![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[CPRE: An Exciting Venture] The Policy Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1 - October 1997
Education reform efforts across the nation are dramatically raising expectations for student achievement. Research conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), an R&D Center which is funded by this Institute, found that teachers have not been adequately prepared for the changes in practice needed to meet new student learning goals.1
In all subjects, especially math and science, research indicates that many teachers do not understand the substance well enough to teach concepts, problem formulation and solving, and other higher order thinking skills now expected as learning outcomes. Teachers need opportunities to improve their content knowledge and learn new methods of teaching. Yet neither policy makers nor teachers themselves generally perceive how crucial the quality of teacher knowledge is to the success of education reform.
A major investment in professional development--not just more of it but a very different kind--is necessary to expand and deepen teacher knowledge. Typical approaches to professional development are not aligned with student learning goals and do not reflect what we know about teachers as learners. According to CPRE's 50 State Profile, "current professional development policies are inefficient and expensive."
A curriculum for each subject and grade level that is consistent with high expectations and new standards is another missing piece in the reform puzzle. Standards do not translate easily into everyday lessons. Although it is the school curriculum that concretely outlines the knowledge teachers need to teach students effectively, appropriate curriculum units and textbooks generally have not been developed. Yet curriculum should be the substantive foundation for teacher professional development as well as teaching practice. Without a marriage of new curricula and teacher learning, reform rhetoric will not be translated into everyday classroom practice.2
What is the significance of these research findings for policy makers? A team of CPRE researchers, Susan Fuhrman, David Cohen, Tom Corcoran, and Deborah Ball, offered practical recommendations at a recent briefing on Capitol Hill.
David Cohen, from the University of Michigan, said "we have only begun to imagine ways this problem might be solved. The problem of teacher knowledge is of such magnitude that we need a 10-year plan."
The CPRE research team suggested that an ambitious curriculum development initiative, based on the new content standards and the realities of teaching practice, may be the best place to start. Teacher professional development could then be built around the school curriculum. Given the immensity of the development task, a few strands might be phased in each year. A common curriculum tied to high standards can potentially provide a basis for teacher professional communities as well as for a community of future citizens.
To effectively develop appropriate curricula and transform professional development, policy makers need to make substantial, long-term resource commitments. Any initiative should go beyond the usual channels, work within and outside government agencies, and broaden the roles that stakeholders might play.
1Related CPRE publications are: Policies and Programs for Professional Development of Teachers: A 50 State Profile and Helping Teachers Teach Well:Transforming Professional Development. For ordering information see Ordering Instructions for CPRE Publications. See also National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. 1996. What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York, NCTAF.
2Ball, D.L. and Cohen, D. 1996. Reform by the Book: What Is-or Might Be-the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform, Educational Researcher, 25, 9, 6-8.
-###-