Educators are always looking for a magic bullet -- a hot, new idea that will take care of all the problems with our education system. That accounts for the love affair with vouchers and market schools, EAI-type ventures into privatization and, most recently, charter schools. And we can be sure that next year it will be something else. Like people who are always eager to try the latest miracle diet, they think that the next fix will be the one that finally turns things around.
But these fads don't get to the heart of the educational enterprise. If we want to change our schools for the better, we have to change what goes on in the classroom between teachers and students. There is nothing revolutionary about this idea: It is common sense. It is also extremely difficult to do. Leon Lederman's recent description of Teachers Academy for Math and Science (TAMS), a privately funded organization providing in-service training to elementary school teachers in Chicago, shows what is involved (The Sciences, January-February 1995).
Lederman, a Nobel laureate in physics and director emeritus of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory who now works with TAMS, believes that good early training in science and math opens some important doors for children:
... science and mathematics, taught in the right way, engage children, resonate with their own natural curiosity and open a door to the joy of learning .... A positive introduction to the study of science and mathematics serves as a foundation for an interest in those topics throughout a person's lifetime. And as for the relevance of the curriculum, the engines that drive the changes in contemporary society are science and science-based technology.
But none of this will happen -- indeed kids are likely to be turned off math and science -- if they don't have teachers who know these disciplines and how to guide children in learning them. And the sad truth is that many elementary school teachers do not have the background to do a good job. This is no reflection on their hard work or devotion. They are victims of poor preparation and a system that frustrates their efforts to learn and change while they are on the job instead of supporting these efforts. In Japan, as Lederman points out, teachers spend nearly half their time working together to improve the lessons they teach and the way they teach them, and there is ample money to support professional development activities, in the U.S., however, teachers seldom have a chance to consult with their peers about their teaching, and little or no money is spent on helping them upgrade their skills and knowledge; Lederman says the figure is usually less than 1 percent in Chicago. The problem of poor instruction in math and science is especially acute in an urban school system where expectations tend to be low -- and, tragically, where youngsters have the most to gain from excellent instruction.
But, Lederman says, TAMS shows how, given the time and resources, teachers can learn the skills they need -- and are elated by the process:
In the past four years we have introduced seventy-two schools and some 3,200 teachers to our program -- and some of them have been with us for as many as three years. On average, they have received roughly 120 hours of instruction in science, 140 hours in mathematics and more than 140 hours of additional close teaching supervision. That leaves only ... 420 schools and 14,000 teachers to go.
Changing culture is never easy. That so much time and effort (and money) are needed should be no surprise to the funding agencies, but it is. We estimate that to sustain the efforts we have begun in Chicago will probably take an investment of between $3,000 and $4,000 a year per teacher for perhaps three to four years .... The total is equivalent to the tuition for one year at a mid-priced university. Yet one of the curious and inexplicable frustrations of our work has been the difficulty of getting the money to sustain it.
Does the program work? Yes! Teachers love it. And when it is well managed, it creates an intense, joyous learning process. Such interventions also lead to a greatly energized teaching corps, in which the new teaching style spreads to other subjects and brings with it technology that can fruitfully enhance the teacher's effectiveness.
This is not flashy stuff. It is basic common sense. It is also tough, demanding and expensive, and it takes time -- which may explain why educators often ignore this kind of thing in favor of quick-fix schemes. Lederman does not believe that schools can, by themselves, mount programs to bring about necessary changes in teaching and learning, and he may be right. But there are signs that the public is becoming skeptical of reforms that substitute flash and dazzle for attention to basic issues, and I believe and hope that reforms like the one he describes will increasingly find powerful public support.