A new policy to transform teacher education: doctoral preparation of teacher-scholars.

The theoretical springboard for this article is the PEW Charitable Trust's report "Who Should Teach: Quality Counts 2000" [Special issue] Education Week (January, 2000). Volume XIX, Number 18. The article asserts that a Doctor of Arts (D.A.) Degree, as developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to improve postsecondary education teaching, should now be employed to improve teacher education. To do so would serve as an important innovation to transform teacher preparation and enhance the teaching profession. A description of the teaching doctorate is presented with the focus on relevance of the D.A. for advanced secondary education teacher preparation. Finally, an interpretation of what the new D.A. "teacher-scholar" means to the recruitment and retention of the best and brightest into the profession of public schooling and how doctoral preparation can advance a resurgence of the notion of teachers being society's "public intellectuals" is explored.

**********

Educational leaders, politicians, and policy analysts are seeking alternative means to effectively reform teacher preparation. There is an increasing urgency regarding the shortage of teachers to serve growing student populations. The problem is grounded in some obvious facts: (1) Fewer persons are choosing to pursue a career in the teaching profession, (2) those who do choose the profession are abandoning the field at an alarming rate, and, (3) for many the most challenging issue, the professional integrity of many entering the classroom through alternative routes is under critical scrutiny. (Edwards and Chromioter, 2000; Hammond-Darling, 1999; McNergeney and Herbert, 1997).

The establishment of a specific doctorate for teacher education is a segment of the problem that has not been fully explored. Advanced doctoral preparation of teachers is a unique proposal. The Carnegie Foundation developed the Doctor of Arts (D.A) degree for the Advancement of Teaching, as "the teaching doctorate." The primary objective was to to improve postsecondary pedagogy. The D.A is currently in place at Ball State, Idaho State, St. John's University, University of Mississippi, George Mason University, University of North Dakota, Middle Tennessee State University, Clark University, and SUNY, but unfamiliar to most in teacher education.

Will the some of the future's best and brightest of American society enter the teaching profession? Is there a means to keep good teachers in the classroom? How can we effectively enhance the professionalization of teachers? These questions constitute a triadic quandary of recruitment, retention and professionalization and are a complex challenge for educational leadership. We assert that the D.A. should be explored as a new policy in higher education in the movement to transform the teaching profession. The Doctor of Arts in Teacher Education, in concert with other worthwhile proposals, has the potential collectively to transform the teaching profession.

The Policy Issue: Who Should Teach?

The recent high profile report: Who Should Teach?: Quality Counts 2000 ([Special Issue]. Education Week. Volume XIX, Number 18) documented that there is a national crisis regarding the increasing shortage of teachers. Our nation will need more than 2.2 million more teachers over the next decade. To address the problem, educational policies analysts have have followed two primary reform movements: (1) The first movement is the "quantitative" policy reform, and (2) the second movement is the "qualitative" policy reform. The objective of both of these movements have degrees of merit.

Quantitative Policy Reform: These educationists focus on the growing urgency regarding the shortage of teachers in the classroom and the immediate results on public schooling arising from this crisis. Quantitative reformists have focused on liberal alternative "supply-side" strategies geared toward expanding the recruitment base to include persons without conventional teacher preparation. Thus, alternative credentialing policies have been put in place.

However, the net result is new teachers who are strong in content knowledge, but do not have formal pedagogical skills. Some critics argue these alternative credentialing policies are the equivalent of "educational malpractice" and are creating a counterfeit educational system (Hammond-Darling, 1999; Maher and Teteault, 1999: McNergney and Herbert, 1997). These initiatives have been, to varying degrees, successful in filling our classrooms and in the process have added a new dimension to the ongoing dialogue regarding the purpose and process of teacher preparation.

This policy model is inherently fallacious. It is not enough to allow individuals into the classrooms that have intense preparation in the discipline that they desire to teach but they must also know how to teach in regards to the cognitive and emotional dynamics of learners. Teaching is a profession with a specialized body of knowledge. For this reason alone, schools need professional teachers and not trainers or instructors in the classroom. President George W. Bush's proposed plan to place retired military personnel directly into classroom without formal preparation to address teacher shortages is an excellent example of this policy run amuck.

Quantitative Policy Reform: These educationists focus on the quality of preparation and the long-term benefits of expanding career opportunities in the teaching profession. Policy makers in the qualitative movement are conventionalists in their educational orientation. It is their opinion that there is a more pressing problem than the shortage of teachers. The major problem is the national decline in teachers with quality scholarship. They see the profession as suffering from a"brain drain" as the best and brightest of society are seeking careers in professions other than teaching (Labaree 1996 and 1999; McNergeny and Herbert, 1997).

Policies are being discussed to enhance both the quality of teacher preparation to address retention issues. Many Colleges of Education have focused on raising entrance and exit standards for teacher preparation programs nationally. These are necessary and positive steps to increase the scholastic integrity of teachers. Historically, high academic standards attract top caliber students (e.g., medicine, law, science, and technology).

As noted in the PEW report on public education, the way we are practicing education today will not attract the type of teacher we need at the volume at which we need them. We need to make the teaching profession more appealing to those with deep intellectual constitution. Our mission is to produce scholarly teachers who are prepared to regain the social and professional status as "public intellectuals."

These educationists agree that it is a serious oversight for policy makers to assume that effective teaching is a natural by product of specialized knowledge in a discipline. To teach effectively a teacher must master the subject matter. However, equally important, a professional teacher must possess the pedagogical knowledge necessary to construct learning experiences that result high levels of students achievement. Conversely, possessing general knowledge of pedagogy at the expense of sound content knowledge is not sufficient.

The reality is that not all who aspire to teach, or are currently in the classroom, are well prepared in their academic disciplines or possess pedagogical expertise The attributes of teachers we need in the classroom are those soundly grounded in the discipline(s) they will teach and who wish to improve their professional integrity through advanced credentialing. Recent research reveals that a skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous difference in how well students learn and the strongest predictor of how well students performed on national assessments was the percentage of well-qualified teachers in the state (Darling-Hammond, 1999; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1997).).

Given this, educational leaders must seek to prepare teachers with greater depth of both content and pedagogical knowledge and then ensure that we keep them there. The people we seek to transform the teaching profession and prepare students are persons with scholarly integrity and consummated pedagogical skills.

A Transformative Policy: Doctoral Preparation in Teacher Education

America's best and brightest have always sought autonomy and the opportunity to advance professionally in the workplace. A well-defined pathway of professional advancement is essential for the well being of high achievers. High achievers will demand it, and if teacher educators do not provide the opportunity, they will seek it elsewhere. This is true in all professions.

Currently, for teachers, who are high achievers, the avenue of advancement in their disciplinary area is the Master degree. Conversely, the Education Specialist (Ed.S.) degree has traditionally been designed for advanced pedagogical study. While the master degree program focuses on advancement in disciplinary studies and the specialist programs focus on greater methodological studies, typically there is little integration between the two degrees.

Beyond these degrees there are the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.). The preparation of Ph.D. scholars is research oriented. The Ph.D degree prepares the teacher to conduct rigorous research in highly specialized areas of education and typically leads to a career move to a professor in higher education. Conversely, the preparation of Ed.D scholars is that are highly skilled administrative practitioners. The teacher who seeks this doctoral avenue leaves the classroom for administrative positions. These two doctoral models have been extremely successful and appropriate for their niche. Nevertheless, in both cases, the teacher who seeks doctoral preparation has now received the proper professional education to leave the classroom. As a result, the classroom is stripped of some of the best and brightest as these teachers leave the teaching profession creating a difficult void not easily filled. Both doctoral programs are inappropriate for dedicated career classroom professional teachers.

Carnegie Foundation's Doctor of Arts Degree (D.A.): Preparing Teachers as Scholars

The Doctor of Arts emerged after a reassessment by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching of the quality of undergraduate education and of the potential for current doctoral preparation to improve teaching in higher education classrooms. Two issues surfaced from this evaluation: (1) concern with the trend in doctoral preparation of promoting narrowly focused "academic research" over "scholarly teaching," and 2) the emphasis in higher education on the preparation of future faculties with "discipline specialization" at the expense of scholarship in "interdisciplinary generalization." Due to these findings, the Carnegie Foundation formulated the Doctor of Arts degree with the stated mission to educate interdisciplinary scholars with expertise in content-based pedagogy (White, 1999; Glazer, 1993; Boyer, 1990)

In 1970, the Carnegie Foundation invested more than three million dollars in funding pilot programs and, within three-years, more than twenty-five institutions offered the teaching doctorate in an array of interdisciplinary concentrations. The Doctor of Arts was developed as a three-year program of full-time study. The emphasis was on teaching praxis over specialized research, based on a concern with getting quality teachers into the classroom. D.A. granting institutions structured their programs to parallel other doctoral programs, but emphasized acquiring comprehensive knowledge through broader course work than generally the case with traditional doctoral programs. Also, rather than a specialized dissertation, a pedagogical research project was proposed for D.A. programs grounded in a pedagogical praxis (Paolucci, 1989 and 1993; Pulling, 1989: Eastman, 1970; American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1970).

In 1994, the president of the Council of Graduate Schools (C.G.S.) proclaimed that after twenty-five years the D.A. is an innovative "ongoing experiment" in doctoral preparation for higher education (White, 1999). We assert that as an ongoing innovative experiment, the scope of the Doctor of Arts as the "teaching doctorate" should be enlarged and include the scholarly preparation of elementary and secondary public teachers as well. For educational authorities and public policy makers, to conceive of the D.A. today as exclusively for higher education professors is equivalent to conceiving of the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) as simply appropriate for the hard sciences but not for the social sciences. Such a position is absurd to entertain and lacks "vision" for how high quality educators may be prepared (White, 1994).

Curriculum of the D.A. in Teacher Education

Educationists agree that there are two primary components in teacher preparation: 1) content knowledge and 2) teaching methodology. Traditionally, the disciplinary content and teaching methodology are studied independently. That is, the teacher's preparation in the discipline and methodology is segregated. A Doctor of Arts program in teacher education would consist of three distinct components: (1) Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge Component, (2) Pedagogical Knowledge Component, and (3) the Research Project Component. The objective of the Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge Component is to develop the D.A. candidate intellectually as a "generalist scholar." This component is an integrated program of study and is designed to prepare candidates to teach in the discipline. Second, the requirement is devised to give the candidate sound theoretical understanding of interdisciplinary knowledge in order to synthesize multiple contents into holistic curricula.

The objective of the Pedagogical Knowledge Component is to develop the D.A. candidate in instructional skills as a"teacher." The component is designed to promote expertise in pedagogy, learning theory, and curriculum development through rigorous study. Clinical teaching practicums are required under the supervision of the faculty from both the academic and education departments. The faculties assist the candidate during curriculum development, critique their teaching skills, assess classroom behaviors, and facilitate the measurement of students' achievement. Thus, the candidate receives mentoring in both content analysis, pedagogical theory, and applied instructional masteries.

Finally, the Research Project Component require the candidate to demonstrate that they have the acquired the pedagogical content knowledge and instructional skills necessary to address teaching problems effectively. The doctoral committee supervises the development of an interdisciplinary teaching model that is then evaluated through empirical classroom analysis. The rationale for the project approach, over the dissertation, is that it validates and broadens original scholarly research beyond the discovery of knowledge to include application of research that addresses problems in content-based teaching. Inherently, the assumption is that teaching is a form of scholarship. The D.A. research project is designed to make an original contribution to the science and art of teaching through the development of sound pedagogical concepts linked to valid theories of learning and rigorous interdisciplinary methodology.

The product of this pathway of doctoral preparation is a teacher who is also a scholar. The D.A. recipient is a distinctive educator, "the teacher-scholar," who can also act as a new transformative figure in American education.

D.A Teacher-scholars: Public Intellectuals and Educational Leaders

As distinctive professional educators, D.A. teacher-scholars possess a unique form of knowledge that exists at the convergence of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and application-based research. This fusing of knowledge is termed "pedagogical content knowledge" (Shulman, 1986). The notion is that pedagogical content knowledge is a form of specialized professional knowledge unique to teacher-scholars. D.A. preparation of teacher-scholars described is the process of acquiring pedagogical content knowledge.

The D.A. teacher-scholar has been prepared specifically to master the science and the art of pedagogical content knowledge, seeing the interconnectedness of knowledge and transforming it into new realties of student learning. To be a teacher-scholar requires skills in linking knowledge and teaching methodologies relevant to the cognitive level of the learners.

D.A teacher-scholars are exemplary candidates to receive special professional and national credentialing as teachers. D.A. preparation distinguishes the teacher-scholar from other teachers and instructors. The aggregate of D.A. teacher preparation is that the recipient is a rigorously prepared "teacher-scholar" who is distinctively, professionally, and socially set apart as a "public intellectual."

The D.A. Teacher-scholar has acquired the credentials necessary to act in many roles in their learning community. First, they have acquired a voice as scholars in their discipline(s) as instructional experts. Thus, teacher-scholars are prepared to act as leaders in their field and learning community. This is consistent with the call of reformists who desire advanced classification of excellent teachers as "career professionals" or "Lead Teachers" (McNergeny and Herbert, 1997).

As leaders, they can perform as reflective practitioners in the field, speak out on issues of reform, and serve as effective change agents in the profession and schools.

McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) findings, suggesting that when teachers had opportunities for collaborative inquiry and the learning related to it, they were able to develop and share a body of wisdom gleaned from their experience. Adding to the discussion, Darling-Hammond (1996) cited shared decision making as a factor in curriculum reform and the transformation of teaching roles in some schools. In such schools, structured time is provided for teachers to work together in planning instruction, observing each other's classrooms, and sharing feedback. These and other attributes characterize professional learning communities." (Hord, 1997)

In research on teacher leaders, Linda Lambert (1998) found that they were involved in key reciprocal learning processes that engaged the school in the work of leadership, enabling the community to renew itself. The processes led by teachers were:

1. Surface, clarify, and define community values, beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, and experiences.

2. Inquire into practice.

3. Construct meaning and knowledge.

4. Frame action and develop implementation plans.

The D.A. teacher-scholar as a public intellectual and educational leader is in a key position to accomplish the above processes. He/she has intimate, day-to-day experience, of what the realities of the school culture are and understands the shared vision of the school and the full scope of the work underway. He/she would be committed to the central work of self-renewing schools and the reflective processes listed above. The DA as teacher-scholar is ideally suited for these well-researched and constructed tasks.

The Promise and the Reality of Limitations

The development of a D.A in Teacher Education holds many promises for enhancing teacher recruitment, retention, and professionalization. However, a teaching doctorate does not address many complex problems that are putting enormous strains on the profession from both within and without. Consideration must also be given to the socioeconomic and cultural issues facing public education.

There is increasing socio-economic and cultural diversity within the school- age population of our society. These issues are coupled with an increasing number of students with disabilities being served through regular classroom inclusion. There is also a national trend to hold schools accountable for student learning outcomes through intensive assessment testing. These complex issues have a direct effect on teacher preparation, on the teacher's transition from the college classroom to the public school classroom, and on the long-term retention rate.

The D.A. is not designed to directly address these complex issues or other equally pressing problems. But the promise of the degree is that it does have the potential to develop teachers, with a commitment to remain in the classroom and who have greater expertise in appropriate content and pedagogy.

The P.E.W. Charitable Trust's report on the state of education reveals nothing truly new or novel to educators. However, the report does make us aware that serious problems persist, the depth of these problems are increasing, and that some of our past efforts have only compounded the problem and created new ones. The question is will we continue to muddle through with more quick fix reform proposals or will we take decisive steps to transform the teaching profession.

Today there is mounting recognition that we must move beyond simple reform and seek to transform the teaching profession while holding onto time tested practices. In rethinking teacher education, the development of the D.A. has the potential to allow us to see in a new way teacher preparation and the teaching profession. The D.A. represents not just a means to reform the old but to transform the teacher preparation and to establish a new level of professionalization for teachers (White, 1999).

Therefore, the D.A. is a legitimate and viable educational policy. It is an attractive forum to motivate teachers to seek advanced professional development while remaining committed to the classroom. The development of the Doctor of Arts in Teacher Education would improve the quality of classroom instruction while boosting the prestige of teachers as public intellectuals. The future of the D.A. as an ongoing experiment and as a unique innovation in higher education, and the need to transform the teaching profession may be intertwined. And as such, the Doctor of Arts degree, as the teaching doctorate, could establish a new standard and tradition in teacher preparation on which to improve the future of American public education.

References

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Committee on Graduate Studies (1970) The Doctor of Arts Degree: A Proposal for Guidelines. Washington, D.C.

Boyer, Ernest (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Eastman, Arthur M. (ed). Proceedings of the Wingspread Conference on the Doctor of Arts Degree. October 25-27, 1970, Council of Graduate Schools in the United States, Washington, D.C.

Edwards, Virginia B. and Chromioter, Gregory (2000). "Who Should Teach?: Quality Counts 2000." [Special issue]. Education Week. Volume XIX, Number 18.

Glazer, Judith S. (1993). A new teaching doctorate: The Doctor of Arts Degree: Then and Now. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Hammond-Darling, Linda (1999, January-February). "Educating teachers: The academy's greatest failure or its most important future?" ACADEME, 26-33.

Hord, Shirley (1997). "Professional Learning Communities: What Are They and Why Are They Important?" Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) 1997,Vol 6(1).

Labaree, David F. (1999, January-February). Too Easy a Target: The Trouble with Ed Schools and the Implications for the University." ACADEME, 34-39.

- "The trouble with Ed Schools." (Summer 1996) Educational Foundations, 10, 27-45.

Lambert, Linda (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Maher, Frances and Mary Kay Teteault (January-February 1999). "Knowledge Versus Pedagogy: The Marginalization & Teacher Education. ACADEME, 40-43.

McNergney, Robert F and Joanne M. Herbert (1997). Foundations of Education: The Challenge of Professional Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

- (1997). Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

Paolucci, Anne (Ed.)(1989). "The Doctor of Arts Degree: Reassessing Teaching and Research Priorities." New York: Council on National Literatures.

-"Reeducating Our Teachers: A New Look at the Doctors of Arts degree." (1993, November 9): New York Times. p.12.

Pulling, Barton S. (Ed.) (1989). Proceedings From the National Conference on the DA. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University Publications, Vol. 1.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). "Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching." Published in M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd ed.) (pp.3-33). New York: Macmillian.

White, Stephen R. (1999) "Doctor of Arts: Preparing the Teacher-Scholar." American Secondary Education, 28(2).

- (Ed.) (1994) The D.A. and the 21st Century: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Doctor of Arts. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University Publications, Vol.2.

Stephen R. White, D.A, Assistant Professor and Linda C. O'Neal, Ed.D., Associate Professor, Appalachian State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Stephen R. White, Department of Leadership and Educational Studies, 310 Duncan Hall Boone, NC 28608 E-mail: [e-mail]