ED 162 977.

AUTHORTITLE -

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTE

AVAIkABLE FROM

EDRS PRICE.DESCRIP;ORS

DOCUMENT _RESUME

. SP013 362

Keable, EugeniaAt Last, Teacher Centers That Are Really forTeachers. A Discussion of the New' Federal TeacherCentex Iegislaticn and What It 'Can ?lean toTeachers.American Federatiog of Teacherlashingtcn, D.C.7812p..; Prepared in corjuncticn with the bark .of the.AFT Teacher Center Advisory Group.

.

cirole, N.V., Washingtcn, L.C. 20036 (Item . 5958American Federation -oft Teachers/API/CIO, litipont

$0.158 12 for $1.00)

MF-$0.83 Bc-$1.t7 Plus: Postage.*Educational Change; *Educational Needs; *Federallegislation; Inservice SeacHtr Educaticr; InternshipPrograms; *Teacher. Certers; *Teacher'Utication;Teacher Improvement

ABSTRACT .8

This report reviews tie new teacher cntetlegislation, points cut problems.the.existing centerS hateencountered, examines how the centers can ieet sanyeducaticnalneeds, discusses the relation of teacher certers to preservice andinternship programs, and outlines how a 'teacher-center could be setup. It is emphasized that the-legislaticn can be an invaluable tool-in educa/ional reform. {DS)

##############################*###############M*314#*#3144*####*##**W.* ReprodUctiois supplied by

'

EDRS are the best that car,be made- ..** - from the original dccument. . *

4r.

ro

I ....,

N.as . ill!, LAST, TEACHER' CENTERSrt. .THAT 11Rt REALLY FOR TEACHERS

A

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS,

MATERbAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION'CENTER (ERIC) AND.

USERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM,"

BY EUGENIA HEMBLE,

SPECIP. ISSISTI:iNT TO THE r)(ESIDENT

PREPRRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORK OF THE

RFT TEACHER CENTER RDVISOFY GROUP

4

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

' EDUCATION & WELFARENiTIONAL INSTITUTE OF

tD14CATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-

DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON OR *ORGANIZATION ORIGIN:.

ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-

SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

,EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

01

V"'

a

The Aft Teacher Center Advisory Group was created by theAmerican,Federation of Teachers Executive Councit in

February of 1977. The group is composed of key leaders fromvarious sections of the country who have expertise on the

subject of teacher centers. They serve as a)resource to localsworking on the development of teachers centers and offer

advice and information, to the Executive Councilon the-subject.

ANIMAS OF Mt TEROfin CENTER ADVISORY GROUP

Zito J., RremanGreat Neck,' New YorkProf. Richard ilossons

Professional Siaff.CongivsS, New York CityMarion T. Crawford.Gary Teachers Uniin.

Rod DavisFEA United, Florida. Thomas Peaky

Chicago Teachers UnionSandra Feldman

United Federation of Teachers, New York City, AFT Vice PresidentJames Garbedna

Phitadelphia Federation of Teachersfraricis M.' Martin

Massahusetts Federation of TeachersIMargarst Tuovilla p

Detroit Federation of Teachers, j;

.. Jacqueline Vaughn'.Chicago Teachers Union, AFT Vii e President

Lynwood Williamson .Washing ton.Teacheri Union'

a

The essential na of teaching ihas noty ch ec very much in the last .cen

ttxry. The conditiOns are *different, thanksto unions.-There is 'also a wider variety ofteaching technologies to choose fromnew math or old-math, for example. Butteachers still live an isolated worldng life.Their professional time is spent almost en-trely with students. ,They learn whatworks primarily through trial and. error.And, only they hay.e any real sense Of theirmost important successes--'-successeswith individUal stud,ents tha,t can rarelybemeasured.

That first terrorizing day of total respon-sibility fora class, 'alone, is one that is wellknown to every teacher. To succeed atteaching is to collie through .a rigorous

chief ess hap-ie thejudg ,he school cipal.

Haviptliftssed the initial test the teacherfaceg `61.44more of the same. Freedom toNiork:pitk,ately is highly valued because itminimizes. the threat of obierVance and-prOvide0-:the Vreatest leeWay for personalfulfillment There is nothing in teachereducatiOn that forestalls these devel-

, opmen.fs. There i notliing. in tlie struc-ture of 'Schools and their adniinistratOnthat will encotiage these conditions tochange.

None of theseforms thatare periodically)Areamed up breducation schools orgov-ernment officials have taken this aspect ofthe teacher's life into' account:Most havecome in tht 'form of pressures on the

.

eacher to pr9duce more, such as perform -.ce contracting or performance-basedcher certification. Or, they have repre-,ted basic shifts in the substance ofterials teachers have to work with,career education, environTental ed-

don, aesthetic education, kid Manyer curricular fads. Because all of these

have failed to examine the essence..brteaching--or ev.en to fairly 'take it into

ecount they have. either remained bothocuous and ineffective, or have been

ickly abandoned' as irrelevant failures.Teachers know these. things. Some of

the better education studies have docu-mented them. Robert Dree,ben's The Na-ture of Tedching and Dan- Lorde's School-teacher thoroughly discuss the lack ofcollegiality among:teachers; the waysteacher preparation establishes this pat-tern; and the 'picture of the individualclassroom as an isolated "cell." A majorstudy by the Rand Corporation, FederalPrograms Supporting EducationalChange, found -that innovations, onlytook root in school districtsivhere teacherswere most involved in 'their` developmentand implementation,It is really sUrpris-ing, then, that/re-forms have mar(agedto ignore thes issuesuntil now. erhapsit is bec se noneof them ave real--Iy. em rged fromteachers' demandsfor.c ange. Nor havethe accepted the

basic logic of teachers' defensive posture,against reformthe vulnerability thatcomes with isolation.

One difference with teacher centers as areform idea is that teachers have asked forthem. Another is that one of their essentialcharacteristics is teacher sharing, whichgoes to the heart of the teacher isolationproblem,. Last, and most important, is thatteacher centers are by definition an inno-vation that is cOntrplled by teachers them-selves. As long Ito as 1971, AmericanFederation of Teachers President AlbertShanker wrote in his New York Times col-umn that teacher centers modeled aftertheir British counterparts could greatlyenrich the professional lives of teachers byenabling them to share, skills and experi-ences with one another. Other Americeducators, enamored of the open education approach "to learning in the ear-grades, also picked up on the idea. Buttheir minds the centers could servevehicle for proselytizing open educe,philosophy.

A flurry of activity focusing on teachercenters ensued, but teacher organi dons

were effective rele-gated to the' Periph-ery of the movementby those in controlof money sources.Proposals for fund-ing model teachercenters, submittedby the union tomajor private foun-dations like Fordand Carneiie; were

"Teacher centers are first and foremost

for teachers who are on the job rightnow. As places where teachers can shareideas, develop new approaches, meetwith specialists and coach each other,teacher centers will provide the first

opportunity teachers have had to growand develop in ways that they choose."

turned down. A-report to the Office of Edu-cation from the Teachers National FieldTask. Force, which included many teacherorganization representatives, recom-me/Wed that federally-sponsored teachercenters be teacher-controlled. But whenthe Office of Eththation finally decided tosupport some centers, the entities thatwere,created were dominated by state andlocal administratiVe bureaucracies.. So,even though the American Federation ofTeachers was instrumental in populariz-ing the idea in this country, without out-side money it was not in a Position.to play aleading role.

EXISTING CENTERS

HAVE MANY PROBLEMS

With the 'help of the same foundationsand the same federal bureaucrats that hadignored the union; teacher centers beganspringing up around the country. 'Beforelong the National Inkittite of Educationwas supportingssomething its staff called"networking." NIE enabled centers tokeep in touch 'with each, other througli acentral clearinghouse operation called, theTeachers'. Centers Exchange located, at.the Far West Regional Laboratory in Sari

'Francisca. The problem was that theseearliest centers lacked any representative,teacher control: They .did normally reflectwhat the profession at large wanted. As aresult many,of the centers that haAemerged out ofthisearly stage of teacher.center 'development, suffer from commonproblems. Among them are:

A heavy emphasis on the' needs of

.elementary school tea, ers; in particular,activities concentrateIl on making. thingsby working with erials. Secondaryteachers have rare' crcvn much i nterestin, these centers and .their programs gen:erally ,offer little at that :level. .

Creation of the ,Onier by individualswho have a particular, educational philos-ophy and therefore tend to constrict centerprograms to meet their biases. The resultis service to a limited number of teachers.who tend to have a similar point of view.

O Instability growing. from insecurefunding:.

Lack of effective -needs assessmentrnecha.nisms-tpat alight enable centers to&raw up programg that, setvic,t latoadly:varying.v;roups of teachers:

Failure to.implement effeet/ve evalttatolls that triigh show'some concrete evi-dence of the importance of their work. AS a,result many school district's. in ithich these

1/4

centers operate remain unconirinced. oftheir ;value. . .

. Insufficient staff dile to fundingshortage.'

I. Governance Mechanisms, that aremore eXchtsive than inclusive. Very reWoperating centers have working rela-,tionshjps with th union representing'teachers in their area and fe* hav'ebothered trying to establish them. - -

In the fall of 1976 the work that the-A.FT,and others ha±done to press for a federal'(each& center bill finally wan success. Aspart of the ,Education Amendments. of.'1976, Congress authoriied,a new teachercenter law that provided up to $60 million'in federal funds for centers run by pdlicY

boards,corriposed ofa majority chers.A last-minute effort by repre e tatives of

'teacher college's,. who believed that the bill,represented a political threat to their turffailed, and a new and potentially largeSource of federalfunds for teacher centerswas created.

Passage of the, bill represented a cleardeparture in the developnent.ofAmericanteacher centers,. Willie the role of organi!zations awaited Clarification, the maingovernance question had been resolved!Teachers would control the new centers.The hodgepodge of establishmentscallingthemselves teacher Centersmany ofwhich simply amounted,gfo. extensions ofsate.departments of education or univer-sities -,.were faced with a strong new deft;nition of teacher centers. Teacher' centers .

that received. funds under .the new bill:would be places where:'teaCliers had themajority voice. Most center' would befunded throtigh local education" agencies,though up to 10 percent of appropriatedfunds could go to institutions of highereducation. Baal centers would be run bypolicyboards and' all policy boards .wouldhave a majority ofteacher members.

Unfortunately thenew bill was. not,warmly gieeted in allquarters that migtit.be .expected to havean interest in it. Notonly were the -col-TPleges wary, but manyof the new centersthat had received life

'I

from foundations and the Officetof Educa-tion were worried.that they would have toturn their centers over to teachers in orderto get funds. In'something of a last gasp on'the subject, the Ford Foundation spon-sored a conference that collected. a largenumber of activists from these centers atthe University of Chicago in June of 1977. ,

The atmosphere arrio,ng participants waslaigely despondent. Most seemed to viewthe new bill as4 threat gather than as thebasis for majorreform of inservice educa-

. don fot teachers. Rather than figuring outhow to 'adapt to the requisites of the newbill, most had come to the conclusion thatthey -Were not going to be part of the actionand had written the whole enterprise' offtheir slate of interests.

The American Federation' or Teachersbegan. developing its reSpanse .to the bill.'shortly after it was passed: The ExecutivbCoUncil of the AFT_named a ten-memberTeacher Cell. ter Advisory Group comliosedof teacher leaders from around the count7experienced' with the issue. The group's.purpose was to develop policy recommen=dations On teacher centers; to monitor the

federal regulations.drafted to accom-pany the bill; and togenerally act as asource of expertisefor locals interestedin establishing cen-t ers. Unfortunatelylow appropriation for

, 'the first year .01 the.Y z Irnplementa-.

tion, accompanied,

"Passage of the bill represented a cleardeparture in the development of

American teacher centers. While the roleof organizations awaited clarification,

the main governance question had beenresolved. Teachers would control the new

canters."

by generalchaos in an Office of Educatibnreorganized by a new Administration, hasslowed the momentum for establishingnew centers somewhit. But, the first-yearwill still be keg, since basic directions andpurposes will be determined by the earliestcenters funded.

Directions and purposes might well bebasedon the history of British teacher cen-ters. While the term tenter centercan beapplied to almost anything, as the experi-ence in this 'country demonstrates, themajor purposes set forth by the Britishcenters fall into two broad categories: cur;riculum development, and a more-generalprofes-sional growth and inservice educa-don emphasis that could take many forms.The curriculum decelopment functionwas really the basis for the establishmentof many of the earliest British teacher cen-ters. The idea was to teach BritishteacherS, through centers, about newlydeveloped Nuffield: Math materials.Curridulum-oriented centeriwere also setup in conjunction. with Britain's new com-prehensive sdhools. According :to RobertThornbury, who heads the SherbrookeTeachers' Centre7in Londori, centers were

established tr the more general professionit purposeV of attracting teachersto difficult urban teaching, and supportingthem once they got there. Revitalizingteacher 'education was still another, all-encompassing purpose.

So far, talk and action .on teacher centersin this-couritry have not focised much oncurriculum development. At this stage inour experience, lack of movementin thisarea is probably advisable since the focus

of attention might easily become divertedinto imposing .particul4 curricula' onteachers, rather than allowing the initiateLives to come from them.

HANDICAPPED, TESTING--MAJOR AREAS OF NEED

Yelt; teacheis hale immediate needsthat demand the specialized attentionteacher centers could provide. Basic skillsin the areas of reading and math are obvi-ous firsts. In the fall'of 1977 the Education,for All Handicapped Children Act goes intoeffect. And, necessary as it is for ourschools to educate handicapped children,provisions of the law requiring placementof children in "the least restrictiveenvironment" which, fopthe most part,will mean regular classroomsand re-qUirenaents for the development of indi-.vidualized education plans,for each child,will tax teachers and school systems .

greatly. Teacher centers could provide aninvaluable source of support and sharedinformation for teachers as this new law iv-implemented.

Another issue of concern is the mini-mum competency movement whichseems to be sweeping the country,' state 13Tstate, along with an emphasis on tests andaccountability plans. Teacher centerscould devote' program and consultationtime to the subject of testshow they canbe used; how they are limited; and whatconstitutes a rnisuse,of testsreither forin-dividual children,. for school systems, orfor states. .

Problem areas like these are ones in

which all educationall personnel, whetherguidance couns*rs1 p4raprofessionals orsubject area specialists, will want to,par-ticipate. Centers should be open to all, ofthem .so that insights can be-shared acrossfunctional lines. In fact, centers might beviewed as agencies of consolidation whenif comes to educational training for feder-ally funded. specialties handicappedbilingual, and vocational education aswell as education for the, dis*Ivantaged,(Title I, ESEA).

These are the immediate problems andeveryday practicalities that teacbeh need.help with. But they should not daw atten-tion away' from the second area ofimportanceteacher centers as agents ofreforining inservice teacher.education. Tobegin with, teachers themselves want in-.service education programs changed.And, such reforin maybe even more possi-ble now, given current characteristics, ofthe teaching for6e. For one thing, the de-clining enrollrnenrin our nation's schoolshas meant a. decline in teaching jobs aswell. This, 'together with high unemploy-ment among the general population,, hasmeant Jess teacher turnover; a slightlyolder teacher' work force than previously;and greater likelihood ihat teachers willremain in the job for longer periods of timesince, fel.y,er other jobs are available tothem. A stable and expeilenced teachingpopulation is likely to be even more de-manding of quality inservice educationthan one undergoing continuous shiftsand changes. Certairily'teachers who haveplans to stay on the job for longer periods oftine will be. more concerned with their

pwri professiohal renewal than transient.teachersprovided they are .not thieat-ned by vindictive evaluations'or accotin-,

tability schemes. Such teachers not onlywant teacher centers as a better source ofinservice 'education, they are -also morelikely to be receptive to the new ideas that;teacher centers produce. ..

Geraldine Joncich Clifford develops theargument relating refctImpossibilities toteacher stability in her bo6k, the Shape ofAmerican Education:

" . those disposed toward educational, inno-vation cannot exercise influence unless they',retained in teaching . .

". . it is unfair and unrealistic to'expect perpetual beg'Inners to initiate and sustain thc burdenof professionaklevelopment. It. would be 'better ifthe most creative and innovative teachers were re-tained and given tip seniority and recognition thatwould allow their efforts to gain exposure and influ-ence outside their own classrooms; to affect teach-ing generally. ,

". . brief' careers militate against the .con-sumption of research on teaching, and against sis-tematic efforts to improve education. They also .

limit the pool of potential leaders . . ."

Luckily, teacher centers are beginningto gain popularity at a time when theteaching population is stable and whenthe demand for quality inservice teachereducationis surpassing that for preserviceteacher preparation. Federal programs,

Teacher Corps have reflected. this byshifting. their emphasis toward inservicetraining. But these pluses are somewhatneutralized by the fears of the teacher col-leges. Some education schools have ven-tured into newconcentrations on inserviceprograms, but the process of changingemphasis has been slow, and less than in-

spired. Since teacher centers are an out-growth of the demand for inservice re-form, and because teacher control is aninherent part of their definition, the xe-sponse of schools of education to .the newidea has been unenthusiasticthe com-mon reaction being one of suspicion thatteacher organizations and their stress oninservice education will combine to putcolleges out of business This is an attitudethatneeds to be chang/d if teacher centersare tch succeed.

It is true that while colleges of educationhave been foot-dragging eve as theylethargically befnoan the declining en-rollment picture, teachers have moved into take a leadership role. But the colleges'fears are really unwarranted. To 'beginwith, if teachers' isolation is to be -onefocus of attention, the preservice role ofeducation schools in encouraging this willrequire examination as well. Ideally,teacher centers will be a catalyst for. re-forming ihservice staff development in re-lation to preservice, preparation. Onereally cannot be changed without theother. To do this effectivel educationschools must be a partof the enterprise. DanLortie pinpoints the.problem in his bookSchoolteacher:

"Their (teachers) pro-fessional training, inshort, ha not linked re-current 'dilemma& toavailable knowledge or toconde'n.sations of reality(e.g., eases, simulations)where such issues are de-

..

liberated. The repudiation of past experienCe con-joins with intellectual isolktion (a historical featureof teacher training produce curricula whieh ex-toll the highest virtues but fail to cope with routinetactical and strategic problems. It is small wonder,then, that teachers are not inclined to see them-selves as sharing in a common "memocy" or techni-cal .subculture. Since they have not received suchinstruction, they.are forced to fall back on individualrecollections, which, in turn are not displaCed bynew perspectives. Such a pattern encouragei a con-ception of teaching that is individualistic ra*erthan .a collegial enterprise."

TEACHER CENTERS, INTERNSHIPS

GO- HAND IN HAND

One' logical way to connect reforM inpreservice education with changes in in-service development would be-to requirethat all beginning teachers undergo an in-ternship patterned after the medical in-ternship for doctors.-Prospective teacherswould obtain preliminary certificationandthen spend their -first years of teachingwith .a partial workroad. The rest of theirtime would be spent in consultations withe 'enced teachers and in maintaining

F course work and ad-visory ties with theirpreparatory colleges,An internship' forteachers requiresthat colleges providekey transitional sup-

. port. It is a role thatcould be played out.P

. best on the neutralterritory of a teachercenter.

p

Institutions of higher education are cen-tral to. the 'functioning of teacher cen-ters whether not internship is involved.Their staffs can give workshops in the

'center and act as advisors to teachers who.request 'such services. Arrangements caneven' be ,worked out where universitycredits are awarded for work done in cen-ters; To put it simply, universities can'build their own work into' the new centersin ways that will expand, rather than di-minish their current services. They canand should be part of a reform that sweepsfrom. preservice through inservice devel-opment.

The world of.researCh is another that-Should. recognize the potential of teachercenters.-Teacher centers will provide anew arena for the work of researchers aswell as a vehicle for disseminating theirresults. The attitude of disdain mostteachers feel toward researchers might bemodified somewhat if teachers and re-searchers used teacher centers as a meet-.ing grounda place to explore research .

neeff as well as discuss research results.Worthwhile findings could be introduceddirectly to teachers as one way of translat-ing usable research data into real practice.

While reforming teacher education anddisseininatipg research are importantbyproducts Of the growth of teacher ten-:ters which may be unwelcome to teacher..educa tors br go unnoticed bye researchers,they are not the-most important aspect ofthe concept. Teacher centers are first andforemost for teachers who are on the jobright now.. As places where teachers canshare ideas, develop new approaches,

meet with *specialists and coach eachother, teachercenters will pro,vide the firstopportunity teachers li'ave had to grow anddevelop in ways that they choose. Sinceteacherthemselvts will have the cOntrol-lirig vbite, centers will be viewed as non,.threatening and .supportiVe. The begin-ning teacher who is, floundering can gothere to seek advice and know it will notbecome a part of'hi or 'her professionalrecord. "Grp3..ips of teachers- who watut to .trysomething new odethraSli it out at thecenter, asking for help, from whomeverthey choose. If a teacher is curious about anew reading approach he or she may beable to find out about it atithe center. Theprospect of mainstreaming a number ofhandicapped children into"aregular clasg-room may seem impossible until one cango and see where .anothetteacher hasdoneit. The center can help teachers with spe-cial needs and talents find each other.

What could emerge from this process iscommon understanding among teachersof what the .knowledge and Oa base fortheir profession really isthat thread ofshared experiencerthat can unify teachersand instill pride in teaching. Teachershave never had either the freedom or theopportunity to do this before. It will givethem the kind of professional control thatnow exists for other professions, and theself-respect that goes with it. If teachercenters succeed, teaching may no longerbe as isolated -and as anxiety-ridden acareer as it now is. There will be a place togo where problems can be solvedwherethose developing new ideas have theteachers who make them work in mind.

,. .

A Teacher CenterAdvisory Group wasestablished by. theAFT's Exec:utiveCouncil in Februaryof1977 and met thatspring to developstrategy, and rec-ommendations forAFT locals in imple-menting the new bill.Its advice follows: ,

If yours is a local that decides to work onsetting up a teacher center you may:wantto take these steps: / . .1

Obtain agreement from your board of. education that all planning in relation. toteacher, centers will,be.done in consulta-tion with the union and lhatiteacher repre-sentatives to the. policy board will benominated by the union.

Contactnstitutions of higher educa-tion you can work with andmake the samepoints. Encourage them to participate,and make clear to .them that they have arole in ce ter activities.

1 Deve p some clear notions ()lithe bestways f teacher centers to. serviceteachers-in your area given the existing'patterns of .inserVice teacher education,the particular problems of the school sys-tem in which they work, the compositionof the teaching staff and the special nee6of students in the district. :

Make contact with all of the officialsat the local and state level w.ho. will beinvolved in developing and approving theplan. Under the lawfall proposals must beapproved at the state level before they are

1 2

v

sent on to the Officeof Educatioh;

Obtain a copy ofthe federaLregula-tions fqr the teacher

II center bill from the,Office of Education,and study them care.-fully. Proposals will be,judged in terms of apoint system outlined,

- in the regulations.- ,

Proposals are submitted by local edu-cation agencies. Make sure yqu haveplayed a role in developing whatever is.submitted and that it meets the needs: ofteachers. You may want' to surveyteachers to find out what kinds of servicesthey really want:

I. Try to obtain agreemeht from yoiirboard of education That teachers will getreleased time for. participating in centeractivities. Policy board 'members shouldbe released for their work on bOard. ac-tivities.

Try to avoid a war with either yourschool board.or the colleges the center maywant to draw on. It is more likelY that cen-,tern will get funded in places where'reIa-tionships are stable andacommunieation isgood: *. ;

Remember that a limited amount offunds will be provided in the first year ofthe bill's implementation: Make a carefulassessment of what your chances forfund-ing are before you start. Everfschool,temithat applies will not ix' funded.. If youhave any questions, caathe AFT,NationalOffice. .

.