For most student teachers, the essence of becoming a teacher is developing competence and confidence in individual classroom teaching (Wideen 1988). Since the early 1980s, however, the ideal has shifted from individual teacher expertise toward professional community expertise—teachers jointly defining goals and taking responsibility for all students' progress, engaging in ongoing inquiry and experimentation, and assuming leadership in school development (Fullan and Hargreaves 1996; Seashore-Louis, Kruse, and Associates 1995). Trends toward decentralization, site-based management, and collaborative work cultures are creating a context in which teachers working together is becoming the norm. We believe that teacher preparation should be redesigned to prepare beginning teachers for this new environment.
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, in partnership with the North York and Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Districts, began a two-year, teacher education pilot program in 1995 that incorporates a school improvement project into beginning teacher preparation. One of the key aims of the program is to prepare preservice teachers not only for their responsibilities in the classroom, but also for their future role as collaborators with colleagues to make schools better places for living and learning.
The School Improvement Project
In Ontario, preservice education typically consists of an 8- to 10-month program for candidates who have already earned at least a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences. Our pilot two-year program serves 60 student teachers and is designed and implemented by a small group of faculty and school personnel from 12 schools that form what we term an Academy. The Academy Advisory Council consists of the university instructors, school administrators, a teacher liaison from each school, and six student teachers.
In the second year of the program, the teacher interns were assigned in cohort groups of approximately five per school for an extended practicum consisting of an orientation period, two six-week blocks, and regular additional days in the school. The cohort groups became “junior faculty” in these schools. The school improvement project was one of the major practicum assignments negotiated by the Academic Advisory Council.
Interns were required to (1) join a school improvement team/committee; (2) participate with that group over the school year; (3) keep a log of the change process; (4) meet with faculty supervisors for debriefing; (5) prepare two written analyses, one on factors influencing the initiation of the change and a second on the change process; (6) exchange experiences through in-class presentations; and (7) share their reports with their teachers. The following parameters created a common understanding about project expectations:
School improvement. The school initiatives involved change in some area of curriculum, instructional practices, student evaluation, teacher development, or school governance. They could be either site-based initiatives or school-level responses to external initiatives (for example, from the district office).
School-level projects. School improvement initiatives had to be “multiclassroom” and “multiteacher” in terms of scope and potential impact, while recognizing that not all school-level change involves all teachers.
Implementation status. Change projects were expected to be at varying stages of implementation. They could be still in the planning stages, in the early phase of implementation, or ongoing.
School staff role. All teachers in each of the Academy schools were regarded as School Teacher Educators with varying responsibilities for the interns. Some acted as mentors for interns placed in their classrooms. Others interacted with interns in nonclassroom contexts. For the school improvement project, the interns joined committees or teams of teachers responsible for planning and facilitating a change.
Teacher intern role. Interns contributed to the work of the teacher committees. They acted as “participant observers” in the change process and used their interview, observation, and analysis skills to explore the process of change.
Complementing the field experience, a series of school improvement readings and learning activities were incorporated into university classes.
At the start of the project, a university faculty member visited each school to discuss the project and identify initiatives and teacher committees or teams available. These discussions proved important to an understanding of the meaning of school improvement. Initially, some principals and teacher liaisons were uncertain that there was anything that "fit the bill." Others presented only limited options. Talking through the project, however, revealed a range of appropriate initiatives and groups dealing with such issues as equity, technology, arts partnerships, antiracist education, peace education, and literacy. The discussion process prompted several principals and teacher liaisons to express amazement at the amount of school improvement activity actually going on in their school.
Implementation Process and Concerns
At the end of the first practicum, we collected statements from the interns reflecting their midstream concerns. Concerns clustered into two broad categories: (1) procedural concerns about completing the formal project, and (2) concerns about the implementation of the school improvement initiatives in their schools.
Most of the procedural concerns involved clarifying the requirements (for example, content of papers), seeking permission to change committees, and confirming that certain initiatives were compatible with project expectations. The other set of concerns provided a revealing overview of the school improvement project as a learning experience about school change. They largely involved issues related to implementation delays, commitment, time and workload, and leadership.
Implementation delays. Interns' statements indicated that they were confronting the practical realities and challenges of school change. Interns from nearly half the schools reported that little or no action had yet taken place. This heightened their anxiety about fulfilling the project requirements. Changes that failed to take off or floundered were a provocative focus of analysis. In the early stages, the interns equated success on the project with success of the changes they were working on. Most of the projects suffering from inaction during the first half of the school year came alive during the second half. As a result, the interns gained valuable insight into the rhythms and timelines of change in schools.
Staff commitment to change. Interns from nearly half the schools wrote that although the committee members seemed committed to their initiatives, the enthusiasm and commitment did not extend uniformly to other teachers. They were experiencing the common frustration of being a member of a core group advocating a change that other teachers had yet to accept. In a few instances, despite the guidelines and our early negotiations, school personnel withdrew from active involvement in the initiatives, leaving the interns to carry out the projects. Although this was contrary to the spirit of the project, we let these situations run their natural course and encouraged the interns to analyze their change experiences. These groups felt an even greater sense of personal accountability for their efforts.
Time and workload. Involvement in school improvement committees meant carrying out responsibilities. Interns discovered that most schools allocated little time during the school day for this kind of work. They experienced what many teachers experience—that involvement in school improvement activities is often added on to regular classroom duties.
Leadership. Some interns found themselves on teacher teams with no apparent leader or with team members uncertain about their mandate. A few of the interns raised questions about their role as leaders in influencing the change process. Although they were told that they would be treated like "junior faculty" members, the degree to which the interns felt empowered to express their views and demonstrate leadership varied across the schools and projects. This is an issue we will have to respond to more proactively in the future. For the interns it proved a valuable lesson in the dynamics of teacher culture among the experienced and junior faculty.
After collecting and analyzing the midstream concerns, we presented them to the interns, responded to those that could be dealt with directly and engaged in collaborative problem solving about others. We also presented the data to the Academy Advisory Council to enlist their continuing support and facilitation.
Benefits
The project yielded benefits for both the interns and the schools. The interns learned about conditions and processes facilitating change, as well as barriers to change. In their final papers, they analyzed some aspect of the change process, using theories from the professional literature base and reflecting on implications of the experience for their future work. One teacher intern made these observations: I have realized how the change process is not necessarily a straightforward one. Pauses or interruptions in implementation are to be expected, but if there is commitment from those involved in the process and strong support from the administration, the process will likely continue.
School partners provided written feedback on the interns' analyses of the school improvement experience. These comments revealed the impact that such projects can have on the school and—just as important—how they create forums for conversation between new and experienced teachers. This school staff member's comments illustrate the point: Many of your questions and ideas will help [the principal] and me in planning for next year. You are right that initially staff were very enthusiastic and eager to be involved, and that some of that excitement has been lost. The good news is that we have taken staff concerns back to the project managers, and hopefully we can create a stronger program for next year. I also hope that our staff can be involved in the planning so that the program becomes part of the curriculum rather than an add-on.
The process of identifying school improvement initiatives pushed staff to clarify their understanding of school improvement and the work of school committees. The presence of interns on the committees raised the profile of the changes, created greater awareness among staff about the importance of understanding the change process, and sometimes stimulated action. In many instances the school staff recognized the interns for their contributions, leadership, and insights.
What We've Learned
- Shifting the role from student teacher in the classroom in year one to interns with broadened school responsibilities in year two helped legitimize participation in school improvement.
- Partnering with our Academy schools enabled ongoing communication, problem solving, and enhanced learning for all partners.
- The extended practicum in year two enabled interns to follow a school improvement initiative over a school year and to experience the practical realities of time, the micropolitics of change, and the unpredictable and imperfect nature of change work.
- Initial disequilibrium and anxiety over lack of progress shifted as interns realized that the professional learning gained was not necessarily dependent on the success of the change initiative.
- Teaching about the issues and process of change while simultaneously immersing the interns in real change strengthened the coherence between coursework and practical experience. The project provided a strong theoretical and experiential basis for a more-than-surface understanding of the complexities of change.
University faculty, school staff, and teacher interns in the program agreed that structured involvement in school change teams moves us toward the goal of preparing the next generation of teachers to be leaders in school improvement. One school staff member said, “[This project] may be the only way to try to understand the complexities of a large school.” And a teacher intern's reflection neatly summarized the program's intent: “As a teacher, I intend to not only make a difference in my own classroom, but also in my school.”
Our experience has convinced us that teacher education can be a natural and stimulating partner with and incentive for school improvement. This means that faculties of education need to see how their work with preservice teachers can be connected with school improvement. It also means that schools need to recognize that preparing exceptional future teachers means extending the sites for beginning teacher development beyond the classroom door to the broader range and contexts of teachers' collaborative professional work in schools.
