Opposite Intended Effect: A Case Study of How Over-Standardization Can Reduce Efficacy of Teacher Education, The

Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 2004 by Hughes, Bob

The hyper-regulation of education (and most recently the teacher preparation component of education) thrives on the premise that any perceived deficiencies in the educational system can be alleviated by reducing differences among the ways in which we educate people and by demanding adherence to standards. In its impact, however, this simplification has an opposite effect. Rather than raising expectations, a reliance on standards as the solution to perceived ineffectiveness has disconnected education from the more complex set of needs that should be addressed. To meet standards, teachers must often ignore issues which may also need to be addressed, but for which they are not being evaluated. Additionally, teachers must allow someone else to determine what is of value - even if that means ignoring the cognitive, cultural, and societal developmental needs of learners. As a direct result, K-12 schools now focus on a narrow band of certain content areas to the exclusion or diminution of others. For example, why should a third grade teacher in California teach any science lessons when third grade students are not being tested on science? And what purpose does music or art have in a curriculum that only tests linguistic and quantitative skills? Standardization has meant that we tell children that skills-based, often memorized, linear knowledge is what we value. By emphasizing what is most easily measurable in K-12 education, we eliminate significant areas of curriculum. In effect, we exclude many children from succeeding in school because of the resulting narrow curriculum that does not engage them and that does not encourage teachers to teach more than what is being tested.

With these same forces now leaping into the regulation of teacher education, we threaten to further cement a very narrow perception of what constitutes education. The question that we must ask as teachers of teachers is whether or not any standards allow us broadly to define the ways in which we meet the needs of our communities, or whether standards represent an unnecessary and ineffective narrowing of our mission. This is especially critical for those of us who prepare teachers to serve the most needy of schools. The experiences of the last decade suggest that schools with economically advantaged families are less impacted by the standards movement's narrowing of mission. Will the new teacher-preparation standards prepare teachers who can think broadly enough to evaluate and serve the needs of their students; or will we create teachers with only ineffective technical skills to serve up the latest teacher-proof curricula to the most demanding of students?

I direct a regional center of a statewide, university-based teacher preparation program. We are an alternative certification program that serves mostly beginning teachers. Our students generally teach in California's poorest urban and rural schools. In the region that my center serves, we have candidates in agricultural communities like Chualar in the Saunas Valley and candidates in Oakland and San Francisco. We work with over 200 teachers each term, most of whom are working as the teacher of record in schools where they could be part of the recycling of teachers that Ingersoll (2001) identifies as being at the core of our teacher shortage. Without a program such as ours, these people will become part of the 85% of uncredentialed teachers who leave the profession within three years. Internship credentialing programs such as ours, however, maintain an opposite retention percentage, with 89% of their graduates still in the profession after three years (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2001). In California, these programs have succeeded partly because of whom they attract: mid-career changers and returnees to the workforce in their thirties. These program have also been successful because of the support systems they provide to beginning teachers. Critical to the success of these programs, however, are their roots within communities through partnerships that address specific community needs. A teacher internship in Oakland looks very different from one in Chualar. Although the immediate need in both places is the same, how the teachers work within those areas differs. Any changes in the standards of teacher preparation must account for the needs of both places. Any changes in those standards must, therefore, permit local control that allows for variation to meet local needs.

The technology standards that have been adopted as a component of the Senate Bill 2042 reform standards in California offer a unique opportunity to see how SB 2042 can impact an ability of teacher education programs to address local needs. The technology standards are particularly interesting to follow since they are one of two areas that were mandated to begin in the 2002-2003 academic year, a year ahead of the rest of the SB 2042 requirements. Because these standards were implemented early, their implementation provides some insight into the process and outcomes that the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing are using with its standards. These technology standards provide a harbinger of what the standards movement misses and how it can negatively affect the preparation of teachers.