What a Ball...

I don't often talk about my school on the blog because I figured, who wants to know about what an ed school does? I personally think what we do is important but let's just say when most other people think about schools of education, scintillating isn't a word that automatically screams out at you... at least not until today.

Arthur Levine, former president of Columbia's Teachers College, pulls no punches in his as yet unreleased report on the state of teacher education in the US (full report here, executive summary here). In a nutshell, Levine tears ed schools to shreds by going through the various problems of the institution, starting with the hodge-podge of state requirements, the uncoordinated responses of ed schools to these requirements, and the failure of the liberal arts model for schools which should be more professional in nature. He puts some of the blame for this mess on the lack of good leadership, namely ed school deans who he feels not only lack vision and direction, but have also too often sacrificed rigorous teacher preparation at the altar of academic research. BUT (and you knew this was coming...), the only dean who was not only spared his scathing criticism but also given a glowing tribute, was my Dean. Here's what he says about her:

In the course of this study, Deborah Ball, the dean of the University of Michigan’s School of Education, offered the most lucid and compelling explanation of what a teacher education curriculum should be. Her conception might be described as an enriched or advanced major: that is, a traditional subject matter major in an area such as history, music, or chemistry, combined with additional specialization in how to effectively communicate that subject matter or more specifically how to enable students to learn it. The future teacher would graduate knowing what to teach and how to teach it... The logic and clarity of Ball’s description are uncommon and refreshing. They stand in marked contrast to the teacher education curriculum nationally, which reflects the historic confusion of the field with regard to purpose. In our conversations, teacher education faculty were generally more concerned with the mechanics of the curriculum than with its intended goals.

I think my dean is doing a great job. She's not only an accomplished academic but also a wonderful person to boot. And at her core, she is an educator. In every sense of that word. Last year when I was teaching a class to pre-service teachers, the program had a crisis where there was a sudden surge in enrolment and there weren't enough instructors for the course. All the other sections were full and no one could take any more students. What was my dean's solution? She stepped forward and took on that extra class. Mind you, she was on sabbatical that semester but she used it to "return to the action" as she called it. For her, a sabbatical is supposed to be a time for faculty to try something new, work on their own research, and basically step back from the normal humdrum of academic work and explore. And she felt that going back into the classroom to teach undergrads was the perfect way to fulfil these goals. I was immeasurably impressed- not many full professors (and a named chair at that) would 1) give up their sabbaticals to teach undergrads; 2) spend weekly Wednesdays with grad students talking about teaching these undergrads; and 3) do 1) and 2) with as much as enthusiasm as a new teacher on the first day of school.

When I grow up, I want to be just like my dean.