Neapolitan, J. E, Proffitt, T. D., Wittmann, C. L., & Berkeley, T. R. (Eds.) (2004) Traditions, standards, and transformations: A model for professional development school networks. Reviewed by Mary Ransdell, University of Memphis

Neapolitan, J. E, Proffitt, T. D., Wittmann, C. L., & Berkeley, T. R. (Eds.) (2004) Traditions, standards, & transformations: A model for professional development school networks. New York: Peter Lang. Pp. ix + 182 $29.95     ISBN 0-820-47250-6 Reviewed by Mary Ransdell University of Memphis February 4, 2005 This book read more like a documentary, than a prescription for a successful model. The story begins in the early 1990s, and takes place in the Towson [University] Professional Development School Network serving the school districts surrounding Baltimore, MD and Washington DC. The authors are the narrators and the key players involved in the renewal and reform efforts of a local school district and university faculty. Professional Development Schools Professional development schools (PDS) are a product of the 1980s and follow a teaching hospital model. Here teacher candidates learn about teaching while under the guidance and direction of university faculty and school site personnel. School personnel must be willing to support the idea and communication between all parties is crucial for a successful partnership. In a reciprocal agreement, university faculty must commit to providing professional development to the school faculty (Levine, 1997). According to the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), the Holmes group uses the term “Professional Development Schools,” for these collaborations, but they are known by several other names. The American Federation of Teachers calls them “Professional Practice Schools,” the Carnegie Report calls them “Clinical Schools,” and the National Network for Educational Renewal calls them “Partner Schools.” Commonly, these collaborations attempt to create renewal between schools and teacher education programs concurrently while using the best available resources to help teacher candidates connect theory and practice. According to the AACTE website, there are relatively few such partnerships in existence in the nation. The Partnership The PDS partnership between Towson and the school districts mirrors others designed to tie the needs of the local school districts to the teacher education preparation program at the university level, as well as offer elementary teachers the opportunity for continuous rejuvenation of pedagogy; in other words the marriage of theory and practice. Towson University emerged as a leader in P-16 collaborative partnerships by taking the initiative and piloting programs and inviting discussions that would lead to growth for the university and current teachers. Their ultimate goal seems to have been the creation of teachers who best suited the needs of the local school systems. In order to comply with a state mandate, the Towson University College of Education requires its teacher candidates to participate in intensive clinical work in the PDS setting. This is a daunting task, but one they felt compelled to undertake. Towson faculty and personnel from the Baltimore Maryland School District wrote six primary goals relative to the primary needs, structure, and dissemination of information that the original (and subsequent) partnership adopted. In order to understand the other culture better, Towson faculty worked in and around the elementary school setting observing the daily schedule and the demands of the school personnel. Likewise, elementary teachers taught university classes, mentored college students, and took advantage of professional development opportunities. Teachers, administrators, parents, university students, and professors collaborated on papers and presentations. Out of their work, personnel from the two autonomous institutions began to understand the needs of the other and to develop procedures and schedules to benefit both. Eventually, seminars and workshops emerged to share the partnership’s collective knowledge with others. The Towson Partnership’s Models Once the partnership was in place, change became evident. The implementation of the newly developed procedures and schedules was gradual. A small control group of pre-service teachers went to a dedicated classroom at an elementary PDS school site for their professional coursework while their peers remained on campus in a traditional setting. The twist was that the classroom at the PDS site contained a coat closet, elementary-sized desks, a carpeted area with a large rocker – reserved for the teacher during read aloud time. Additionally, university faculty conducted university methods classes at the PDS site. Classes occurred around the normal elementary school routines including standing for the recitation of The Pledge of Allegiance, hearing morning announcements over the loudspeaker, discussing the daily schedule displayed on the chalkboard. The daily schedule for this unusual classroom might include a demonstration by a practicing teacher or a list of activities and classrooms the interns would be involved with that day. It might also include a presentation particular interns would be making. The elementary school site was, in effect, the campus for the interns during their professional coursework and clinical experiences. In this reviewer’s experience, teacher educators typically divorce theory from practice and focus more on theory and practitioners typically focus on practice rather than theory. This explains why some interns have trouble making good connections to either. Perhaps the model described above offers a remedy. Reflections from teacher candidates and from school personnel attest to the success of the program. Interns considered themselves better prepared and hiring principals concurred. Although this sounds wonderful, this reviewer wonders how public schools have a vacant classroom, and how many universities have the flexibility to offer such experiences. Chapter 4 describes a qualitative study of the perspectives of stakeholders, whether they were university or school personnel, who were involved from the design stage through the first year of the partnership. The chapter does not indicate the specific findings, but the reader gleans an understanding that greater communication between and among personnel in the two institutions, collaboration between stakeholders, and increased clinical time for interns resulted. Change is difficult for institutions because of territorial and other issues, yet the study alludes to change that began to take place and the potential for professional changes to occur. The program for special education (SPED) interns at Towson also integrated the facilities offered by a local school with the university’s special education program. In this program, university faculty taught fewer courses than the previously mentioned elementary faculty did in the school site during their first semester, but the interns worked more closely with the classroom teachers than the elementary interns did during their second semester. Interns were invited, but not required, to attend teacher orientation workshops before school began and many considered this invaluable, although some interns reported being reluctant to give up part of their summer vacation. According to their self-study, this pioneering SPED PDS partnership was not as effective in terms of its impact and many lessons about communication, planning, and implementation. Redefinition occurred and the SPED PDS emerged in slightly different format. Secondary pre-service teachers needed a similar PDS experience and Towson initiated a partnership with a local secondary school. In this setting, student interns elected to take a university course at the secondary school’s campus while simultaneously enrolled in their discipline-specific methods and content courses on the Towson campus. The elective course featured specific content for each day with visits to classrooms and a concluding discussion at the end of the class. This course was team-taught by the humanities chair at the high school and the chair of Secondary Education at the university. A given day’s concluding discussion might include the host teachers, other faculty, and/or staff. Several of the high school faculty opted to participate in the course with the university students as a professional development opportunity. School personnel encouraged this and hired substitutes for the day so the teachers could attend class in the morning and have the afternoon for planning and reflection. Again, studies found the partnership successful and once more, offered words of wisdom for those wishing to create such a partnership. Although the Maryland Department of Education mandated professional development school experience for pre-service teachers as part of their mid-1990s reform movement, the authors claim that the state provided no real guidance in terms of roles/titles, mentoring, duties, or other functional aspects. The guidance came from within each partnership and emerged through extensive dialogue with many stakeholders. University faculty cooperated with the local school district to create what they initially called boundary-spanning positions (p. 92). The role of the boundary spanner was to facilitate change by acting as an instructional facilitator with the local professional development school while, at the same time, a professor at the local university. The boundary spanner’s job would be a difficult one given that the cultures of the two institutions are vastly opposed to each other. The school district is rigidly hierarchical and has limits while the university setting fosters autonomy and independence. Finally, a sort of hybrid faculty or university liaison position developed wherein the faculty member had some guidance as to roles and duties. Again, their guidance came from discussions among stakeholders. The Cliff-hanger While the authors and editors of this book discuss in detail the models their partnership created, the reader might ask the stakeholders questions such as: What am I to do first? I see your suggestions, but what pitfalls shall I avoid? What recommendations might you have for a particular situation? Were the stakeholders accountable? How were they accountable? To whom were they accountable? Do these models work better at a university in a particular category? Which, if any, other states plan initiatives similar to the one in Maryland? What does the state of Maryland think of their initiative several years after the original implementation? What did you learn in reference to logistics? Is there longitudinal research data about the quality of teacher preparation? What do alumni think of their preparation for teaching? What do co-workers or administrators of program graduates think of the partnership and the results thus far? Conclusions Like a good novel, this story, too, must end. Lessons learned included the need for the teachers and university faculty to sustain the PDS partnership through frequent fruitful communication and authentic collaboration between the university and K-12 school. This collaboration must be more than simply placing college students at the site and dropping by now and then to supervise. It also means trusting the teachers at the school site to mentor, judge, and have a real voice in the university’s teacher education program. Universities need to understand that committing faculty members to a PDS means they teach fewer courses at the traditional campus site. Secondly, university administration must understand and reward a faculty member’s work in, and with, a PDS for tenure and promotion purposes. Recent notions of “engaged scholarship” as described by Ernest Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1997) open the door for discussion that could lead to recognition of a tenured or tenure-track faculty member’s work in arenas that vary from the traditional. From this reviewer’s perspective, much discussion remains before the notion of ‘”engaged scholarship,” if the above falls under the definition that academe accepts, is widely adopted by our nation’s post-secondary institutions. References American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (n.d.) Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://www.aacte.org/Eric/pds_glance.htm. Levine, M. (1997). Can professional development schools help us achieve what matters most? Action in Teacher Education 19(2) p.63-73. About the Reviewer Mary Ransdell is an assistant professor of elementary education at the University of Memphis. She enjoys her work with preservice teachers, both before and during their professional semester, and with those preparing for national board certification. Her professional interests include master teachers and the use of cooperative learning.