Deans'+Roundtable+Discussion

=Deans and Directors’ Panel - “Reforms, Restructuring and Resources – Challenges to Implementing a Field-based Program.” A policy panel discussion.=

Mark Goor, University of La Verne mgoor@laverne.edu Maggie Payne, CSU Chico mpayne@csuchico.edu Sharon Russell, CalStateTEACH srussell@calstate.edu Kip Tellez, UC Santa Cruz ktellez@ucsc.edu Tine Sloan tine@education.ucsb.edu Shari Francis, NCATE VP for State Relations, Discussant Cindy Grutzik, Moderator

1. As teacher educators, we recognize and resonate with the urgency which was presented by NCATE’s challenge to develop “clinically rich” teacher preparation programs. In fact, the report suggests that teacher education, as we have known it, must be turned upside down by situating it within clinical experience. As Deans, how do you respond to this challenge? What do you see from your vantage point that confirms or questions the urgency of this reform effort?

What factors determine how you prioritize this reform among the many reforms that would require your attention and university resources? //Must it be research-based, politically attractive (internally and externally), financially feasible, aligned with your conceptual framework, viable for school partners or// ?

2. A growing body of research supports the notion that the best teacher education programs have developed coherent programs, meaning that coursework is purposefully linked to field experience. In order to create such programs, some have suggested that that tenured, teaching faculty must be directly involved in school-based practica. Would you agree with that notion? What challenges do you see to putting such a model in place? How do you work with faculty to create programs that interactively link coursework and field experiences so there is a direct relationship between tenured faculty, part-time instructors and field supervisors?

3. One of the thorny, persistent problems of the clinically-based model is that there appears to be an inherent contradiction between IHE faculty and school-based practitioners regarding the ownership of ideas. Professors are presumed to ‘own’ the theory-based realm (and the validation of theories and practices through research) and school-based practitioners are presumed to ‘own’ the how or best practices realm. This seems to be one reason that we see non-participation by some faculty, particularly in research-based institutions, in clinical settings.

Presuming this dichotomy can be overcome, what policies must be in place to move these efforts to scale?

4. A clinically rich model assumes a shared vision and collaborative partnership between the teacher preparation institution and the community, particularly local school districts. The professional development school model and variations of this model has garnered significant attention over the years. However, such models are difficult to take to scale. What advantages do you see to creating the “third space” collaborations between the university, the community and local schools that Ken Zeichner has described today? Is it worth it?