetings, home visits, and community out-reach to faculty discussions and projects aimedat ongoing improvement. This kind of partici-pation helps prospective teachers understandthe broader institutional context for teachingand learning and begin to develop the skillsneeded for effective participation in collegialwork concerning school improvementthroughout their careers.

Developing sites where state-of-the-art prac-tice is the norm is a critical element of strongteacher education, and it has been one of mostdifficult. Quite often, if novices are to see andemulate high-quality practice, especially inschools serving the neediest students, it is nec-essary not only to seek out individual cooperat-ing teachers but also to develop the quality ofthe schools so that prospective teachers canlearn productively. Such school development isalso needed to create settings where advancesin knowledge and practice can occur. Seekingdiversity by placing candidates in schools serv-ing low-income students or students of colorthat suffer from the typical shortcomings manysuch schools face can actually becounterproductive. As Gallego (2001) noted,

Though teacher education students may be placed inschools with large, culturally diverse student popu-lations, many of these schools . . . do not provide thekind of contact with communities needed to over-come negative attitudes toward culturally differentstudents and their families and communities(Zeichner, 1992). Indeed, without connections be-tween the classroom, school, and local communities,classroom field experiences may work to strengthenpre-service teachers’ stereotypes of children, ratherthan stimulate their examination (Cochran-Smith,1995; Haverman & Post, 1992), and ultimately com-promise teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom(Zeichner, 1996). (p. 314)

Thus, working to create PDSs that constructstate-of-the art practice in communities wherestudents are typically underserved by schoolshelps transform the eventual teaching pool forsuch schools and students. In this way, PDSs de-


velop school practice as well as the individualpractice of new teacher candidates. Such PDSssimultaneously restructure school programsand teacher education programs, redefiningteaching and learning for all members of theprofession and the school community.

Although not all of the more than 1,000school partnerships (Abdal-Haqq, 1998) createdin the name of PDS work have been successful,there is growing evidence of the power of thisapproach. Studies of highly developed PDSssuggest that teachers who graduate from suchprograms feel more knowledgeable and pre-pared to teach and are rated by employers,supervisors, and researchers as better preparedthan other new teachers. Veteran teachers work-ing in highly developed PDSs describe changesin their own practice and improvements at theclassroom and school levels as a result of theprofessional development, action research, andmentoring that are part of the PDS. Some stud-ies document gains in student performance tiedto curriculum and teaching interventionsresulting from PDS initiatives (for a summary,see Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, pp.415-416).

Although research has also demonstratedhow difficult these partnerships are to enact,many schools of education are moving towardpreparing all of their prospective teachers insuch settings both because they can more sys-tematically prepare prospective teachers tolearn to teach in professional learning commu-nities and because such work is a key to chang-ing schools so that they become more produc-tive environments for the learning of allstudents and teachers.

RESISTING PRESSURES TOWATER DOWN PREPARATION

Although heroic work is going on to trans-form teacher education and a growing numberof powerful programs are being created, morethan 30 states continue to allow teachers to enterteaching on emergency permits or waivers withlittle or no teacher education at all. In addition,more than 40 states have created alternativepathways to teaching—some of which are high-

quality postbaccalaureate routes and others ofwhich are truncated programs that short-circuitessential elements of teacher learning. Manycandidates who enter through emergency oralternative routes do not meet even minimalstandards when they start teaching, andresearchers have found that pressures to getthem certified in states where thousands arehired annually can undermine the quality ofpreparation they ultimately receive. In somestates, such as California and Texas, unlicensedentrants have numbered in the tens of thou-sands annually, hired to teach to the leastadvantaged students in low-income and minor-ity schools. Even when these candidates arerequired to make some progress toward alicense each year by taking courses for teachingwhile they teach, the quality of preparation theyreceive is undermined (Shields et al., 2001).

Institutions that train these emergency hirescannot offer the kinds of tightly integrated pro-grams described here in which candidatesstudy concepts and implement them with guid-ance in supported clinical settings. They areforced to offer fragmented courses on nightsand weekends to candidates who may neverhave seen good teaching and who have littlesupport in the schools where they work. Thepart-time instructors who are often hired toteach these courses are not part of a faculty-wide conversation about preparation, nor dothey have a sense of a coherent program intowhich their efforts might fit.

When these candidates work full-time, col-leges often water down their training to mini-mize readings and homework and focus on sur-vival needs such as classroom discipline ratherthan curriculum and teaching methods. Candi-dates often demand attention to classroommanagement, without realizing that their lackof knowledge of curriculum and instructioncause many of the classroom difficulties theyface (Shields et al., 2001). When they skip stu-dent teaching, colleges cannot weave goodmodels of teaching into courses that would con-nect theory and practice, and candidates canonly imagine what successful practice mightlook like.


Studies observe that both recruits and em-ployers typically find the outcomes of this kindof training less satisfactory than those of a morecoherent experience that includes supervisedclinical training along with more thoughtfullyorganized course work (California State Uni-versity, 2002; Shields et al., 2001), and many pro-grams that try to train candidates while theyteach have had extremely high attrition rates(Darling-Hammond, 2001). If medical schoolswere asked to develop programs for already-practicing doctors or nurses that would elimi-nate or truncate some courses and skip clinicalrotations and the internship entirely, theywould refuse to do so. However, universitiesparticipate in this kind of training for teachersfor many reasons:

They feel an obligation to help teachers who have foundtheir way into the classroom without proper train-ing;

They are required to do so by laws governing state-funded programs or encouraged to do so by federal,state, or local incentives to construct alternativepathways that train teachers while they teach;

They believe, like many policy makers, that this is theonly way to meet persistent supply problems, espe-cially in poor urban and rural districts; and

Such recruits are a source of money and may absorb lit-tle in the way of services for the tuition they pay.

In states where large numbers of individualsenter teaching in this way, most programs arepressured to bend to this mode of entry, gradu-ally eroding the quality of stronger programsthat have been developed. Programs experiencepressures to reduce the amount of time devotedto preparing teachers, to admit candidates onemergency licenses who then require a frag-mented program without student teaching, andto short-circuit clinical requirements that wouldallow candidates to learn to practice undersupervision.

The irony is that when institutions arecomplicit in cobbling together weak programs,even when they do so for the most helpful rea-sons—and when they do not speak out againstemergency hiring—the teacher educationenterprise as a whole is blamed for any and allteachers who are ill prepared, including thosewho entered teaching without preparation.

Few realize that rapidly producing poorlyprepared teachers for this system is a major partof the problem rather than a solution. The cur-rent practice is like pouring water into a bucketwith a gaping hole at the bottom. Aside fromtrue shortage fields such as mathematics andphysical science, the nation actually producesmore newly credentialed teachers each yearthan it hires. Most of the real problems thatappear as shortages have to do with teacher dis-tribution and retention, not production. In addi-tion to unequal funding and salary schedulesthat hamper poor urban and rural districts,many districts that hire underprepared teachershave cumbersome and dysfunctional hiringsystems or prioritize the hiring of unqualifiedteachers because such teachers cost less thanqualified teachers who have applied (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).

In these districts, teacher turnover is evenhigher than the already high rate elsewhere.Nationally, about one third of beginning teach-ers leave within 5 years, and the proportions arehigher for teachers who enter with less prepara-tion. For example, teachers who receive studentteaching are twice as likely to stay in teachingafter a year, and those who receive the kinds ofpreparation that include learning theory andchild development are even more likely to stayin teaching (Henke, Chen, & Geis, 2000; Luczak,2004; National Commission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future, 2003). The costs of thisteacher attrition are enormous. One recentstudy estimates that depending on the costmodel used, districts spend between US$8,000and US$48,000 in costs for hiring, placement,induction, separation, and replacement for eachbeginning teacher who leaves (Benner, 2000).On a national scale, it is clear that teacher attri-tion costs billions annually that could more pro-ductively be spent on preparing teachers andsupporting them in the classroom.

Anumber of states and districts have filled allof their classrooms with qualified teachers bystreamlining hiring, investing in strongerteacher preparation and induction, and equaliz-ing salaries (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).They have ended the practice of hiring unquali-fied teachers by increasing incentives to teach


rather than lowering standards. As Gideonse(1993) has noted in an analysis of teachereducation policy,

As long as school systems are permitted to hire un-der-prepared teachers through the mechanism ofemergency certificates and their equivalent, teacherpreparation institutions and the faculty in them willhave reduced incentives to maintain standards bypreventing the advancement of the marginally qual-ified to licensure. All the hype in the world aboutraised standards and performance-based licensureis meaningless absent a real incentive working onschool districts to recruit the qualified through salaryand improved conditions of practice, rather than be-ing allowed to redefine the available as qualified. (p. 404)

Whereas many countries fully subsidize anextensive program of teacher education for allcandidates, the amount of preparation securedby teachers in the United States is left substan-tially to what they can individually afford andwhat programs are willing and able to offergiven the resources of their respective institu-tions. Although many U.S. institutions are in-tensifying their programs to prepare moreeffective teachers, they lack the systemic policysupports for candidate subsidies and program-matic funding that their counterparts in othercountries enjoy. And in states that have not de-veloped induction supports, programs are con-tinually called on to increase the production ofnew recruits who are then squandered whenthey land in an unsupportive system that treatsthem as utterly dispensable.

In every occupation that has become a profes-sion during the 20th century, the strengtheningof preparation was tied to a resolve to end thepractice of allowing untrained individuals topractice. Teaching is currently where medicinewas in 1910, when doctors could be trained inprograms ranging from 3 weeks of training fea-turing memorized lists of symptoms and curesto Johns Hopkins University graduate school’spreparing doctors in the sciences of medicineand in clinical practice in the newly inventedteaching hospital.

In his introduction to the Flexner Report,Henry Pritchett (Flexner & Pritchett, 1910),president of the Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, noted that althoughthere was a growing science of medicine, most

doctors did not get access to this knowledge be-cause of the great unevenness in the medicaltraining they received. Pritchett observed that

very seldom, under existing conditions, does a pa-tient receive the best aid which it is possible to givehim in the present state of medicine, . . . [because] avast army of men is admitted to the practice of medi-cine who are untrained in sciences fundamental tothe profession and quite without a sufficient experi-ence with disease. (p. x)

He attributed this problem to the failure ofmany universities to incorporate advances inmedical education into their curricula.

As in teaching today, there were those whoargued against the professionalization of medi-cine and who felt that medical practice couldbest be learned by following another doctoraround in a buggy. Medical education wastransformed as the stronger programs Flexner(Flexner & Pritchett, 1910) identified becamethe model incorporated by accrediting bodiesand as all candidates were required to completesuch programs to practice. In a similar manner,improving teaching and teacher education inthe United States depends on not only strength-ening individual programs but also addressingthe policies needed to strengthen the teachereducation enterprise as a whole.

Although teacher education is only one com-ponent of what is needed to enable high-qualityteaching, it is essential to the success of all theother reforms urged on schools. To advanceknowledge about teaching, to spread goodpractice, and to enhance equity for children,thus, it is essential that teacher educators andpolicy makers seek strong preparation forteachers that is universally available, ratherthan a rare occurrence that is available only to alucky few.

NOTE1. The National Academy of Education Committee members

included James Banks, Joan Baratz-Snowden, David Berliner, JohnBransford, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, James Comer, Linda Darling-Hammond, Sharon Derry, Emily Feistritzer, Edmund Gordon,Pamela Grossman, Cris Gutierrez, Frances Degan Horowitz,Evelyn Jenkins-Gunn, Carol Lee, Lucy Matos, Luis Moll, ArturoPacheco, Anna Richert, Kathy Rosebrock, Frances Rust, AlanSchoenfeld, Lorrie Shepard, Lee Shulman, Catherine Snow,Guadalupe Valdes, and Kenneth Zeichner.


REFERENCESAbdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools:

Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content andpedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowingand using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple per-spectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp.83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. C. (1999). Developing practice,developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based the-ory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond& G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Baumgartner, F., Koerner, M., & Rust, F. (2002). Exploringroles in student teaching placements. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 29, 35-58.

Benner, A. D. (2000). The cost of teacher turnover. Austin:Texas Center for Educational Research.

California State University. (2002). First system wide evalua-tion of teacher education programs in the California StateUniversity: Summary report. Long Beach, CA: Office ofthe Chancellor.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy TaskForce on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation pre-pared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: CarnegieFoundation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing ourschools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12-17.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2005). Professional develop-ment schools: Schools for developing a profession (2nd ed.).New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (in press). Powerful teacher education:Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (with LePage, P.,Hammerness, K., & Duffy, H.). (2005). Preparing teachersfor a changing world: What teachers should learn and be ableto do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: Anational teacher supply policy for education: The rightway to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge.Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrievedfrom http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/

Denton, J. J. (1982). Early field experience influence on per-formance in subsequent coursework. Journal of TeacherEducation, 33(2), 19-23.

Flexner, A., & Pritchett, H. S. (1910). Medical education in theUnited States and Canada: A report to the Carnegie Founda-tion for the Advancement of Teaching. New York: CarnegieFoundation for the Advance of Teaching.

Fullan, M. (1993). Why teachers must become changeagents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 12-17.

Gallego, M. A. (2001). Is experience the best teacher? Thepotential of coupling classroom and community-basedfield experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312-325.

Gideonse, H. (1993). The governance of teacher educationand systemic reform. Educational Policy, 7(4), 395-426.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers,better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). Placeswhere teachers are taught. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999).Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoreticalframework for research on learning to teach. AmericanJournal of Education, 108(1), 1-29.

Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as con-text: The role of school subjects in secondary schoolteaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11, 23.

Guadarrama, I. N., Ramsey, J., & Nath, J. L. (Eds.). (2002).Forging alliances in community and thought: Research inprofessional development schools. Greenwich, CT: Infor-mation Age.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L.(2002). Toward expert thinking: How case-writing con-tributes to the development of theory-based profes-sional knowledge in student-teachers. Teaching Educa-tion, 13(2), 221-245.

Henke, R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through theteacher pipeline: 1992-93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

Henry, M. (1983). The effect of increased exploratory fieldexperiences upon the perceptions and performance ofstudent teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 5(1-2), 66-70.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of theHolmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for thedesign of professional development schools: Executive sum-mary. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1989). Profiles of preserviceteacher education: Inquiry into the nature of programs.Albany: State University of New York Press.

Jackson, P. W. (1974). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Kennedy, M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher educa-tion. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teach-ing as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and prac-tice (pp. 54-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, andmathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Luczak, J. (2004). Who will teach in the 21st century? Begin-ning teacher training experiences and attrition rates.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer-sity, Stanford, CA.


National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.(2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children.Washington, DC: Author.

Patterson, R. S., Michelli, N. M., & Pacheco, A. (1999). Cen-ters of pedagogy: New structures for educational renewal.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ross, S. M., Hughes, T. M., & Hill, R. E. (1981). Field experi-ences as meaningful contexts for learning about learn-ing. Journal of Educational Research, 75(2), 103-107.

Shields, P. M., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., Riel, L. M.,Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., et al. (2001). The sta-tus of the teaching profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: Centerfor the Future of Teaching and Learning.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Founda-tions of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S. (1996). Just in case: Reflections on learningfrom experience. In K. T. J. Colbert, P. Desberg, & K.Trimble (Eds.), The case for education: Contemporaryapproaches for using case methods (pp. 197-217). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Sunal, D. W. (1980). Effect of field experience during ele-mentary methods courses on preservice teacher behav-ior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 17-23.

Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs aboutteaching diverse students: Understanding the chal-lenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 18(2), 155-180.

Trachtman, R. (1996). The NCATE professional developmentschool study: A survey of 28 PDS sites. Washington, DC:National Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, June). Meeting thehighly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s annualreport on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Office ofPostsecondary Education.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A criticalanalysis of the research on learning to teach: Making thecase for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review ofEducational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. InW. R. Houston, M. Haberman, J. P. Sikula, & Associationof Teacher Educators (Eds.), Handbook of research onteacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: Anintroduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Linda Darling-Hammond is Charles E. DucommunProfessor of Education at Stanford University School ofEducation. She served as executive director of the NationalCommission on Teaching and America’s Future, whichproduced the 1996 widely cited blueprint for educationreform, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’sFuture. Her research, teaching, and policy work focus onteaching and teacher education, school restructuring, andeducational equity. She has been active in the developmentof standards for teaching, having served as a two-termmember of the National Board for Professional TeachingStandards and as chair of the Interstate New TeacherAssessment and Support Consortium Committee thatdrafted model standards for licensing beginning teachers.She is author of The Right To Learn (Jossey-Bass, 2001),A License to Teach (Jossey-Bass, 1999), and Profes-sional Development Schools: Schools for Developinga Profession (Teachers College Press, 2005), along withsix other books and more than 200 book chapters, journalarticles, and monographs on education.


constructing 21st-century teacher educationconstructing 21st-century teacher education linda...

Documents