|
Statement of Donald Cottrell Before Bricker Subcommittee Ohio State Board of Trustees
April 19th, 1965 A tragic consequence of the recent emotionally surcharged and politically oriented
discussion of the decision to phase out the seventh through the twelfth grades of
University School is that it has obfuscated the purpose and promise of new program
developments in the professional education component of the College of Education,
both for the College and the University. The parents of children attending
University School and a handful of the faculty of Education have been contending
that the discontinuance of those grades in the School represents a retreat seriously
jeopardizing the College's program of educational research and development and
destroying the College's 'laboratory' for experimentation. Nothing could be further from the truth! The College is, in fact, making a major
thrust ahead in its program of educational development and is seeking to strengthen
this thrust by reallocating resources so that they can be used with the greatest
possible effectiveness. Six years ago the administrative authorities of the College
and the University recognized the necessity for the College to step up in vigorous
ways its program of cooperation with public schools in the State of Ohio for planned
change and experimentation. This was the reason for the establishment of the Center
for School Experimentation as a new focus of emphasis for the University School.
In the fall of 1963 President Fawcett asked for an evaluation of this program and I
provided it to him. The assessment of the work of the Center for School
Experimentation for the previous five years was essentially negative. Despite many
good efforts on the part of the Center staff, they had failed to have widely or deeply
significant impact upon education in the State of Ohio. The reasons for the failure
are not hard to find. A primary one was insufficient staff. The Business of keeping
school six to seven hours a day was a full time job which left University School
teachers little or no time for work on development or experimentation. Serious
evaluative study fo the transferability to other schools of materials and procedures
used in University School classrooms was not possible without the help of
supplemental staff. Moreover, many of the most crucial concerns, especially of
secondary school in the past few years, were not, nor could they be, built into the
investigative efforts of the University School. This situation could not and cannot be allowed to continue. A land grand university
owes an obligation to be responsive, in so for as possible, to the needs of its
constituency. A major element of the constituency of our College of Education is
the system of elementary and secondary schools of the State of Ohio. To remedy
this situation I have proposed establishing a Division of Educational Development
in the College. This division would have responsibility for:
Certainly a key phase in the program of the Division would be the creation of new
material and methods of instruction for use in Ohio schools. These would be
developed in cooperation with the associated public schools and school systems
mentioned earlier. Such programs might deal with critical reading, curricular
materials for culturally deprived children, literacy work with adults, new
developments in the teaching of music, art, or other fields, and with a great range of
other currently urgent or perennially baffling questions of educational program and
practice. Inventive, innovative, vanguard studies would be undertaken. A continuing activity of the Division would be "scanning the horizon" to discover
new ideas under development. The best educational ideas in the world would be
available for examination by students, teachers and staff members. Extended,
planned visits to the facilities of the Division would keep teachers and
administrators up to date on the latest developments in their fields. The Division would engage in a broad program of demonstration and
dissemination. Particular aspects of teaching method and new methods and
materials would be prepared for television filming and subsequent presentation to
pre-service and in-service teachers. Live demonstrations of work with individual
children in special areas would be conducted on campus with invited groups of
children and teachers. A central clearing house would be maintained for many
request which come from throughout the state for information on educational
problems and new educational programs. Visitation by practitioners would be
encouraged, and libraries and exhibit rooms would be arranged so that they could be
used by all. Workshops, seminars, and institutes would be in continuous operation,
and field service work with the schools throughout the state would be sustained and expanded. The research program of the Division would be directed toward studies of change
agents, change mechanisms, and target systems that effect the way in which change
occurs in the field of education. Institutional research related to the major functions
of the Division would be part of the program; for example, studies of the
effectiveness of the various methods of dissemination. The Division of Educational Development would undoubtedly be the first such unit
established in a college of education throughout this country, through prototypes are
already being set up outside the college framework; for example, Educational
Services, Inc., Educational Research Council of Greater Cleveland, Minnesota
National Curriculum Laboratory, etc. Colleges are in a better position to meet this
challenge than other such agencies, if they will only mobilize their resources to get
the job done. The College of Education of this University is being charged with a cutback and
abandonment of its responsibility for educational research and experimentation.
This is ridiculous. On the contrary, the program into which we are moving is the life
blood of a forward looking College of Education. Today it is as exciting and
dynamic a concept as a laboratory school was forty years ago. I would not imply that University School has no value in connection with a
program such as I have described. I expect the elementary grades, in the coming
years, with staff resources appropriately augmented, with program development
facilities enriched, and with vital and responsible collaboration of teachers
established with general faculty groups studying education, to bring important
values in the accomplishment of our mission. Secondary grades, in the nature of the
case, could not possibly be useful, for their small size, their inevitably limited
representatativness of other typical high school populations, and their special
condition on the campus, would leave great gaps in their utility. Campus laboratory schools throughout the country are very controversial, with
respect to their utility in the study of education. The best educational research
leadership of the country is divided on the subject. It is possible to cite important
'authorities' on both sides of the question whether such schools should be regarded
as indispensable. The Members of the faculty of our College of Education are
divided on this subject. On March 12, 1965, in the midst of considering major
reorganization, the faculty decided not then to review the decision made here.
Whether they may later wish to do so, they did not say. This leaves the decision to
be made on grounds of priority judgement by appropriate authorities of each local
college situation. The University of Michigan is presently in the process of phasing
out the three upper grades of its campus laboratory school. The University of
Wisconsin at Madison recently abandoned its university school and established
relationships for experimental work with the Board of Education of the City of
Madison. Many others could be mentioned. Meanwhile, other institutions are
transforming their existing units or establishing new ones for special types of
experimental work; depending upon the requirements of the local situation. It is
obvious that neither sweeping generalization or opinion, nor strictly proven
conclusions, can settle the question at present. Candor and honesty require admission that the question also remains open as to
whether the bold and imaginative program of field related educational research,
experimentation and development, into which we are moving, will work, in the
sense of fully yielding results we hope and expect from it. Our experience to date
indicates that it will do so. School administrators throughout the State of Ohio have
greeted the development with enthusiasm. They have indicated that they are not
only willing and able but anxious to participate in such a program. Outside funding
agencies have been equally responsive. Requests for $750,000 in supplementary
funds have already been sent to private foundations and present indications are that
all or a substantial proportion of these requested grants will be approved. It will
doubtless interest the Board of Trustees to know that the United States Office of
Education has already approved a planning grant for our College in the area of
educational development and has asked the College to conduct for that Office a
symposium on educational change, in Washington, in November of this year. Plans
have already been mounted for projects involving:
There is little question in my mind about whether this program will be productive
of results of major importance. In phasing out the secondary grades of University
School, the College is relinquishing one laboratory which was too small and too
expensive to compare in utility with the alternative which is available to us. In its
stead the College is in effect building a new and broader type of laboratory to
embrace many of the schools in the State of Ohio with which the College has not
previously been so directly associated. These schools have participated with us in
limited ventures in the past. They will do much more in the future, if we will work
with them. As a matter of fact, for the past five years, the schools of the State have
helped us to build our educational research program from a base of practically
nothing to a million-dollar enterprise. Our campus laboratory was not equipped to
do this job and with the exception of one small project, all of our funded research
has been conducted in the public schools. Any basic program modification is hard to face. This one, however, is urgently needed now.
|
