“Do we still need schools of education?” My first reaction to this question was a reluctant “Of course, we do.” The “of course” reaction was natural and derives from their necessity— think of preparing the nation’s teachers and administrators; their collective impact—think of all the past, present and future students of all ages; and their widely held promise as engines of educational improvement—think of our hopes for education as social benefit. So “of course” we still need ed schools. It’s a loaded question.
The “reluctant” part of my initial reaction, however, would not go away, and I finally figured out why. The 2,300 schools of education spread across our country are so embedded within the operations and culture of our education systems that it is very difficult for them, by themselves, to measurably improve their promise as engines of improvement. They can barely serve the education system— think, for example, teacher shortages—let alone improve it.
What schools of ed are able to achieve is so often shaped by other parts of the system that effectively constrain their options: their university homes; schools; districts; local, state and federal government bodies; professional associations; funding entities; regulatory agencies; infrastructure providers; and, of course, households and other “clients.” Like so many other parts of our education system, ed schools are “market takers” not “market makers”; they respond to the constraints and conditions they face but can do little to change those conditions. I have never met a school of ed professor who feels good about seeing their newly minted teacher education graduates systematically placed into the most challenging schooling environments, but that decision sits outside an ed school’s dominion.
Although functionally connected with the rest of the system, schools of ed are, unfortunately, often singled out and directly implicated in the perceived problems associated with education systems in general—teacher quality, administrator competence, student retention, student success, appropriate curricula, etc.
But this reality of the “embedded” (constrained) school of education is both a problem and an opportunity that more and more education schools are now realizing. Some of the most promising initiatives coming from ed schools are those that acknowledge system interdependency and reach across to other parts of the education system, redesigning system practices and increasing the odds for system success.
Examples include ed schools designing “residency” programs with school districts and unions, creating their own K–12 schools and postsecondary prep programs, providing direct interventions in university operations on behalf of low-achieving students and employees, engaging with large employers to create educational opportunities for employees, and tackling workforce supply issues with employers and universities. I think I see the inklings of system innovations coming from some leading ed schools, like USC Rossier. These initiatives may, over time, improve the entire education system. This is why my response to the question of “Do we still need ed schools?” has become “Now, more than ever.”
