"Excellence in Teaching: A Common Goal"
A National Conference of Chief State School Officers and College and
February 16-18, 1983
Panel of Chiefs and Presidents
Interviewed by Robert MacNeil, Executive Editor, "The MacNeil-Lehrer
February 18, 1983
Gordon M. Ambach, President, The University of the State of New
York, Commissioner of Education, State of New York
Norman C. Francis, President, Xavier University of Louisiana
A. Bartlett Giamatti, President, Yale University
Craig Phillips, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of
Mr. MacNeil then moderated questions from the floor:
John E. Worthen, President, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
John E. Sawyer, President, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Stephen S. Kaagan, Commissioner of Education, State of Vermont
Floretta Dukes McKenzie, Superintendent of Schools, District of
Theodore Lobman, Program Officer, The William and Flora Hewlett
Donald Stedman, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, The
University of North Carolina
Barbara W. Newell, Chancellor, The State University System of
John B. Duff, Chancellor of Higher Education, Massachusetts Board of
Michael J. McCarthy, President, St. Mary of the Plains College
Donald C. Gill, State Superintendent of Education, State of
Michael C. Cooke, Professor of English, Yale University
Stephen J. Trachtenberg, President, The University of Hartford
John H. Lawson, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of
Worth David, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, Yale University
Jack W. Peltason, President, American Council on Education
Benjamin H. Alexander, President, University of the District of
Earl Lazerson, President, Southern Illinois University at
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Could we have a little quiet so we
can start? Is it alright for the cameras if we go ahead? It s a great
privilege for me to be able to moderate this session, this morning.
summarizing your three days of conference. I am so very aware that
someone in my position feels awfully naked when he doesn't have the
protection of a studio and his own cameras and that kind of impression of
omniscience and everything that is so easy to create under those
circumstances. And having them taken away leaves me feeling very naked,
because you all know infinitely more about this subject, which is your
professional occupation, than I do. And so please forgive me if my areas
of ignorance are all too apparent as we go through this.
I don t think I need to introduce the panel in any detail because they
are all people who have been very active in your deliberations. But, for
the record, on my immediate right, Gordon Ambach, the President of the
State University of New York and the Commissioner of Education for New
York State. On my immediate left, Norman Francis, the President of Xavier
University of Louisiana. President Giamatti of Yale on the far right:. And
Craig Phillips, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the
State of North Carolina on my left, and an alumnus of the "MacNeil-Lehrer
Proud to be an alumnus.
As the host President, Mr. Giamatti, what has
this conference achieved?
A. Bartlett Giamatti:
I think it brought together people who have rarely, if ever, been together
to talk about forms of cooperation that ten years ago would not have been
talked about even though they would have been necessary to explore. I
think it has basically achieved a capacity for people to see each other,
exchange ideas, and find that there is much more of a mutual need than the
stereotypes on either side would have led one to believe. I think it has
also been a time for the proposing of whether models of cooperation
between schools and colleges or forms of cooperation that has
engaged the idea of cooperation and spread that. And I think that s
probably the major achievement.
Why is that important, Mr. Ambach?
Gordon M. Ambach:
I think it is important because we have
needed to have an expression both from college and university chief
executives and from our states that we have a mutual interest, that we
have a commitment to effectiveness in teaching and that we can come
together and share the strategies and the specific practices which are
going on in some parts of our country and some institutions, but which
must be made much more widespread and systematic in their application.
Mr. Phillips, what has the conference
achieved for you?
I think it has put in the
context. again that next step in the development of credibility that has
been reflected in the earlier session a year and a half ago. But maybe,
more important, it has now put us in a position, I think, to really
clearly, publicly develop a new image of the issue of the quality of the
people who work in education. The very nature of the impact of what has
happened here on the understanding of a public, of what really is going to
make a difference in the achievement of youngsters, in the success of this
country through educational excellence, is now come full force onto the
issue of the quality of the people who carry out the education process.
And that gets to the level of those who are responsible primarily for the
trainingand the selection and the recruitment of those people and
then those who carry it out. And I think we are at a point where we can
clearly say if somethingis going to happen to youngsters in this
country, it is going to happen because the people who work with those
youngsters are better trained, are better qualified to do their job. And I
think we are at that moment.
And what is your version of what it has
Norman C. Francis:
Well, I agree with everything that has
been said this far, but I think that it says something else. I think it is
a perfect time for us to say we are very much involved in developing human
capital. I think we have missed that for a bit. We have been concerned
about things about supplies, but I think this conference is saying to the
public that, one, we believe that education is serious business. That it
is going to be maintained, that this country is going to be maintained as
a democratic society, that we have to educate our young people, and they
are not going to be educated unless they have quality teaching and the
opportunity to learn. And if there is a significance for me, I think the
coming together of the kinds of people that we have here who represent
education at every level, we are saving to the public that we are
reaffirming that value of education, and we are saying that standards,
excellence, are important in the overall context of what we must do. And I
think that the public has not heard that from us as a combination of folks
who work in the trenches, so to speak.
You all came, I presume, dedicated to the
idea that better cooperation between schools and colleges and universities
could improve teaching in the schools, elementary and secondary, and at
the same time, thereby, improve the quality of education given to young
people, and have a beneficial effect on universities as well. What do you
leave with, that you did not come with? Mr. Ambach.
I think we leave with a much better
understanding of some of the specific projects that are underway. The
stress here has been on practice, on what's actually happening, and
although there may be some who have known about a particular project in
Michigan, or a project in North Carolina, a project in Louisiana, we may
not have all known about those projects, and what happened in order to put
them in place in the particular locations. So, I think we each carry away
a certain, very specific learning about some practice which has gone on
elsewhere in the country. And I think we come away with a mutual concern
that it is possible to replicate these kinds of practices elsewhere, if we
will take the initiative to do so.
Do you want to add to that?
I think what the conference did not do,
that is, try to get in the nuts and bolts and try to solve all the
problems that confront education today. I think what it said, in effect,
is that there are good things happening, surely there are major concerns,
but that each of us must go back in our respective areas and use the
ingenuity we have and we have it in combinations that will
serve those areas as we see them. And with the people who know what needs
to be done. And I think that that was a very key element of all this. That
we did not try to prescribe. If indeed this conference has motivated some
of us to, say, go back and work with the people who know what some of the
problems are, and, together, work for solutions, I think we will have a
vast array of many more models, many of which may not have been developed
at this point in time.
Mr. Phillips, has this meeting created any
doubts in your mind about the practicality of bringing schools and
colleges together? It is a very nice idea, it is a sort of "motherhood"
idea, but are you going away with sort of practical doubts about bow
possible it is to achieve it?
Well, I did not come with those
doubts, because I think we had, in our state and I think that is where
the focus must be now, state by state, in terms of making something happen
out of what has happened here. But I came with having come through that
long period of doubt, with a sense of reality that it could happen. I
think that what has been in the air here and it is the one that
will not be measured except in the results that take place from it
but in the air here, as compared for example, actually. with the first
session, the first bringing together, the air has been entirely different,
and I think that the reality of the possibility of successful results has
been reflected here. And I came with less doubts. I leave with even less
of those, and I think it is just reflected in the air.
I think what I take away from this is
a renewed sense that there are limited and very real things that are
possible to do. That the cooperation that has been manifest and for which
there is a record in various parts of this country indicates to me that if
one defines and clearly sticks with what one thinks one can do in a given
locale, one can do a great, great deal. And one cannot become overwhelmed
or paralyzed by the fact that one is not solving all of the problems of
American education or American culture, all of which are there, but which
the educational process will solve in the longer term if it is healthy
every step along the way. I must say it has been an exhilarating
experience from that point of view.
I read that in your opening remarks you said
that there are four problems. You mentioned four problems. nice
alliterative problems: "prestige, power, pay, and preparation." Which of
those problems . . .
Those are all with regard to
teachers. . .?
Yes, with regard to teaching. Which of those
problems does this effort, this conference, carve out and potentially
Well, I suppose in an interesting way,
we are not going to solve the problems of pay, and we are not going to
solve the problems of power, whatever that may mean, in any given
institution. The extent to which school teachers and university faculty
believe themselves engaged in a common enterprise that has dignity and
purpose and "Juice" in it, the extent that there are interests of
prestige, and self-worth, then I think in fact the modes of collaboration
will address that in due course. And I think in terms of preparation, by
which I mean the sense of how better to encourage the people who do teach
well, to teach better, in ways not only in the boosting of morale which
goes to the other point, then I think there have been a great many ways in
which that has been addressed, in terms of the various case studies that
we saw. So, I would pick out those two as being most directly, if
obliquely, addressed by the conference.
Do you want to add to that, Mr. Ambach?
I would support the stress on the
two. And I think the reason why we stress the same the President just
indicated is because we have been talking about what specific steps can be
taken by the parties who are here. This has not been an attempt to try to
set up a list of what we ought to request of the Federal Government, or
what we ought to be setting as an agenda for a particular legislature. It
has been an attempt to try to establish what things we can do ourselves,
and need to do as institutional leaders, making a particular institutional
connection. And I think perhaps, along the lines of prestige, one of the
most significant points that has been made is the matter of the
colleagueship among those who are in faculties in the colleges and
universities and those who are in the elementary and secondary schools. We
have our educational system very much split along horizontal divisions.
There is very little vertical connection or integration, if you will. for
the most part. And I think some very significant points have been made by
way of what it means for the teacher in the elementary or secondary
schools to be associated with faculty at the college and university level,
in the sense of prestige, but I think more important in the sense of
commitment to scholarship, and a commitment to learning, to being on the
forefront of learning, and in the sense, mutual, of an impact on the
university level, by way of a better understanding of in fact what is
really going on in the schools.
I think that is significant. One
particular point, in the cooperation, collaboration, it is not a "big
brother little brother" situation, and I think that came through.
And if it was a message that had to come through, I think that most of us
understood the fact that you shouldn't approach it that way, but
unfortunately many of us do so. But I think if the conference said
anything, I think it said that we both have something to bring to the
collaboration, and a mutual respect for what can take place, I think, was
an important point made at this conference.
Mr. Phillips, looking at it from the point of
a school system administrator, confronted with all the myriad of problems
that you are in the schools, what piece of those problems does this area
give you hope could be solved? We have heard President Giamatti's four
"P's". What chunk of your problems could this . . . ? How realistic is it
to think you can carve off a piece of your problem with this effort?
Well I guess that I would add the
"possibility" as the fifth "P", and if you want to go out of the
partnership, we can keep on. Since Phillips begins with a "P", I'll add
that, too, if you'd like.
We are on a roll, guys. . .
This think called education is a
labor intensive business. I think we all know that. It is quality,
whether it is the public perception or our own perception, the quality of
what happens is directly related to the quality of and the effectiveness
of that labor. Which brings you to the moment if, and I think it was Ben
Alexander in the panel yesterday, who talked of the promotion side of it
another onein terms of . . . if that image is strong enough,
if the decision makers begin to believe that that quality is or can be
there, then the next decision, which is in my opinion the most important,
the support mechanisms to make it happen, because labor costs money,
whether you are training it or compensating for it. And again I think the
possibility is that with that image changing whether it is the national
level, the state level, or the local level decision maker, may be more
ready to provide the resources from a public arena to do that job, and I
think that that is the message that is as strong as any we could get out
Could I add from another state
perspective on that, and I think I speak for my colleague, who was
addressing the issues of What are the most important things for us to be
doing in the school systems? To me, the single most important task that we
have is to assure that there is a strong quality of teaching in our
schools. The general public perception in this country is that we are in a
surplus circumstance for teachers. We have gone through the 1970s in which
there have been tightening fiscal belts, in which there has been a decline
in enrollment, and a general perception that there is an excess of
teachers. We have got to carry out of that, we have got to be persuasive
and informative that we are moving to a circumstance where there is a very
substantial potential shortage of teaching personnel. We see it now in
mathematics and science, but we are going to be seeing it right across the
board, elementary education, English, the Social Sciences, Math, and
Science as well. We are going to see that in the latter part of the decade
unless there are specific actions taken. And that is why this conference,
focusing on effectiveness in teaching, to me goes to the central issue
that we all have in trying to plan for and operate our systems.
Let me just play the "devil's advocate" here
moment. Is there a danger that this conference, by its very weight and
prestige, that you hope is going to have a positive rippling effect
throughout the country in drawing attention to this aspect of the problem,
may by that prestige divert attention from other aspects of the problem
and create the sense that this is a panacea, that you are going to solve
the problems of the schools by cooperation between colleges, universities,
and local school systems?
I think if the conference had allowed
itself to labor under that illusion, the danger you referred to is very
real. The fact is, the conference has not. I think the fact is there has
been a very healthy realism and practicality about what we think we can do
that has not tried to assert that we are the solution to all of the ills
that afflict the system on the one hand, but that if, on the other, what
we have been talking about does not happen, whether they have heard about
this or not, the situation cannot get better.
And I do not think we were naive. The
fact that we did not talk at length about money. I do not think anybody in
this auditorium today would say that we do not need money. But the start
on that, of course, is what is new. I think the important point that I
would like to make, is part of this, in terms of what could happen.
Quality of teaching, of course, is the key, we say, to quality education.
But the people who need it the most are the ones who can least afford to
pay for it. And as we look at the demographics of what is happening in
this urban center, we would be naive to think that just the collaboration
will solve it. I think Craig Phillips has mentioned it. We are not naive.
If we are going to have it, certainly we must have collaboration, we must
know what we want to do, how we want to go about it, but we must be
supported. And unfortunately, I think as we look at the urban center
today, there are people who want the best for their youngsters who are not
in a position to pay for it, and that support has to be forthcoming. And
if credibility is an element in this, and it is, let s get that behind us,
and let s get back to business about providing that quality.
I just wonder, again, playing on this idea of
the enormous prestige that you are bringing to bear, and the attention you
are attracting. Do you give Federal, state and local government an excuse
not to pay attention to the resources because they can say, "Oh, hey, here
is a way of improving the quality of teaching because the universities are
going to come in, and we are going to be able to share some of their
academic excellence and prestige with our school teachers." Does this give
them. . .
I think not. No, not at all. First of
all, half of us are states, or directly representing state resource. Many
who are college and university presidents here, of course, are in public
institutions very much dependent upon what would be public support.And so,
I do not think there is any indication, any implication, that somehow or
other without a public support, Federal, state and local, that we are
going to be making any headway. 1 think that there is an expectation, once
again of the public, that unless the school systems and the colleges and
universities can come together and in fact can design the agenda, can
demonstrate that they are genuinely putting their resources together to
meet the most difficult problems, then there is not a good case to be made
to go to the public to try to draw the local or the state or the Federal
resources. In contrast to the approach you have presented, it seems to me
it is imperative that what we are doing is coming together to think, to
design, to plan in order that we can make a greater claim on the public
No danger that the State of North Carolina,
Phillips, is going to say, "Oh, that is really neat, you've got nice
cooperation with the universities. You have in your case in North Carolina
a private foundation giving you money for a pilot program to improve the
development of teachers. We don't need to put more State resources into
Of course. That is always the
danger. But I think there are no promises here of that kind of solution.
The promise is that something is going to be done about it. If I could use
just one example, and it is a simplistic, headon, in terms of a
specific state relationship. Although there has been a lot of work going
on again this conference and what will happen out of it was
reflected yesterday in the brief presentation of one element of approach
to this. In which something happened between the leadership in higher
education and the leadership at my level that had not happened up to this
point. And we publicly testified, spontaneously in a sense, to the fact it
does work, and my colleagues who are here, were wondering if it were just
talk, and my colleagues heard me, and again it was spontaneous, say it
does work, and my higher education colleagues heard the same message, and
the only way you do that is in an eyeballtoeyeball situation.
I think we can take that back, but your fears are correct ones.
Well, I don't want to labor the negative side
of this, but just let me raise one other thing before we go on. Can you
push the improvement of the quality in the selection of teachers at the
early stage, and their training and development, and career development,
without also concentrating on the resources that are available to pay
them? Because isn't that the chief motive, as well as loss of public
image, for them leaving the profession, for the huge exit of teachers into
private industry? Can you discuss it in isolation from the resources
No, not at all. And I don't think
it's been discussed in isolation. At the same time that points have been
made by way of what does it take to recruit, what special efforts might be
made in personto-person contact, and encouraging teachers and
administrators in the elementary and secondary schools to identify
talented youngsters who might go into teaching, and scholarships for them,
and perhaps even guaranteed employment for some who might choose to
prepare for teaching. In addition to those, we have talked about what
incentives are necessary by way of actually making a placement in teaching
and then maintaining that placement. We ve talked about the possibility of
guaranteeing scholarships to the children of those who are in fact in
teaching, and other incentives in addition to an increase in pay. I think
it's so widely assumed here that we must have a substantial increase in
the resource that's provided as a reward for those who are in teaching, in
terms of cash, in terms of salary, there hasn't been a necessity to debate
whether that's important or not. It's been a question of what else you do.
I think that everybody here has
worked all his life, her life, on the principle that people ought to be
paid in this noble profession of teaching at a level that somehow allows
them to live with some dignity. There's no doubt about all that. The fact
is, there's also some evidence, at least from our little, tiny efforts in
one corner of New England, that shows that a fair number of the New Haven
high school teachers who have gone five years through the Yale-New Haven
Teachers Institute have told us that they have stayed in teaching in New
Haven because of the presence of the Institute.
Even though their salaries haven't gone up?
Not necessarily. There are ways of
making people not just feel better, but recharge themselves, and engage
the profession in the broadest sense of the word, keep up with
scholarship, exchange ideas with other faculty colleagues who happen to be
teaching at Yale, that has meant a good deal to people, while it has not
necessarily resulted in an increase in pay. But it has resulted in an
increase in the kind of internal expansion that you undergo when what you
are doing is taken seriously by everybody.
Is this realistic? I mean, could you
alleviate any significant amount of teacher dissatisfaction particularly
in the secondary schools, for instance in Louisiana, by enhancing their
professional lives this way, without at the same time causing local school
boards or the state or anything to pay them more?
You ask me, first among equals, I would
say right off that you've got to do both. And I think to continue to
assume that teaching is a "labor of love," and you "do it for the cause."
We've got to disengage that in the minds of the public. If we're going to
have the best minds teaching, and we need the best minds in teaching, as
we need the best minds in any of our critical national efforts, we are
going to have to pay people for it. Unfortunately, when we say that, it's
self-serving. So, we don't say it at the beginning, and we talk about all
the nice other things. But let's be very crass about it. I don't think any
of us are naive; we are not going to get the kinds of teachers we want in
any of our educational systems, in elementary or secondary, unless we pay
them their total worth, as we are paying others their total worth. I don't
think there are any if's, and's, or but's about that.
There's one thing here, and I
think that it may be one of the gaps in the conference itself, implied
with all that you're talking about. I think that one of our biggest
problems is the lack of understanding, even among those of us who work
with it every day, of the massiveness of the undertaking. And one of the
dangers is that, with a small concentration on models, that would deal
with a small number, is to lose sight of the fact that the impact on
thousands of those who are there now and those to come, is so sizable, and
the cost of that, both in time and concern, gets lost sometimes when
you're talking about models that deal with a small number. But if we can
help get across the fact that we're not simply committed to improving
teaching for a few, or through a few, that we're committed to doing it in
a massive way, if this system that serves this society differently from
any other system is going to survive, and that's the scary thing of it all
in terms of just how large the task is.
Are you in danger of creating, of so bending
secondary education towards the university or college direction, in terms
of curriculum or emphasis, or goal structure, that for those who are in
secondary school not to go to college, you create either a two -tier
system, or you leave them behind?
I think not. One of the most
significant elements of the description of projects-the Michigan project,
the Yale project has been that they are not solely focused on the college
bound student, that in fact, they are concerned about students whether
they are going to be going to college or whether they're going to be
moving immediately to work after they've completed secondary education.
The fact that it's universities and colleges connecting with secondary
schools does not mean that the sole focus is go ing to be on routing
students from the secondary schools into colleges and universities. I
think the concern that has been expressed very specifically is that the
college and university effort must be on generating more effective
teaching no matter what the direction or intention of the student would
be on completion of the high school.
Does anyone want to add to that?
I think one of the problems, and
maybe we're addressing it now, and your question addresses it quite well,
is that we're talking about improving the educational opportunity for
quality education for all young people, whether they're going to college
or not. And I think one of the assumptions we've madewell, you only
need it if you're going to collegeand that's not only terribly
false, but that's not thinking too highly of young people. What we're
saying is, that the quality of the experience you have in education from K
through 12 ought to be the best there is for you, with the best teachers
there, so your options are completely open as to whether or not you wish
to go to work right after high school, or whether or not you wish to go to
college. An d I think if there is a goalwe didn't talk about it at
length herebut I think underlying all of what we've done is
increasing the quality so that the option of young people, those options
will be protected. It's not simply for college but even to live the good
life, if you will, without college, we think that more has to be done, K
May I say, sir, that your question
which asked whether or not the colleges were going to bend out of shape
the mission and direction of secondary schools. And my learned colleagues
have disclaimed that eloquently, and correctly. But of course, on the ot
her hand, the anger in the secondary schools ten or twelve years ago when
colleges dropped requirements was precisely a recognition of the fact
that, if you clowns at the college level can't decide what you want, how
do you expect us to know? So, there's a deep relationship, a bent, a
bias, a slant, which exists in any case. This isn't going to exacerbate
it. One hopes it will improve it. But for all our disclaimers, what we
again assume, like high pay for people who teach, is that of course there
is a tendency for the high schoolpublic, private, parochial, day, I
don't care whoto think that its best people should want to go to
college and become perhaps better people. So, it's there.
Okay. What happens from here? You had a
conference two years ago, eighteen months ago, in Colorado. . .
I wasn't invited. I figured I had to
my own party, because they didn't ask me there.
They will probably have to invite you to the
I doubt it. I don't think so. Not
Just out of politeness. No, but it really
began as an exercise in Colorado, as I gather, eighteen months, two years
ago. Now you've had this conference. What happens next? Is there another?
Is there an agenda? Do all the conferees here go out and spread the
gospel? Do they have specific assignments? What happens from here?
(Pause.) Nothing? (Laughter.)
You've gotten your answer. That's
symbolic. Each of us has a different course.
Why don't you each describe what you think
your course is. Mr. Phillips, what are you going to do?
Very quickly, with the
stimulation of the conference, and I think we may sometimes look for great
things, measured, to happen out of conferences, and conferences have so
many intangible effects. In our state, we will continue in a better mode
because of the things that have happened here. A clear-cut development,
carrying-through of a plan, for the improvement or moving toward
excellence in teaching in North Carolina, both in terms of the entry into
and the improvement of what happens to those who will be there on out
ahead, but as importantly, some additional impact on those who are on the
scene today, because that's where the impact has got to be. I think we
will continue and that relationship has been improved, but we will
continue the movement tha t's taken place. We will use the prestige of
this to try to sell to the decision-makers some of the needs we have in
order to get the things done that we've already set out to do.
I think there are going to be more
conferences. I think there will be probably regional conferences, and I
think there will be another national conference.
In a warmer place next time?
Well, I would certainly recommend we
go to New Orleans. But I think you can assume there will be other
conferences, and I think there are people in this audience who represent
varying aspects of what we have talked about, who will need to take it
anothe r step, after they have assessed what we've done here. So I think
there will be other conferences. But I think for us we will all become
missionaries in some way about what we've learned, about what we've been
motivated to do. There are very simple things, too. Getting together in
our own area. People that we should have been talking to, who are shakers
and movers in this business, and I think we're going to do that as
individuals. But I think we meet at varying times, and I'm sure we'll talk
about it. "Why not follow up?" Look at the next step. There are some nuts
and-bolts things that maybe we can focus on. So let's do that. I think
this set the stage for the partnership arrangement, as Bart said. The two
of us were not at Colorado. So we're here today. So you see, we're moving
What are you going to do from here?
Well, I think it's important to note
that you have 2500 colleges and universities across this country. I think
there's a feeling here that each and every one of those institutions has a
responsibility. They may not be in the business of preparing teachers,
but each and every one has a responsibility by way of helping with the
recruitment, with the identification of persons who might become
interested in teaching. You've got 50 states, and each has its own
particular activity. Let me cite a couple in th e State of New York. We
happen to have a state-wide planning process for post-secondary
institutions, all of them, public and independent. Our next plan will be
for the year 1984. As a part of that plan, and in discussion with our
university and college leaders, we have put in specific provisions that
each institution is to be planning and reporting to us at the State level,
on the activities that are underway by way of teacher recruitment,
preparation, the effectiveness of teaching in the elementary an d
secondary schools. There is another very important practice that we have
established. We have set up regional councils throughout the State where
the secondary school administrators and our regional secondary school
administrators together with the college and university presidents, are
forming regional councils to address the specific supply and demand issues
for teaching in those regions. Now, to plug that directly into the results
of this conference: there are ideas, there are particular proposals,
there are models that have been discussed that I want to take back, that
we can insert into those regional discussions, and I think to a certain
extent, some of them may be inserted in our overall plans for the State.
Mr. Giamatti, what happens from here for
Well, I am going to stay the course.
Mr. MacNeil. I'd be happy to help . . ..
We have "let us continue" over here, "stay
the course" over there. . .
I watch your program. You had a fellow
on a couple of months ago who said "Stay the course, and I am going to
stay the course . . . Frankly, I am going to continue, because I am a
simple fellow, I am going to work at the local level. We are going to
continue to do, in New Haven, with the New Haven Public Schools, what Yale
has been doing and will continue to do. if that can be useful to New Haven
if it is, from my point of view, not going to solve the country's
problems. but it is going to help New Haven. To the extent to which one
can help as an institution, as a person, other places, and other people,
through this kind of forum or others, I will obviously be involved because
I care very much about it. But you asked me practically what am I and Yale
going to do? We are going to do what we have been doing for five years,
and going to do it better.
The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute was
one of the models discussed at the conference and outlined in the Carnegie
Report, which the conference . . . which was released at the conference,
which you can all look at, surveying all these various experime nts across
the country. Are there any of them, coming out of this conference, that
automatically leap to mind as models that can be copied throughout the
country, or are they limited to their local circumstances and application.
Are there any good models that other people could, just say, yes,
transfer immediately. "Replicate," I think, is the word.
I'm told. I honestly don't think so.
I think it is one of the virtues of the models that have been presented in
the last two days that they are probably only applicable to where they
are. Because I think the basic point is that for all the talk about local
control, and so forth, this is at least addressing local control as if it
existed. This is at least saying, in a school district, in a town, in a
city, rural or urban, "If you have a college, and you have a need, try
it." You can't say that what is going to work for Yale and New Haven is
going to have anything to do with Seattle, Tucson, Tampa, Portland, Maine.
But the fact is, that if it is not tried there in the terms and
circumstances that make sense to the teachers in the schools there and the
u niversity and college faculties there, but first to the teachers in the
schools, then we will have failed. But to think that, on the other hand,
there is a franchise that we could put out, I think would be wrong and I
think it would be counter to the spirit of trying to make it come up from
the bottom instead of simply down from the top of it.
h4>Mr. MacNeil: Is there any feeling coming out of the
conference that with all the models you've seen, discussed and reported
on, that you have not yet found it? That there is some way of doing it
that needs yet to be discovered? Or, is there enough material to really
go out and make it work?
Really the big model is the
model of partnership, that it can be done. That is reflected in every one
of the different ones. And I concur completely with what was just said,
that the only model that has come out of this is the fact that if
leadership at different levels of responsibility, can put it together,
whatever form it is, something can happen with it. And that is the easiest
model of all, and that has come out of this.
I don't think there has been any
attempt here for anyone to try to sell the rest of us on a single model or
a single demonstration. On the other hand, I think there is a deep concern
that unless there is a way to repeat what is being done, or somewhat r
epeat what is being done, in one institution or another institution, then
we would not bother to be here. It is a matter of trying to find out what
has happened, perhaps what the mistakes have been in one institution, or
one state, and then to see if in fact those could be used, at least the
effective practices, could be followed some place else. There are
certainly things we have not been dwelling on here, the whole question of
just exactly what is the supply and demand circumstance for teachers in
the latter part- of this decade has been an issue that has not been
addressed that specifically. We know right now, crisis in mathematics and
science. But just exactly what the numerical crisis is. What the
circumstances will be in the other fields. Where w e will turn for
personnel for teaching. Those kind of analytic issues have not been
addressed that fully. I think that is part of the agenda to come. If we
are going to be able to go to talented youngsters, secondary level or
early collegiate level, and try to be persuasive that they should make a
commitment to teaching, they have got to have some sense that there is a
job at the end of their preparation. And during the course of this last
decade, we have not been able to be persuasive because there have not
been jobs available. In order to be able to make a persuasive case, it is
essential to be able to say to them, "There is a likelihood that you will
have a position, and it will have such and such benefits and incentives."
That kind of statement, that kind of case, must be based on good solid
analytic work, and I think that is a piece that is yet to be carried
Anyone want to add to that? I wonder whether
it wouldn't be a good idea to ask the audience if they would like to join
Could we add one more dimension
before you do that? It has been sort of half-said or not at all said in a
number of ways. You are talking about models. Talking about impact. The
question of what is the national interest, what is going to be the
reflecti on of a national concern out of the impact of this conference.
There has been no direction and no way to have direction. But what voice
will be heard in terms of the partnership of national leadership in making
the kinds of things happen that have been talked about here? I guess we
have all been sort of depressed in the sense of a lack of a national major
concern about education. And although there is now evolving quickly the
House resolutions, the 1310s, and the others dealing with Math and
Science, I hope somewhere out of this will come some, at least
articulation of what the national concern will be. That has not emerged.
It has been touched on in a number of ways. But there is nobody here, in a
sense, One can speak to that one, and I think that is one of the concerns
I picked up that somebody objected to being
called an audience, and I apologize for calling you that. Could we involve
your fellow conferees, attendees, in this? Let's just throw it open and
get a dialogue established between you and any one of the peop le on the
panel here. Yes, sir?
John E. Worthen:
I am John Worthen from Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. My institution grew up as a teacher training
institution, like many of the institutions that are represented here. And
it seems to me that one of the things that the conference has done is to
un derscore and reinforce the fact that quality in teaching and teacher
training is very important. We have sort of moved away from that in many
of our institutions across the country, and have said we are not teacher
training institutions, we are comprehen sive universities. So, this sort
of gives us encouragement, I think, to go back and emphasize what has
really been our tradition, and where we are really strong. So, I think it
has been very valuable.
Does that mean that there would be
literally, an interest in some institutions in reestablishing teacher
training courses or Departments of Education that have been abandoned or
allowed to wither?
I think that most of the institutions
have not abandoned those, but we would give additional attention to those
That would be quite a practical effect from
something like this, wouldn't it? Did anybody want to comment on that?
Well, my comment, certainly I share
that view very much. We've sent the wrong signals to young people, for a
combination of reasons, why one should not be a teacher. Pay, prestige,
concerns, and I think if this conference says anything else, it says in
effect, "Look, teaching is not only a noble profession, but it is an
important profession, probably one of the finest professions we have." And
that hopefully, we will bring to bear all of the other things that we have
done for other professions, again, pay and the like. And we are now going
to give a priority to it, a concern to it that it rightly deserves. And we
really have been passive about it in the past. ten years, and I think that
that passivity has brought us to what Gordon has said. We now ha ve fewer
than we need, and we need to build all of the support systems to bring
back to the quality we believe and the prestige that it rightly deserves
in this country.
There are many institutions,
particularly independent institutions. that in the latter part of the
1950s began programs which are at the Master's Degree level, Master of
Arts and Teaching programs, which were designed to try to provide an
opportunity fo r those who had a liberal arts preparation but not any
pedagogical study at the undergraduate level, and then would move through
the fifth year and into teaching. Most of those institutions then phased
those programs out in the 6Os or in the '70s when th e circumstance
changed by way of supply and demand. I do think that there is a potential
now that more of those institutions may become committed to a return to at
least having a presence on campus. That presence or that focal point
indicating that teach ing is important, and if the undergraduate is
interested in it, there is a place to go to get support and perhaps to
move on into teaching. To me that becomes very important with the
possibility of tapping a talented pool of our undergraduates ,who might
otherwise not be interested at all or find the guidance or the way into
Does anybody else want to comment on that
point? Yes, sir?
John E. Sawyer:
John Sawyer of the Mellon Foundation. I
would comment, and I hope I can reserve the right to question afterwards,
but I think Mr. Ambach's point is extremely important: That the sense of
these new linkages that have been talked about at this conference may be
very important in bringing forward into the teaching stream young people
in the Bachelor of Arts degrees across the country who have by
discouragement of jobs or the image of the profession have been seeking
other callings. I think there is a trem endous latent potential. We know
that in the early '70s about 20% of the students coming into higher
education thought of teaching. This last year the ACE survey showed it had
dropped to 4.7%. And I think that the fact that jobs will pick up later in
the '80S and '90s will offer opportunity to the kind of talent that this
college- school interaction may help bring forward.
Is there . . . If I may just interrupt for a
moment . . . I wonder what you think and what other people think of the
suggestion by Ernest Boyer that was made earlier in the conference, I
gather, that colleges and universities offer bright students inten ding to
become teachers the incentive of I think he mentioned the top 5% to 15%.
in terms of talent the incentive of full-tuition scholarships. Would that
be an idea that would be practical and would institutions. . .? Would
anybody like to comment on th at?
I don't think so.
You don't think so?
You wouldn't like to comment or don't think
Its a practical idea?
Well. I . . .
Well, there are some reasons that I
have . . .
I know you have a question, sir, and we'll
come back. . .
Stephen S. Kaagan:
My name is Steve Kaagan from the State
of Vermont, and 1 would like to comment but in a somewhat oblique way and
ask the panel if they could comment in turn. That is, on the suggestion
that Ernie Boyer has made, I think it's. . .whether it's practical o r
not, I'm not sure, but it's a desirable possibility. One of the things
that . . . Well, first, I have been impressed with the kinds of projects
presented here. But one of the things that disturbs me a little bit is
that there haven't been enough examples proposed of ways in which
universities and elementary and secondary schools can interact in a way in
which their futures are truly intertwined. In such a way that the projects
that are developed are not able to be jettisoned at a given point in time.
Where a university tries something and decides, well, we will stop
cooperating five years from now and neither the other institution will be
hurt nor will we be hurt. I think what Ernie Boyer has suggested
represents a possibility in some sense in which the future of the
institutions is truly intertwined. I wonder if the panel could comment on
the possibilities for those kind of efforts being undertaken.
Anyone want to take that up?
Well, let me just start, in part. And
I'll speak from the university standpoint, as you are from. Listen, we are
in this because we know that unless we are part of the partnership to
improve teaching, to improve the quality of what we get, we won't be a
round too long to do what we do. So, that we are in this together. So, I
want to establish that, that it's not all goody-goody," there's a vested
interest, a mutual interest, and I think that's good. With respect to
Ernie Boyer's proposal I know from my perspective and the young people
that we serve, that would be very workable. One of the things that I
brought from this conferenceGordon, you mentioned it&173;I see a
pool of young people out there, particularly minority youngsters out
there, who have under graduate degrees, who if given an opportunity to go
on and get a Master of Arts in Teaching, and certified and the like, with
the likelihood of having a professional opportunity and being paid for
that in the ways that we bring bright youngsters in, we c an indeed
increase that pool. And I think offering scholarships would be one way to
do that. And I think that is. . . Now it won't work for everybody, and I
think Bart has expressed that it may not work for . . .. What I see out
there, that would be a ro ute that would be very important. And I think we
would bring into the school system, particularly in the urban centers,
bright youngsters, minority youngsters, both committed, making a
contribution and that will help. There are a number of things that mu st
be done. But if you started with that, the model, the concept, and the
colleges and universities working with the elementary and secondary
schools, providing us scholarships. I think we can start to make a dent.
I should say, because Ernie and I
have never disagreed on anything before, that the reason that I have a
limited but clear view is that I don't believe in athletic scholarships. I
believe in financial aid from the institutions on the basis of need. I
believe that other people can give people on whatever basis they wish to,
other entities. But I would not philosophically want to think that if one
were opposed to athletic scholarships, as I happen to be, that one could
then all of a sudden make an exception precisely for something else,
because then the principle begins to be somewhat eroded.
Isn't that the point? Don't you have to make
exceptions? Isn't that the point that you have to make exceptions if you
want to draw attention and create incentives?
I think that's true if one believed
that the only
reason for being consistent was some simple-minded love of consistency.
The fact is that it's a limited world, and the fact is that money for
financial aid is so scarce, whether it's coming from the Federal
Government, private institutions, or any place else, that it seems to me
you finally have to choose on what grounds you want to give it. And I
would never want to see a financial need, which is going to pick up
everybody, eroded. Nor would I want to see, although Mr. Boyer didn't
suggest this, I would hate to see people begin to tie financial aid either
to positive things, of which this would be clearly one of, or things which
other people would view as positive, but which I view as negative. I want
to keep financial aid as clean as possible, that's all. It's not a desire
not to encourage teachers.
Does anyone else want to comment on this
idea? Yes, Ma'am.
Floretta Dukes McKenzie:
Flo 'McKenzie, Superintendent of
Washington, D.C. Ben Alexander and I agreed that the tuition situation
could be handled probably in our jurisdiction. However, while we talk
about the bright young students entering the profession, some of us have
the real problem of very low turnover rates. In Washington we're down to
about 2% with a teaching force of about 5000 to 5600 persons. What do we
do to revitalize and recharge those people who are going to be with us,
because the economic situation as it worsens, persons are staying in the
profession much longer. And most of us know that too many teachers are
teaching the way that they were taught, and we have not significantly
changed our teaching methodologies over a hundred years while everything
else around us has changed. And that poses for us in Washington a very
significant problem that we must grapple with. And we must have the
assistance of the colleges and universities to deal with that issue.
I read in one of the addresses to the
conference that, I think, on average, a great proportion of the teachers
of the country had not in ten years taken any form of further education. .
.would you like to comment?
Let me start the comments, but then
I think others should really chime in on this. We have at the same time
the problem of trying to think about what the supply and demand is going
to be on out eight or nine years, and after all when you think about a s
econdary school youngster who might be attracted to teaching, you have
about a fiveyear period before that person is ready to come into the
classrooms. So you have got that part of the problem, and I think we have
been concentrating on that more this mo rning. But, the observation is not
only for the District of Columbia, but it is for our school systems across
the country, particularly, I think, right now in the East. In the State of
New York, the numbers of first-year teachers this year is less than 2% of
the total of all the public school teachers in the State, and that same
percentage has been true in the last five years, and the same percentage
will probably be true in the next couple of years. That means a very, very
slow turnover process which is underway, and it also means that where
there has been an "excessing", to use the term that is used in the trade,
of teachers because of financial cuts, they are on lists to come back into
teaching, when in fact there is any opening. So, the matter of trying to
adjust those who are currently in practice right now, is perhaps even more
important than recruiting for the future. The possibilities of providing a
direct relationshipand it is true in the Yale project, a direct
relationship has been expressed in other projects-of having a real
partnership there, not the "Big Brother" approach, and that was referred
to earlier, but rather a co equal approach, where there are college
and university faculty members and administrators, who are on a colleague
basis, working one-to-one with those who are in the schools, it seems to
me it has the most promise. Easier to say than it is to do, but I think if
there is a model or a demonstration that can be applied, it's probably
more directly that than it is other kinds of approaches. That takes
Can I ask the question? Did you feel that the
models you heard discussed at this conference did not address the point
that you made well enough?
Unfortunately, I was a little
late getting here. Operating Superintendents can't come out. I don't want
to be . . .unkind, but so often our colleges and universities are pushing
antiquated methods and teaching strategies.
We're not pushing . . . Are you
talking about Schools of Education in colleges and universities?
Oh, well, okay. I don't know anything
She wasn't here . . .
Some of the models that were
presented, in fact, said, what is it that the teachers need to know, and
how do the teachers want to use the resources of University faculty to go
about developing the curricular unit, or something else, that the teachers
want. So that whether or not antiquated strategies for teaching are
taught, I don't know, but if this is going to work at all, it's got to
work because the very hard working high school teacher says to the very
hard working college teacher, "You can help me out with this. This is how
I have to have it done."
Go back to the massiveness
again, this has not been touched heavily in this conference: the issue of
what happens to those who are on the job today. And the primary task is
really the one of the 16,000 employers out there, Boards of Education,
like the D.C. Board. And they have employees for whom there is a need for
a clear commitment for an ongoing onthejob training program .
. . whatever it is,. . .whatever General Motors says about its
onthejob training program or any other major enterprise . . .
We have not put that in the context of this country of a fulltime
investment approach. Whatever percentage of those resources are, the
institution of higher education becomes the source of that planning, but
primarily that task has just got to be in the hands of those employers,
who have a responsibility not only to look at work conditions and
compensation and the rest, but what do they provide in the way of a
continuous developmental program that improves the quality of performance.
We have not touched on that one here. That is a different, I think a
different process, that has a different point of initiation from the one
that has been implied here with the initiation of entry into and initial
But if the lady is correct, is a much bigger
problem because the numbers are so much vaster.
Oh sure. You take your
multipliers with whatever a typical annual investment in the growth of an
individual, whether he or she is a teacher, a counselor, or some other
employee. If you just multiply. If it is a hundred dollar-a-year
investment, which is nothing in a sense, that gets back to the
massiveness we were talking about.
And the further point would be that all
those people who are teachers and are going to be teachers will continue
to be role models for potential young teachers who are coming up through
the school systems. I think this gentleman had the next question.
I am Ted Lobman from the Hewlett
Foundation. One answer to the staff development problem is a link to a
problem which is understood nationally, and that is R and D. There is no
institution in American society that should live very long or can live for
very long without R and D. And R and D in public education is a matter of
staff development primarily. I do want to ask the panel a question about
the limits of university assistance. Underlying problems of pay and power
as well as preparation and prestige, is organizational development, the
capacity of schools to help themselves. Where can we find the means to
improve the quality of school board behavior, management, the quality of
personnel relation, and the general managerial tone of schools in order
to address the questions of teaching? Is this something beyond
universities' capacity or are there leadership roles or consultation roles
which universities and colleges can take?
Since you wear both hats, that sounds like a
good question for you.
I think there are roles, but there
also are limits. Perhaps one of the most important changes in the research
and development area or in the several attempts at trying to make schools
more effective has been the concentration lately on the school building.
There was in the past, a system-wide, district-wide focus. But now much
more, there is a concentration on each school building and the management
of the instructional program in that building. What has come from that is
the role of the principal as principal-teacher, which is what the term
came from in the first instance. And I think that if you are talking about
how to develop the managerial structure, the administrative arrangements
which provide the support that is absolutely necessary for the teacher to
perform effectively, we know much better now that we ought to be focusing
on the individual buildings. There's a lot of activities that are underway
now where colleges and universities and I'm not just talking about schools
of education; I'm talking about business schools; I'm talking about those
schools that are interested in administrative practice are zeroing in on
assisting that part of the management process.
Donald J. Stedman:
Donald Stedman from the University of
North Carolina. One of the things that this conference has done, I think,
and which partnership development will continue to do, is to help in the
retention of the best teachers who are currently in the public school
system. We did a study in North Carolina which showed that the top
quartile of NTE score teachers were first to drop out of the profession.
To the extent that the NTE measures effectiveness or quality, then we're
losing our best teachers earliest. Unfortunately, Phil Donahue got to that
study before Robert MacNeil, so it got more of a hysterical than analytic
coverage. But, basically, the emphasis on partnership development I think
will serve to help retain the best teachers and involve them in the joint
projects that we talked about yesterday, and we'll be talking about in the
Barbara W. Newell:
Barbara Newell, University System of
Florida. Going back to Superintendent McKenzie's question, it does seem to
me that there is one important aspect of in-service training that has been
on our agenda, and that is the quickly changing subject matter of the
entire education system. If you're adding so substantially to human
knowledge, one of our real problems is how do we make sure that all within
the education system share, and it seems to me to be one of the major
parts of the New Haven projects one of the very real reasons for the
partnership, is to try to make sure that all teachers in the system have
an opportunity to know how fields are changing, what the expectations of
students are. think the subject matter in- service training is perhaps the
most significant part of the partnership. And as we put our emphasis on
subject matter it also seems to me what we're saying is that the
partnership has got to be far broader than Schools of Education. It has to
cover the entire university community, because we're talking about changes
in chemistry and physics, and other subject matter fields, and the full
faculties have got to be involved and feel they have a stake in the
primary and secondary schools, as well as the universities.
Do other people in the conference feel . . .
to respond to theI'm sorry, I've forgotten your name . . .
Superintendent McKenzie's point that the
models raised at this conference are substitutes for, or whatever you
like, ways of providing in-service training or further training, or leave
something to be desired there?
John B. Duff :
John Duff, Chancellor from Massachusetts. I
was interested in what Superintendent McKenzie said, because she's right
on the mark, that we have to deal with the teachers we have now. The
statistic that was used yesterday was maybe 85 or 90% of them will still
be teaching in the year 2000. So, we have to deal with the teachers who
are in the system now. But it's my opinion, after listening in detail to
the Yale project and the Michigan project and the Syracuse project, that
all of them help the high schools. Mr. Maeroff comments in there that all
those projects seem to give a better feeling to the high school teachers
about themselves and their profession. So, this one person alone takes
back from this conference the feeling that things can be done. I' d also
make a brief comment on the money. The Board of Regents of Higher
Education in Massachusetts spend 550 million dollars a year on our higher
education system. The Yale program costs 200,000 dollars. It seems to me
that people like myself should be able to find enough money to institute
programs like that in Boston, in Fall River, in Springfield, in other
cities of the Commonwealth.
Michael J. McCarthy:
Mike McCarthy, St. Mary of the
Plains College. listened for an hour to the panel telling me at least what
I've heard over the few days, and they did a very good job of that. They
really did. I didn't realize I had heard as much as I had heard after list
ening to the panel. And then secondly we are hearing some discordant notes
coming out. But I really think, without being political, or trying to be
dissatisfied, that this has been very well- conceptualized conference. It
did not try to bite off the total world as has been brought out by the
panel. It's trying mainly to develop some relationships between school
officers and college and university presidents to do something at the
local level. And the paradigm examples of a few of these workshops or what
have you are good. They are not going to solve the in-service problems of
Boston, or Philadelphia, or Washington, D.C. or even Dodge City, Kansas,
where my school is. So, I really applaud the management of the conference
and the conceptualization and wh at have you. I think from the beginning
it was a limited vision, purposefully, that was well handled.
Donald G. Gill:
I'm Don Gill from Illinois. And I'd like
to Pick up on what appeared to be a nerve-striking comment by the
Superintendent from Washington, D.C. as exemplified by President
Giamatti's response. That we may be using some outmoded kinds of practices
in teacher education. Well, the conference title is "Excellence in
Teaching," and I want everybody to know that I know what that means. I
think each one of you knows what that means. But even in this conference,
we've allowed that concept to kind of lie in an amorphous state-maybe
that's the safest way to do it. And then when something happens, look
back, retrospectively, and say, "that's not it. That is not excellence."
Somehow and some way, as we go back to our various states, we're going to
have to be prepared to define what we mean for our purposes what
excellence in teaching is so that we devise standards against which that
concept can be measured. Unless we do that, I think our best efforts may
simply result in putting together a new suit of clothing for the emperor.
Anyone want to pick up?
Michael C. Cooke:
I'm Michael Cooke from Yale University.
It causes me some slight concern that the expression "teacher training"
should be arising in our discussion simply because that has taken on a
fairly specific meaning in ordinary parlance. It tends to mean somebody
up there who has knowledge imparts knowledge to somebody down there, and
the process is over, analogous to driver training. It seems to me
personally that even in driver training, all the license means is that you
have reached the stage where you can go out in public and not do harm to
yourself or your neighbor. The same thing is true with teachers. And the
emphasis that I have heard throughout the conference, and that I have
experienced in my participation in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute,
is very different from that. First of all, we do not contend that
somebody up there has knowledge and somebody down there receives it. We
contend for the secondary school teacher, as we practice in college
teaching, that training never ends. We train ourselves continually: by
reading, by writing, by teaching. And we say to the secondary school
teacher, "we believe, we hope, we have something to contribute to what
you're doing; we know that you have something to contribute to what we're
doing." And so, there is a co-equal relationship, there is a partnership.
This his been stressed, and I would like to keep that stress and avoid the
idea of training. But also we're saying that this equal operation is
continuing indefinitely, and I would also therefore be concerned if we
tried to formulate a definition of excellence, because what we are talking
about is an incessant pursuit thereof.
Isn't one of the by-products of the Yale-New
Haven experiment that some of the secondary school teachers can teach the
University professors how to teach?
It's not a by-product. It's a central product.
We do. We do have our teaching practices revised, reformed.
I think this is all marvelous. I
really must say that one of the myths we live under is that college
teachers don't know how to teach and don't care how to teach. That's
nonsense. I just don't want to get too enthralled with the mythology on
both sides. One of the nice things about this conference is that it
didn't get too deep into the uncut street stuff of myth. And, just, you
know. . . terrific.
That may be the frustration sometimes
with a conference like this. You didn't promise more than you could
deliver, and we sometimes are looking for more than can be done. And maybe
that's the excitement about it all. We still have left some things to be
Oh, I'm sure of that.
plead guilty as a member of the media,. .
.to contributing to . . .
Never, sir. Never. Never. Never.
Stephen J. Trachtenberg:
Steve Trachtenberg, University of
Hartford. One of the unspoken but I hope not unreflected upon agendas of a
gathering like this is, I think, coalition building. And it seems to me
that educators, to use that term writ large, need more and more to come
together as a constituency in America for political purposes. Somebody
disavowed political objectives earlier. I'm not sure we ought to do that.
It seems to me that we have been as a group altogether too cavalier about
these matters for the past 20 or 30 years, partly I think, because
America took us as being good for America, without much effort on our part
to demonstrate that that was, in fact, the case. Increasingly, as
President Giamatti points out, we live in a world of finite resources. And
there seem to me to be an increasing number of very articulate,
alternative constituencies that are making the case for their piece of the
American pie. I think of the welfare community, or the elderly community,
or the infrastructure community the people who keep telling us how our
roads are going to come apart any minute. And I think increasingly, as
school people and university people can bring themselves to make their
case together, they will have a far better impact, a far greater impact on
public policy decisions in this country. And one of the ways that we can
talk with a single voice towards third parties is going to come from being
able to talk across the borders between our subsets of education writ
large. And I'd like to think that one of the benefits, for example, in the
Yale program is that people from Yale are now talking to people from New
Haven, and people from New Haven are now talking to people from Yale about
common issues, and towards common goals, that they perhaps didn't share as
fully before. And that that model will continue statewide and, indeed,
from coast to coast.
Go ahead, first.
I want to make a political plug. I
guess it was earlier that I said it was not our intention in coming
together to try to establish a Federal agenda, if you will, or a
particular state agenda. But I do think it's important to follow your
comment with a plug, and to connect it very directly with Superintendent
McKenzie's comment on in-service training. There is right now before the
Congress legislation that has to do with the improvement of teaching and
learning in mathematics and science. it's been reported out of the House
Education and Labor Committee. In fact, they received the administration's
proposal, they've set it aside, and they've substituted their own
proposal. There is one extraordinarily important aspect of what's happened
in that House a ction which should concern us and which forms a point for
political action. On the matter of the provision of in-service training,
there is an explicit provision that that money goes only to colleges and
universities, and absolutely no provision that there should be any
participation by local school districts or states in the determination as
to how the money should be used. Now this has been a typical pattern over
the course of the last 25 to 30 years, by way of Federal funding, of the
training whether it be pre service or in-service training of personnel
who are going to be in the school systems. And I submit to you, and I say
this most directly to colleagues who are college and university
presidents, if there is a single political action move that m ight come
from our assembly here, it is to say to those members of the Congress, and
to the Senate, who are dealing with this legislation. that the idea of a
partnership, that the idea that there must be a collaboration between the
universities, colleges , and the school districts or state systems by way
of making any progress in the in- service training shall come about if
that statutory language includes a requirement for coordination, for
cooperation in development of the project. So I follow your poi nt on
political action with something which hasn't happened before, but is
extremely important at this point, by way of a very immediate bill before
The gentleman in the back row.
John H. Lawson:
Jack Lawson from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. First, I'd like to thank Chancellor Duff from the
Commonwealth for offering some of the Regents' budget. I have recorded the
quote, John. As I have reflected on the theme "Excellence in Teaching,"
and I applaud the theme, I have some concern that those good teachers in
public schools not perceive that we don't acknowledge the fact that there
are many excellent public school teachers, day by day, doing a superb job.
And I base that on having visited so me 35 high schools in the
Commonwealth including most of our inner-city schools during the last
year. Secondly, in asking these teachers what they think we ought to be
doing to help them, almost without exception I got the same answer, "Let
us decide. Gi ve us the budget, and give us the money. And let us decide
how we can help ourselves to be better." They are very concerned that,
when administrators either at the state level or the university level
begin to develop programs that it is somehow going to have some effect on
their futures, especially in states like Massachusetts where we just had
to RIF 8000 teachers because of a tax cut. So I guess I'm just stressing
the point which we have done in the Commonwealth through the Department of
offering any group of teachers in the State money to develop their own
professional development program, which usually gets into the
universities. And on that basis, we think teachers are going to accept
more readily and be happier about the outcome.
I just wanted to make a comment
with respect to the new mathematics-science legislation. I was asked to
testify on that legislation on behalf of the Great Cities Council. You
know, we in Washington, we're cheap. So we can do things like that. We
talked about targeting of the monies, but if you will note in the
legislation there is another partnership looming. I think about twenty
percent of the monies are reserved for partnerships between schools and
businesses. That is. you know, I think looming as a very significant
partnership that we as elementary-secondary and colleges and universities
need to really take a lot of interest in. And the gentleman talked about
organizational development, training for staff. Our organizational
development training was handled by General Motors, and our teachers are
going out in the summer working in businesses and corporations, like our
local utilities companies, our hotels, and also going to the General
Motors Institute. Education must become more reality based and
results-oriented. We must move from process, which is the staff
development, in-service, etceteras, to what outcomes or what will be the
results of all of this. So, we will note that the Congress and a lot of
states and local systems are moving to develop other partners, and I think
this conference is timely because we need to get our partnership straight.
Anyone want to follow up on that? We started
a discussion a while ago by one suggestion that came from Mr. Boyer. Does
anybody else have any practical suggestions that either have come up
during your discussions or you would like to come up with now as to any
aspect of how this could be furthered, whether it's incentives, whether
it's ways for promoting more cooperation? Does anyone want to drop any
practical suggestions onto the table?
Yes. I don't want to get embroiled in a
controversy between Bart Giamatti and Ernie Boyer.
It hasn't achieved that level yet,
But in Massachusetts we have instituted
a program. $250,000 in next year's budget, we are going to make available
$2,500 grants for students in either public or private colleges who agree
to teach math or science in an elementary or secondary school upon
graduation. Sort of an ROTC concept. And they can get up to three years
and they would teach up to three years. Unbeknownst to me, Kentucky has
done exactly the same thing in almost the same form, $2,500 for three
years. I found out reading in Newsweek this week they have done exactly
the same program. The point that should be made about it though I would
differ somewhat from what Ernie Boyer said I think it has to be directed
to where the jobs are because I have to say frankly I would not support
giving millions of dollars to create more PhDs in history when there are
2,000 unemployed in the United States. That doesn't make a great deal of
sense. Maybe I'll be charged with being too narrow and practical on that,
but we are facing a very serious crisis of math and science teachers and I
see that we can do some specific things to encourage people to get into
the profession, and Kentucky and Massachusetts have done exactly that.
Any other practical ideas?
I will come back to one that I
mentioned earlier. I spoke to it yesterday. And that is, most teachers in
elementary and secondary schools concerned about salary levels have a very
deep interest in what financial capacity they will have for their own
children to attend college, and the suggestion that has been made is that
we consider having a guaranteed scholarship to the offspring of those who
enter elementary and secondary teaching and stay there some 10 to 15
years. One of the concerns about demonst rations and models is, as was
expressed earlier, is that they can be jettisoned, or that they apply to
only a few here and there. When you look around for any attempts to try to
make more systemic some of the practices, then you have to find things
that will last over time and will have a meaning to any individuals. If
in fact you were to have a system in this country where the universities
and colleges would participate to a certain extent, public funds to a
certain extent, but make that guarantee, in my opinion it would have a
significant impact on the incentive for persons to enter and to stay in
teaching. It won't solve the full . . .
What would the guarantee be, Gordon?
The guarantee would be that whatever
the college of admission for the child of the teacher in elementary and
secondary school, after that person had been there say 10 or 15 years,
that there would be a full scholarship provision for their offspring. It
is not a novel idea in the sense that most colleges and universities
provide this kind of thing for their own faculty members. Many independent
schools provide it on an interchange basis for the children of their
faculty members, but we have never had to my knowledge in this country
any provision that teachers in the public school system might have a
particular advantage of educational scholarships for their own offspring.
You mean within the state university systems
of the state in which the schools were, or how?
I think that if you have such a
provision you open it to both the independent and to the public sectors.
You don't tailor it just to a particular institution, but you open it. We
have Federal aid systems in this country now which do provide assistance
no matter where you attend. And to build on that kind of special provision
for the children of those who are in teaching, it seems to me is not a
terribly complex thing to do but perhaps a very important incentive.
My name is Worth David. I'm the Dean of
Admissions at Yale. I certainly applaud the intention which is to reward
teaching as a profession. As someone who is involved, at least indirectly
in the awarding of financial aid, however, I would be terribly concerned
about that practice. Let me simply pose the problem of an equally
deserving young man or young woman whose parents are criminals. I mean, it
seems to me that the award of financial aid should be to the recipient.
I just want to say, Gordon, for some
of us that would break the bank. We couldn't make it, and I suspect. I
suspect . . .
What, admitting the children of criminals you
No, no. We've got all kinds of persons
who want remission privileges and if you opened up that it would seriously
affect many of the small schools. I could say that. You would have to do
it. as you say, across the board. We couldn't do it. But let me say, I'd
rather make sure we made a commitment to the system that exists today in
financial aid so that it would guarantee more for those who qualify for
it. What I worry about, as I sit in this chair right now, I see young
people, black youngsters who have come through that K through 12, who have
been admitted to our institutions, who want to be educated, but cannot put
the packages together because they come from families, large families and
the like, and that's a greater strain and a greater challenge to the
country than anything else right now.
I get the message from the two university
presidents, two of the university presidents, on the panel that they are
reluctant for practical reasons, or reasons of setting precedents in aid,
to send a signal that teachers . . . that there could be some special
incentive to attract teachers.
I would hate to tie the award of
financial aid either to the parents' profession or to the student's
intended profession when the critical scarce dollar ought to be tied to
the individual person's financial need. If a bright, able young person
wants to go into teaching and then decides to go out and become a
corporate lawyer, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it
isn't possible and legitimate. The Republic won't fall; Western
civilization as we know it today won't come to an end. We'd like more
first-rate people going into teaching. But to begin to think that the way
to get them into it is to provide financial incentives to undergraduates
based on either what their father or mother does or what they sign a piece
of paper they're going to do for ten years out seems to me crazy, and
also misses the principal point that financial aid ought to be awarded, at
least in my opinion-I'm just one person on the basis of need, or you're
going to miss precisely what Norman and I are talking about.
Well, since it's your proposal, do you want
to come back to that?
I'm also a graduate of this
A distinguished one, too, I might
add. Right up to this moment.
You're talking about two different,
it seems to me, two different proposals there. One is the question of
whether you have a scholarship for somebody prospectively to go into
teaching and the other is the question of whether you provide some kind of
an incentive for a person to be in teaching and reward back that to that
I appreciate that.
I think the other thing that is very
important is that the concept of student aid at this institution and at
some other institutions is that you make no distinctions with respect to
where somebody's from or where they're going and fortunately have the
resources to be able to make a student aid policy on a purely need basis.
The fact of the matter that isn't true, that isn't possible, in most of
the institutions across this country. And that, in fact, there are
targeted scholarship provisions.
Most of them for athletes.
That is right. and you have to make
that distinction. I think that's why Ernie was concerned about what to do
on that end of it.
I understand that. I agree.
I would just simply say not on that
part providing an incentive to go into teaching but on the notion of
trying to provide an incentive for somebody who is in teaching to stay in
teaching, that the notion of some subsidy for the child of that teacher is
something which is very well established in independent institutions. And
I think for good reason. The bargaining table today we've talked about
that before is not going to find on it a doubling of teacher salaries. It
is not going to find on it a fifty percent increase of teachers'
salaries. The smart bargaining that is going on right now for elementary
and secondary school teachers is being put into packages that come back at
a later time.
Of course it is.
But why should the universities carry the
burden of providing the fringe benefits for teachers in the secondary
Nicely expressed, sir.
I'm not suggesting that they provide
it all. I'm suggesting that you have a shared arrangement. If we are going
to talk about coming up with commitment on a long-term or systemic basis,
then I say the colleges and universities ought to take a piece of that.
They do. They do.
The gentleman back there has been waiting to
Jack W. Peltason:
Jack Peltason, American Council on
Education. I want to reinforce what my colleague President Giamatti has
said. I'm all for compensating teachers, but I don't think it is analogous
to talk about what some institutions do. They are the employer, as part
of the compensation package to the employee makes that part of the
compensation. We never have established the principle in this country that
you get a fellowship because of what your father or mother is doing. It's
on your merit and your need. I think it would be a rather dangerous
principle to establish and would be difficult to sell publicly, to the
general public, that everybody else's tuition goes up, and they must pay
it and meet some test, but we'll take care of our own with some kind of
public subsidy. It's much better to hit directly and make it part of the
compensation of the faculty member.
Come out the same place.
Somebody pays for it.
Let's take this institution.
Come out the same place.
Yale will give as a scholarship to any
employee, professor of physics, master electrician, lab technician,
grounds man, administrative assistant, anybody who works here it isn't
just the faculty this year, for this academic year $3,500 towards a
child's tuition in a four-year institution.
You got it.
But that doesn't therefore simply
target the faculty, and it doesn't say we are trying to keep people in as
roofers. It says Yale believes in higher education. And Yale believes in
you, and this is part of how Yale will help you. But it isn't targeted to
the profession necessarily. It is our policy, and we should sustain it,
and we shouldn't ask the State of Connecticut to do it for us. If we want
to do it, we should do it.
I just wanted to say that there is one
college president who agrees with my colleagues who disagree. In the State
of Kansas we have six Catholic colleges, we have about 20 Catholic high
schools we're looking right now at providing that benefit to parents of
high school teachers, Catholic high school teachers in the State of
Kansas, looking very hard at it.
You mean the suggestion that's been made
your putting into effect?
Exactly, exactly. And we consider it
Benjamin H. Alexander:
Ben Alexander, President of the
University of the District of Columbia. You heard Superintendent McKenzie
state openly that I certainly concur with this. And maybe I'm wrong, but I
think colleges have been doing this for a long time with their faculty. I
happen to know that when I was teaching at a certain school, my daughter's
son could go to another one at no cost. I think that we ought to know that
those that are public. now I think that you mentioned there are two there.
Yale is private, and Xavier is private, but we're public. and this would
not be a great burden on us. But I think it is something good that we
ought to look at and do. You know I said yesterday and I think the reason
I can say this now is because Dr. McKenzie was not here. It is my strong
feeling as Mr. Shanker has stated that an engineer starts really in the
first and second grade. And I indicated strongly that it's the first,
second, third, fourth up through the sixth where we ought to have our best
teachers, and we ought to have males where we now have a predominance of
females. So I think that to Superintendent McKenzie I will say you get
more males into that area, if you don't have money to pay them, we will
let them have free scholarships at the University of District of Columbia.
Let me make sure we clarify. Bart has
tried. There is no question about the fact that for small schools we have
remission policies just as Yale does for everybody working for us. That is
a part of our fringe benefit package. But for me to be able to carry
budget wise, the scholarship provisions or the remission provisions for
the sons and daughters of the public school system would break the bank.
So, if you limit it to state institutions, maybe that's worth it, but then
you have got a problem there be cause you are not going to allow access
and choice. You are into something else. I guess the point that I want to
make is I agree that something has to be done. I'm not so sure that that
is the practical solution if you look at my institution and others
Might I go back to your question on
examples of partnership? There are two partnerships that have taken
place in Florida that I find inspirational as a matter of fact. One
was a public school that had a terrible time with its testing, and
they brought in the local university, the University of North
Florida, and said "'Look at it. Let us work together and see what
we can do about student testing." The university put its reputation
on the line and over a two-year time span was able to take the ir
testing scores from the bottom of the rank in Florida up into the
top quartile. The university got out at that point and the school
was doing very well, thank you. This same university was asked to
come into the center of the City of Jacksonville and put together
an academic preparatory high school. The high school teachers and
the universities together sat and talked about curriculum and
college needs and school needs and together they come forward with
a new concept of a high school within the Cit y of Jacksonville.
There has continued to be a kind of university partnership with
those high school teachers. My sense is that this partnership has
truly changed the educational level of Jacksonville. Because of the
success of this model here in Jackson ville, we have asked that
those individuals who have been involved in Jacksonville try to
bring together all the resources; public and private within the
university community in Florida, and try to set up the same kind of
model across the State. We're hoping in the next year that we can
take one of our rural communities and do within a rural community
with a very high drop-out rate and very low college-bound student
population, and do for that community what we were able to do in
the City of Jacksonville. And I think these kinds of partnerships,
where we try to fact up to a problem and problem solve together,
aids and strengthens the university education structure at the same
moment I think it truly strengthens the primary and secondary.
I think as one university president I'm
going to be leaving this conference taking back the thought that with some
measure of renewed vigor university presidents have a role in the
community wherein they can bring to bear their weight, their prestige in
making common cause with their colleagues in the common schools in terms
of convincing the leadership of communities to support the kinds of
programs that we have been talking about here at this conference. I think
that it is extremely important that we focus in on the achievement of
students and the integrity of all in the teaching profession.
I am a little confused. I wonder
if I could get a point of clarification. I understand that Yale's policy
is to give scholarships only where there is need, except for people who
work for Yale where they give $3,500 across the board. With a needs test?
Without a needs test?
No, no, it is part of the fringe
So, it is a compensation. It's a
No, don't call it compensation, its
Don't play lawyer with me,
Trachtenberg. The fact is it is part of the fringe benefits. And it is
called a scholarship so that it is not part of the taxable compensation.
When I was a lawyer,. . .
I know who I am talking to.
President Trachtenberg: I was approached by a faculty
MIT-I think he is still there who said that he had no children and he was
distressed by the fact that MIT had benefits similar to the ones we have
And that he didn't get anything
out of it.
His friends at Harvard, where
they had no such benefit arrangements and where all those funds went into
compensation which he saw in his paycheck.
It seemed to him a better model
since he had no children.
He should have gone across the river
He said, though, he understood
social policy in which parents were helping . . .
Steve, there is a built-in inequity.
In supporting their children. He
said however that he did have an elderly mother.
Did she want to go to college?
He wanted help in keeping her in
a nursing home.
Wonderful to see you socially, Steve.
The last couple of minutes have
confirmed for me that we have a two-fold task. One is that, growing out of
this conference, one part of the task is to identify the traditional areas
of our cooperation. One of which is student aid. It seems unfortunately
it's a trough into which we could all fall. But there are other areas of
traditional cooperation. In-service training has been mentioned and
preparation of teachers. Some of the things that have also been talked
about call for really charting some new areas of cooperation. At some
point I would like an opportunity to come back together with a group of
people in elementary, secondary, and higher education to sharpen our
thinking about what, how we can improve our traditional areas of
cooperation, as well as chart some new areas and be systematic about it so
we do not fall into any pits in the process.
That is suitably sober and sensible note on
which to end this up. I would like to thank you all for your attention and
useful contributions. And in addition to thank all the members of the
panel. And may I say to President Giamatti in closing, thanking him for
his hospitality, that there are many people who believe that if many
people did decide to go into law it would mean the end of Western