Contributed Commentary on
Volume 4 Number 2: Stout Staff Development Policy:
Fuzzy Choices in an Imperfect Market
4 November 1996Damon A. Runion
drunion@usfk.korea.army.mil
The University of OklahomaRobert Stout brings an issue to the policy table that has been hotly debated in the past few years. Questions regarding improving the quality of our schools have been posed to educators, lawmakers and public administrators on a frequent basis. Stout sees the development of the school faculty as a major piece in the reform movement. His analysis of the current system of staff development shows why in many respects it is an obvious failure. Viewing the current system as a smorgasbord of uncertain and untested courses and workshops, Stout makes the solid point that such credit collecting is undermining the well-intended efforts of legislatures and educational policy bodies. It is obvious that Stout addresses a key issue in American education; however, something is lacking. Good policy suggestions are offered, such as shifting to an investment model of staff development. But little is suggested that will have a long term impact on the public education field. Public administrators need to be constantly looking for ways to improve systems. Whether it is minor reform, as suggested by Stout, or systemic reform, as will be suggested in this commentary, the eyes of the professional must be on the crux of the question. In this case that crux is the professionalism of public school teachers. Two main propositions are offered in this area to alleviate many of the problems Stout has explicated. The first is the abandonment of the Bachelors degree as the minimum required educational level for entry into the teaching profession. An idea that offers one way to remedy the problems of staff development--and one which has gained recent momentum--is the fifth-year Masters program. At present teachers are clearly rewarded with a significant raise upon completing a Masters degree. Often these degrees are actually the culmination of many years of staff development course work. As demonstrated by Stout such training is dubious at best in many cases. The standardization of the Master of Arts in Teaching or Master of Arts in Education as the entry level degree assures as much as possible a firm professional background of training for all teachers. The additional year of professional training coupled with four years of exclusive subject matter study insures a high level of quality in new teachers. Teachers who are already certified with only a Bachelors degree will be exempted from this requirement, but will soon fall behind in competitiveness with their fellow teachers. The second proposition rises out of the establishment of the first. Current staff development programs hope to retool teachers and maintain quality in the teaching profession. By setting the requirements for entry into the teaching profession at the Masters level, professional standards can be developed. One professional career stands out as an excellent model to follow, the legal profession. The American Bar Association in conjunction with state Bars mandates certain levels of continuing legal education to maintain licensing. The National Education Association could pursue similar objectives in conjunction with state boards of education. Such a model provides uniform and approved training to all teachers, unlike the current system with virtually no regulation. Questions of utility and efficiency are virtually absent in such a model. In addition, the pursuit of advanced degrees is basically limited to those who wish to leave the field of teaching. Doctor of Education degrees would only be pursued by those who want to step into positions of great administrative responsibly or into the college classroom, as in law where significantly small numbers pursue LL.M. and J.S.D. degrees. The suggestions offered here only represent a small percentage of systems that could work better. Recently the Public Administration field has been turned upside down by works such as "Reinventing Government" by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler. The main message behind such works is that government often does not have the best model for the way things can be done. By looking at the private sector we can often find a way to do things differently. Given the current dissatisfaction with the quality of public education in America, a fresh approach needs to be taken. The model offered here does not purport to be the solution to all problems, it simply shows that it has worked for another profession. Perhaps now is the time to modify and implement such a model in American public education.
