John Goodlad Research Articles

Whither Schools of Education? A Response to John Goodlad

With his consistently careful and nuanced readings of texts and history, John Goodlad has once again provoked me to think again about the political and sociological context of schools of education and, more largely, professional education. A decade ago, when Goodlad, Ken Sirotnik, and I were engaged in the Study of the Education of Educators (SEE), we spent a good bit of time trying to understand the school of education in its larger context. The context is critical. Donald Light (1974) notes that Faculty are defined by the institution that hires them. A doctor is a doctor wherever he may be, but a professor is a professor only if employed by a college or university. This close connection with one type of institution means that the structure of the institutions and the nature of academic work have always interacted with each other (p. 17). More largely, the work and structure of the school of education itself are deeply enmeshed in the bureaucratic, historical, political, and social structure of the larger university/ college structure. As part of the SEE, I examined a portion of the literature pertaining to universities, professional schools, and schools of education and drew a host of conclusions. I speculated that schools of education were in a muddle. My reasoning was thus. There is an uneasy relationship between the university and professional schools because the curriculum of the departments in the university stems from an independent search for truth, while the curriculum of the professional schools derives from state needs for utility. Professional schools work through this relationship by establishing preemptive claims to a particular part of the intellectual terrain, and they develop the means to judge the worth of that terrain and those who labor in it. The schools of education are a peculiar kind of professional school: Whereas other professional schools have their own particular standards to judge themselves, schools of education have asked to be seen and judged as an arts and sciences department. Thus the muddle. They enjoy neither the strength nor the independence of, say, medical and law schools. And their worth is measured by an arts and sciences standard of scholarship inappropriate to professional schools and one that is unlikely to be met. It is not impossible to find a way out of the muddle, if an SCDE wishes to. If a given SCDE were centered, clearly focused, and nimble to boot, it could construct an acceptable argument for acceptance on its own terms. However, in the course of our study, we found few SCDEs that were so centered, focused, and nimble. Rather, we found that most of the SCDEs in our sample were echoing, but not really believing, J. Alfred Prufrock's lament: No, I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be: An attendant lord will do. No, indeed, lesser status as an attendant lord really wouldn't do. They were focused, to be sure, but focused on bigger game: international research university status, recognition as one of the real players, money, the Show. They might be attendants, but by golly, they really were meant to be Hamlet or know the reason why. It is tricky to maneuver when you know who you are. It's just about impossible when you are confused about who you are. (And here we might note that a traditional indicator of sanity is the lack of discrepancy between how you see yourself and how others see you. If so, then many SCDEs, it could be argued, are in need of therapy.) What French Poet Paul Valery says about history has always seemed to me to apply quite directly to the SCDE situation. History, said Valery (1962), causes dreams, it intoxicates whole peoples, gives them false memories, quickens their reflexes, keeps their old wounds open, torments them in repose, leads them into delusions of either grandeur or persecution, and makes nations better, arrogant, insufferable, and vain (p. 114). As in the Balkans, so, too, in our SCDEs. Thus was one way, in the early years of the SEE, to frame the institutional context of SCDEs and their educator preparation programs. …

Whither Schools of Education? Whither Education Research?

In Whither Schools of Education? John Goodlad provides an account of the history of teacher education that strikes me as both wise and historically accurate. Having just written a book entitled An Elusive Science; The Troubling History of Education Research (which will be published by the University of Chicago Press in the spring of 2000), I was also struck by how similar the problems are in teacher education and education research. Given that both activities take place in schools of education, the similarity is not surprising, I suppose, but the convergence does lend urgency to questions of reform. Echoing Goodlad, then, let me suggest some of the issues that will need to be addressed if change is to Occur. Right at the start of his article, Goodlad (1999) points out that schools, colleges, and departments of education were born into an inhospitable surround (p. 1). That is right, I believe, and the inhospitality of the surround becomes even more evident when one juxtaposes the history of education research with the history of teacher education. The early educationists, men like Charles Hubbard Judd of the University of Chicago, Paul Monroe of Teachers College, Paul Hanus of Harvard, and Ellwood Patterson Cubberley of Stanford, were a determined and optimistic lot. They were convinced that by developing a science of education they could improve the functioning of the nation's schools. Sadly, however, their view of the potential of educational science was not shared by their noneducationist colleagues. Quite to the contrary, most of their peers in other schools, colleges, and departments of the nation's rapidly growing and changing universities thought it was silly even to talk about serious scholarship in education. Typically, as one Stanford colleague told Ellwood Patterson Cubberley, they did not believe that education could be either an art or science (Sears & Henderson, 1957, p. 57). At Harvard, this conviction led a colleague of Paul Hanus's to sneer that when Professor Hanus arrived in Cambridge, he had brought the onus of his subject with him (Kucklick, 1977, p. 247). In their disdain for education, noneducationist scholars reflected the thinking of their peers outside of academe, which one might note parenthetically underscores Goodlad's point concerning the importance of contextual matters in developing strong programs of teacher preparation. Throughout American history, education has been revered as a means of personal advancement and social improvement, but it has also been subject to a persistent disdain. Indeed, what I call anti-educationism has been and is pervasive in American culture. Similar in some ways to the suspicion of intellect Richard Hofstadter called anti-intellectualism, anti-educationism is a set of attitudes, beliefs, and values concerning the supposedly simple, mindless, and inexpensive character of education. Anti-educationism allows people to believe that education can be effective in developing human competence even when teachers lack rigorous professional training, when education research is woefully underfunded, and when resources are too scarce to provide schools with sufficient personnel, teaching materials, and facilities. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, many Americans believe that he who can, does; he who cannot, teaches. Anti-educationism is at the root of that belief. Anti-educationism grew out of the fact that since the early 19th century, teaching has been a predominately female profession. Until quite recently, attitudes about gender, especially about a woman's supposed capacity to nurture but not to think, made it difficult, if not impossible, for people to believe that teaching was (and is) a profoundly intellectual calling. To a considerable extent, that is why, as Goodlad so rightly laments, teacher education has tended to be more practical and technical than intellectual. Important, too, anti-educationism and the attitudes about gender that are central to it explain why teaching and education research have existed at much too great a remove from one another. …

Responding to Goodlad: The Primacy of Teacher Education in SCDEs

In his article in this issue, John Goodlad comments that a school of education not preparing teachers is an anomaly that provokes mischief (p. 334). We believe that as well as provoking mischief, it promotes disbelief. We strongly believe that the primary mission of schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) is the preparation of teachers. Many SCDEs have, in the last several decades, occasionally lost sight of this primary mission as they have urged faculty and administrators to pursue grants leading them away from teacher preparation; developed graduate programs promoting research often having little or nothing to do with teacher education; sought faculty with a reputation for publishing in areas peripheral to teacher education; publicly blazoned the work of their doctoral graduates, rarely that of their teacher education undergraduates whose tuition fueled the enterprise; and silently acquiesced in disproportionately higher funding for advanced degree programs at the expense of initial and advanced teacher preparation programs. We do not counsel that SCDEs abandon these many directions that bring them both esteem and resources, but we believe that in the avid pursuit of these directions, many SCDEs have nearly totally shifted their emphasis away from teacher education. We assert the necessity of focus on teacher education. The nation's needs for teachers are extraordinarily large and demanding. SCDEs have a moral obligation to respond, a moral obligation to provide major support to the preparation of teachers. At root in each of Goodlad's seven suggestions is concern for better teachers, for their improved education. Teaching Is Easy, So They Say We live in an age that sometimes disparages the idea that there is anything special about the education of teachers. Hardly a week goes by without the description of an anecdote or an OpEd piece about how a school district could not hire a scientist who knows everything about nuclear physics because of bureaucratic rules about what teachers must have studied prior to teaching, how they must meet unnecessarily stringent and bureaucratic stipulation in terms of courses and experiences. The comments usually contain a series of muddleheaded remarks about how all one needs to teach is subject matter mastery. Sheehan and Fullan (1995) note, Despite the rhetoric about teacher education in today's society, there does not seem to be a real belief or confidence that investing in teacher education will yield results. Perhaps deep down many leaders believe that teaching is not all that difficult. After all, most leaders have spent thousands of hours in the classroom and are at least armchair experts. And they know that scores of unqualified teachers are placed in classrooms every year and required to learn on the job (p. 89). Although gifted teachers do appear to make teaching look easy, prospective teachers have much to learn prior to teaching that goes beyond, for example, elementary school teachers knowing the best of children's literature and secondary English teachers knowing their Shakespeare. Teacher education faculty in SCDEs must demonstrate the necessity and relevancy of pedagogical knowledge and skill, the aptness of child and adolescent studies, the pointedness of knowledge of the history of education. Development of Moral Purpose Teachers require understanding of diversity, ability to work with varied groups, ability to make careful judgments, ease in varied cultural groups, good self-concepts, eagerness to grow in pedagogy, willingness to accept and learn about others different from oneself. But most of all, they must have a sense of moral purpose; they must have had the opportunity to learn and grow in the processes of developing this sense of moral purpose and understanding the necessity of having a goal and vision of what teaching and learning are. It ill becomes a nation to have a cadre of teachers versed in pedagogical tricks and ruses but lacking a sense of why they do what they do. …

Whither Selects of Education? A Reaction: For All the Wrong Reasons

In a few pages, John Goodlad dredges up the demon of status deprivation that has beset him for nearly a half century. Why can't schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) be valued and loved and respected like other professional schools? What is it about teacher education that makes SCDEs a pariah on so many campuses? Why do so many SCDEs flee from their professional role? Goodlad has a set of remedies--seven conditions or lessons derived from 19 postulates (presuppositions) and grounded on four moral principles, here labeled the humanitarian narrative. He informs those remedies from learnings gleaned from nearly a half century of attempting to build viable SCDEs as well as the experience of fashioning the National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER). From these experiences he also offers a set of structural remedies from Partner Schools to Centers of Pedagogy designed to respond to the conditions he portrays and possibilities he sees for the future. I read initially whither as a question about whether these unique and besieged institutions could possibly survive far into the coming millennium. I then considered the title and, knowing how carefully Goodlad uses words, consulted my dictionary. I learned that whither asks to what situation, position, degree, or end one will go. It became clear that Goodlad is suggesting that only if SCDEs are prepared to adopt both the humanitarian narrative and the set of conditions he describes will they survive long into the 21st century. In 1958, in his role of Director of Teacher Education at the University of Chicago, Goodlad addressed the teacher education establishment. In the aftermath of World War II and as a result of the Soviet launch of Sputnik, he observed, teacher education has been subjected to ... devastating blasts, and argued that its future depended upon remedying the deficiencies years ago diagnosed by its own most thoughtful leaders (p. 109). One of the solutions he proclaimed was that the main channels of American academic life must concern themselves seriously with teacher education (p. 110). He talked of the university as an inhospitable place for teacher education and offered a set of remedies that he has consistently returned to each time he has spoken or written about teacher education. He has expanded on them or refined the set of solutions, but there is a remarkable consistency about what he said then and what he offers today as the solution to the problem of status deprivation. As he has moved from Chicago to Atlanta, from Los Angeles to Seattle, Goodlad has been persistent in arguing for a set of core principles and a new structure for teacher education need (p. 112) to overcome the problem of status deprivation. In Goodlad's (1990) major contribution to the field, Teachers for Our Nation's Schools, he examined the strange, elusive relationship between general approval and specific rejection (p. 70) of teacher education and queried why policymakers and college leaders so little love SCDEs. As evidence of failure to respond, Goodlad asserts that the public and academy have failed repeatedly to respond to the needs of teacher education since the 1960s. He cites Conant (1963), Smith (1980), Clifford and Guthrie (1988), and Judge (1982) as having addressed major problems of teacher education relative to higher education but concludes that college and university leaders failed to respond. Here, as elsewhere, he is asking why this neglect. (It is interesting to note Conant's acknowledgment that Goodlad provided him with the essential knowledge of the details of teacher training. (Conant, 1962, p. v) He leaves unexamined whether these four studies were seminal or what was done to bring them to the attention of policymakers and college and university leaders. I question why he selected these four studies and not the Holmes Group (1995) trilogy, several AACTE documents (particularly Howsam, Corrigan, Denemak, & Nash, 1976), or the more recent work of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. …

A Response to John Goodlad's Whither Schools of Education? Unless Other Changes Occur, They Might Well Wither

This rejoinder argues that the institutional regard in which schools of education are held and their long-run operational prospects cannot be separated from broader policy issues such as the education system's accountability and incentive arrangements. Thus, by themselves, supply-side efforts such as rendering education schools more rigorous and practitioner oriented will be insufficient. Rather, only the development of an empirically based ability to discern good teaching and, thereafter, creating an intensified market demand for teaching talent can elevate the profession and future fortunes of schools of education. I approached the reading of the foregoing Goodlad article with enthusiasm. For decades, America's efforts at achieving a profession of education have had no more stalwart, insightful, analytic, or articulate proponent than Professor Goodlad. Through well-researched books, scholarly articles, engaging speeches, inspired leadership, and personal commitment, he has been a tireless and forceful crusader for professionally oriented schools of education and a proud cadre of well-prepared teachers for the nation. Despite my positive predisposition, I only reached the article's third paragraph before I was discouraged. This is no ill reflection on Goodlad or his writing. Rather, I quickly despaired from the painful realization that for decades virtually no progress has been made in solving the multiple problems of schools of education. In Goodlad's third paragraph, I was reminded that 100 years ago John Dewey was fighting to improve schools of education, elevate their institutional standing, render them more scholarly and scientific in their research, focus them more intensely upon the training of professional teachers, and model their teacher preparation and research efforts more after that of law, medical, engineering, and architecture schools. Regrettably, one is hard pressed to see even a scintilla of progress since Dewey's day. It would seem that schools of education are every bit as status deprived within academia, institutionally indistinguishable, and marginally regarded by the larger society today as they were a decade or even a century ago. Goodlad's seven-point agenda for coping with such despair is a reasoned one. He generously gives my colleague Geraldine Clifford and me credit for our stance in the book, Ed School: A Brief for Professional Education (Clifford & Guthrie, 1988). He then proceeds to call for a focus on the profession, a fully humanitarian approach to teaching and the training of teachers, a unified faculty, and so on. However, even if all that Goodlad espouses should happen, and it will not, it probably would be insufficient. None of these solutions, nor the supply-side ideas that Clifford and I, or almost anyone else, have previously put forward, will ultimately prove capable of eliminating the institutional inferiority faced by Ed Schools. These problems are too organic, too integrally tied to the problems of education itself, ever to be solved by concentrating on education schools or on the supply of better teachers. School of education problems must be challenged externally through empirical research results, elevated market expectations for teachers' performance, and public perceptions. Until there is a greater school district and school demand for good teachers, just as there now is a market for business executives, engineers, and so forth, there will be little prestige for good schools of education. These age-old problems of professional status, professionalism, institutional regard, and instructional improvement are twisted together and reciprocally reinforcing. Lower than preferred status for teachers discourages larger numbers of more able individuals from entering the field. A mediocre workforce, or at least a perception of a mediocre workforce, and a same-size-fits-all salary mentality impede offering able teachers higher remuneration. …

A Modest Proposal for Course Design and Delivery

Imagine for a moment: WTiat if educational policy-makers and the public at large understood that it really is impossible to teach young people everything worth knowing? WTiat if the educational establishment considered the possibility that teaching for under standing is a more viable educational aim than teaching for testing and accountability? Wliat if history teachers considered the possibil ity that the traditional survey approach, or even advanced placement courses, are not the only (or best) ways to teach history? Consider what an American history course focusing on a few topics and ideas might be like. Problems related to teaching and learning history have been well documented in recent educational literature. John Goodlad and Theodore Sizer found the typical history classroom to be text-book centered and information-driven with little time devoted to helping students develop understanding (1). Fred Newmann described an addiction to as endemic to high school history classes. In his view, this survey approach has negative consequences for learning. Besides being a waste of time, it reinforces a mindlessness on the part of students. Instructors present information with little depth and ask students to transmit that information back in a limited fashion, usually a test. The cycle then repeats itself over and over with entirely new content each time (2). History presents other problems for both teacher and student. John Myers explained that a mismatch exists between how adults view history and how students view it (3). Adults (teachers) view the 1960s, 1970s, or even 1980s as recent history, yet to students this is no more recent than World War II, the 1890s, or the Civil War. Students often find history material too abstract; they are unable to see or touch the past as their adult teachers can. Consequently, students find history boring and irrelevant, just an endless stream of names, dates, places, or events devoid of any human element (4). The late author and former social studies teacher James Michener offered some interesting ideas regarding the issue of coverage relative to teaching history. In an interview with Cleta Galvez-Hjornevik, Michener stated that a comprehensive knowledge of history is not necessary, but students do need a general framework in which to fit things (5). Students should be familiar with seven or eight of the great presidents and have a knowledge of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the two world wars. In addition, he explained that students should understand the nature of American political life. He specifi cally identified the Supreme Court as an example. The Court, according to Michener, is one of America's greatest contributions to the world because its role of amicably adjudicating differences among different social groups makes it unique among most other nations. Michener also suggested using thematic units of study to project students into another time and place. In Michener's view, the benefit of this type of teaching is long-term understanding.

A Conversation with John Goodlad

A Conversation with John Goodlad

Macerators need regular checks

In 1985,1 trained as a health and safety representative. The course was run by the late John Goodlad at RCN headquarters. One of the issues I came across was a problem with bedpan macerators. John had sent a letter to the health and safety representatives asking them to warn hospital authorities that if these machines were not serviced and the lid seals not changed every six months there was a high risk of chest infection for the staff who used them. This was caused by inhalation of airborne particles escaping past the seals.

Teaching the Newest Members of the Family to Teach: Whose Responsibility?

for and with them as they face problems. we are often frustrated by the limitations of what we can do. We untangle bureaucratic webs in the paths of their completion of university requirements, close gaps in knowledge and theory, observe and evaluate a few lessons, and offer empathy and suggestions for solving those problems they choose to share with us. But, as John Goodlad in Teachers for Our Nation's Schools (1990) confirms, the influence of the university supervisor is limited. The student teachers surveyed by Goodlad ranked university supervisors ninth out of ten groups who they believed had affected their values and beliefs (248). Not surprisingly, the most influential were their cooperating teachers. Similarly, university supervisor Mary Ann Tighe's student teachers reported that their cooperating teachers' practices and procedures were the number one influence on their own developing classroom practices (1991, 232). We are humbled but not surprised by this documentation that not we, but the cooperating teachers with whom our students are placed, will most affect their metamorphosis to competent English teachers. After all, it is with their cooperating teachers that student teachers spend most of their time during the internship period. The cooperating teacher is the student teacher's primary model, mentor, and colleague. But our recognition and acceptance of this fact does not lessen our concern for nor our commitment

Schools of hope: developing mind and character in today's youth

A significant contribution to educational reform literature. It offers an insightful, research-based analysis of the problems in education and a compelling vision for change. Schools of Hope will stand with the best works of Ernest Boyer, Ted Sizer, and John Goodlad.?Gary M. Doyle, deputy superintAndent, Bloomfield Hills SchoolsSchools of Hope proposes specific principles for creating classrooms that educate both the minds and hearts of today's students, teaching them to be reflective and self-educating.

Globalism and teacher education: Summary of a comparative joint research project

Few matters are more important than the quality of the teachers in our nation's schools. Yet, few matters are as neglected. This grievous situation, in considerable measure, is the fault of a society whose values are confused. These words reflect the opening remarks of John Goodlad in his book, Teachers for Our Nations' Schools (1990). Judging from our personal experience and insights as university professors, some aspects of Japanese education are similar to the problems in the United States described by Professor Goodlad. Despite new educational legislation and despite the efforts of universities and colleges, both public and private, the best and the brightest have not always been recruited to the teaching profession. In the Japanese context, intense competition for teaching jobs permits the screening of applicants. The selection of applicants for teaching positions depends on the capabilities of the candidates. Less attention is paid to their level of initiative and commitment. Unfortunately, many bring a nine-to-five ethos to the profession. Today in Japan, doubt and skepticism exist where certainty and confidence used to reign. The teacher's task is increasingly viewed just as an occupation or as simply a means of earning a living. Few see teaching as

Psychological Services Providers, the Opportunity to Learn, and Inner-City Students: Beyond Mere Curricular Reform

The period from the 1980s to the beginning years of the 1990s has witnessed both the push and pull of educational reform. Several educational challenges have been issued to the nation's public schools: report cards, research projects related to the curriculum, and even a manifesto-a national wake-up call-on schooling. These challenges have ranged from those identifying the attributes necessary for being successful in college (as advanced by entities such as The College Board); those focusing on secondary education (as advanced by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching); those alerting Americans to the gravity of the school crisis (i.e., the National Commission on Excellence in Education's [1983] A Nation at Risk report and John Goodlad's [1984] A Place Called School). Even the casual observer can recognize that recent reports and studies provide fertile soil for debate over issues related to education and schooling in an ever-changing, multicultural country such as the United States. Consistent with the posture of new ideas for education, former President George Bush and his Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander, using some principles drawn from a governors' meeting, advanced a plan entitled 2000 in April 1991. One part of the Bush-Alexander plan focused on developing new standards in English, geography, history, mathematics, and science. It also called for a voluntary plan of measuring, via nationally administered standardized tests, student achievement in these subject areas. A third dimension of America 2000,

They Murdered the Pigeons!: The Failure of State-Mandated Teacher Appraisal Systems

ehaviorist B. F. Skinner took two pigeons and made them turn in two opposite directions. When one turned in the correct direction, he gave that pigeon a reward, something to eat. State legislatures want to make teachers teach better, but instead of rewards certain legislatures have given teachers a whack up the side of the head with an annual appraisal. They mandate that teachers must teach better or receive a low rating on their annual evaluations. What these legislatures want is better teaching without having to pay for it with worthwhile rewards. In effect they take a big stick and murder the pigeons. States such as Texas and Georgia have come to the same conclusion as the U.S. Air Force study by J. E. Morsh and E. W. Wilder (1952), which stated: No single specific observable teacher act has yet been found whose frequency or percent of occurrence is invariably and significantly correlated with student achievement. Both Texas and Georgia legislated teacher appraisal systems that were based on the effective-schools research. Several years after instituting these systems, these states ranked 43rd and 45th respectively on SAT scores (Kelly 1991). The Minnesota Educational Effectiveness Program (MEEP), which was designed to employ the behaviors identified by the school-effectiveness research, was declared ineffective by the Minnesota State Department of Education in 1989. Educators in all three states eventually concurred with the Air Force findings. Recently, several studies in which teachers were trained and observed using the effective-schools research found that students actually did worse that students of teachers not so trained (Stalling 1987; Gersten et al. 1987). John Goodlad and associates (1982) surveyed 1,350 teachers, 18,000 students, and 8,600 parents in 39 schools and all the principals, superintendents, and school board members in these schools. After 5,000 classroom observations, Goodlad concluded that there was very little

Sadness at death of John Goodlad

On behalf of the Safety Representative Conference Committee, I would like to express the sadness and sense of loss felt by Safety Representatives with the passing of John Goodlad.

John Goodlad, RCN officer and friend.

Members and staff at the Royal College of Nursing were saddened by the death last week of their colleague John Goodlad, RCN Labour Relations Officer.

Developing Higher-Level Thinking Skills Through American History Writing Assignments

David E. Vocke is an assistant professor of social studies at Tow son State University. Several factors have compelled junior and senior high school history teachers to think seriously and critically about the kind of skill development being fostered in their classrooms. A frequent charge leveled against history teachers is that their teaching is characterized by fac tualism: a belief that history is a body of substantive information that must be mas tered. Such an orientation often results in an encyclopedic approach to teaching and learning which stresses lower-level cogni tive development, massive memorization, and r?gurgitation of data ( 1 ). Ironically, as John Goodlad points out, most social stud ies and history teachers believe that their curricular area provides opportunity for the development of thinking skills; and yet, most of the activities they ask students to engage in involve reading the textbook, listening to lectures, completing workbooks and worksheets, and taking tests. Findings from the same study also suggest that no more than 1 percent of teacher-generated questions required higher-level responses from students (2). These activities and approaches do not generally foster higher level skills since they merely evaluate the student's recall of information.

Teachers’ Perceptions of the Goals of Education in the USA: responses to the educational reform literature of the 1980s

Summary What do teachers in the USA perceive as the significant goals and purposes of education? To what extent are these perceptions related to those advocated in the reform literature of the 1980s? Responses to a survey administered to 279 teachers in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia are analyzed in this study. Findings indicate some areas of congruence between teachers and reformers. In areas where the reform literature is divided, especially with regard to educational purpose, teacher opinion is similarly divided. Teacher responses, however, also indicate some attempt to synthesize seemingly disparate views. To provide an expanded frame of reference, the article offers some preliminary findings based on John Goodlad's Teachers for Our Nation's Schools. The article concludes with commentary about the nature and likelihood of educational reform in the USA.

Applications of Montclair State’s Teacher Education Program to John Goodlad’s Reform Agenda

Applications of Montclair State’s Teacher Education Program to John Goodlad’s Reform Agenda

Health service 'ignores safety laws'.

The NHS is still not obeying the law in relation to providing safe working premises, despite the removal of Crown immunity, John Goodlad, RCN Labour Relations Officer, warned last week.

The Market Revolution and Disciplinary Power: Joseph Lancaster and the Psychology of the Early Classroom System

Esteem and disgrace are of all the others, the most powerful incentives to the mind, when once it is brought to relish them. If you can once get into children a love of credit, and an apprehension of shame and disgrace, you have put into them the true principle, which will constantly work, and incline them to the right. But it will be asked, How shall this be done? John Locke The great secret of education is to direct vanity to [its] proper objects. Adam Smith Recent reports on the state of American education underline again and again the importance of competitive individualism in contemporary classrooms and the extraordinary uniformity of classroom organization and pedagogy across the country. John Goodlad, for example, reports that despite “the rhetoric of individual flexibility, originality and creativity,” American pedagogy invariably emphasizes simultaneous instruction (“frontal teaching”) in teacher-dominated classrooms, competition, individual performance and achievement, “listening, reading textbooks, completing workbooks and worksheets, and taking quizzes,” “seeking right answers, conforming, and reproducing the known.” This paper will argue that the social relations, organization, and psychology of the contemporary classroom system are interdependent and that they entered English and American education with the penetration of the classroom by the market and “disciplinary” revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.