Traditionally, most districts and states have expected teachers in the elementary grades to be generalists. Despite the accumulating evidence cited throughout this report that teachers need a deep knowledge and understanding of science and mathematics to teach these subjects effectively at any grade, education programs for people who teach in the primary grades typically emphasize and reinforce the notion of elementary teachers as non-specialists. Even in states that now require prospective elementary school teachers to major in a discipline other than education, few opt for majors in science or mathematics. Many reports have suggested, however, that teachers of all grade levels must understand deeply the subject matter that they teach and use this knowledge to teach what is appropriate to students at different grade levels (pedagogical content knowledge) if they are to be effective in the classroom (Shulman, 1987).
The idea that subject area specialists might be needed in elementary schools is not new. Following the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), subsequent conversations among education specialists and members of professional disciplinary societies led to the development of additional recommendations. For example, participants at a 1993 conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the NCTM, and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research recommended that, in elementary schools, specialist teachers of mathematics teach all mathematics beginning no later than grade 4 and supervise mathematics instruction at earlier grade levels (Romberg, 1994).
In recent years, many elementary schools and their districts have begun to address the disconnect between how elementary school teachers have been prepared to teach science and mathematics and the critical need for teachers who have the knowledge and acumen to work effectively with younger children in these subject areas. A number of strategies have emerged. They include
-
recruiting teachers who have majored in science or mathematics to teach these subjects at the elementary level (similar to their counterparts in the secondary grades and, increasingly, in the middle grades). Because many science or mathematics majors have decided to enter teaching late in their undergraduate years or thereafter, many of these students may opt to teach in private schools where certification is not required;
-
training current employees or hiring teachers who can serve as content specialists in these subject areas. Depending on the size of the school or district, these content specialists may be responsible for teaching most of the science program in a school and may even travel among schools to do so (similar to teachers of art or music);
-
establishing “teaching pods” consisting of several teachers and the students they teach within a school. In this system, every teacher oversees one class of students. One teacher in the pod may take primary responsibility for teaching science or mathematics while other teachers focus on other subject areas. Depending on the school, teachers may rotate among the classes in the pod over the course of a day or several days. Conversely, if one classroom has been specially constructed for science, teachers may remain in a given classroom throughout the day while students rotate among the classrooms.
The issue of preparing content and pedagogical specialists in science and mathematics for teaching in the elementary grades persists, however. While elementary schools are being held increasingly responsible for improving teaching and learning in these disciplines, many current and prospective elementary school teachers continue to dislike and eschew teaching them. Given the current situation, it is difficult not to conclude that improvement in teacher preparation programs would help. For example, in a seminal report, the National Center for Improving Science Education (Raizen and Michelsohn, 1994) reported that one characteristic of effective elementary preservice teacher preparation is close professional collaboration among science faculty, education faculty, and experienced elementary school teachers. Raizen and Michelson went on to recommend at least informal collaboration between individuals and institutions on issues such as distribution requirements for students in teacher education programs.
On the basis of that report and subsequent recommendations from many other organizations, (e.g., NRC, 1996a, 1999h; NSF, 1996; ACE, 1999), it seems clear that joint planning of courses in pedagogy or science course content by science, mathematics, and engineering faculty, education faculty in these disciplines, and local classroom teachers should occur regularly. Even more desirable would be programs that integrate science content courses, methods courses, and field experiences. Such programs also could include some form of collaborative research in which university faculty and classroom teachers investigate a problem focused on improving student learning or increasing the impact of a new curriculum.
Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) mentioned Professional Development Schools as the type of setting where such collaborative program planning, implementation, and research could take place. In PDS settings, experienced elementary school teachers can be both active and coequal partners with university faculty and work with student teachers. In this kind of environment, elementary school teachers can contribute greatly to a more well-rounded teacher education program.
The kinds of data discussed in this chapter and throughout this report make clear that teacher education, recruitment, and professional development in the United States must develop new ways of doing business. The education and policy communities need to reach consensus about systems for teacher education and recruitment that, like the medical school model, can be adopted nationally and adapted by states and localities to guide and support new teachers through their first crucial years on the job. The various stakeholders in teacher education also must find better ways to provide experienced teachers with meaningful, intellectually engaging opportunities for continual professional growth. At the same time, officials in schools and districts must recognize the emerging consensus that well-prepared teachers are critical for raising student achievement and should avoid the temptation to hire and staff their classrooms with unqualified or out-of-field teachers when personnel shortages loom.4 Further, in light of the research findings presented throughout this report, school administrators and policymakers should find ways to utilize teachers in those subject areas where they exhibit strength, interest, and training. Teachers should not be asked to teach subjects outside of their areas of competence and interest even though their certification may allow them to do so. If teachers are asked to move to teaching in those other subject areas, then additional professional development should be a prerequisite for doing so.
The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future has concluded that just as businesses and industries invest in the development of their employees, so must schools, schools systems, and policymakers invest in the ongoing education and professional development of teachers. Educators from preschool through university, parents, citizens, and students all must come to see themselves as essential stakeholders in the decisions and policies that affect the quality of education in America (Fuhrman and Massell, 1992).
Data from research and successful practice are demonstrating that it is critically important for certain groups of individuals and organizations to become actively engaged in the process of teacher education. At a minimum, these groups include faculty in mathematics, and the life, physical, and earth sciences in both two-year and four-year colleges, as well as teachers and administrators in K-12 schools. Collaborative partnerships appear to be particularly effective ways to realize improved teacher education, particularly when they involve scientists, mathematicians, and faculty from schools of education from two- and four-year colleges and universities and teachers from participating school systems (AAAS, 1989; MAA, 1991; NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1989, 1990, and 1996a; NSTA, 1998).
of learning by students. First, the professional community’s level of effort, commitment, and input in a school can have significant effects on student achievement. Support from the larger community in which a school is located also can make a critical difference in the success of teachers and their students. This larger community includes the policymakers, superintendents, district administrators, teacher unions, faculty and administrators from local colleges and universities, individual school staff, and other members of the community, such as leaders of local businesses and industry. It also includes scientists and mathematicians outside of academe, who can bring their understanding and everyday applications of science and mathematics concepts and skills to K-12 teaching and learning improvement. When these institutions work together as a whole, make decisions that are supportive and collegial, and invest the time and money that it takes to make a concrete impact on education, teachers are afforded the opportunity to greatly enhance their teaching practice.
Second, this enhancement in teaching practice, in turn, appears to influence positively the scholastic achievement of students and their attitudes towards learning. In schools where teachers reported higher levels of collective responsibility for student learning, learning was greater in science, mathematics, reading, and history (Newmann and Wehlage, 1995).
Third, the comprehensive approach to teacher education appears to be promising. Professional Development Schools and similar collaborative programs attempt to address teacher preparation, professional development, and student learning holistically. They encourage teacher educators and prospective teachers to see themselves as students of learning as well as students of teaching. Research suggests that teachers who develop this level of professionalism are better able to respond to the constant and fluctuating demands of their jobs. McCullough and Mintz (1992), Lampert and Ball (1998), and McIntyre et al. (1996) all have pointed to the need for preservice preparation that encourages reflective practice. For example, McIntyre et al. (1996) concluded, “Student teachers within this framework view teaching as ongoing decision-making rather than as a product or recipe. These student teachers learn that significant education must present learners with relevant problematic situations in which the learner can manipulate objects to see what happens, to question what is already known, to compare their findings and assumptions with those of others, and to search for their own answers.”
In summary, the committee has concluded that the collaborative and holistic perspective on teacher education and student learning represented by Professional Development Schools epitomizes what is required for comprehensive teacher education. The attributes exhibited by PDS programs and other similar collaborative efforts should be viewed as integral components of all teacher education programs.
This is not enough, however. Based on its two years of study, the committee also has concluded that improvement of teacher education for science, mathematics, and technology will require greater levels of cooperation among the various stakeholders than is currently the case even among Professional Development Schools. Sustainable change will require some fundamental rethinking of the roles and strengths of each of the organizations involved in the partnerships, including the allocation or reallocation of human and financial resources from each of the partners. In the next chapter of this report, the committee presents its broad vision for improving teacher education, including concepts for how those who are involved in teacher education might rethink and redefine their roles. Recommendations for implementing this vision conclude the main report.
Source: http://books.nap.edu/
