Why Teachers Need a Teachers Institute

If there is one thing I know, it is what teaching is like in modern America. Certainly the experiences vary from place to place, but America is at some level a homogeneous place that is characterized by an obsession for reality television, material wealth, and leisure -- time activities -- all of which are being bred into our nation's youth. Therefore we teachers must be armed to combat trends in our culture that may not readily lend themselves to our classrooms. The trouble with this realization is that it leads directly down the path to bureaucratic solutions. The modern socio-political climate asks governments to seek solutions to overriding problems. And in public education it is only natural that the political superiors seeking to craft the cures quickly marshal bureaucrats to order. The result has been an absolute disaster of shifting paradigms that, over the years, have weighed heavily on the shoulders of the common classroom teachers who must bear the burden of every new quick fix that our nation's educational gurus thrust upon us. It is not uncommon to hear seasoned teachers, when faced with the newest solutions to our educational woes, make comments like "well, we have seen this before." The solutions seem to have become cyclical and circular. The ubiquitous "new think" in education has therefore done little but bog down an already tired process and frustrate a nation of teachers.

The question then is: what do teachers need that will make them better at their jobs, help them produce educated pupils, and work effectively with others? The answer is a Teachers Institute based on the model established by the Yale National Initiative. The approach seems rather simple, but in our modern educational climate it is quite radical. At its core the model is based on the idea that good teachers are life-long learners and that helping teachers sharpen their understanding of content leads to more enthusiastic, well-rounded and inspirational teaching. To this end an Institute insists that public school teachers and university faculty members work in a collegial manner to enhance content knowledge that the classroom teacher will include in a curriculum unit to be designed and written for his or her own classroom use. I like to think of this as being paid to go back to school. The advantages of this method are numerous.

First and foremost, it is based on the dissemination of content knowledge not pedagogy. Methods may well enter into the seminar dialogue, but they are not the primary impetus for the formulation of the seminar. Through the seminar process teachers are able to tap into the wealth of resources that a university has to offer, which include both the intellect and specialization of the professors and a host of library materials. Second, the curriculum unit is the mind-spark of the teacher, not the school district. Given our current over-standardization in the classroom, the Yale model gives the teacher a much-needed avenue for some measure of academic freedom. Third, the relationships within the Institute are remarkably valuable. The inner workings of the Institute as a whole and the seminars it offers are exclusively collegial. The teachers and university faculty members, and the Director and the Coordinators, are all geared toward making the curriculum units of each of the teachers the best they can possibly be without any trace of hierarchical dictation. In the top down world of education, especially here in Charlotte, it is refreshing to be thought of as part of a team that has a coordinated goal for real improvement rather than as the proverbial cog in a machine.

Here in Charlotte we are working toward the establishment of our Institute for these very reasons. The problems within professional development in our system are well known to all. Nothing that we have done in the past ten years has survived the entire span of that time. Thus nothing has been worthy of survival. Most of what is done has a very cosmetic feel. For instance, the district developed pacing guides for those classes that are tested by the State to determine yearly progress. This is primarily for new teachers. But missing is any awareness of the actual material included in the pacing. By this line of reasoning, all one might need is a list of the materials to be taught and date to teach and the results will come on their own. This is of course preposterous. The overall assumption would seem to be that all of us already have a rich knowledge of our varying disciplines. The learning process for teachers is over. But that is never true for anyone in any profession.

Those of us who have been lucky enough to participate in the Yale national seminars realize what a valuable tool a Teachers Institute can be for our district. Teachers need and deserve empowerment. Teachers need to be consistent and constant learners if their classrooms have any relevancy or chance for success. Teachers must have some level of control of the material they are to teach if it is to have genuine value for their professional goals and those of the districts where they teach. Charlotte area teachers need a Teachers Institute that can provide each of these intangibles.

Currently we have met with staff members at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Davidson University and with local administrators about the possibilities of developing a local Institute. Thus far we have received only positive responses. We hope that by the fall of 2007 Charlotte will officially join the community of Teachers Institutes.

Jeffrey C. Joyce is a Social Studies teacher at Northwest School of the Arts in Charlotte, North Carolina.