Article Preview
TopIntroduction
The last decade has produced an unprecedented number of stakeholders calling for demonstrated improvement in the preparation of educational personnel. These pressures directly challenge the way teachers are prepared and the units responsible for that work—Colleges of Education. Some institutions correctly identified needed changes and responded accordingly. Others resisted or made only modest adjustments. This strategy often results in the unit facing a crisis.
The following study outlines the comprehensive changes needed to accommodate the ‘New Normal’ of the teacher education enterprise, illuminates a change strategy to turnaround the unit, and reports two case studies where a College of Education responded to the needed changes. Lessons from these two case studies serve as critical elements for a turnaround model useful to other institutions.
Elements of the ‘New Normal’ of the Teacher Education Enterprise
Elements driving the need for College repositioning are found in three interrelated categories; institutional relationships, teacher preparation program characteristics, and a new doctoral degree design coupled with a new research culture. Turning around a College of Education required attention to all three.
Institutional Relationships
The relationship between a College of Education and the University has always been a matter of some tension. Where the College fits in the array of institutional priorities, how it is perceived by institutional leadership and the broader faculty, and the level of support from area schools are but a few matters affecting College wellbeing. Recently, additional challenges have emerged.
Enrollment and Revenue
Unit enrollment and program cost is an arena where College structure and institutional expectation may collide. Over the past decade enrollment in teacher education programs has significantly declined (AASCU, 2017; King, 2018). This trend has affected both the College of Education and the overall institution. In the past, education programs were high enrollment/low cost parts of the institutional portfolio. Some claimed them to be ‘cash cows.’ Now they have become low enrollment/high cost entities, forcing institutional planners pause and cause for revised institutional budgeting.
Revenue Streams
Paralleling this change in revenue/cost structure, is the developing expectation that the College move from a single revenue stream [tuition/fees] to a multi revenue model including grants/contract, auxiliary activities, and philanthropic sources [individual, foundation, corporation]. This trend parallels similar changes across the institution (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016; Hearn, 2003; Pelletier, summer 2012).
Professional School Organization
The expectation that a College of Education operate as a professional school is an additional dimension of the ‘New Normal.’ Such an organizational arrangement confers an element of independence of operation from selected institutional functions. Colleges of Education require an infrastructure to support assessment/evaluation, expanded school/agency/professional association liaison, independent selection/admission and a garnering of grant/philanthropic support. These functions drive up costs as well as deviate from established institution structures (Schorr, 2013).
Competition
The dramatic increase of competing institutions places an added set of demands on the college. Once the ‘only game in town’ Colleges of Education now face a range of competitors now able to train new teachers. Local schools, community colleges, on-line programs, and for-profit institution all offer teacher education programs in the same community as university-based programs (Imig, Imig, Neel, & Holmberg-Masden, 2018).