Thalia M. Mulvihill

Women and gender studies and multicultural education: Building the agenda for 2000 and beyond

Abstract Multicultural education has always been contested terrain, yet within the last five years a significant consensus about its scope and function has evolved. The discourse about multicultural education has not adequately attended to the debates surrounding the terms “gender” and “sex” or the multiple feminist theories that focus on the more critical aspects of a social change agenda. This article focuses on some of the tensions between women and gender studies and multicultural education such as: understanding gender as a category of analysis, theoretical constructions of feminism, and building an educational agenda for social justice in an effort to further the agenda for 2000 and beyond.

Voices in Education: Professional Dispositions in Teacher Education

The focus of this special issue is the important consideration of the professional dispositions that guide all dimensions of teacher education. Broadening the considerations to include not only dispositions for preservice education students but also for teacher-educators, we hope to invigorate the discussion about pedagogical, curricular, and policy implications. These aspects of educators’ work are supported by organizations such as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). Yet identifying, describing, and being able to evaluate specific dispositions for our profession is an ongoing and important discussion. We invite you to join us in considering the responses of members of our Editorial Advisory Board as they respond to the following questions/prompts designed to elicit their views on this broad topic: 1. What issues do you feel most important when considering desired dispositions for teacher educators; for preservice teachers; for curriculum design? 2. What dispositions are needed for university teacher-educators? 3. What dispositions are needed for preservice teachers?

Problem-Based Learning Pedagogies in Teacher Education: The Case of Botswana.

The development of primary school teachers is an important aspect of a country’s economic, social, and political well-being. The use of particular pedagogies in teacher education may greatly influence how teachers perform in their classrooms after completing their training programs. This micro-ethnography investigated the extent to which teacher educators in Botswana’s College of Education used problem-based learning (PBL) approaches in the development of preservice primary teachers. While the findings of this micro-ethnography showed that particular teacher educators rarely used problem-based learning approaches, the accompanying insights helped to bring a deeper understanding of what is needed for Botswana’s teacher education program to shift to a problem-based learning pedagogy on three levels: teaching practices, curriculum policies, and further research within a particular geopolitical context.

Voices in Education: Professional Teacher Associations

Every semester in my undergraduate educational psychology course we have a discussion about teaching as a profession. Is teaching a profession? We compare and contrast with other occupations that are definitely considered professions, such as physicians, lawyers, architects, and accountants. Is there an exam required to enter the profession? Yes. Is there a high level of education and training required? Yes and no (alternative certifications). Is the salary commensurate with the skills, education, and work required? No. Is there respect and admiration for the occupation? Increasingly no. Is there an association that sets standards and determines who gets to practice in the profession? No. Teacher associations are often referred to as ‘‘unions,’’ suggesting a division of labor and management, where teachers are part of the labor force. Teachers are not a self-governing body like other professions. Teachers do not determine the criteria for licensure. Teachers do not determine who can and cannot practice. Teachers do not set policy at any level. Yet, teachers enter their classroom the first day fully responsible for everything that happens and all of the outcomes. I have a professional rule: never accept responsibility without authority. That is to say, do not accept a task that will allow me to be judged based on the performance of others without the authority to control the situation. Teaching as a profession violates my rule on at least two levels. Teachers have no control over the ‘‘quality’’ of the material (students) they get to work with, but are held responsible for the product at the end of the year. Small changes in the nature of a teacher’s students can have a big impact on assessments of teachers based on student performance. This is reflected in the most damning criticism of value-added models of teacher evaluation. Teachers are inconsistently labeled as good or bad from year-to-year based on the changing nature of their students. The second, larger level is the policies that establish the rules of the game, from the district to the national level. Would we, unlike any other country, be testing students every year? Maybe, but not if those tests did not help kids or make a major contribution to instruction. Would we make privatization through charters or vouchers a major reform effort without any evidence of improving education? This costly distraction probably would be replaced with actual programs that benefit students. But none of this is to suggest that teachers do not need a ‘‘union.’’ On the contrary, the lack of control by teachers over the conditions of their occupation demands a union. In the face of self-serving political agendas and profiteering, teachers must stand together for themselves and their students. The lack of respect for teachers in this country is a national embarrassment. Accountability is a two-edged sword, and while reformers wield it to attack ‘‘bad’’ teachers, it cuts deep into every teacher in every classroom. It tells the

Voices in Education: Charter Schools

Charter schools may represent the very heart of the current debates surrounding the democratic mission of public education in the United States. From the first state law in Minnesota to establish charter schools in 1991, the movement has grown significantly when considering the number of charter schools that have been established and the number of students who are enrolled in them. From school years 1999–2000 to 2011–12, the number of charter schools increased from 1,500 (1.7%) to 5,700 schools (5.8%) and enrollment increased from 0.3 million to 2.1 million students (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). Ball State University (n.d.) waded into the charter school debate by taking on the responsibility of becoming one of a handful of agencies sanctioned by the State of Indiana to review proposals from those wishing to organize a charter school, render a decision about whether or not a charter ought to be granted, and then serve as an evaluator of the school going forward. Ball State University’s involvement with charter schools began in the school year 2002–2003 with 481 students enrolled in six charter schools. By the school year 2012–2013, enrollment increased to 22,908 students in approximately 42 operating charter schools across the state. This represents another dimension of the evolution of teacher educators’ relationship to the charter school movement whereby they are charged with the role of being an evaluator for a school corporation that, at best, may be an innovative form of public education capitalizing on the benefits of local control; and at worst, may represent a business model that siphons public funds away from the corpus of the tax base meant to serve all students. It is clear that not all charter schools are alike, and their stories differ sharply in some instances. As Margaret E. Raymond (2014) stated in a recent Phi Delta Kappa, ‘‘Maligned and revered, exemplified or reviled, almost every discussion about charter schools involves a tangle of differing stories, theories, value, and facts’’ (p. 8). There are approximately 6,700 charter schools serving 2.9 million students across 42 states and the District of Columbia at this time (Zgainer & Kerwin, 2015). It is no wonder that it is difficult to arrive at a universalizing statement or generalities about these entities.

Voices in Education: Immigration and Teacher Education

Immigration issues around the world impact teachers and teacher educators. The Pew Research Center reported, “3.9 million kindergarten through 12th-grade students in U.S. public and private schools in 2014—or 7.3% of the total—were children of unauthorized immigrants” (Passel & Cohen, 2016). Recently, these estimates point to the U.S. Census breaking all records on the number of immigrants raising it from 13.5% of the U.S. population today to 15% in 2023, many of whom are the children of immigrants (Bedard, 2017) both documented and undocumented. And, the implications for teachers are ever-present surrounding the uncertainties of evolving immigration policies such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The demographics of schools in the United States will continue to change significantly and so must our understanding of this growing diversity. These new challenges and opportunities have great implications for how we prepare new teachers, design effective professional development for teachers at all stages of their careers, and help create more dynamic leaders at the building, state, and national levels (Lew, 2012). We invite you to join us in considering the responses of members of the Editorial Advisory Board as they respond to the following question designed to elicit their views on this topic. As teacher educators, what is our responsibility to the students and teachers in our schools (public and private) and in higher education who are immigrants (whether legally documented or undocumented)? Linda E. Martin and Thalia M. Mulvihill Co-editors of The Teacher Educator

Current Issues in Teacher Education: An Interview with Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond

Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education Emeritus at the Stanford Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. Her leadership and fortitude to examine the issues that face the U.S. educational system and to develop solutions that affect school reform efforts make it difficult in one short introduction to describe all she has accomplished for our school communities, the teachers, and their students. Therefore, we leave you with a brief introduction highlighting some key accomplishments in her educational career. Dr. Darling-Hammond is a former president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and member of the National Academy of Education and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Darling-Hammond’s research focuses on issues in educational policy, teaching quality, and school reform. Her work in these areas makes her an enduring leader, and as a result, she is highly regarded by scholars across various educational fields of study, as well as educational policy makers at the local, state, and federal levels. Education Week in 2006 identified Dr. Darling-Hammond as one of the nation’s 10 most influential people affecting education policy for over a decade. In 2008, she served as a leader of President Obama’s education transition team. Her more than 500 publications include research reports, articles, books, and book chapters. Dr. Darling-Hammond founded the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education in 2008 and helped to redesign the Stanford Teacher Education program. More recently, she has become the president and chief executive officer of the Learning Policy Institute (2015), a research and policy think tank. Please join us as we consider Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond’s thoughts on important issues in education.

Introduction to the Special Issue on Community Engaged Teacher Education

This Special Issue of The Teacher Educator was designed to help further interrogate ways teacher educators are examining new and different permutations of culturally responsive teaching, including a move toward community engagement within the context of teacher education. Contained within, you will find a provocative interview with Dr. Tyrone Howard in conversation with Drs. Pat Clark and Eva Zygmunt, two Research articles focused on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy doubts about culturally responsive teaching (Siwatu, Chestnut, Alejandro, and Young) and cultural competence assessments for preservice teachers (Bustamante, Skidmore, Nelson, and Jones), as well as two articles that describe different aspects of Promising Practices, the benefits of facilitated reflection for teacher candidates (Smith and Glenn) and theoretical frameworks and practical considerations for community-based urban teacher education (Noel). Collectively these articles represent the rich research tapestry surrounding the theme of culturally responsive and community engaged teacher education. We wish to thank all of the authors for their contributions.

Voices in Education: Teacher Shortage: Myth or Reality?

It appears that a teacher shortage is on the rise in our schools. This not a new issue or concern; we have experienced teacher shortages off and on for some time for a variety of reasons. But this particular shortage of qualified teachers does appear to be important and different than previously reported shortages (The Washington Post, August 2015). If that is true, how concerned should we be? We asked our Editorial Advisory Board to reflect on this important issue by responding to the following prompts:

Innovative Approaches to Study Abroad at Harper College and Fox Valley Technical College

Community colleges have an imperative to attend to building the global citizen (Raby and Tarrow 1996) as do all institutions of higher education. Despite the fact that community college students now comprise approximately half of the American higher education student population, only about 1 % of the American students engaged in study abroad are from community colleges (Institute of International Education Studies 2014). The reasons attributed to this are many, and they mainly revolve around the distinct characteristics and needs of the typical community college student demographic.