"The Trouble with Ed Schools"

In my departmental seminar today, we discussed David Labaree's "The Trouble with Ed Schools," a sociological analysis of the problems in schools of education in the United States. Labaree is a professor in the ed school at Stanford University, and in sum, he attributes the "trouble with ed schools" to a number of key points:

1) Teaching is a "low-status" profession, owing to the fact that it has historically been "women's work" [leading subsequently to lower salaries], and while teaching is one of the most difficult professions, it is somehow mistaken as being "easy" by a large part of society. Teachers are working against tremendous odds, with "clients" whose attendance is compulsory and not voluntary. Unlike other professions, teachers are expected to "demystify" their profession and actually teach children how to teach themselves. One would never expect a doctor to teach a patient how to operate on him/herself, or a lawyer to teach his/her client how to defend him/herself. However, owing to the content that is taught [especially in the lower grades], society sees the knowledge that teachers are responsible for transmitting as being "common knowledge" and therefore they are not given credit for their intellect. And of course there is the old saying "Those who can, do... Those who can't, teach," which basically reflects the notion that society feels that "applied" knowledge/skills are of higher worth than "pure" knowledge, or "learning for learning's sake." Lastly, there is no "rule book" on how to be an effective teacher, so the idea of teacher-training is far easier said than done.

2) As a result of this "low-status," ed schools are relegated to second-rate status with in universities. Historically, market pressures that demanded more qualified teachers to meet a rapidly expanding school system forced the quality of teacher-training programs downwards in the earlier part of the 20th century, and ultimately, by making the attainment of teaching credentials easier, the quality of teacher-training lacks rigor and consequently lacks respect in the realms of academia.

3) Labaree goes on to discuss the problem with ed schools in their training of educational researchers. In addition to the fact that educational research is often qualitative instead of quantitative [how do you quantify children really...? unless you're a proponent of test scores], it has been deemed a "soft" science. Combined with the "pure" instead of "applied" characteristic of education as a discipline, it is a double-edged sword that relegates the status of educational research to an even lower position on the totem pole. Top that off with the fact that the results of educational research have been largely inconclusive or contradictory over the past century, and it's no wonder that politicians and lawmakers see educational research as not-really-relevant to their policy making.

Reading this book at the beginning of a educational research doctoral program was depressing for many obvious reasons, which I won't elaborate upon. But while reading, Labaree did clearly make a case against ed schools. One thing that particularly resonated with me was his discussion on the difficulties in training teachers to become educational researchers. Labaree explained that while teachers are obvious [and practical] candidates for careers in education research, due to their anthropological experience and personal dedication to the field, they are also highly resistant to training in the field of research. First and foremost, they hold on to "teacher values" which place the personal over the intellectual, the experiential over the objective, and the specific over the general. He also noted that many teachers who are products of teacher-training programs [rather than a disciplinary or liberal arts bachelors degree] are lacking an academically rigorous background, and start with a disadvantage intellectually at the grad level.

As a teacher-turned-educational-researcher-in-training, I was immediately alarmed by this chapter. I think a large part of the problem with educational research is that it is too general and abstract and completely detached from the classroom to have any real meaning to teachers and any truly positive impact on students and learning. Obviously Labaree would say I am exactly what he is describing as a resistant grad student. But I would argue that educational research should not necessarily strive to be so broad and far-reaching, and perhaps specific, field-based, "personal" research on a school-by-school [or even class-by-class] basis would be far more effective in creating positive change in schools.

I asked Labaree about this part of his book, explaining that I was a teacher for three years who did have a liberal arts degree [owing to the fact that I was a Teaching Fellow and didn't do my undergrad in education], and then basically stated what I wrote in the previous paragraph. He acknowledged my point and said that "of course" teachers are excellent candidates to become ed researchers because they possess the combination of personal/experiential knowledge along with the research training... And by the time he was done speaking, I wasn't sure if I had really asked him anything. I am troubled by the idea that I need to be indoctrinated into academia in order to be a successful researcher if it means relinquishing my perspective as a teacher. Labaree pointed out that this duality would enable me [and others in my position] to "code-switch" when talking about educational policy to teachers and to lawmakers.

But the true issue I took with our class discussion was a question that another student asked Labaree about what he proposed as potential solutions to the troubles with ed schools. He said that he is an "armchair analyst" and an academic and that he does not claim to have any solutions to the problems with ed schools. Immediately I started to get angry, as he completely dismissed any responsibility on his part towards helping to reform the educational system. He said "it was not his concern" to reform ed schools, and that he wrote the book because the subject matter was troubling to him and he wanted to explore it further.

When we hung up the phone with Labaree, our class got into a rather heated discussion on whether or not it is acceptable to be a researcher/analyst/critic with no ambition for reform, policy, or even a suggestion of solutions. I find it problematic that so many academics in the field of education do not take their analysis and expertise of the field to the next level, namely taking action in educational reform. A discussion ensued on the value of "pure" research and how we were being critical earlier that knowledge for knowledge's sake is not given more value in society.

A student with a background in mathematics mentioned how often times pure research does not know its goal at the onset, and how exploration is a crucial part of science and learning. While I agree that there is merit to this notion, I am not arguing that there is "no value" in pure research, but that it is not sufficient to stop there. What a shame to think that some of the most insightful and educated scholars in the field do not want to trouble themselves with taking action in the field they claim to be so passionate about. I would argue that Labaree himself contributes to the "trouble with ed schools" by excusing himself from participating in social change and remaining "in his armchair."

[Incidentally, to his credit, Labaree is the one who penned the phrase "so much intellectual fiddling while the classroom burns," which I have temporarily borrowed for my own use].