This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 13 November 2014, At: 14:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Traveling old roads deeper into the woodsleaves promises to keepWillis D. Hawley aa Professor of education and political science and director of the Center forEducation Policy , Vanderbilt UniversityPublished online: 05 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Willis D. Hawley (1990) Traveling old roads deeper into the woods leaves promises tokeep, Theory Into Practice, 29:1, 13-20, DOI: 10.1080/00405849009543425

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543425

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Willis D. Hawley

Traveling Old Roads Deeper Intothe Woods Leaves Promises to Keep

What's wrong with this picture? One evening, notso long ago, a small group of deans of schools ofeducation at prominent research universities metover dinner to discuss their shared obligation to dowhat they could to cure the ills of teacher education.They quickly came to the noble conclusion thatphysicians should heal themselves. Several monthslater these deans met again, along with a dozenor so colleagues from other schools of education.This first formal meeting of the group focused largelyon penance for failures to give priority to the prep-aration of teachers. Before long the mea culpasturned to a sense of obligation to change teachereducation everywhere. Some in the group sug-gested that research universities should base theirprescriptions on research and that the claim toleadership in reforming teacher education shouldcome from the demonstration of effectiveness. Butmost in the group, which had doubled in size inonly a few months, argued that research basedchange was too slow, that equivocation about whichstrategies were best was politically unwise, andthat experience and prestige were sufficient basesupon which to formulate not only self-healing pre-scriptions but cure-alls.

The group, which assumed the middle nameof Holmes (not in homage to Sherlock or his dis-positions for systematic inquiry), is now embarkedon the most visible and probably the best fundedeffort to reform teacher education America has ever

Willis D. Hawley is professor of education and politicalscience and director of the Center for Education Policyat Vanderbilt University.

seen. Who could not rejoice in the determinationof deans of schools of education to improve thepreparation of the nation's teachers? If the effortsof The Holmes Group focused on self-improvement,all would applaud its members' commitment andwish them well. Who does not share The HolmesGroup's vision of a world in which teachers andteaching, at all levels of education, are accordedhigh status and high priority? But if the activitiesof The Holmes Group could result in outcomes otherthan the exemplification of excellence in teachingand teacher education, its claim to leadership shouldbe questioned. For example, what if:

1. the high costs of implementing The HolmesGroup's proposals could be applied to otherstrategies for reform that more efficiently en-hanced the quality of our schools?

2. The Holmes Group, by asserting a superior rolefor research universities in the education ofteachers, diminished the status of those teach-ers who graduated from other colleges?

3. the advocacy of The Holmes Group for extendedpreservice teacher preparation has unintendedconsequences for the quality and quantity ofthose seeking a career in teaching?

4. The Holmes Group actually discourages morefundamental and more promising changes inteacher education than those it is advocating?

I propose to address these four possibilities,giving greatest attention to the last. In raising theseissues, I do not mean to suggest that The Holmes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Group makes no contribution to the educationalreform movement in America. Nor do I question itsmembers' intentions to enhance the quality ofteaching. Perhaps by focusing on The HolmesGroup's potential limitations, however, I can con-tribute to the good it can accomplish. And moreimportant, perhaps this essay can suggest why—if "there" is the goals of The Holmes Group, and"here" is the basic strategies it proposes—youcan't get there from here.

Some members of The Holmes Group may findit difficult to identify the positions I attribute to TheHolmes Group as their own. When The HolmesGroup opened membership to over 100 universities,it brought in a number of institutions that weredoubtful about how strongly they shared the originalvision. Keeping the membership and clarifying thepurposes of the organization are not wholly com-patible objectives. Recognizing that the ideas ofThe Holmes Group participants are evolving, I amassuming that Tomorrow's Teachers, the group'smanifesto published in 1986, remains the organi-zation's basic statement of principles and goals andthat the structure and staffing of The Holmes Grouptells us about the strategies it seeks to pursue. Inote, however, that in the November 1988 issue ofEducational Leadership, a seemingly official reporton The Holmes Group's activities both attests tothe centrality of Tomorrow's Teachers to the Holmesagenda and disclaims some of its central premises.To the extent that The Holmes Group now standsfor any well-integrated comprehensive approach toimprove teacher education that could embody "manykinds of degree structures and a wealth of programssuited to diverse institutional (emphasis added)needs" (Lanier & Featherstone, 1988, p. 21), TheHolmes Group's goals cannot be differentiated fromthose of any other call from teacher educators forimprovement.1

Costs of The Holmes Proposalsand Educational Reform

The desirability of investing significant publicresources in the improvement of teacher educationwould seem to depend on how much the achieve-ment of that goal will contribute to the improvementof our capacity as a nation to improve studentlearning. Regrettably, there is no empirical evidenceto support the idea that the proposals of The HolmesGroup will improve either teaching or learning. Norcan any other specific reform in teacher preparationbe supported by research that directly ties that

change to student achievement (Evertson, Hawley,& Zlotnick, 1985; Hawley, in press).

The annual costs of effectively implementingThe Holmes Group's proposals will run into billionsof dollars (Hawley, in press) over what is nowinvested in preservice teacher preparation. Theseexpenditures would include significant increases inpublic funds for institutions of higher education,student loan subsidies, internship stipends, the costsof operating professional development schools, andincreased teacher salaries. Because the improve-ment of teacher education requires the reallocationof public resources, teacher educators have theresponsibility to make the case that investments inpreservice teacher education are at least as pro-ductive as other investments that might improvestudent learning. What case could be made thatthe next few billion dollars we add to annual ed-ucation expenditures should be spent on preserviceteacher education?

Of course, it would be foolish and reactionaryto argue that all proposed changes in policy andpractice should not be implemented until there isdefinitive research support for the proposal. But tothe extent that changes being proposed requirepublic resources and regulate the behavior of oth-ers—and The Holmes Group agenda calls for publicfunds and regulation—it would seem that thosemaking the proposals have an obligation to dem-onstrate their worth on a pilot or experimental basis.

Saddling The Holmes Group with this obligationmight seem unfair, but we do make similar demandson others. Researchers often ask the advocates ofparticular proposals for educational change for evi-dence that the reform will make a difference forstudents. They counsel skepticism toward claimson behalf of better processes unless it can bedemonstrated convincingly that the process in whichthe investment is being requested will have positiveoutcomes.

The members of The Holmes Group who arguethat there are best ways to prepare teachers andthat these best ways should be supported by publicpolicies justify such advocacy on the basis of ex-pertise and experience. All advocates of particularpublic policies claim these sources of legitimacyand one would imagine that scholars would be thefirst to assert that such claims are insufficient anddifficult to distinguish from predispositions. Indeed,researchers commenting on new proposals for pub-lic policy or for the introduction of regulations fre-quently argue for pilot projects accompanied bysystematic evaluation.

14 Theory Into Practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Effects on the Status of TeacherA major goal of The Holmes Group has been

to increase the status of teachers by requiring thatteachers undertake postbaccalaureate study at re-search universities prior to the time they have theright to teach (The Holmes Group, 1986). The re-lationship between degree requirements for entryto a profession and occupational status is quiteweak (Hawley, 1987). In addition to level of edu-cational attainment, occupational status derives fromsuch factors as the value placed on the functionsperformed, how difficult it is to master the knowl-edge in the field, and how those in the occupationare licensed to perform the tasks involved. Thepoint can be illustrated parsimoniously by observingthat more than half of America's career teachershave a master's degree while only 3 percent ofJapanese teachers, who enjoy much higher statusthan do teachers in the United States, earn post-baccalaureate degrees (Ministry of Education, Sci-ence and Culture, 1989, pp. 78-79).

If The Holmes Group's proposals do achievetheir goal, current teachers who have not receivedtheir advanced degree from research universitiesmay be thought of as having less status than thosewho have. An advocate of The Holmes Group pro-posals might argue that this is the inevitable costof change. And, this is my point. One cannot assertthat this cost will not be borne by the majority ofour current teachers and also believe that TheHolmes Group proposals will increase the statusof teachers.

Effects on the Quantityand Quality of Teachers

Those who believe the Holmes proposals arebasically on target appear to be convinced thatthese steps will attract persons to teaching whoare, on the whole, more talented than those at-tracted to "conventional" teacher education pro-grams. The assumption that The Holmes Group'sreforms will increase the supply of new teachersby enhancing the respect that would be accordedto preservice teacher preparation and by improvingthe status of the profession is, as just noted, prob-lematic. Perhaps because The Holmes Group rec-ognizes that the status and attractions of theteaching profession depend more on the conditionsunder which teachers work and the salaries theyreceive than the character of their preservice train-ing, it focused its early efforts on defining thechanges that need to be made in schools rather

than on changes that need to be made in teachereducation programs (cf. The Holmes Group, 1986).

Assuming that the public is unlikely to investin supporting prospective teachers while they goto school for an additional year, requiring a fifthyear of college, preparation for teaching will in-crease the costs of becoming a teacher by about$25,000.2 The idea that large numbers of academ-ically talented persons would become teachers ifonly the costs for entry to the profession werehigher is interesting, if counterintuitive. To be sure,talented students do enroll in some 5-year prepa-ration programs (but not in others). It is not known,however, whether these students represent a newpool of candidates induced to consider a career inteaching because of the new programs or the re-distribution of the existing pool. Against this pos-sibility of an enlarged pool, one should weigh thelikelihood that the added costs to students of afifth year of preservice teacher preparation will dis-courage the enrollment of students who have otherattractive options, and students with limited eco-nomic resources. One simulation, using a nationalsample of students, concludes that it would benecessary to raise beginning teacher salaries by 40percent in order to attract students with an averageachievement test score in the range members ofThe Holmes Group want the test scores to be(Manski, 1985).

In short, it is difficult to believe that chargingnew teachers $25,000 more than it now costs themto become teachers would increase the supply oftalented entrants to the profession absent signifi-cant increases in the benefits of being a teacher.None of the ways one might most directly increasethe benefits of being a teacher requires changes inpreservice teacher preparation. To the contrary, theuse of more public funds to improve teacher edu-cation would reduce funds available for improvingteacher salaries and working conditions.

The Holmes Group and Counterreform

If The Holmes Group is successful in securingthe structural changes in teacher education it hasadvocated, it may stifle other reforms, some ofwhich may be less conservative than its own. Thereis no harm to this if The Holmes Group has dis-covered the right answer. But, if there are othergood answers that deserve serious consideration,The Holmes Group may someday be described asa counterreform effort. There are at least four rea-sons why The Holmes Group might discourage otherreforms:

Volume XXIX, Number 1 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

• The Holmes Group seems to have attracted muchof the foundation money available for encouragingreform (he says recognizing the sour taste of thegrapes).

• The Holmes Group, due in large part to the or-ganizational and marketing skills of its leadersand the prestige of the universities it represents,has established itself as the teacher educationreform movement.

• At least some members of The Holmes Grouphave been pursuing public policies that wouldimpose the overall model on all institutions ofhigher education, and this would rule out otherstrategies for preparing teachers.

• The proposals of The Holmes Group, save theproposal for professional development schools,represent relatively small changes in what andhow new teachers learn in preservice teachereducation.

Let me acknowledge that this argument thatThe Holmes Group may place limits on, rather thanstimulate, basic change in teacher education hasthe feel of the assertion that "my sister is smarterthan your sister." One might test how fundamentalthe reforms proposed by The Holmes Group are intwo ways: (a) by asking whether they realisticallyaddress the basic problems that impede the effec-tiveness of teacher education and (b) by identifyingalternatives to The Holmes Group proposals thatare more likely to enhance teacher effectivenessand be implemented at no greater cost.

Basic Obstacles to EffectiveTeacher Education

Most teacher education programs face severalconditions that significantly reduce the possibilitiesthat the programs can achieve their stated objec-tives. These obstacles to effectiveness are unlikelyto be overcome without significant changes in theroles and capabilities of the various institutionalactors involved in the education of teachers. Thus,preservice teacher education seems predestined tofail to meet the expectations of most teacher ed-ucators and school systems. Because The HolmesGroup's proposals do not adequately address theseconditions, and actually exacerbate some, the re-form of teacher education needs to transcend theboundaries of change set by The Holmes Group'sefforts.

Integrating the Liberal Arts andProfessional PracticeIt is commonly agreed that teachers should

have a good grounding in the liberal arts. Thepresumption is that teachers should bring to theirteaching the broad knowledge, communication skills,and capacities for inquiry that are the alleged prod-ucts of a liberal arts education. Whether studentsactually acquire such learning from most liberal artscurricula is uncertain (Association of American Col-leges, 1985; DeLoughry, 1989; Galambos, Cornett,& Spitler, 1985). But that issue aside, it seemsincreasingly clear that college students are not likelyto transfer what they learn in one course to whatthey learn in other courses or settings unless thelinkages are made explicit and/or the students' toolsfor making such transfer are fully developed (see,for example, Gick & Holyoak, 1980).

The Holmes Group is at work on efforts tocoordinate liberal arts and education curricula.Surely, these efforts should be encouraged. Butreformers have a tendency to forget history and tosee the energy they generate as harbingers ofchange rather than as aberrations. Discipline basedacademic units and schools of education have verydifferent cultures and nowhere is this more truethan in research universities. If we expect teachersto apply the lessons they learn from their liberalarts courses to their teaching, either (a) the contentof sequential courses must be integrated or (b)teacher educators must make the necessary link-ages. Ironically, the teacher education programsthat seem to best integrate the liberal arts and tietheir lessons to the tasks of teaching, those inselective liberal arts colleges (cf. Travers & Sacks,1989), are likely to be ended if The Holmes Groupmodel is widely adopted. It seems reasonable toassume that curricular integration will be compli-cated when curricula stretch across institutions andcover both baccalaureate and graduate level study,as The Holmes Group has proposed.

The Search for Content PedagogyResearch on teacher education and teacher

thinking has shown that the number of courses onetakes in a subject and even one's grades in thatsubject are, at best, loosely related to one's teach-ing effectiveness (Ashton, Crocker, & Olejnik, 1987;Evertson, Hawley, & Zlotnik, 1985). A major expla-nation for this counterintuitive finding is that theway most subjects are taught in college often doesnot provide prospective teachers with an under-standing of their subject that facilitates teaching.

16 Theory Into Practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Shulman (1986) and others have identified theimportance of restructuring the college curriculumto incorporate "content pedagogy" within the dis-ciplines. While this objective seems to be growingin popularity, how this would be achieved in highlyfragmented institutions of higher education wherefaculty resist efforts to define both what and howthey teach seems to be getting little attention. Itdoes seem reasonable to surmise, however, thatonce we decide what content pedagogy looks like,it will be most difficult to implement it in the curriculaand instructional practices at research universitiesand in those colleges where professional prepa-ration follows the bulk of college courses a studenttakes.

The Dependency on Clinical Settings In WhichTeacher Education is Not a High Priority

The learning of practical teaching skills that aresophisticated and embody subject matter content,research based theory, and methods of instructionrequires exemplary clinical settings where (a) ef-fective practice exists, (b) links between collegebased and field based experiences are made ex-plicit, and (c) the teaching of teachers is a valuedprofessional responsibility for which those involvedare especially trained and rewarded. Few clinical(practica or practice teaching) settings can be sodescribed. Not surprisingly, the learning that takesplace in most field based courses and practiceteaching experiences fall far short of the expec-tations teacher educators and practitioners oftenclaim for them (Hawley, 1989).

The Holmes Group, in proposing the establish-ment of professional development schools (PDS),clearly recognizes this obstacle to effective teachereducation. However, the full implications of the ideafor a changed role in teacher education for insti-tutions of higher education seems not to have beenexplored (cf. Hawley, Austin, & Goldman, 1988).

Without resolving the problem of clinical learn-ing opportunities and the transition from college tofirst-year solo teaching, further investments in pre-service teacher education are probably a waste ofenergy and resources. First-year teachers alreadyunderutilize what they know about teaching andseem to unlearn many of the more sophisticatedlessons they learn in the preservice programs (cf.Griffin et al., 1983).

When one begins to lay out the details of theway a PDS would work, it becomes clear, especiallyif any significant claim on public resources is to bemade, that widespread implementation would re-

quire that school systems accept much greaterresponsibility for teacher education than they havebeen willing to accept and that universities havebeen willing to accord. In short, resolving the prob-lems that effective PDSs would resolve is the sinequa non of teacher education reform.

Toward an Understanding of HowTeachers Learn

Much of the teacher education reform move-ment has proceeded on the assumption that if wecould identify what good teachers know and areable to do, teacher candidates could and shouldbe taught this, or much of it, in their preserviceprograms.3 This assumption inevitably leads to de-mands for more time to be allocated to teacherpreparation. The belief that the more prospectiveteachers are taught, the better, is reinforced by asubstantial body of research indicating that effortsto teach teacher education students particular com-petencies are often effective when the learning isassessed in the context of controlled settings (Ev-ertson, Hawley, & Zlotnik, 1985).

On the other hand, as noted above, new teach-ers do not seem to implement much of what theyare taught in college. There has been a tendencyto explain this reality by suggesting that the schoolsare often hostile to new ideas or that the pressuresunder which a new teacher works cause her/himto focus on a narrow repertoire of teaching skills.These diagnoses, no doubt, describe part of theproblem. But, another explanation for why teachersunderutilize what they have been taught is that theydon't really know what they learned to the extentthat they can perform the skill or use the knowledgein different settings where they must deal with manycompeting objectives at once and when it is nec-essary to modify the previously studied behaviorto make it effective enough to warrant its continueduse.

Moreover, it may be that much about teachingcannot be learned effectively until one has actuallytaught and unless the behavior is learned in contextand subsequently reinforced. To put this anotherway, teachers seem to go through stages of cog-nitive development in which teaching itself, and thevariations experienced in teaching, play a criticalrole in how and what a teacher can learn. Thebases for a theory of teacher learning that supportsthis hypothesis are now being developed (cf. Acad-emy for Educational Development, 1986; Berliner,1987; Shulman, 1987; Thies-Sprinthall & Sprinthall,1987). Almost certainly, this work will suggest the

Volume XXIX, Number 1 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

limited impact conventional preservice education canhave on first-year teachers' competencies and us-able knowledge about teaching.

The prospect that a focus in college on practicalteaching skills is, at best, inefficient and, at worst,doomed to failure (measured by the expectationsof teachers, principals, and parents), is an unsettlingone for teacher educators, especially those whoadvocate extended preservice teacher preparation.On the other hand, precisely because teaching isso complex and hectic, it seems likely that manyof the things that it is important for teachers toknow cannot be learned well on the job. Thus,prospective teachers would be well-served by pre-service professional education focused on the fa-cilitation of effective learning about how to learnhow to teach. In this realization lies the path to amore radical and effective model for teacher edu-cation than that thus far advocated by The HolmesGroup.

Another Vision of the Role for Collegesand Universities

If knowing more about how teachers learn islikely to call into question the efficacy of much ofwhat is now done in preservice teacher educationprograms, what implications does this have for therole institutions of higher education can perform inpreparing teachers? One way to answer this ques-tion is to identify those things teachers cannot learneasily or are not likely to be taught, even underthe best of circumstances, on the job. Such thingsinclude theories and research on child developmentand learning; knowledge about the effects of class,race, and ethnicity on learning and behavior; howto learn from experience; how to engage in quan-titative and qualitative analysis; the uses and mis-uses of various types of measurement; and complexproblem solving.

Why couldn't these things be taught in artsand science courses? Some of them could be butmost are not, at least not in a way that wouldfacilitate their transfer to teachers' behavior and tolearning about teaching. The transfer of knowledgefrom one domain to another is a very difficult thingand if it is to be assured it must be planned forand the necessary capabilities must be consciouslydeveloped. If we expect teachers to make effectiveuse of the knowledge they gain from liberal artsand disciplinary majors, it will be important to either(a) restructure some of those courses or (b) explicitlydesign so-called professional education courses sothat the substantive knowledge, theories, methods

of analysis, and insights derived from arts andscience courses most directly relevant to teachinghave a good chance of being used by teachers.This is true for methods courses and subject mattercourses at the advanced levels (cf. Atkins, 1986;Shulman, 1987) where the development of contentpedagogy seems most important (Shulman, 1986).This, in turn, would require that most teacher ed-ucators have broader responsibilities than they nowhave and be much more knowledgeable about thecontent of the liberal arts curricula their studentsexperience.

If it is difficult to achieve the transfer of knowl-edge within colleges and universities, it follows thatpreprofessional teacher education is not likely todirectly affect teacher learning and behavior unlessbridges are built between institutions of higher ed-ucation and schools. Experimentation with suchbridges, the most promising of which seems to bethe professional development school model, is nowunder way in the United States. The impetus behindsuch innovations, however, is not very great giventhe centrality of the reform to all others.

If teachers learn much of what they learn aboutteaching on the job and if their capacity to learnefficiently increases exponentially with experience,then the resources available for enhancing teachers'professional skills and knowledge should be dis-tributed throughout the early years of teaching ratherthan focused heavily on preservice preparation.Strategies need to be developed for facilitating con-tinuity in what is learned and how learning occursacross the various stages of career developmentteachers experience from college through inductionand beyond.

Opportunities could also be developed forteachers who demonstrate competence and com-mitment to return to full-time graduate educationfor a semester and a summer in their third or fourthyear of service. The costs of such an approach(assuming forgivable loans are used to finance it)would not exceed the costs of more ambitiousversions of The Holmes Group's plans and wouldalmost surely produce and retain more effectiveteachers. If the cost seems high, it might be usefulto recall that this opportunity for further educationis commonly available to military officers and manyjunior employees of corporations.

Finally, a more fundamental change in the ed-ucation of teachers than that conceived by TheHolmes Group would insist on a much greater rolefor school systems in the provision of opportunitiesfor professional development. Perhaps Tomorrow's

18 Theory Into Practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Schools (The Holmes Group, in press), The HolmesGroup's forthcoming publication, will point in thisdirection. But I am not suggesting a "simple" needfor more inservice training for teachers or betterclinical training and research sites. Changing therole of schools in the education of teachers wouldrequire restructuring schools to facilitate both stu-dent and teacher learning and would seem to justifyvery different roles for colleges and universities aswell.

ConclusionThe Holmes Group is engaged in the ongoing

struggle by teacher educators to be both moreeffective and more respected. It is an old struggleand the issues have had remarkable staying powerover several decades (Clifford, 1988; Sykes, 1985).Caught between pressures within colleges and uni-versities for more academic rigor and pressures forrelevance by anxious employers and new teacherswho expect the promise that they will be ready toteach to be fulfilled, teacher educators fiddle hereand fiddle there but never question whether theyshould be playing a very different instrument. Itseems unlikely that more fiddling, even for extendedperiods, will permit teacher education to escape theheat.

Credit should be given where it is due. TheHolmes Group is in a position to push its viewsbecause it took initiatives when others did not andbecause it did so effectively. But it could havechosen other paths, paths that would have focusedattention on fundamental and enduring problems infacilitating the professional development of teach-ers. If reform is to succeed, it must attend to thesetting of priorities, the rigorous testing of alter-natives, and, ultimately, the formulation of cost-effective policies that can be justified by their con-tributions to children's learning.

Let me conclude by acknowledging that TheHolmes Group is not a monolith. No doubt somemembers of The Holmes Group will find my char-acterization of the organization inconsistent withtheir commitments. But The Holmes Group hasasserted that its core beliefs are articulated in To-morrow's Teachers. I believe it.

Notes1. It is ironic, though no doubt accidental, that only oneof the three institutions pictured in this article is eligiblefor Holmes membership.2. These costs include tuition at a public university, earn-ings foregone, and the interest on a student loan. For adetailed analysis of these costs see Hawley (1989).

3. This disposition is reflected in the focus of reformefforts on teacher evaluation and field based coursework(See Hawley, Austin & Goldman, 1988) and in the viewsof teacher educators themselves.

ReferencesAcademy for Educational Development. (1986). Teacher

development in schools. New York: Author.Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the

college curriculum: A report to the academic com-munity. Washington, DC: Select Committee of theAssociation of American Colleges.

Ashton, P., Crocker, L., & Olejnik, J. (1987). Teachereducation research: A call for collaboration. Paperpresented to the Southern Regional Consortium ofColleges of Education, Nashville, TN.

Atkins, J.M. (1986). Preparing to go to the head of theclass. The Wingspread Journal, 1, 3.

Berliner, D.C. (1987). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue.Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.

Clifford, G.J. (1988). The professional school and its pub-lics. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educationalchange (pp. 1-26). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

DeLoughry, T.J. (1989). Study of transcripts finds littlestructure in the liberal arts. Chronical of Higher Ed-ucation, 35(19), A1, A32.

Evertson, C.M., Hawley, W.D., & Zlotnik, M. (1985). Mak-ing a difference in educational quality through teachereducation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(13), 2-12.

Galambos, E.C., Cornett, L.M., & Spitler, H.D. (1985). Ananalysis of transcripts of teachers and arts and sci-ence graduates. Atlanta: Southern Regional Educa-tion Board.

Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problemsolving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-365.

Griffin, G., Barnes, S., Hughes, R., Jr., O'Neal, S., Defino,M., Edwards, S., & Hukill, H. (1983). Clinical pre-service teacher education: Final report of the de-scriptive study. Austin, TX: Research and Develop-ment Center for Teacher Education, The Universityof Texas at Austin.

Hawley, W.D. (1987). The high costs and doubtful efficacyof extended teacher preparation programs: An invi-tation to more basic reform. American Journal ofEducation, 95(1), 275-298.

Hawley, W.D. (1989). New directions for teacher educationin the United States. Paris: Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development.

Hawley, W.D. (in press). Systematic analysis, public policymaking and teacher education. In W.R. Houston (Ed.),Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. NewYork: Macmillan.

Hawley, W., Austin, A., & Goldman, E. (1988). Changingteacher education in the south. Atlanta: SouthernRegional Education Board.

The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's Teachers: A re-port of The Holmes Group. East Lansing, Ml: Author.

The Holmes Group, (in press). Tomorrow's Schools. EastLansing, Ml: Author.

Lanier, J.E., & Featherstone, J. (1988). A new commitmentto teacher education. Educational Leadership, 46(3),18-22.

Manski, C.F. (1985). Academic ability, earnings, and thedecision to become a teacher: Evidence from the

Volume XXIX, Number 1 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

National Longitudinal Study of the High School Classof 1972. Working paper No. 1539, National Bureauof Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Governmentof Japan. (1989). Education in Japan: A graphic pres-entation. Tokyo, Japan: Gyosei Publications.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledgegrowth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2),4-11.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foun-dations of the new reform. Harvard Education Re-view, 57, 1-22.

Sykes, G. (1985). Teacher education in the United States.In B. Clark (Ed.), The school and the university: Aninternational perspective (pp. 264-290). Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Thies-Sprinthall, L, & Sprinthall, N.A. (1987). Preserviceteachers as adult learners: A new framework forteacher education. In L Katz & J. Raths (Eds.), Ad-vances in teacher education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Travers, E.F., & Sacks, S.R. (1989). Joining teacher ed-ucation and the liberal arts in the undergraduatecurriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 470-474.

tip

20 Theory Into Practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

58 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014