This review examines the historical development and contemporary challenges of the United States public education system, with particular focus on professional development (PD) for K-12 educators. By tracing the evolution from common schools to present-day educational institutions, this analysis explores how changing demographics, persistent disparities, and professional development practices impact the system's ability to fulfill its original mission. Understanding this historical context is crucial for addressing current challenges in teacher preparation and effectiveness, especially given the significant demographic differences between today's educators and student populations.
The Center on Education Policy at the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at George Washington University reviewed the history of public education in the United States. It summarized the various roles public schools aimed to fill through their early establishment (Kober et al., 2020). They reported that the inaugural elementary and secondary education system in the United States promised to provide pathways for children to learn active civic engagement, acquire vital workforce skills, and facilitate character development that supports learners in reaching their full potential (Kober et al., 2020). The historical objectives of public education enabled the transfer of cultural knowledge from teacher to learner (Kober et al., 2020). DeNicola (2018) discussed that education facilitates examining the impact of ignorance, or what we do not know, on individuals and relationships. Literature, music, ideas, beliefs, and habits reflect cultural values. The early establishment of public K12 education in the United States aimed to provide opportunities for learners to develop their understanding of how the world works through academic content that remains inclusive of the cultural values and pedagogy reflective of the communities it serves (Kober et al., 2020).
The earliest free-of-charge schools in the United States, common schools, aimed to educate different socioeconomic classes of children to strengthen the country’s economy and global economic position (DeNicola, 2018). Common schools were also believed to encourage a route to happiness for individuals (DeNicola, 2018; Kober et al., 2020). Academic content, reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography, grammar, and rhetoric were emphasized, yet common schools targeted unifying populations across social classes (Kober et al., 2020). The early vision for public education in the United States intended to reduce division across different social classes, religious beliefs, and ethnic backgrounds (DeNicola, 2018; Kober et al., 2020). Integrating intergroup relationship-building and academic content to reduce division created a foundational vision of public education in the United States, but not all children had access to public schools (Kober et al., 2020). Access to schools across the country was often restricted; in particular, Black, Indigenous people of color (BIPOC) were frequently excluded (Kober et al., 2020; McCoy & Villeneuve, 2020; Zephier Olson & Dombrowski, 2020). The social creation and enforcement of a gender binary were stressed; for example, girls did not gain access to common schools as quickly as boys (Kober et al., 2020). Kober et al. (2020) outlined that students with disabilities were regularly institutionalized or kept at home instead of allowed to attend public schools. As immigration patterns in the United States fluctuated, who needed school services influenced schools’ focus on teaching English and encouraging individual assimilation into American cultural norms (Kitts, 2022; Kober et al., 2020). Population shifts led to shifts in the goals of public schools and in who has authority over an institution’s mission (Kitts, 2022). It did not change teacher workforce demographics (Gay, 2018; Kober et al., 2020).
Many shifts in the public school landscape created challenges to delivering the original vision for public schools: encourage active civic engagement, acquire vital workforce skills, and facilitate student character development (DeNicola, 2018; Kitts, 2022; Kober et al., 2020). These changes have impacted how K12 teacher preparation programs and in-service professional development (PD) train and deliver follow-up support to educators to meet the needs of diverse populations today. In the larger context, K12 educator PD is a multi-billion-dollar market with annual expenditure estimates that range from $4.1 billion to $18 billion. On average, a K12 teacher attends approximately 10 days of professional learning per year (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022; Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Yet, a standardized definition of what qualifies as PD and how to measure PD’s effectiveness does not exist (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021).
Evaluation of effective PD consists mostly of measuring teacher self-efficacy, teacher attitude, or individual student outcomes (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Professional Development effectiveness is less often evaluated by considering a combination of these three or other factors. Professional Development program approval must consider instructional heuristics like job-embedded support and learner-centered instruction when identifying or evaluating effective K12 educator PD (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Professional Development program impact does not consider school culture or teacher autonomy and is fractional (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Disconnecting teacher attitude and teacher self-efficacy from student outcomes risks ignoring how changing student demographics and static teacher demographics may intersect and influence the implementation of new pedagogies acquired during in-person PD offerings, specifically those pedagogies that aim to join academic content with the skills needed to reduce division across ethnic, racial, religious, ability, and gender differences. Teacher attitude and self-efficacy are interconnected, as educators’ beliefs about diversity and culturally responsive teaching correspond in practice (Civitillo et al., 2019; Kitts, 2022).
In addition to PD effectiveness, educator intent to implement new learning contributes to whether pedagogies that aim to increase skills that reduce division across differences will be implemented (Delk, 2019; Gesel et al., 2021; Stewart, 2020). Differences in identity and representation are present in schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022), approximately 55% of U.S. public school students identify as BIPOC, while 80% of public school educators in the United States identify as White. Studies reveal that most classroom teachers who self-identify as White are underprepared to address the diverse needs of their BIPOC student populations (Caldwell, 2022; Gay, 2018; Gupta, 2020; Stewart, 2020). Professional Development targeting topics to build teacher capacity to meet diverse learners’ needs often excludes contextualized follow-through (Gupta, 2020). K12 educator PD only sometimes considers these identity differences and whether campus climate will support the implementation of targeted learning (Zimmer & Matthews, 2022). Sims and Fletcher-Wood (2021) discovered inconsistencies in how K12 educator PD is evaluated and described that support post-PD for implementing new learning needs to be included. Inconsistent evaluation of effective PD creates a budget concern, but it also leads to variances in teacher preparedness (Caldwell, 2022; Farmer, 2020; Gibbons & Farley, 2019; Hanks et al., 2020; Zimmer & Matthews, 2022).
Thanks for reading! Here are some things to think about.
How has the original vision of public education (civic engagement, workforce skills, and character development) evolved in response to changing demographics, technologies, and social norms? What challenges does this create for modern teacher preparation?
What are the potential implications of the mismatch between student demographics (55% BIPOC) and teacher demographics (80% White) on professional development effectiveness and implementation?
Why might measuring professional development effectiveness through multiple factors (teacher self-efficacy, teacher attitude, AND student outcomes) be more valuable than measuring these elements separately?
More to come...
Comments