Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)

Unraveling the Professional Development School Equity Agenda

Author(s): Ismat Abdal-Haqq
Source: Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 74, No. 3/4, Professional Development Schools:
Historical Context, Changing Practices, and Emerging Issues (Parts 1 & 2) (1999), pp. 145-160
Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493129
Accessed: 08/09/2009 12:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Peabody Journal of Education.

http://www.jstor.org
PEABODY JOURNAL OFEDUCATION, 74(3&4),145-160
? 1999,Lawrence
Copyright Inc.
Associates,
Erlbaum

Unraveling the Professional

Development School Equity Agenda
IsmatAbdal-Haqq

While preparingthis article,I received a circularfeaturingsome of the

latest releases from a well-known publisherof books and journalson edu-
cation. Being constitutionally incapable of tossing out announcements
about new books unread, I scanned the offerings and encountereda short
descriptionof a book, which remainsnameless, devoted to culturalaware-
ness in schools. The one-line blurb read, "Helpeveryone cope with diver-
sity." What caught my attentionwas the use of the word cope.It triggered
recollection of a meeting of a small Professional Development School
(PDS) working group (which also remains nameless) that I attended sev-
eral years ago.
The session began with introductions and brief statements about
PDS-relatedwork in which participants were involved. One university
professor shared with us the informationthat her institutionhad recently
received funds from a well-endowed foundation to work with an affluent
local school district to find ways of reversing the decline in the district's
heretoforesterling reputationfor educationalexcellence.This decline had

ISMATABDAL-HAQQ research
is AssociateDirectorfor Association
at theAmerican
andinformation of
for TeacherEducationin Washington,
Colleges of theAdjunctERICClearing-
DC,andCoordinator
houseon ClinicalSchools.

Requestsfor reprintsshould be sent to IsmatAbdal-Haqq,6705SecondStreetNW, Wash-

ington, DC 20012.E-mail:ismat@aol.com

145
I. Abdal-Haqq

apparentlybeen brought on by an influx of poor and working-classimmi-

grant students, many of whom were not proficient in English. The pres-
ence of these new students had lowered mean achievement scores and
upset the admirableteacher-to-studentratio, both of which were promi-
nent contributorsto the district'sreputation.My reactionat the time was
that the school district,the university,and the foundationmight more pro-
ductively employ their collective resources in reconsideringtheir defini-
tion of educationalexcellence.
The two occurrencesillustratea lamentable,but not uncommon, incli-
nation to regardstudent diversity as a problemor obstaclewith which ed-
ucators must cope (Nieto & Rolon, 1997).This view of diversity does not
appear to include any recognitionof the possibility that student diversity
might promote learning among professionals and peers, stimulate ex-
panded capacity for educators and schools, or provide opportunities for
educators to exercise their responsibilityto assist in advancing social jus-
tice or to support democratic principles (Ligons, Rosado, & Houston,
1998).Neglect of possibilities with regardto diversity is one of several cri-
tiques that have surfacedin PDS literatureon equity.
In this articleI relate some of the majorcritiquesfound in the literature
on the PDS equity agenda and accomplishments.Becauseseveral of these
critiques reflect multiculturaleducation and critical pedagogy themes, I
referenceworks from the more general literatureon diversity, urban,and
multicultural education, as well as illustrations from PDS literature on
partnershipwork that speaks to equity programming.I also attemptto sit-
uate considerationsof equity within a broadercontext,suggesting thatne-
glect of explicit equity programmingis simply one consequence, albeit a
majorone, of questionableattentionto and/or limited perspectives on ac-
countability,purpose, and responsibilityin PDS work.
Equity has many dimensions and has relevance for various partici-
pants, practices,and policies associatedwith schooling. In this article,I fo-
cus on issues relatedto poor or working-classlearnersin PDS settings and
learnerswho arefromnon-Europeanracial,ethnic,and linguistic groups.

The Place of Equity in the Languageand Life of PDSs

Although the basic configurationof PDS partnerships,as well as their

core goals and principles,is well known, I offera briefsummaryof mission
and structureas a prelude to the equity discussion for two reasons.First,a
significantcritiqueof PDS potential to address equity issues, as they relate
to the previously mentioned learners,centerson the limitationsof the typi-
cal bilateral configuration of PDS partnerships. Second, the broad issues of

146
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

accountability,purpose, and responsibilityjust mentioned are rooted in

both the structureand mission of these partnerships.
PDSs are collaborative partnerships,which generally include one or
more schools, colleges, or departments of education and one or more
school districts.Although schools and colleges are the partnersof recordin
most PDSs, some partnershipsalso have teachersunions and human ser-
vices agencies as partners.Some existing partnershipsoperate only 1 P-12
school as a PDS, whereas othersmay have more than 40. Recentcounts by
the Clinical Schools Clearinghouse indicate that more than 1,035 P-12
schools have been designated as PDSs in 47 states (Abdal-Haqq,1998b).
PDSshave a four-partmission:(a) maximizingstudent achievementand
well-being,(b) initialpreparationof teachersand otherschool-basededuca-
tors, (c) professionaldevelopment of teachersand other school-basededu-
cators, and (d) applied inquiry designed to improve and support student
and educator development (Abdal-Haqq,1998a).The draft standards for
PDSs,developed and now being pilot testedby the NationalCouncilforAc-
creditationof TeacherEducationPDS StandardsProject,identify threecore
commitmentssharedby PDSs:"(1)an environmentwhich integratesadult
and children'slearning;(2) parityfor universityand school partnerson all
issues of practiceand policy in the PDS;and (3) the simultaneousrenewalof
the school and the university"(Levine,1998a,p. 193).
Fromthe earliestdays of the movement, commitmentto equity has been
prominentin the language of PDS theorists and practitioners.Indeed, ad-
dressing inequities in schooling has consistentlybeen presented as an ex-
plicit purpose, goal, rationale,commitment,or guiding principle.The first
two sharedbeliefs listed in the National Network for EducationalRenewal
(NNER)Compactfor PartnerSchools are (a) "Partnerschools of the NNER
assurethat all learnershave equitableaccessto knowledge," and (b) "Part-
ner schools recognize and honor diversity, commit to multiculturalcurric-
ula and culturally responsive practice, prepare individuals for active
participationin a democraticsociety, and promote social justice" (Clark,
1995,pp. 236-237).
The vision statement,which emerged from the work of the PDSs Net-
work based at the National Center for RestructuringEducation,Schools,
and Teaching,articulateda set of corebeliefs to which PDSsshould be com-
mitted, including "commitmentto inclusive, adaptive approachesto chil-
drenand theirlearningand the full participationof all learnersin expanded
educational opportunities,with respectful considerationof gender, class,
race,and culture"(VisionStatement,1993,p. 3). Principle3 of the six PDSde-
sign principlespromulgatedby the Holmes Group(1990,p. 7) in Tomorrow's
Schoolsis "Teachingand learning for everybody's children.A majorcom-
mitmentof the ProfessionalDevelopmentSchoolwillbe overcomingthe ed-

147
I. Abdal-Haqq

ucationaland socialbarriersraisedby an unequal society."Equityis one of

five criticalattributesfor which draft quality standardshave been devel-
oped by the PDS StandardsProject:"A PDS is characterizedby norms and
practiceswhich supportequity and learningby all studentsand adults"(Le-
vine, 1998a,p. 209). These statements,which speak to general organizing
principles for PDSs, are echoed in countless individual partnershipvision
statements,institutionalagreements,and projectdescriptions.
How these principlesplay out in practicevaries from setting to setting.
Many partnershipsdeliberatelyestablish PDSs in low-income and ethni-
cally or raciallydiverse communities.For example, in Texas, the majority
of PDSs are members of a statewide network of Centers for Professional
Development of Teachers (CPDTs),originally called Centers for Profes-
sional Development and Technology. Among the selection criteria for
CPDTschool sites is "a student population representativeof the diversity
in the state"(Resta,1998,p. 6), a response to the growing minority student
population in the state, which in 1996was 51%AfricanAmericanand His-
panic (Izquierdo,Ligons, & Erwin, 1998).CPDTs are required to include
low-performingschools in their partnerships,and teachercandidates are
expected to work with students considered at risk for school failure
(Izquierdoet al., 1998).
The stated intent of locating PDSs in such schools is most frequentlyto
offerteachercandidatesfield sites thatmirrorthe student populations and
conditions found in an increasingnumber of the country'sschools, partic-
ularlyinner-cityschools (Izquierdoet al., 1998).The intensity of the clinical
experience, with regard to engagement with students from diverse cul-
tural backgrounds, ranges from "exposure"in some settings to "immer-
sion" experiences, which extend beyond the classroom and the school
building, in otherlocalities (CalPolyGoesto School,1995).In some cases, the
entire preservice program has an urban or diversity focus, and working
with racial,ethnic, or linguistic minority childrenis the theme binding to-
gether coursework, field placements, and clinical experiences. Examples
include the Houston (TX)Consortiumof UrbanProfessionalDevelopment
and TechnologyCenters(Ligonset al., 1998)and the graduateteacheredu-
cationprogram,Teachfor Diversity, at the University of Wisconsin-Madi-
son (Zeichner& Miller, 1997).
PDS literaturedocuments a few innovative programs that target the
learningneeds of racial,ethnic,or linguisticminoritychildren(Abdal-Haqq,
1998a).One example is the Studentsas Authorsproject,an award-winning
literacyenhancementprograminitiatedby teachersat CentralElementary
PDS in Morgantown,West Virginia,which has a large percentageof immi-
grant students who have at least 10 differentnon-Englishfirst languages
(Barksdale-Ladd & Nedeff, 1997).

148
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

Despite notableexceptions,mainstreamPDSliteraturesuggests that di-

versity-relatedlearning activitiesfor preserviceand practicingteachersin
PDSs are fairly conventional and do not depart significantlyfrom the tra-
dition of isolated staff development workshops and courses in multicul-
tural education. There is little in discussions of these offerings to suggest
that they do more than try to promote "awareness"(Abdal-Haqq,1998a).
Mainstreamliterature offers even less encouraging news about explicit
programmingthat targetsthe needs of African,Asian-Pacific,Hispanic,or
Native American children (Wilder, 1995;Zeichner & Miller, 1997). From
the fugitive literature(e.g., internalor limited circulationdocuments, un-
published reports, audiovisual and electronic sources, newsletters, pro-
motional material) we occasionally catch encouraging glimpses of such
programming(Abdal-Haqq,1998a),but overall, the literaturedocuments
few relevantinstructionalor cocurricularinnovations.In sum, there is lit-
tle evidence in PDSliteratureof widespread foregroundingof equity or di-
versity issues in either preservice or inservice teacher development,
student development, or inquiry in or about PDSs (Valli, Cooper, &
Frankes,1997;Wilder, 1995).

CriticalVoices

Few resourcesin PDS literaturehave equity issues as their primaryfo-

cus. Perhaps the most detailed examination of the PDS equity agenda is
found in the work of Valli et al. (1997),who investigated the researchand
advocacy literatureon PDSs,identified seven basic reformthemes, sought
evidence of documented change in each category, and considered the im-
plicationsof the changes (or absenceof change)for the equity agenda artic-
ulated in the literature. The seven themes include teacher education,
teaching and learning, school organization,equity goals, professional de-
velopment, inquiry, and collaborativealliances. They found no separate
research studies that focused primarily on equity issues and concluded
that, overall, "broadissues of equity and social justice are often absent in
both PDS researchand practice"(p. 252).The authorsofferedfour possible
explanationsfor limited accomplishmentsin this area, including the real-
ity that most PDSs are in the early stages of development and the possibil-
ity that the vision articulatedby the Holmes Group and others is not
sufficiently concrete to provide effective guidance. They also questioned
whether educators widely share or are even aware of the commitment to
equity, which is incorporatedinto major conceptualizationsof the PDS.
Shen (1994)and Bullough, Kauchak,Crow, Hobbs, and Stokes (1997)are
among the researchers who have studied educator perceptions of the PDS

149
I. Abdal-Haqq

mission and found that many of their informantssee the function of the
PDS in very limited terms, primarily as a venue for preservice teacher
training along fairly conventional lines. Valli et al. also wondered if the
conditions of teaching and teachereducation, as they currentlyexist, en-
able the radicaltransformationof schooling envisioned in the advocacy lit-
erature,a concernechoed by Fullan,Galluzzo,Morris,and Watson(1998).
The possible inhibitingeffectsof the sociopoliticalcontextof both public
schooling and teachereducationare an issue raisedby two otherworks de-
voted to equity in PDS settings. Murrell and Borunda (1997) questioned
whether the prevailing PDS model can substantively address equity is-
sues, as they relate to vulnerableor marginalizedstudents, because of the
model's preoccupationwith teacher change as the engine that will drive
school change and because of an apolitical conceptualizationof equity,
which seems to be common currencywithin the movement. Murrell(1998)
provided what is perhaps the most expansive treatmentof the theoretical
underpinnings of the currentPDS model's approachto equity and school
change and contrasted this approach with more emancipating and em-
powering approachesthat may offer more hope for meaningful change in
urban settings. He advocated a re-visioning of the PDS model and sug-
gested an alternate collaborative concept that diverges from the PDS
model in nine areas.Key aspects of the approachMurrelladvocated are re-
defining relevantstakeholders,situatingcollaborativework in community
concerns, and clarifying and sharpening the purpose of PDS work to re-
flect the broad social and political context in which the work takes place.
In reviewing PDS literature,Wilder (1995)found it to be "situatedin a
managerialcontextdevoid of how race,class,and culturalrelationsconnect
to desired PDS goals" (p. 254).She argued that this managerialfocus is in-
sufficientto bring about change in teacherpreparationor the learningout-
comes of AfricanAmericanor otherhistoricallymarginalizedstudents.She
examined the PDS trackrecordon increasingthe number of teachersfrom
underrepresentedethnic,racial,and linguisticgroups;exploredthe connec-
tionbetween substantivemulticulturaleducationforteachersand culturally
relevantteachingfor children;and questionedthe inattentionof PDS litera-
ture to this connectionin light of avowed interestin equitableschooling.
Unlike the four works just mentioned, which focus specifically on eq-
uity issues, the bulk of commentaryon equity in PDSsis generallyfound in
discussions of the broad PDS or reformagenda. Recentreviews of PDS lit-
erature(Abdal-Haqq,1998a;Teitel,1998)revealed concernsaboutboth the
adequacyof concepts and practicesfor addressingequity issues and a lack
of widespread attentionto explicit,focused equity programming.Fullanet
al. (1998)conducted a study of the Holmes Group'swork and accomplish-
ments related to teacher education reform. Utilizing multiple data sources,

150
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

the authors examined the appropriateness of goals and principles for

meeting the needs of teachereducation,progress in achieving the Holmes
agenda, and the impact of the group's work on teachereducation in gen-
eral. One focus of the study was progress in meeting equity goals for
teacher development and P-12 schooling and the accomplishments of
PDSs in this regard.The authors concluded that "PDSesas prototypes of
equity-basedreformare not in evidence" (p. 41).
More general school change, education reform,and diversity literature
often question the value for culturally diverse learners of certain sacred
cows of common contemporaryapproachesto improving schooling-ap-
proachessuch as teacherempowermentand participationand school-based
management (Fullan, 1995; Lipman, 1997) or discrete teacher education
courses in multicultural education (Guillaume, Zuniga, & Yee, 1998;
Zeichner,1996).To the extent that PDSs rely on such approachesto school
and teachereducationrenewal,and the literaturesuggests thatthereis con-
siderable reliance (Abdal-Haqq,1998a),they will have limited success in
achieving equity goals. Although these authors did not suggest that such
approachesare without merit, their effectivenessis limited if they are not
linked to concomitantexaminingof the socialand politicalcontextof public
education or questioningthe attitudes,assumptions,values, and priorities
of the organizationsand individualswho are involved in schooling (Banks,
1997;McLaren,1998;Nieto & Rolon, 1997).
Critiquesof equity-relatedPDSaccomplishmentsand potentialgenerally
reflectone or more of four majorthemes, which are discussed brieflynext.
The firsttheme is thatthe prevailingbilateralconfigurationof most part-
nerships is inadequatefor bringing about meaningfulimprovementin the
performanceof vulnerable,marginalizedstudents.Thisis a centralthesis of
several authors (Lawson, 1996;Murrell,1998;Murrell & Borunda,1997).
Childrenwho live in poverty and childrenwho are membersof historically
disadvantagedracial,ethnic, and linguisticgroups are victims of systemic
and relentless assaults on their health, safety, civil rights, economic
well-being,and self-esteem.Effortsto increasethe academicperformanceof
such students will achievemarginaland transientimprovements,at best, if
these efforts do not incorporatean understandingof how and why these
childrenbecome vulnerableto school failureor underachievement,as well
as the role schools play in perpetuatingsocietal inequities.School-univer-
sity partnershipsneed to be recast as community-school-universitypart-
nerships or alliancesthat focus on communitydevelopment and removing
systemic constraintson children'slearning.
In practicalterms, this involves working with parents, students, rele-
vant community stakeholders,and human services agencies as equal part-
ners in change. Fullan et al. (1998) observed, "it is increasingly clear that

151
L Abdal-Haqq

parentand communityreformmust be closely linked to teacherand school

reform"(p. 42). Meaningfulengagementwith parentand communitypart-
ners is constrainedby the prevailingPDSmodel's bilateraldesign. Murrell
(1998)asked,

Whatpossibilityis therefora PDScollaborativeto become a "democratic

public sphere" ... given the congenitalasymmetriesof power that leave
parentsand communitystakeholdersout of the question?How can PDS
partnershipsdeal responsively and democraticallywith wider constitu-
encies of parentsand communitystakeholderswhen the design categor-
ically excludes them? (p. 27)

Limiting the partners in collaborative school change efforts to uni-

versities and schools is an inherently problematic, if not doomed, exer-
cise, in part because schools and universities are themselves part of the
problem. Myers (1996) wrote, "They [PDSs] try to build better connec-
tions and smoother relationships between university-based teacher ed-
ucation and 'real' schools when both need to be seriously transformed"
(p. 2). If this transformation is to lead to benefits for children, particu-
larly historically marginalized children, then the focus of PDS work
should extend beyond its current preoccupation with teacher develop-
ment (Lawson, 1996; Murrell & Borunda, 1997; Myers, 1996). Murrell
(1998) maintained,

Structuringthe collaborativeas an enclave of professionals(i.e.,teachers

and university people), instead of predicatingstructureon a problemto
be solved or a movement to be energized, will continue to privilege pro-
fessionalism above the interests of the community. (p. 33)

The second theme is that prevailing definitions and conceptualizations

of equity are limited, apolitical,and insufficient.Conventionalnotions of
equity frequently define it as equal access to resources and opportunity
(Murrell& Borunda,1997).In the classroom,this often translatesinto a be-
lief that if all children receive the same materials,the same opportunityto
work with qualified teachers, and the same curricularofferings and in-
structionalpractices, the school has done its part and is absolved of re-
sponsibility for children's failure to achieve. This "color-blind"policy,
with respect to racial,ethnic, and linguistic minority children,is criticized
by some PDS educators (Ligonset al., 1998)as well as advocates of multi-
culturaleducation (Banks,1997).Although equal access is importantand
essential, it is not necessarily sufficientto bring about more equitable and
empowering learning experiences (Valli, 1994). Murrell (1998) suggested,

152
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

Criticalinterrogationof the conceptionof "educationalequity"has been

conspicuously absent in both the advocacy and researchliteratureon
PDSs.An urban-focusedapproach... shifts from an "equalityof school-
ing" or "everyone-gets-thesame"perspective, to a "qualityof teaching
and learning"perspective.On this account,we would no longer look at
equity merely in terms of "racialbalance" or equivalent numbers of
books and computers, but primarily in terms of effect-whether chil-
dren's experiencesof the curriculumand scholasticachievementare ac-
tually improved. (p. 49)
In practice,the goal of rethinkingthe conceptof equity, as it relatesto di-
verse learners,would be to achieve "equityin excellence for all learners"
(Izquierdoet al., 1998);what Valli et al. (1997)referredto as "equityof out-
comes ... the equitabledistributionof thebenefitsof schooling"(p. 255).The
definition of excellencewould be broadenedthroughemployment of "eq-
uity pedagogy"(Banks,1997,p. 78)thatsees a multiculturalapproachto ed-
ucation not in remedial terms but as a basis for teaching everybody's
children.Rethinkingequity would bring issues of race,class, privilege,and
power into the conversation(Nieto & Rolon,1997;Valli,1994;Wilder,1995).
Fundamentally,casting equity in terms that have meaning for vulnerable
and marginalizedstudentsrequiresarticulatinga systematicequity agenda,
which the movement currentlylacks (Murrell& Borunda,1997).
Third, even judging by definitions articulatedin the literature,equity
goals have been marginalizedin PDS work. For the most part, attempts to
address equity issues have produced curricula,structures,and practices
that are relatively shallow and, in general, do not appear to acknowledge
more liberatoryepistemologies and practices.Thereis very little evidence
in PDS literatureof widespread progress in two key areas of the move-
ment's equity agenda, as articulatedby the Holmes Group (1990)and oth-
ers: increasing the diversity of the teaching force and implementing
culturally responsive practice in schools (Fullan et al., 1998; Murrell &
Borunda,1997;Valli et al., 1997;Wilder, 1995;Zeichner& Miller,1997).
Demographictrends clearlyindicatethat the growing percentageof ra-
cial,ethnic,and linguisticminoritystudents is faroutstrippingthe percent-
age of teachersfrom these groups (Hirsch,1998).Teacherswho share their
students'language,traditions,andhistoryaremorelikely tobe ableto mine
the culturalcapitalthat all students bring with them (Nieto & Rolon, 1997;
Wilder, 1995). Instead of enabling more low-income, working-class, and
culturallydiverseteachersto enterthenew teacherpipeline,PDSstructures,
in the interestof raising standards,often createconditions (e.g., longer in-
ternshipsor degreeprograms,more stringententryrequirements)thatmay
restrict access (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a). Although some partnerships have in-

153
I. Abdal-Haqq

stituted proactive programs to recruit and retain teachers of color-pro-

gramsthataddress some of the PDSmodel's structuralconstraints(CalPoly
GoestoSchool,1995;Torres-Karna&Krustchinsky,1998)--overall,the litera-
ture reveals little progress or attentionto this issue.
With regard to culturally responsive teaching, again there are few ex-
amples in the literatureof programmingthat develops or employs respon-
sive practices(Wilder,1995;Zeichner& Miller,1997).In part,this lackmay
be attributedto the shortcomingsof the teacherdevelopment curriculum.
Nieto and Rolon (1997)reminded us that teacherscannot teach what they
do not know, and they cannot learn what they need to know from teacher
educators who are themselves deficient in knowledge of diverse commu-
nities (Zeichner, 1996). The coursework and clinical experience that
preserviceteachersdo receive is often superficial,isolated, and not linked
to opportunities for teacher candidates to probe their own attitudes, be-
liefs, values, and expectationswith regardto diverse learners(Guillaume
et al., 1998;Izquierdoet al., 1998;Myers, 1996;Wilder, 1995).
Fourth,the prevailing PDS model, the view of equity enshrined in the
model, and widespread acceptance of the sufficiency of surface ap-
proaches to addressing equity have acquired a formidable momentum
that may obscure,trample,or renderstillbornalternate,and possibly more
productive, attempts to craftworking alliancesbetween schools and uni-
versities. Wilder (1995) suggested that current conceptualizations of the
PDS promote "anillusion of change"(p. 254). Murrell(1998)wrote,

The evidence to date ... suggests thatwithout significantre-examination

of the PDSpatternsof institutionalorganizationand practices,any exten-
sion of the PDS model will pave over, not repair,the fatal flaws in the
foundationsof urbanschooling.Themore appropriatemetaphorfor PDS
work at this point is not the leadingedgeof innovativeand improvedprac-
tice, but ratherthe shroudwhich hides, and perhapsperpetuates,funda-
mental problemsand issues from the light of criticalinspection.(p. 26)

Murrelland Borunda(1997)decried the hegemonic presence of the cur-

rent PDS model and the prospect that it may become the exclusive pattern
for structuringworking alliancesbetween schools and colleges. Theircon-
cern is not unfounded when we consider the increasingnumber of part-
nerships that have succeeded in making the PDS model the only model of
preservice teachereducation offered at a partnerschools, colleges, or de-
partments of education, or the growing trend to advocate internships in
PDSs as requirements for initial licensure (Abdal-Haqq, 1998a; Dar-
ling-Hammond,1998).An even more high-stakesundertakingis the move
to develop and institute standards for PDSs, which is presently being car-

154
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

ried out by the PDS StandardsProject(Levine, 1998b).An examinationof

the draftstandardsreveals thatguidelines for achieving a quality standard
of equity are less developed than comparableguidelines for the other four
quality standards.Given the movement's record of performanceto date,
the trend to institutionalizecurrentstructuresand practicesprompts eq-
uity-minded individuals to question exactly what is being institutional-
ized (Teitel,Reed, & O'Connor,1997).

WhitherGoest the PDS?Purpose, Responsibility,

and Accountability

Murrelland Borunda(1997)suggested that the PDS'slimited success in

promoting true equity in education is a function of having no real destina-
tion with regard to equity. In my view, equity is not the only stepchild in
the PDS family, and its neglect is one consequence of a more fundamental
neglect and lack of clarity about direction. Pechman's (1992) chapter on
student learning in professional practice schools (a variant of the PDS
model) is called "TheChild as Meaning Maker:The OrganizingPrinciple
for ProfessionalPracticeSchools."Her thesis is present in the title. She out-
lined the mannerin which what is known about productive learningenvi-
ronments for children can be used to guide school restructuring,inquiry,
and teacher education renewal in professional practice schools. The evi-
dence to date suggests that, overall,PDSshave neglected to place children
at the centerof partnershipactivity;they have not made childrenthe orga-
nizing principle for the work.
The bulk of documented PDS work focuses on teacher development
and the collaborativeprocesses and structuresthat enable that work; rela-
tively little attention is given to student learning issues (Abdal-Haqq,
1998a;Teitel, 1998). The literaturesuggests that there is a touching, but
dangerous,faithin the power of teacherprofessionalization,skill enhance-
ment, and empowerment to produce improvementsin children'slearning
(Fullanet al., 1998;Murrell,1998;Murrell& Borunda,1997;Myers, 1996).
To a considerabledegree, the movement has tacitly,and at times explic-
itly, takenmedical education and, in particular,the teachinghospital as its
model for enhancing the status of teachers and improving the quality of
teaching (Levine, 1998b;Teitel, 1998). Doctors consider themselves, and
are consideredby others,to be professionals;most are skilled;and there is
no doubt they have power. However, it requiresvery little reflectionto see
that, although teaching hospitals may produce technically skilled health
professionals, the hospitals, the professionalsthey train, and the industry
are not monuments to caring, democratic, enabling, or empowering rela-

155
L Abdal-Haqq

tions with patients (Murrell,1998).Health care professionals and institu-

tions are accountableto licensing boards, regulatorybodies, stockholders,
and other professionals, but it has never struck me that they consider
themselves especially accountable to patients or the communities from
which their patients come.
As long as PDSs see themselves primarilyas institutionsfor turning out
teachers,however skilled, therewill be a tendency to feel accountableonly
to the producing partner and the hiring partner and possibly to some
guardianof professionalstandards.They will see no need to seek the judg-
ment of parents,students, and communitiesabout the work thatthey do or
bring these neglected stakeholders into conversations about what work
needs to be done or how to do it. School change (Freiberg, 1998;
McLaughlin, 1994), diversity (Nieto, 1994), and PDS literature (Galassi,
Thornton, Sheffield, Bryan, & Oliver, 1998; Kimball, Swap, LaRosa, &
Howick, 1995;Webb-Dempsey,1997)offer many examples of the benefits
of seeking guidance from childrenand parents about enablersof and con-
straintson learning.
A persistentconcernfor PDSsis the absenceof substantialimpactor out-
come evaluation and documentation.The research we do have focuses
mainly on outcomesfor preserviceand inserviceteachers.Very little canbe
found in the literatureabout student outcomes (Abdal-Haqq,1998a,1998b;
Teitel, 1998;Valli et al., 1997).PDS implementershave justifiableconcerns
aboutrelying on conventionalmeasuresto assess studentachievement,but
thereis scantevidence of effortsto develop alternativemeasuresthatinspire
confidence.Thepracticalconsequencesof continuedneglect in this areaare
obvious. If we refocusPDSwork on childrenand deriveresponsibilityfrom
that focus, then the moral and ethical implicationsof this neglect also be-
come obvious. Kimballet al. (1995)observed,"Thesuccess of a partnership
... should be gauged by the extentto which examinationand assessmentre-
veal that student learninghas improved"(p. 24).
PDSs, particularlythose located in communitieswith large populations
of children in need, have unique opportunities as well as awesome chal-
lenges. Sewell, Shapiro,Ducette, and Sanford (1995) suggested, "The in-
ner-cityPDS is uniquely positioned to question contemporaryeducational
theoriesand practices... It can expose the gap between democraticprinci-
ples and the social realitiesreflectedin the schools that constitute a micro-
cosm of society"(p. 182).Tobe contentwith achieving only a portionof the
mission is to neglect the possibilities and succumb to what Teitel (see
Teitel, 1998)calls the "plateau"effect. Resisting this malady requiresclear
thinking about the purpose of partnershipwork.

156
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

There is currently relatively widespread agreement among improve-

ment-minded groups of teachereducatorsthat producing better teach-
ers to ensure betterschools requiresa close collaborationof universities
and school districtsin developing partneror professionaldevelopment
schools.Butfor what?Partnershipsareformedto bringtogetherthe total
array of resources thought necessary to a shared purpose. The shared
mission of the partnershipfor teachereducationarisesnot out of teacher
education but out of schooling. (Goodlad, 1998,p. 20)

Goodlad suggested that schools have a higher purpose than crankingout

workers.Schools play a key role in socializing the young. Therefore,they
have a moral purpose consistent with democraticideals.
Inclarifyingthe purposeof schoolsand the roleof PDSsin promotingthat
purpose,partnershipsmight engage in a form of "backwardsassessment,"
which Kimballet al. (1995,p. 39) illustratedin their discussion of student
learningin partnerschools.Backwardsassessmentis based on the "planning
backwards"model,whichcallson schoolpersonnelto firstconsiderwhat stu-
dents should know and be able to do before restructuringcurricula,sched-
ules, studentgroupings,and otheraspectsof the school environment.
Taking this approachto defining PDS purpose, key questions then be-
come, Whatkind of society do I want to live in?Whatkind of neighbordo I
want to have?Whatkind of doctor,lawyer, or civil servantdo I want to de-
pend on? It is not only the poor and the disenfranchisedwho learn lessons
from the hidden curriculum;children of privilege also learn them. They
learn that it is acceptableto exclude, deny, and exploit those who are with-
out power. When we who now laborin PDS vineyards are old, infirm,and
possibly helpless, who do we want in charge?We want our society to be
led, managed, and guided by persons of skill, but we also want those per-
sons to be caring,just, honest, and fair.

References

Abdal-Haqq,I. (1998a).Professional
developmentschools:Weighingtheevidence.ThousandOaks,
CA:Corwin.
Abdal-Haqq,I. (1998b,October).Professionaldevelopment schools.Whatdoweknow?Whatdowe
needto know?Howdo wefind out? Whodo we tell?Paperpresentedat the National Profes-
sional DevelopmentSchool Conference,Towson University,Towson, MD.
society.New York:TeachersCollege
Banks,J. A. (1997).Educatingcitizensin a multicultural
Press.
M. A., &Nedeff, A. R. (1997).Theworlds of a reader'smind:Studentsas au-
Barksdale-Ladd,
50, 564-573.
thors.TheReadingTeacher,

157
I. Abdal-Haqq

Bullough,R.V., Jr.,Kauchak,D., Crow,N., Hobbs,S., & Stokes,D. (1997).Professionaldevel-

opment schools:Catalystsfor teacherand school change. TeachingandTeacherEducation,
13, 153-171.
CalPolygoestoschool:Partnerships. 1995annualreport.(1995).SanLuisObispo:CaliforniaPoly-
technicStateUniversity,UniversityCenterfor TeacherEducation.
Clark,R.W. (1995).Evaluatingpartnerschools.In R.T.Osguthorpe,R.C. Harris,M. F.Harris,
&S. Black(Eds.),Partnerschools:Centersfor educational
renewal(pp.229-262).SanFrancisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond,L.(1998,September).Howcanweensurea caring,competent, qualifiedteacher
for everychild?Strategiesfor solvingthedilemmasof teachersupply,demand,andstandards.Pa-
per preparedforShapingthe ProfessionthatShapesthe Future:An AFT/NEA Conference
on TeacherQuality,Washington,DC.
Freiberg,H. J.(1998).Measuringschoolclimate:Letme countthe ways. Educational Leadership,
56(1),22-27.
Fullan,M. (1995).Contexts:Overviewand framework.In M. J.O'Hair& S. Odell (Eds.),Edu-
catingteachers andchange.Teacher
for leadership Education yearbook III(pp. 1-10). Thousand
Oaks,CA:Corwin.
Fullan,M.,Galluzzo,G.,Morris,P., &Watson,N. (1998).Theriseandstallofteachereducation re-
form.Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationof Colleges for TeacherEducation.
Galassi,J.P., Thornton,B.,Sheffield,A., Bryan,M., &Oliver,J.(1998,Fall).Reachingagree-
ment on advisory goals using a card sorting and a goal ranking approach:A profes-
sional development school inquiry. Researchin MiddleLevelEducationQuarterly,22(1),
1-15.
Goodlad,J.I. (1998).Teachereducation:Forwhat?TeacherEducationQuarterly, 25(4), 16-23.
Guillaume,A., Zuniga,C., &Yee,I. (1998).Whatdifferencedoes preparationmake?Educating
preserviceteachersforlearnerdiversity.In M.E.Dilworth(Ed.),Beingresponsive tocultural
differences:Howteacherslearn(pp. 143-159).ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.
Hirsch,E.(1998).Recruiting qualityteachersforthenextcentury-Statetrends.Paperpreparedfor
NationalConferenceof StateLegislatures,Washington,DC.
Holmes Group. (1990).Tomorrow's schools:Principles
for thedesignof professionaldevelopment
schools.EastLansing,MI:Author.
Izquierdo,E., Ligons,C., &Erwin,B. (1998).Preparing a culturallypluralisticsociety.
teachersfor
RestructuringTexasTeacherEducationSeries,No. 6. Austin:StateBoardforEducatorCer-
tification.
Kimball,W. A., Swap, S. M., LaRosa,P. A., &Howick, T. (1995).Improvingstudentlearning.
In R.T. Osguthorpe,R.C. Harris,M. F. Harris,&S. Black(Eds.),Partnerschools:Centers for
educational renewal(pp. 23-44). SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Lawson,H. A. (1996).Expandingthe Goodladagenda:Interprofessionaleducationand com-
munity collaborationin serviceof vulnerablechildren,youth, and families.HolisticEduca-
tionReview,9, 20-34.
Levine,M. (1998a).Appendix:Draftstandardsfor professionaldevelopment schools. In M.
Levine(Ed.),Designingstandards thatworkforprofessionaldevelopment schools(pp. 193-210).
Washington,DC:NationalCouncilfor Accreditationof TeacherEducation.
Levine,M. (1998b).Designing standardsthatwork for professionaldevelopmentschools. In
M. Levine(Ed.),Designingstandardsthatworkforprofessional development schools(pp. 1-10).
Washington,DC:NationalCouncilfor Accreditationof TeacherEducation.
Ligons,C. M.,Rosado,L.A., &Houston,W. R.(1998).Culturallyliterateteachers:Preparation
for21stcenturyschools.In M. E. Dilworth(Ed.),Beingresponsive toculturaldifferences:How
teacherslearn(pp. 129-142).ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.

158
 UnravelingthePDS EquityAgenda

Lipman,P. (1997). Restructuringin context:A case study of teacher participationand the

dynamics of ideology, race, and power. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,34(1),
3-38.
McLaren,P. (1998).Lifein schools:An introduction to criticalpedagogyin thefoundations ofeduca-
tion(3rded.). New York:Addison Wesley Longman.
McLaughlin,M. W. (1994,Fall).Somebody knowsmyname(Issuesin RestructuringSchoolsIs-
sue ReportNo. 7, pp. 9-11). Universityof Wisconsin-Madison,Schoolof Education,Cen-
ter on Organizationand Restructuringof Schools.
Murrell,P.C. (1998).Likestonesoup:Theroleoftheprofessional development schoolin therenewalof
urbanschools.Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationof CollegesforTeacherEducation.
Murrell,P.C., &Borunda,M. (1997).Theculturalandcommunity politicsofeducationalequity:To-
warda newframework ofprofessionaldevelopment schools.Unpublisheddraftmanuscript,Na-
tional Centerfor RestructuringEducation,Schools,and Teaching,TeachersCollege, Co-
lumbiaUniversity,New York.
Myers,C. B. (1996,April).BeyondPDSs:Schoolsas professional learningcommunities. A proposal
basedonananalysisofPDS effortsofthe1990s.Paperpresentedat the annualmeeting of the
AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,New York.(ERICDocumentReproduction
ServiceNo. ED 400 227)
Nieto, S. (1994).Lessonsfromstudentson creatinga chanceto dream.HarvardEducational Re-
view,64(4),392-426.
Nieto, S.,&Rolon,C. (1997).Preparationand professionaldevelopmentof teachers:A perspec-
tive fromtwo Latinas.InJ.J.Irvine(Ed.),Critical knowledgefor diverseteachers
andlearners (pp.
89-124).Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationof Collegesfor TeacherEducation.
Pechman,E. (1992).The child as meaning maker:The organizingprinciplefor professional
practiceschools.InM.Levine(Ed.),Professional practiceschools:Linkingteacher educationand
schoolreform(pp. 25-62). New York:TeachersCollege Press.
the Resta,V. K. (1998).Professional development schoolsas a catalystfor reform.Restructuring
TexasTeacherEducationSeries,No. 2. Austin:StateBoardfor EducatorCertification.
Sewell, T. E., Shapiro,J. P., Ducette,J. P., & Sanford,J. S. (1995).Professionaldevelopment
schools in the inner city:Policy implicationsfor school-universitycollaboration.In H. G.
Petrie (Ed.), Professionalization, partnership,and power:Buildingprofessionaldevelopment
schools(pp. 179-197).Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Shen,J.(1994,February).A studyin contrast:Visionsofpreservice teachereducationin thecontextof
a professionaldevelopment school.Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanAs-
sociationof CollegesforTeacherEducation,Chicago.(ERICDocumentReproductionSer-
vice No. ED 368 677)
Teitel,L.(1998).Professionaldevelopmentschools:A literaturereview.InM. Levine(Ed.),De-
signingstandardsthatworkforprofessional development schools(pp. 33-80).Washington,DC:
NationalCouncilfor Accreditationof TeacherEducation.
Teitel, L., Reed, C., & O'Connor,K. (Eds.). (1997).Institutionalizing professional development
schools.Unpublished manuscript. NationalCenterforRestructuringEducation,Schools,and
Teaching,TeachersCollege, ColumbiaUniversity,New York.
Torres-Karna,H., & Krustchinsky,R. (1998).The EarlyEntryProgram.An innovative pro-
gram for recruitingand trainingnew bilingual teachers.TeacherEducationand Practice,
14(1),10-19.
Valli, L. (1994,April).Professionaldevelopment schools:An opportunity to reconceptualizeschools
and teachereducationas empowering learningcommunities. Paper presented at the Interna-
tionalSeminaron TeacherEducationannualmeeting,Maastricht,TheNetherlands.(ERIC
DocumentReproductionServiceNo. ED 381484)

159
I. Abdal-Haqq

Valli,L.,Cooper,D., &Frankes,L.(1997).Professionaldevelopmentschoolsand equity:A crit-

icalanalysisof rhetoricand research.In M.W. Apple (Ed.),Reviewofresearchineducation22
(pp. 251-304).Washington,DC:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.
Visionstatement:ProfessionalDevelopmentSchoolNetwork.Purposes,commitments,anden-
ablingconditionsforprofessionaldevelopmentschools.(1993).PDSNetwork News,1(1),3-6.
Webb-Dempsey,J.(1997).Reconsideringassessmenttobe reflectiveof school reform.In N. E.
Hoffman,W. M. Reed, & G. S. Rosenbluth(Eds.),Lessonsfrom restructuring experiences:
Storiesofchangeinprofessionaldevelopmentschools(pp.269-294).Albany:StateUniversityof
New YorkPress.
Wilder,M. A. (1995).Professionaldevelopmentschools:Restructuringteachereducationpro-
gramsandhierarchies.InH. G.Petrie(Ed.),Professionalization,
partnership,andpower:Build-
ing professionaldevelopmentschools(pp. 253-268).Albany:State University of New York
Press.
Zeichner,K. (1996).Educatingteachersforculturaldiversity.In K.Zeichner,S. Melnick,&M.
L. Gomez (Eds.),Currentsofreformin preserviceteachereducation(pp. 133-175).New York:
TeachersCollege Press.
Zeichner,K.,&Miller,M. (1997).Learningto teachin professionaldevelopmentschools.InM.
Levine & R. Trachtman(Eds.),Makingprofessional development schoolswork:Politics,prac-
tices,andpolicy(pp. 15-29).New York:TeachersCollege Press.

160