Structural Alternatives

  • Christopher J. Lucas


Recent proposals to locate preservice teacher education exclusively or at least partly at the postbachelor’s level are not necessarily new. Their precedents date back at least as far as the opening years of the twentieth century. The reform thrust of the early 1900s, it will be recalled, was to establish teachers’ colleges and to create training units fully coordinate with other academic departments in existing colleges. More important still was the movement to elevate normal departments within universities and place them on the same footing as other constituent departments, schools, and colleges. Among leading reformers were many who sought to emphasize university-based postgraduate instruction for an elite class of educational leaders. Also, the idea that preservice teacher preparatory programs likewise should be located at the graduate level was sometimes advanced. Only after completing a bachelor’s degree, some claimed, should candidates be admitted to a course of specialized training leading to initial licensure.


Teacher Education Preservice Teacher Prospective Teacher Teacher Education Program Teacher Preparation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See Elizabeth Boyter, “A Study of Five-Year Programs,” Journal of Teacher Education 5 (September 1954): 194–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowell Horton, “Teacher Education: By Design or Crisis?” Journal of Teacher Education 22 (Fall 1971): 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mei Jiun Wong and Russell T. Osguthorpe, “The Continuing Domination of the Four-Year Teacher Education Program: A National Survey,” Journal of Teacher Education 44 (January–February 1993): 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hendrik D. Gideonse, “The Necessary Revolution in Teacher Education,” Phi Delta Kappan 64 (September 1982): 15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., p. 18.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    David L. Clark, “Better Teachers for the Year 2000: A Proposal for the Structural Reform of Teacher Education,” Phi Delta Kappan 66 (October 1984): 117.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 117.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donna Kerr, “Teaching Competence and Teacher Education in the United States,” in Lee Shulman and Gary Sykes, eds., Handbook of Teaching and Policy (New York: Longman, 1983), p. 139.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Dale P. Scanneil, “Extending Teacher Preparation Programs,” in Arnold M. Gallegos, ed., Improving Teacher Education, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 27 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986), p. 17.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Ibid., p. 25.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Pauline B. Gough, “On Specialized Preparation for Elementary Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education 33 (November–December 1982): 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 16.
    See Arnold M. Gallegos, “The Dilemma of Extended/Five-Year Programs,” Journal of Teacher Education 32 (January–February 1981): 4–6; E. C. Galambos, Teacher Preparation: The Anatomy of a College Degree (Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board, 1985); and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Educating a Profession: Extended Programs for Teacher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1976). Note also Jeffrey B. Dunbar, “Moving to a Five-Year Teacher Preparation Program: The Perspective of Experience,” Journal of Teacher Education 32 (January–February 1981): 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 19.
    Frederick R. Cyphert and Kevin A. Ryan, “Extending Initial Teacher Preparation: Some Issues and Answers,” Action in Teacher Education 6 (Winter 1984–85): 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 25.
    Note the brief discussion in Judith Lanier and Judith Little, “Research on Teacher Education,” in Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1986), p. 217. See also David F. Labaree, “An Unlovely Legacy: The Disabling Impact of the Market on American Teacher Education,” Phi Delta Kappan 75 (April 1994): 591; and the analysis in Kenneth R. Howey and Nancy L. Zimpher, “The Current Debate on Teacher Preparation,” Journal of Teacher Education 37 (September–October 1986): 41–49. Of particular importance was the appearance of a nationally circulated study urging the retention of four-year programs: see J. S. Johnston et al., Those Who Can: Undergraduate Programs to Prepare Arts and Sciences Majors for Teaching (Washington, D.C.: Association for American Colleges, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 26.
    Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1985).Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    National Commission for Excellence in Teacher Education, A Call for Change in Teacher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1985).Google Scholar
  18. 28.
    Southern Regional Education Board, Improving Teacher Education: An Agenda for Higher Education and the Schools (Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board, 1985).Google Scholar
  19. 29.
    The evolution of the Holmes Group is traced in Barbara Schneider and Stafford Hood, “Pathways to Institutional Change: From the Deans’ Network to the Holmes Group,” in Kathryn Borman and Nancy P. Greenman, eds., Changing American Education: Recapturing the Past or Inventing the Future? (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1994), pp. 107–132.Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    Holmes Group, Goals for Educating Teachers as Professionals: An Interim Report (draft document, 1985); Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Teachers (East Lansing, Mich.: Holmes Group, 1986); Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Schools: Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools (East Lansing, Mich.: Holmes Group, 1990); and Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Schools of Education (East Lansing, Mich.: Holmes Group, 1995)Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    The concept of professional development schools spawned an enormous literature. For illustrative commentaries, see D. Thompson Manning, “Historical Lessons for Teacher Education,” Journal of Teacher Education 38 (December 1987): 20–24; Pamela J. Farris and Betsy J. Smith, “Professional Development Schools: Teacher Education’s Last Hurrah?” Contemporary Education 64 (Summer 1993): 261–262; Paul N. Dixon and Richard E. Ishler, “Professional Development Schools: Stages in Collaboration,” Journal of Teacher Education 43 (January–February 1992): 28–34; Nancy Winitzky et al., “Great Expectations: Emergent Professional Development Schools,” Journal of Teacher Education 43 (January–February 1992): 3–18; Charles W. Smith, “Laboratory Schools/Professional Development Schools: Are They, Can They Be One and the Same?” National Association of Laboratory Schools Journal 16 (Fall 1991): 8–17; and Frank Brainard, Professional Development Schools: Status as of 1989, Occasional Paper No. 9 (Seattle, Wash.: Center for Educational Renewal, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 33.
    See Ann Bradley, “Report’s Delay Underscores Holmes’s Struggles,” Education Week 13 (February 9, 1994): 1, 8; and Julie L. Nicklin, “Education-School Group Issues Scathing, Self-Critical Review,” Chronicle of Higher Education 41 (February 3, 1995): A17.Google Scholar
  23. 35.
    See John Sikula, “National Commission Reports of the 1980s,” in Robert Houston et al., eds., Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York: Macmillan, 1990): 78–81; Vernon L. Clark, “Teacher Education at Historically Black Institutions in the Aftermath of the Holmes/Carnegie Reports,” Planning and Changing 18 (Summer 1987): 74–79; Edward R. Ducharme, “The Professors and the Reports: A Time to Act,” Journal of Teacher Education 37 (September–October 1986): 51–56; Julius G. Goldberg, No More Teacher Traps—Neither in the Name of Holmes Nor Carnegie (New York: Vantage Press, 1987); Joslyn Green, The Next Wave: A Synopsis of Recent Education Reform Reports (Denver, Col.: Education Commission of the States, 1987); Robert L. Hample, “The Political Side of Reform: Are Conflicts, Power Struggles Likely to Occur?” NASSP Bulletin 70 (December 1986): 55–64; Robert L. Jacobson, “Carnegie School-Reform Goals Hailed; Achieving Them Called Tall Order,’” Chronicle of Higher Education 32 (May 28, 1986): 1, 23; Carl Kaestle, “Education Reform and the Swinging Pendulum,” Phi Delta Kappan 66 (February 1985): 422–423; Courtney Leatherman, “Reforms in Education of Schoolteachers Face Tough New Challenges,” Chronicle of Higher Education 34 (April 20, 1988): A1, A30; Malcolm G. Scully, “Study Finds Colleges Torn by Divisions, Confused Over Roles,” Chronicle of Higher Education 33 (November 5, 1986): 1, 16–23; Albert Shanker, “The Carnegie Report: An Endorsement for Teacher Education,” Change 18 (September–October 1986): 8–9; John P. Sikula, “Commentary on Reform: Implications for the Education Profession,” Teacher Education Quarterly 14 (Winter 1987): 52–59; Alan R. Tom, How Should Teachers Be Educated? An Assessment of Three Reform Reports, Fastback No. 255 (Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1987; Sam P. Wiggins, “Revolution in the Teaching Profession: A Comparative Review of Two Reform Reports,” Educational Leadership 44 (October 1986): 56–59; David F. Labaree, “Doing Good, Doing Science: The Holmes Group Reports and the Rhetoric of Educational Reform,” Teachers College Record 93 (Summer 1992): 628–641; James W. Fraser, “Preparing Teachers for Democratic Schools: The Holmes and Carnegie Reports Five Years Later—A Critical Reflection,” Teachers College Record 94 (Fall 1992): 7–40; Kay S. Bull and Adrienne E. Hyle, “Five Year Teacher Education Programs: Potential Impact on Training Teachers for Rural Schools,” Journal of Rural and Small Schools 4 (Winter 1990): 20–26; and Linda S. Guest, Improving Teacher Preparation: What the Reform Reports Recommend (Denver, Col.: Education Commission of the States, 1993).Google Scholar
  24. 36.
    See “State-College Deans Rap Holmes Report as a ‘Source of Conflict,’” Education Week 5 (1986): 7.Google Scholar
  25. 39.
    Holmes Group, Goals for Educating Teachers as Professionals, (1985), pp. 49, 52.Google Scholar
  26. 41.
    William R. Johnson, “Empowering Practitioners: Holmes, Carnegie, and the Lessons of History,” History of Education Quarterly 27 (Summer, 1987): 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 43.
    Johnston, p. 228. A relevant discussion is given in Anne Reynolds, “The Knowledge Base for Beginning Teachers: Education Professionals’ Expectations versus Research Findings on Learning to Teach,” Elementary School Journal 95 (January 1995): 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 44.
    Alan Tom, The Case for Maintaining Teacher Education at the Undergraduate Level (St. Louis, Mo.: Washington University, Coalition of Teacher Education Programs, 1986), p. 31 aGoogle Scholar
  29. 46.
    Michael W. Andrew, “Differences Between Graduates of 4-Year and 5-Year Teacher Preparation Programs,” Journal of Teacher Education 41 (March–April 1990): 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 49.
    Kenneth R. Howey, “Research about Teacher Education: Programs of Teacher Preparation” Journal of Teacher Education 40 (November–December 1989): 23–26. See also Howey and Zimpher, Profiles of Preservice Teacher Education: Inquiry Into the Nature of Programs (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 51.
    American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, RATE V: Teaching Teachers: Facts and Figures (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1991).Google Scholar
  32. 52.
    David L. Clark and Terry A. Astuto, “Redirecting Reform, Challenges to Popular Assumptions About Teachers and Students,” Phi Delta Kappan 75 (March 1994): 513, 517. See also Clark et al., Challenging the Assumptions That Control Change in Education (Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1994).Google Scholar
  33. 53.
    Clark and Astuto, p. 517. Note the useful discussions provided by Ellen C. Lagemann, “The Complexity of Educational Change,” Teachers College Record 96 (Fall 1994): 1–7; and Lagemann, “Reinventing the Teacher’s Role,” Teachers College Record 95 (Fall 1995): 1–7.Google Scholar
  34. 54.
    Landon E. Beyer, “Reconceptualizing Teacher Preparation Institutions and Ideologies,” Journal of Teacher Education 40 (January–February 1989): 22–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 55.
    Martin Haberman, “Twenty-Three Reasons Universities Can’t Educate Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education 22 (Summer 1971): 136.Google Scholar
  36. 56.
    James R. Delisle, “An Ed School Is No Place for a Teacher,” Education Week (March 25, 1992): 1. See also Martin Anderson, Imposters in the Temple: American Intellectuals are Destroying Our Universities and Cheating Our Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992).Google Scholar
  37. 60.
    Douglas J. Simpson, “Professional Development Schools, Prescriptions and Proscriptions: A Fictitious Letter to Evangelina Ramirez,” Journal of Teacher Education 45 (September–October 1995): 253, 254. See also Nancy Green et al., “Spanning Cultures: Teachers and Professors in Professional Development Schools,” Action in Teacher Education 15 (Summer 1993): 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 61.
    Lee Teitel, “Can School-University Partnerships Lead to the Simultaneous Renewal of Schools and Teacher Education?” Journal of Teacher Education 45 (September–October 1994): 245–252. Even stronger is a judgment offered by Warren Corbin: “The belief that universities and public schools are both in the ‘education business’ leads to the superficial and erroneous conclusion that the purposes and needs of both are identical,” he observed. “Their purposes and needs are no more identical than those of a peanut vendor in the street and General Motors, even though it could be said that both the vendor and G.M. are in the sales business.” See Corbin, “Universities Should Get Out of the Business of Teaching Teachers,” Chronicle of Higher Education 29 (January 23, 1985): 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 62.
    Quoted in Walter Doyle, “Themes in Teacher Education Research,” in Houston, p. 7. Also consult Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education, The Decline, the Deception, the Dogma (New York: Free Press, 1993), p. 23.Google Scholar
  40. 65.
    Madeleine R. Grumet, “Generations: Reconceptualist Curriculum Theory and Teacher Education,” Journal of Teacher Education 40 (January–February 1989): 13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 66.
    Elizabeth Hunter, “A Collaborative, Connected, Completely Organic, All-Natural Teacher Education Program,” Journal of Teacher Education 31 (July–August 1980): 9.Google Scholar
  42. 67.
    Ibid., pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  43. 68.
    Ibid., p. 10.Google Scholar
  44. 69.
    Judy Swanson, “Systemic Reform in The Professionalism of Educators,” Phi Delta Kappan 77 (September 1995): 36–39.Google Scholar
  45. 70.
    Ibid., p. 39. See also Michael G. Fullan, “Coordinating School and District Development in Restructuring,” in Joseph Murphy and Philip Hallinger, eds., Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1993); Mary Alice Barksdale-Ladd, “Teacher Empowerment and Literacy Instruction in Three Professional Development Schools,” Journal of Teacher Education 45 (March–April 1994): 104–111; Pamela C. Boyd, “Professional School Reform and Public School Renewal: Portrait of a Partnership,” Journal of Teacher Education 45 (March–April 1994): 132–139; Gary Sykes, “Fostering Teacher Professionalism in Schools,” in Richard Elmore et al., Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Reform (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990); and Seymour Sarason, The Case for Change: Rethinking the Preparation of Educators (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).Google Scholar
  46. 71.
    Robert A. Roth, “The University Can’t Train Teachers? Transformation of a Profession,” Journal of Teacher Education 45 (September–October 1994): 261. See also Roth, “Alternate and Alternative Certification: Purposes, Assumptions, Implications,” Action in Teacher Education 8 (Summer 1986): 1–6; Roth, “Emergency Certificates, Misassignment of Teachers, and Other Dirty Little Secrets,” Phi Delta Kappan 67 (June 1986): 725–727; Roth, “The Teacher Education Profession: An Endangered Species,” Phi Delta Kappan 71 (December 1989): 319–323; and Roth, “Dichotomous Paradigms for Teacher Education: The Rise or Fall of the Empire,” Action in Teacher Education 4 (Spring 1992): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 72.
    Emily C. Feistritzer and David T. Chester, Alternative Teacher Certification: A State by State Analysis (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information, 1992); Feistritzer, Who Wants to Teach? (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information, 1992); National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, Manual on Certification and Preparation of Educational Personnel in the United States (Dubuque, Iowa: NASDTEC, 1992); and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teacher Education Policy in the States: A 50-State Survey of Legislative and Administrative Actions (Washington, D.C.: A ACTE, 1990).Google Scholar
  48. 73.
    Nancy E. Adelman, An Exploratory Study of Teacher Alternative Certification and Retraining Programs (Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies Associates, 1986); Neil B. Carey et al., Recruiting Mathematics and Science Teachers Through Nontraditional Programs: A Survey (Santa Monica, Calif.: Center for the Study of the Teaching Profession, RAND Corporation, 1988); Martin Haberman, “Alternative Teacher Certification Programs,” Action in Teacher Education 8 (Summer 1986): 15; Linda Darling-Hammond, “Teaching and Knowledge Policy Issues Posed by Alternate Certification for Teachers,” Peabody Journal of Education 67 (Spring 1990): 123–154; Vicky Dill and Delia Stafford, “School-Based Teacher Education,” Phi Delta Kappan 75 (April 1994): 620–623. Especially helpful in its discussion of one type of alternative program is Kate Hawkey, “Learning from Peers: The Experience of Student Teachers in School-Based Teacher Education,” Journal of Teacher Education 46 (May–June 1995): 175–183.Google Scholar
  49. 74.
    Specific findings are summarized and discussed in Darling-Hammond, pp. 130–132; and in Edith Guyton, Marian C. Fox, and Kathy A. Sisk, “Comparison of Teaching Attitudes, Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Performance of First Year Teachers Prepared by Alternative and Traditional Teacher Education Programs,” Action in Teacher Education 13 (Summer 1991); and Julie Meitzer, Myron Trang, and Betty Bailey, “Clinical Cycles: A Productive Tool for Teacher Education,” Phi Delta Kappan 75 (April 1994): 612–619.Google Scholar
  50. 77.
    John I. Goodlad, Roger Soden, and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, eds., Places Where Teachers Are Taught (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), p. xi. See also Goodlad, “Better Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools,” Phi Delta Kappan 72 (November 1990): 185–194; and Goodlad, “A Study of the Education of Educators: One Year Later,” Phi Delta Kappan 73 (December 1991): 311–316.Google Scholar
  51. 78.
    Goodlad, Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990); Goodlad, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990); and Goodlad, Soden, and Sirotnik, eds. Places Where Teachers Are Taught (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).Google Scholar
  52. 84.
    See Kenneth A. Sirotnik and John I. Goodlad, eds., School-University Partnerships in Action (New York: Teachers College Press, Columnbia University, 1988); and Sirotnik, “The School as the Center of Change,” in Thomas J. Sergiovanni and John H. Moore, eds., Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reform to Issues That Count (Newton, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1989).Google Scholar
  53. 86.
    Chester E. Finn, Jr., “An Insider Grades Education Schools,” Christian Science Monitor (December 3, 1990): 15. For other early reactions to the Goodlad study, consult Joseph Shenker’s review of Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools, in Teachers College Record 93 (Summer 1992): 733–737; John O’Neil’s discussion of the same work in Educational Leadership 48 (April 1991): 88; the review of Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools and of Places Where Teachers Are Taught offered by Wayne J. Urban in Educational Studies 22 (Winter 1991): 538–544; and a review of the same two volumes by Joseph T. Durham in Journal of Negro Education 60 (Summer 1991): 486–488.Google Scholar
  54. 87.
    Quoted in Laurel Shaper Walters, “Straight Talk on Teacher Training,” Christian Science Monitor (December 3, 1990): 15.Google Scholar
  55. 89.
    Wendy Kopp, “Teach for America: Moving Beyond the Debate,” Educational Forum 58 (Winter 1994): 187–192; and see Michael Shapiro, Who Will Teach for America? Washington, D.C.: Farragut, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 90.
    Jonathan Schorr, “Class Action, What Clinton’s National Service Program Could Learn from ‘Teach for America,’” Phi Delta Kappan 75 (December 1995): 315–318.Google Scholar
  57. 94.
    For a more extensive analysis, consult Madhu Suri Prakash, “Reforming the Teaching of Teachers: Trends, Contradictions, and Challenges,” Teachers College Record 88 (Winter 1986): 217–240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Christopher J. Lucas 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Lucas

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations