Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College, Columbia University, just released a fair critique of teacher education in the US. He says, “Today, the teacher education curriculum is a confusing patchwork. Academic instruction and clinical instruction are disconnected. Graduates are insufficiently prepared for the classroom. And research on teacher education is criticized by the academic community for its low quality and is ignored by policy makers and practitioners.” For the most part, I agree, but Levine misses the big picture.
The theory/practice disconnect, which underlies Levine’s critique, is not limited to education schools. It is a higher education problem. In general, law schools, schools of social work, and schools of engineering also produce graduates that require extensive on-the-job training after graduation. Like education schools, other professional schools employ faculty that are many years removed from professional practice, provided they actually worked outside of academia, and often do not encourage faculty to maintain a strong presence outside of the academic community.
For these reasons, I am not convinced that his recommendations for reforming education schools would do much to improve them. American higher education requires reform, and here is a good place to start.
Allow me to add that I am pleased that he considers my University of Virginia to be an exemplary education school. I spent very little time in the teacher education department, so I cannot attest to the quality of the instruction there. Nevertheless, I believe that the quality of student body, rather than the quality of the education school, is the major reason why UVA produces good teachers. I do wish that the teacher education faculty had encouraged more students to take the history of education course, though.
