"Teaching" Schools

Somewhere along the way some professors find that he/she enjoys/values teaching, and these professors often find their way, by choice or not, to "teaching schools." Yet even these motivated-to-teach-well instructors also rarely receive training, with the only guidance typically coming from observations made by others who have no training, or discussions with those without training. Nevertheless, many of those professors somehow become proficient teachers. Unfortunately, even at teaching schools, teaching is being devalued. What evidence is there of this, particularly when there is a positive if embryonic trend of "teaching programs" for new professors and "teaching centers" for existing professors, as well as the now well-ensconced, well-motivated but poorly conceived "assurance of learning" movement? The evidence is called the "teacher/scholar" model.

"Teacher-scholar" is a term used by administrators at teaching schools to try to get teachers to do more research, which results in more prestige and money for the institution. Of course, the party line is that involvement with one's discipline will improve one's teaching, and this is almost certainly true, but the involvement that is truly valued is "PRJs" (Peer-Reviewed Journals), grants, and innovative outputs (patents, etc.) that bring in money and prestige for the institution. Under this philosophy, while teaching remains the "sine quo non" of the institution, professors will not be rewarded or promoted unless they are "productive." In other words, good teaching is expected, service demands are increasingly thrust upon professors which have almost no extrinsic value whatsoever, and "productivity" is becoming the real and almost sole standard for reward and promotion. So at a teaching school, you are likely to encounter better teachers, but there is now significant pressure for them to be less so.

There is some promise here, though, as the rage that is assurance of learning reflects the desire to have good teachers and valuable learning. Sadly, assessment of learning has become, in many cases, a well-intentioned effort derailed by political considerations and ineffective conceptualization and implementation driven by sticks instead of carrots. There is a glimmer of hope here, though, as despite the resistance and indignation among most faculty members, the spirit of learning assurance may be taking root. Yet such hope is swamped by the publish or perish that has crept into the classroom.