| © 2012 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute | ||
| Terms of Use | Contact YNHTI | |
| This conference, hosted by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and made possible by the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund with further support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the National Endowment for the Humanities, brought together teams of representatives from 27 school- college partnerships from across the country. | |
| The key-note of the conference was diversity-of program, educational concern, political position, and personal point of view. Teachers and administrators from public and private universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, and demographically various public schools took this occasion to speak out-often with great passion-on the challenges and the opportunities for the collaborative movement. | |
| The results were provocative rather than definitive. To the most
urgent problems a variety of solutions were proposed. But the conference
itself was an important step in the direction of fuller communication and
strategic collaboration among programs of great diversity. It was also an
important demonstration that school-college partnerships, in a variety of
forms, are able to meet some of the most serious needs in our educational
system.
The conference was planned to address a series of issues: the content, process, and products of school-college collaboration; and the structure, evaluation, and financing of collaborative programs. In consultation with the programs planning to attend, the Teachers Institute laid out a sequence of sessions that would address these issues. It asked each program to suggest specific subtopics that should be taken up, and it distributed the responses as a 'de for discussion. Over the two days of the conference, however, a number of continuing themes emerged that deserve special mention: | The conference was an important demonstration that school college parterships are able to meet some of the most serious needs in our educational system. |
| Some participants appear to regard "content' and "pedagogy" as quite distinct areas of concern, and may even define their own programs as emphasizing one or the other. Others are convinced that every "content" field contains principles and procedures that provide major clues to "pedagogical" strategies, and that attention to "pedagogy" divorced from intellectual content is stultifying or self-deceptive. Indeed, some misunderstandings may have resulted from a hasty separation of these concepts from each other. Teaching in New Haven: The Common Challenge, a compilation of curriculum units developed in Teachers Institute seminars over the past fourteen years, suggested to some participants that the Yale program emphasizes "pedagogy," whereas in fact its seminars are devoted to the interrelations between the study of subject-matter fields and the needs of the classroom. Some faculty members from both schools and universities were quick to point out that if a subject-matter is understood as a field of inquiry and communication, this opposition disappears. In the final plenary session, Robin Winks, Professor of History at Yale, remarked that for the historian "teaching is research, and history is communicating." And in the same session Professor Jay Robinson, from the Center for Educational Improvement at the University of Michigan, argued that we must cease to think in terms of such easy and misleading oppositions as "content" and "pedagogy" or "teachers" and "administrators." Only then can we begin to understand the full resources for collaboration that are disguised by verbal and sometimes political distinctions between "schools" and "universities," "teachers" and "faculty," "teachers" and "principals"-or, for that matter, "liberal arts colleges" and "schools of education." | Jay Robinson argued that we must cease to think in terms of such easy and misleading oppositions as "content" and "pedagogy" or "teachers" and "administrators." |
| (figure available in print form) |
| Some participants are more optimistic than others about the possibility of interesting the public and private sectors in supporting collaborative programs. There seemed broad agreement, however, that enduring bases for programs must be found, and that they may require new accommodations among the partners. Tom Furtado of United Technologies spoke in some detail, for example, of resistances from schools in the Hartford area to offers of assistance from private industries active in scientific and technological fields. And yet participants from Cambridge, MA, urged that a fourway collaborationschools, colleges, community services, and businesseshad in their experience proven its success. It seems clear that even among programs committed to collaboration, mutual cooperation is often difficult. We must therefore find areas of common need and modes of mutual assistance. An electronic network? National seminars that would introduce selected teachers and possibly administrators to the process of a given program? Through more intimate and extensive acquaintance, we might yet build a national movement of some substance and power. | We might yet build a national movement of some substance and power. |
(figure available in print form)
| This panel, moderated by Thomas R. Whitaker, Professor of English at Yale, included also Peter P. Wegener, Professor Emertius of Engineering and Applied Science at Yale and five teachers from the New Haven schools: William J. Derry, Drama Teacher in the Comprehensive Arts Program; Lois Van Wagner, Science Teacher at East Rock School; Hermine E. Smikle, Mathematics Teacher at Roberto Clemente Middle School; Sylvia D. Ducach, Foreign Language Teacher at Betsy Ross Arts Magnet School; and Jane K. Marshall, English Teacher at Cooperative High School. Members of the panel spoke of how the Institute seminars are formed in response to teachers' needs and interests, offer courses of common reading, and provide contexts for the development of individual curriculum units. They spoke also of how the seminars offer models of community learning that can be replicated in the schools, how the writing process contributes to "teacher empowerment," and how individual units reflect the enthusiasm of teachers and meet the needs of students. The discussion touched upon the effect of these seminars upon Yale faculty, the possibility of enrolling teams of teachers from given schools, ways in which the enthusiasm of seminar members might spread to others, and the relations of individual curriculum units to other levels of instruction. | The panel spoke of how the Institute seminars are formed in response to teachers' needs and interests. |
| (figure available in print form) |
(figure available in print form)
(figure available in print form)
| Adele Seeff, Director of the Center Alliance for Secondary School Teachers and Texts, University of Maryland, College Park, chaired this session and began by describing the work of this "contentbased program," which assumes that teachers have the necessary skills in pedagogy and desire information about recent critical approaches to texts. Jeanette Gaffney, Foreign Language Teacher at Betsy Ross Arts Magnet School in New Haven, then spoke of "content" in relation to "pedagogy" in the Institute seminars. Leo Rockas, Professor of English at the University of Hartford described that university's Academy for Teachers, which emphasizes both pedagogy and content in courses that somewhat resemble the traditional extension program. The general discussion began with questions about how curricular units can remain fresh over the years, how they can be integrated into larger structures of learning, and how they may relate to mandated curricula. This led to some debate about tensions between standardized testing and individually developed units, and between the views of teachers and those of principals. Participants agreed that the most important results of teaching are not easily amenable to quantitative assessment. We need to develop ways of testing the ability to make connections, draw conclusions, and communicate the results of an investigation. | Participants agreed that the most important results of teaching are not easily amenable to quantitative assessment. |
(figure available in print form)
(figure available in print form)
| "The University's Neglected Task," an address by the Senior Adviser, Carnegie Corporation of New York, drew together many themes of the conference. Universities, he said, must recognize their obligation toward the entire scope of education in this country. Teachers will not act as professionals until they are treated as part of a profession. And faculties of arts and sciences, not just schools of education, must understand the need for a seamless fabric of education. Mr. Hechinger warned, however, that only one tenth of one percent of American faculties are now engaged in collaborative programs. The challenge to the universities is clear: those already converted to this cause must find ways of spreading the word among their colleagues. | Those already converted to this cause must find ways of spreading the word.
(figure available in print form)
| |
| The chair, Kelley O'Rourke, English and Social Studies Teacher at the Betsy Ross Arts Magnet School in New Haven, invited responses to the conference thus far. There were some negative comments: we are not getting anything specific to take away; we need more detail about how collaboratives were put together and funded; we need more small group discussions, more handson workshops. There were some constructive suggestions: the next conference should incorporate students, should be focused on more specifically defined problems encountered by programs. After deciding to sit in a circlewhich seemed more intimate and collaborative than the seats in rowsmembers of the caucus conversed more freely about a variety of issues. It was urged that networks be established to distribute the written products of the collaboratives. Others objected that the programs are so different that sharing might not be helpful. One participant spoke of problems that result from the hostility of principals and deans of instruction, and of the need to empower teachers. Those from New Haven said that teachers may already have more power than they realize, and that the Teachers Institute, which is effectively run by the teachers, had not recently encountered such opposition. Another participant complained that this was "just another meeting," which would not break down the walls between teachers and administrators or college faculties. "We should have time to talk, not just read another paper." But at this caucus such talk was given its chance. These and other issues seemed to point toward the desirability of other meetings that might focus on shared problems or specific strategies. | Those from New Haven said that teachers may already have more power than they realize. |
(figure available in print form)
(figure available in print form)
| This session, intended to focus on the "Progress Report on Surveys Administered to New Haven Teachers, 198290," turned out to be much broader. The chair, William Kessen, Professor of Psychology and Pediatrics at Yale, described the report as one way of evaluating a collaborative project. The first speaker, Kelley O'Rourke of the New Haven system, testified to the accuracy of the themes and the responses conveyed through the questionnaires used by the Institute. These surveys, she said, have captured the life and energy of the program as experienced by teachers. Burris Smith, Director of K12 Instruction, Saginaw, MI, then spoke of the more general problem of evaluation as experienced by school administrators. We need instruments that can identify articulateness, willingness to collaborate, creativity in problemsolving, etc. He spoke of efforts in Saginaw to use modes of evaluation that require of students an engagement in a project that involves learning about the community, preparing of reports, conducting of interviews, and devising of performances that can convey what has been learned. Rene Castilla, President of the Dallas Independent School District School Board, TX, then spoke of how evaluation relates to policymaking. He outlined demographic changes that dictate reform of curricula and teaching methods. He said the major challenge was to devise a curriculum for the '90s. A proposal for radical reform on a national scale would catch attention and help the collaborative movement to go beyond its currently smallscale efforts. Gita Z. Wilder, Educational Policy Division, Educational Testing Service, then returned to the New Haven "Progress Report." She described it as an excellent evaluation of the Institute against the goals it has set for itself, which of course do not include all of the goals for education. She added that more can be done in assessing the ways in which the curriculum units have contributed to the school curricula. | A proposal for radical reform on a national scale would catch attention and help the collaborative movement to go beyond its currently smallscale efforts. (figure available in print form)
| A broad discussion followed, which engaged some important issues:
Is it likely that teachers are growing as a result of such institutes but
that paradigms of education are not changing? Why have alternative
assessments not been developed on a national scale that could avoid the
deficiencies of standard testing? Ms. Wilder pointed to the
laborintensive nature of such testing and the lack of good
measurement models. Participants then shared ways in which different
programs have coped with the political pressures for standardized testing
and have instituted portfolio assessments, essays, and performances that
can be assessed by the teachers themselves. The session ended with
expressions of frustration over the difficulties of bringing change into
the system.
| |
| Moderated by Robin Winks, Professor of History at Yale, this panel consisted of speakers who summed up the major conclusions from the various caucuses and added their own reflections. Thomas E. Persing listed a number of issues raised by school administrators: The problem of recruitment for collaborative programs; difficult relations between supervisors and building principals; the desirability of making a school, and not a central office, the nucleus for a collaborative model; necessary education in administrative leadership; the need to recognize the importance of dialogue between the board and teachers; the hard fact that testing is needed and will be done whether we like it or not; and the types of decisionmaking that might be employed in a collaborative. | |||||||||
(figure available in print form)
| Duane Emejulu, English teacher at Skyline High School, Dallas, TX,
who had been elected by the teachers' caucus to represent them, stated
that the teachers wish to include administrators in their meetings. For
her the major effect of collaborative programs is the renewal of teachers.
Indeed, school reform must involve the transformation of teachers, which
will then have effects upon the students.
| School reform must involve the transformation of teachers. Manuel Gomez then reported on major issues engaged by the caucus
of university administrators: the appropriate administrative arrangements
in a research university to support collaborative activity; the need to
engage the attention of presidents of institutions; the need to move this
work with schools onto more enduring foundations; and the need to connect
evaluation of this work more clearly to studentoutcome measures.
"The road ahead," he said, "will be far more difficult than the road we
have already traveled since the publication of A Nation at Risk, even
though the task has already seemed to be like that of Sisyphus." He
challenged us to find ways to create a new ethic of partnership.
| Jay Robinson reported on the issues raised in the caucus of
university faculty members. He suggested that we must broaden our
understanding of the partnership in collaborative undertakings to include
administrators, students, parents, community agencies, and business and
industry. The university must rethink its responsibility to life outside
its own programs. Changes in testing must respond to the qualities we most
wish to produce in our students. We must find the appropriate textbooks
for changed curricula. And we must cease to think in terms of such easy
oppositions as those between "content" and "pedagogy" or "teachers" and
"administrators."
| The university must rethink its responsibility to life outside its own programs. (figure available in print form)
| In the concluding discussion there were calls for closer
communication, and for some shared action, but the diversity of approaches
in these programs seemed to preclude any transformation of the conference
into a continuing organization. It seemed clear that, amidst our diversity
of aim and strategy, we must find common needs and modes of mutual
assistance. One possibility may be an electronic network. Another may be
"national seminars" that would introduce selected teachers and possibly
administrators to the actual process of a program such as the
YaleNew Haven Teachers Institute. Through a more intimate and
extensive acquaintance, we might create a more effective national
movement.
| (figure available in print form)
| Participants were invited to respond to a questionnaire dealing
with the value of this conference and of possible next steps in our
ongoing effort. An appendix to this report summarizes those
responses.
| |
| ||||||