The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

"Excellence in Teaching: A Common Goal"
A National Conference of Chief State School Officers and College and University Presidents

Yale University
February 16-18, 1983

Panel of Chiefs and Presidents
Interviewed by Robert MacNeil, Executive Editor, "The MacNeil-Lehrer Report"
February 18, 1983

­Gordon M. Ambach, President, The University of the State of New York, Commissioner of Education, State of New York
­Norman C. Francis, President, Xavier University of Louisiana
­A. Bartlett Giamatti, President, Yale University ­Craig Phillips, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of North Carolina

Mr. MacNeil then moderated questions from the floor:

­John E. Worthen, President, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
­John E. Sawyer, President, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
­Stephen S. Kaagan, Commissioner of Education, State of Vermont
­Floretta Dukes McKenzie, Superintendent of Schools, District of Columbia
­Theodore Lobman, Program Officer, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
­Donald Stedman, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, The University of North Carolina
­Barbara W. Newell, Chancellor, The State University System of Florida
­John B. Duff, Chancellor of Higher Education, Massachusetts Board of Regents
­Michael J. McCarthy, President, St. Mary of the Plains College
­Donald C. Gill, State Superintendent of Education, State of Illinois
­Michael C. Cooke, Professor of English, Yale University
­Stephen J. Trachtenberg, President, The University of Hartford
­John H. Lawson, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
­Worth David, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, Yale University
­Jack W. Peltason, President, American Council on Education
­Benjamin H. Alexander, President, University of the District of Columbia
­Earl Lazerson, President, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

Robert MacNeil:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Could we have a little quiet so we can start? Is it alright for the cameras if we go ahead? It s a great privilege for me to be able to moderate this session, this morning. summarizing your three days of conference. I am so very aware that someone in my position feels awfully naked when he doesn't have the protection of a studio and his own cameras and that kind of impression of omniscience and everything that is so easy to create under those circumstances. And having them taken away leaves me feeling very naked, because you all know infinitely more about this subject, which is your professional occupation, than I do. And so please forgive me if my areas of ignorance are all too apparent as we go through this.

I don t think I need to introduce the panel in any detail because they are all people who have been very active in your deliberations. But, for the record, on my immediate right, Gordon Ambach, the President of the State University of New York and the Commissioner of Education for New York State. On my immediate left, Norman Francis, the President of Xavier University of Louisiana. President Giamatti of Yale on the far right:. And Craig Phillips, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of North Carolina on my left, and an alumnus of the "MacNeil-Lehrer Report."

Craig Phillips:

Proud to be an alumnus.

Mr. MacNeil:

As the host President, Mr. Giamatti, what has this conference achieved?

A. Bartlett Giamatti:

I think it brought together people who have rarely, if ever, been together to talk about forms of cooperation that ten years ago would not have been talked about even though they would have been necessary to explore. I think it has basically achieved a capacity for people to see each other, exchange ideas, and find that there is much more of a mutual need than the stereotypes on either side would have led one to believe. I think it has also been a time for the proposing of ­whether models of cooperation between schools and colleges or forms of cooperation ­that has engaged the idea of cooperation and spread that. And I think that s probably the major achievement.

Mr. MacNeil:

Why is that important, Mr. Ambach?

Gordon M. Ambach:

I think it is important because we have needed to have an expression both from college and university chief executives and from our states that we have a mutual interest, that we have a commitment to effectiveness in teaching and that we can come together and share the strategies and the specific practices which are going on in some parts of our country and some institutions, but which must be made much more widespread and systematic in their application.

Mr. MacNeil:

Mr. Phillips, what has the conference achieved for you?

Superintendent Phillips:

I think it has put in the context. again that next step in the development of credibility that has been reflected in the earlier session a year and a half ago. But maybe, more important, it has now put us in a position, I think, to really clearly, publicly develop a new image of the issue of the quality of the people who work in education. The very nature of the impact of what has happened here on the understanding of a public, of what really is going to make a difference in the achievement of youngsters, in the success of this country through educational excellence, is now come full force onto the issue of the quality of the people who carry out the education process. And that gets to the level of those who are responsible primarily for the training­and the selection and the recruitment of those people and then those who carry it out. And I think we are at a point where we can clearly say if something­is going to happen to youngsters in this country, it is going to happen because the people who work with those youngsters are better trained, are better qualified to do their job. And I think we are at that moment.

Mr. MacNeil:

And what is your version of what it has achieved. Francis?

Norman C. Francis:

Well, I agree with everything that has been said this far, but I think that it says something else. I think it is a perfect time for us to say we are very much involved in developing human capital. I think we have missed that for a bit. We have been concerned about things about supplies, but I think this conference is saying to the public that, one, we believe that education is serious business. That it is going to be maintained, that this country is going to be maintained as a democratic society, that we have to educate our young people, and they are not going to be educated unless they have quality teaching and the opportunity to learn. And if there is a significance for me, I think the coming together of the kinds of people that we have here who represent education at every level, we are saving to the public that we are reaffirming that value of education, and we are saying that standards, excellence, are important in the overall context of what we must do. And I think that the public has not heard that from us as a combination of folks who work in the trenches, so to speak.

Mr. MacNeil:

You all came, I presume, dedicated to the idea that better cooperation between schools and colleges and universities could improve teaching in the schools, elementary and secondary, and at the same time, thereby, improve the quality of education given to young people, and have a beneficial effect on universities as well. What do you leave with, that you did not come with? Mr. Ambach.

Commissioner Ambach:

I think we leave with a much better understanding of some of the specific projects that are underway. The stress here has been on practice, on what's actually happening, and although there may be some who have known about a particular project in Michigan, or a project in North Carolina, a project in Louisiana, we may not have all known about those projects, and what happened in order to put them in place in the particular locations. So, I think we each carry away a certain, very specific learning about some practice which has gone on elsewhere in the country. And I think we come away with a mutual concern that it is possible to replicate these kinds of practices elsewhere, if we will take the initiative to do so.

Mr. MacNeil:

Do you want to add to that?

President Francis:

I think what the conference did not do, that is, try to get in the nuts and bolts and try to solve all the problems that confront education today. I think what it said, in effect, is that there are good things happening, surely there are major concerns, but that each of us must go back in our respective areas and use the ingenuity we have­ and we have it ­ in combinations that will serve those areas as we see them. And with the people who know what needs to be done. And I think that that was a very key element of all this. That we did not try to prescribe. If indeed this conference has motivated some of us to, say, go back and work with the people who know what some of the problems are, and, together, work for solutions, I think we will have a vast array of many more models, many of which may not have been developed at this point in time.

Mr. MacNeil:

Mr. Phillips, has this meeting created any doubts in your mind about the practicality of bringing schools and colleges together? It is a very nice idea, it is a sort of "motherhood" idea, but are you going away with sort of practical doubts about bow possible it is to achieve it?

Superintendent Phillips:

Well, I did not come with those doubts, because I think we had, in our state and I think that is where the focus must be now, state by state, in terms of making something happen out of what has happened here. But I came with having come through that long period of doubt, with a sense of reality that it could happen. I think that what has been in the air here ­ and it is the one that will not be measured except in the results that take place from it ­ but in the air here, as compared for example, actually. with the first session, the first bringing together, the air has been entirely different, and I think that the reality of the possibility of successful results has been reflected here. And I came with less doubts. I leave with even less of those, and I think it is just reflected in the air.

Mr. MacNeil:

Mr. Giamatti?

President Giamatti:

I think what I take away from this is a renewed sense that there are limited and very real things that are possible to do. That the cooperation that has been manifest and for which there is a record in various parts of this country indicates to me that if one defines and clearly sticks with what one thinks one can do in a given locale, one can do a great, great deal. And one cannot become overwhelmed or paralyzed by the fact that one is not solving all of the problems of American education or American culture, all of which are there, but which the educational process will solve in the longer term if it is healthy every step along the way. I must say it has been an exhilarating experience from that point of view.

Mr. MacNeil:

I read that in your opening remarks you said that there are four problems. You mentioned four problems. nice alliterative problems: "prestige, power, pay, and preparation." Which of those problems . . .

President Giamatti:

Those are all with regard to teachers. . .?

Mr. MacNeil:

Yes, with regard to teaching. Which of those problems does this effort, this conference, carve out and potentially solve?

President Giamatti:

Well, I suppose in an interesting way, we are not going to solve the problems of pay, and we are not going to solve the problems of power, whatever that may mean, in any given institution. The extent to which school teachers and university faculty believe themselves engaged in a common enterprise that has dignity and purpose and "Juice" in it, the extent that there are interests of prestige, and self-worth, then I think in fact the modes of collaboration will address that in due course. And I think in terms of preparation, by which I mean the sense of how better to encourage the people who do teach well, to teach better, in ways not only in the boosting of morale which goes to the other point, then I think there have been a great many ways in which that has been addressed, in terms of the various case studies that we saw. So, I would pick out those two as being most directly, if obliquely, addressed by the conference.

Mr. MacNeil:

Do you want to add to that, Mr. Ambach?

Commissioner Ambach:

I would support the stress on the two. And I think the reason why we stress the same the President just indicated is because we have been talking about what specific steps can be taken by the parties who are here. This has not been an attempt to try to set up a list of what we ought to request of the Federal Government, or what we ought to be setting as an agenda for a particular legislature. It has been an attempt to try to establish what things we can do ourselves, and need to do as institutional leaders, making a particular institutional connection. And I think perhaps, along the lines of prestige, one of the most significant points that has been made is the matter of the colleagueship among those who are in faculties in the colleges and universities and those who are in the elementary and secondary schools. We have our educational system very much split along horizontal divisions. There is very little vertical connection or integration, if you will. for the most part. And I think some very significant points have been made by way of what it means for the teacher in the elementary or secondary schools to be associated with faculty at the college and university level, in the sense of prestige, but I think more important in the sense of commitment to scholarship, and a commitment to learning, to being on the forefront of learning, and in the sense, mutual, of an impact on the university level, by way of a better understanding of in fact what is really going on in the schools.

President Francis:

I think that is significant. One particular point, in the cooperation, collaboration, it is not a "big brother ­little brother" situation, and I think that came through. And if it was a message that had to come through, I think that most of us understood the fact that you shouldn't approach it that way, but unfortunately many of us do so. But I think if the conference said anything, I think it said that we both have something to bring to the collaboration, and a mutual respect for what can take place, I think, was an important point made at this conference.

Mr. MacNeil:

Mr. Phillips, looking at it from the point of a school system administrator, confronted with all the myriad of problems that you are in the schools, what piece of those problems does this area give you hope could be solved? We have heard President Giamatti's four "P's". What chunk of your problems could this . . . ? How realistic is it to think you can carve off a piece of your problem with this effort?

Superintendent Phillips:

Well I guess that I would add the "possibility" as the fifth "P", and if you want to go out of the partnership, we can keep on. Since Phillips begins with a "P", I'll add that, too, if you'd like.

President Giamatti:

We are on a roll, guys. . .

Superintendent Phillips:

This think called education is a labor­ intensive business. I think we all know that. It is quality, whether it is the public perception or our own perception, the quality of what happens is directly related to the quality of and the effectiveness of that labor. Which brings you to the moment if, and I think it was Ben Alexander in the panel yesterday, who talked of the promotion side of it ­another one­in terms of . . . if that image is strong enough, if the decision makers begin to believe that that quality is or can be there, then the next decision, which is in my opinion the most important, the support mechanisms to make it happen, because labor costs money, whether you are training it or compensating for it. And again I think the possibility is that with that image changing whether it is the national level, the state level, or the local level decision maker, may be more ready to provide the resources from a public arena to do that job, and I think that that is the message that is as strong as any we could get out of this.

Commissioner Ambach:

Could I add from another state perspective on that, and I think I speak for my colleague, who was addressing the issues of What are the most important things for us to be doing in the school systems? To me, the single most important task that we have is to assure that there is a strong quality of teaching in our schools. The general public perception in this country is that we are in a surplus circumstance for teachers. We have gone through the 1970s in which there have been tightening fiscal belts, in which there has been a decline in enrollment, and a general perception that there is an excess of teachers. We have got to carry out of that, we have got to be persuasive and informative that we are moving to a circumstance where there is a very substantial potential shortage of teaching personnel. We see it now in mathematics and science, but we are going to be seeing it right across the board, elementary education, English, the Social Sciences, Math, and Science as well. We are going to see that in the latter part of the decade unless there are specific actions taken. And that is why this conference, focusing on effectiveness in teaching, to me goes to the central issue that we all have in trying to plan for and operate our systems.

Mr. MacNeil:

Let me just play the "devil's advocate" here a moment. Is there a danger that this conference, by its very weight and prestige, that you hope is going to have a positive rippling effect throughout the country in drawing attention to this aspect of the problem, may by that prestige divert attention from other aspects of the problem and create the sense that this is a panacea, that you are going to solve the problems of the schools by cooperation between colleges, universities, and local school systems?

President Giamatti:

I think if the conference had allowed itself to labor under that illusion, the danger you referred to is very real. The fact is, the conference has not. I think the fact is there has been a very healthy realism and practicality about what we think we can do that has not tried to assert that we are the solution to all of the ills that afflict the system on the one hand, but that if, on the other, what we have been talking about does not happen, whether they have heard about this or not, the situation cannot get better.

President Francis:

And I do not think we were naive. The fact that we did not talk at length about money. I do not think anybody in this auditorium today would say that we do not need money. But the start on that, of course, is what is new. I think the important point that I would like to make, is part of this, in terms of what could happen. Quality of teaching, of course, is the key, we say, to quality education. But the people who need it the most are the ones who can least afford to pay for it. And as we look at the demographics of what is happening in this urban center, we would be naive to think that just the collaboration will solve it. I think Craig Phillips has mentioned it. We are not naive. If we are going to have it, certainly we must have collaboration, we must know what we want to do, how we want to go about it, but we must be supported. And unfortunately, I think as we look at the urban center today, there are people who want the best for their youngsters who are not in a position to pay for it, and that support has to be forthcoming. And if credibility is an element in this, and it is, let s get that behind us, and let s get back to business about providing that quality.

Mr. MacNeil:

I just wonder, again, playing on this idea of the enormous prestige that you are bringing to bear, and the attention you are attracting. Do you give Federal, state and local government an excuse not to pay attention to the resources because they can say, "Oh, hey, here is a way of improving the quality of teaching because the universities are going to come in, and we are going to be able to share some of their academic excellence and prestige with our school teachers." Does this give them. . .

Commissioner Ambach:

I think not. No, not at all. First of all, half of us are states, or directly representing state resource. Many who are college and university presidents here, of course, are in public institutions very much dependent upon what would be public support.And so, I do not think there is any indication, any implication, that somehow or other without a public support, Federal, state and local, that we are going to be making any headway. 1 think that there is an expectation, once again of the public, that unless the school systems and the colleges and universities can come together and in fact can design the agenda, can demonstrate that they are genuinely putting their resources together to meet the most difficult problems, then there is not a good case to be made to go to the public to try to draw the local or the state or the Federal resources. In contrast to the approach you have presented, it seems to me it is imperative that what we are doing is coming together to think, to design, to plan in order that we can make a greater claim on the public resource.

Mr. MacNeil:

No danger that the State of North Carolina, Phillips, is going to say, "Oh, that is really neat, you've got nice cooperation with the universities. You have in your case in North Carolina a private foundation giving you money for a pilot program to improve the development of teachers. We don't need to put more State resources into it?"

Superintendent Phillips:

Of course. That is always the danger. But I think there are no promises here of that kind of solution. The promise is that something is going to be done about it. If I could use just one example, and it is a simplistic, head­on, in terms of a specific state relationship. Although there has been a lot of work going on ­ again this conference and what will happen out of it ­ was reflected yesterday in the brief presentation of one element of approach to this. In which something happened between the leadership in higher education and the leadership at my level that had not happened up to this point. And we publicly testified, spontaneously in a sense, to the fact it does work, and my colleagues who are here, were wondering if it were just talk, and my colleagues heard me, and again it was spontaneous, say it does work, and my higher education colleagues heard the same message, and the only way you do that is in an eyeball­to­eyeball situation. I think we can take that back, but your fears are correct ones.

Mr. MacNeil:

Well, I don't want to labor the negative side of this, but just let me raise one other thing before we go on. Can you push the improvement of the quality in the selection of teachers at the early stage, and their training and development, and career development, without also concentrating on the resources that are available to pay them? Because isn't that the chief motive, as well as loss of public image, for them leaving the profession, for the huge exit of teachers into private industry? Can you discuss it in isolation from the resources necessary?

Commissioner Ambach:

No, not at all. And I don't think it's been discussed in isolation. At the same time that points have been made by way of what does it take to recruit, what special efforts might be made in person­to­-person contact, and encouraging teachers and administrators in the elementary and secondary schools to identify talented youngsters who might go into teaching, and scholarships for them, and perhaps even guaranteed employment for some who might choose to prepare for teaching. In addition to those, we have talked about what incentives are necessary by way of actually making a placement in teaching and then maintaining that placement. We ve talked about the possibility of guaranteeing scholarships to the children of those who are in fact in teaching, and other incentives in addition to an increase in pay. I think it's so widely assumed here that we must have a substantial increase in the resource that's provided as a reward for those who are in teaching, in terms of cash, in terms of salary, there hasn't been a necessity to debate whether that's important or not. It's been a question of what else you do.

Mr. MacNeil:

President Giamatti?

President Giamatti:

I think that everybody here has worked all his life, her life, on the principle that people ought to be paid in this noble profession of teaching at a level that somehow allows them to live with some dignity. There's no doubt about all that. The fact is, there's also some evidence, at least from our little, tiny efforts in one corner of New England, that shows that a fair number of the New Haven high school teachers who have gone five years through the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute have told us that they have stayed in teaching in New Haven because of the presence of the Institute.

Mr. MacNeil:

Even though their salaries haven't gone up?

President Giamatti:

Not necessarily. There are ways of making people not just feel better, but recharge themselves, and engage the profession in the broadest sense of the word, keep up with scholarship, exchange ideas with other faculty colleagues who happen to be teaching at Yale, that has meant a good deal to people, while it has not necessarily resulted in an increase in pay. But it has resulted in an increase in the kind of internal expansion that you undergo when what you are doing is taken seriously by everybody.

Mr. MacNeil:

Is this realistic? I mean, could you alleviate any significant amount of teacher dissatisfaction particularly in the secondary schools, for instance in Louisiana, by enhancing their professional lives this way, without at the same time causing local school boards or the state or anything to pay them more?

President Francis:

You ask me, first among equals, I would say right off that you've got to do both. And I think to continue to assume that teaching is a "labor of love," and you "do it for the cause." We've got to disengage that in the minds of the public. If we're going to have the best minds teaching, and we need the best minds in teaching, as we need the best minds in any of our critical national efforts, we are going to have to pay people for it. Unfortunately, when we say that, it's self-serving. So, we don't say it at the beginning, and we talk about all the nice other things. But let's be very crass about it. I don't think any of us are naive; we are not going to get the kinds of teachers we want in any of our educational systems, in elementary or secondary, unless we pay them their total worth, as we are paying others their total worth. I don't think there are any if's, and's, or but's about that.

Superintendent Phillips:

There's one thing here, and I think that it may be one of the gaps in the conference itself, implied with all that you're talking about. I think that one of our biggest problems is the lack of understanding, even among those of us who work with it every day, of the massiveness of the undertaking. And one of the dangers is that, with a small concentration on models, that would deal with a small number, is to lose sight of the fact that the impact on thousands of those who are there now and those to come, is so sizable, and the cost of that, both in time and concern, gets lost sometimes when you're talking about models that deal with a small number. But if we can help get across the fact that we're not simply committed to improving teaching for a few, or through a few, that we're committed to doing it in a massive way, if this system that serves this society differently from any other system is going to survive, and that's the scary thing of it all in terms of just how large the task is.

Mr. MacNeil:

Are you in danger of creating, of so bending secondary education towards the university or college direction, in terms of curriculum or emphasis, or goal structure, that for those who are in secondary school not to go to college, you create either a two -tier system, or you leave them behind?

Commissioner Ambach:

I think not. One of the most significant elements of the description of projects-the Michigan project, the Yale project has been that they are not solely focused on the college bound student, that in fact, they are concerned about students whether they are going to be going to college or whether they're going to be moving immediately to work after they've completed secondary education. The fact that it's universities and colleges connecting with secondary schools does not mean that the sole focus is go ing to be on routing students from the secondary schools into colleges and universities. I think the concern that has been expressed very specifically is that the college and university effort must be on generating more effective teaching no matter what the direction or intention of the student would be on completion of the high school.

Mr. MacNeil:

Does anyone want to add to that?

President Francis:

I think one of the problems, and maybe we're addressing it now, and your question addresses it quite well, is that we're talking about improving the educational opportunity for quality education for all young people, whether they're going to college or not. And I think one of the assumptions we've made­well, you only need it if you're going to college­and that's not only terribly false, but that's not thinking too highly of young people. What we're saying is, that the quality of the experience you have in education from K through 12 ought to be the best there is for you, with the best teachers there, so your options are completely open as to whether or not you wish to go to work right after high school, or whether or not you wish to go to college. An d I think if there is a goal­we didn't talk about it at length here­but I think underlying all of what we've done is increasing the quality so that the option of young people, those options will be protected. It's not simply for college but even to live the good life, if you will, without college, we think that more has to be done, K through 12.

President Giamatti:

May I say, sir, that your question which asked whether or not the colleges were going to bend out of shape the mission and direction of secondary schools. And my learned colleagues have disclaimed that eloquently, and correctly. But of course, on the ot her hand, the anger in the secondary schools ten or twelve years ago when colleges dropped requirements was precisely a recognition of the fact that, if you clowns at the college level can't decide what you want, how do you expect us to know? So, there's a deep relationship, a bent, a bias, a slant, which exists in any case. This isn't going to exacerbate it. One hopes it will improve it. But for all our disclaimers, what we again assume, like high pay for people who teach, is that of course there is a tendency for the high school­public, private, parochial, day, I don't care who­to think that its best people should want to go to college and become perhaps better people. So, it's there.

Mr. MacNeil:

Okay. What happens from here? You had a conference two years ago, eighteen months ago, in Colorado. . .

President Giamatti:

I wasn't invited. I figured I had to have my own party, because they didn't ask me there.

Mr. MacNeil:

They will probably have to invite you to the next one.

President Giamatti:

I doubt it. I don't think so. Not after today.

Mr. MacNeil:

Just out of politeness. No, but it really began as an exercise in Colorado, as I gather, eighteen months, two years ago. Now you've had this conference. What happens next? Is there another? Is there an agenda? Do all the conferees here go out and spread the gospel? Do they have specific assignments? What happens from here? (Pause.) Nothing? (Laughter.)

Commissioner Ambach:

You've gotten your answer. That's symbolic. Each of us has a different course.

Mr. MacNeil:

Why don't you each describe what you think your course is. Mr. Phillips, what are you going to do?

Superintendent Phillips:

Very quickly, with the stimulation of the conference, and I think we may sometimes look for great things, measured, to happen out of conferences, and conferences have so many intangible effects. In our state, we will continue in a better mode because of the things that have happened here. A clear-cut development, carrying-through of a plan, for the improvement or moving toward excellence in teaching in North Carolina, both in terms of the entry into and the improvement of what happens to those who will be there on out ahead, but as importantly, some additional impact on those who are on the scene today, because that's where the impact has got to be. I think we will continue and that relationship has been improved, but we will continue the movement tha t's taken place. We will use the prestige of this to try to sell to the decision-makers some of the needs we have in order to get the things done that we've already set out to do.

Mr. MacNeil:

Mr. Francis?

President Francis:

I think there are going to be more conferences. I think there will be probably regional conferences, and I think there will be another national conference.

Mr. MacNeil:

In a warmer place next time?

President Francis:

Well, I would certainly recommend we go to New Orleans. But I think you can assume there will be other conferences, and I think there are people in this audience who represent varying aspects of what we have talked about, who will need to take it anothe r step, after they have assessed what we've done here. So I think there will be other conferences. But I think for us we will all become missionaries in some way about what we've learned, about what we've been motivated to do. There are very simple things, too. Getting together in our own area. People that we should have been talking to, who are shakers and movers in this business, and I think we're going to do that as individuals. But I think we meet at varying times, and I'm sure we'll talk about it. "Why not follow up?" Look at the next step. There are some nuts and-bolts things that maybe we can focus on. So let's do that. I think this set the stage for the partnership arrangement, as Bart said. The two of us were not at Colorado. So we're here today. So you see, we're moving along.

Mr. MacNeil:

What are you going to do from here?

Commissioner Ambach:

Well, I think it's important to note that you have 2500 colleges and universities across this country. I think there's a feeling here that each and every one of those institutions has a responsibility. They may not be in the business of preparing teachers, but each and every one has a responsibility by way of helping with the recruitment, with the identification of persons who might become interested in teaching. You've got 50 states, and each has its own particular activity. Let me cite a couple in th e State of New York. We happen to have a state-wide planning process for post-secondary institutions, all of them, public and independent. Our next plan will be for the year 1984. As a part of that plan, and in discussion with our university and college leaders, we have put in specific provisions that each institution is to be planning and reporting to us at the State level, on the activities that are underway by way of teacher recruitment, preparation, the effectiveness of teaching in the elementary an d secondary schools. There is another very important practice that we have established. We have set up regional councils throughout the State where the secondary school administrators and our regional secondary school administrators together with the college and university presidents, are forming regional councils to address the specific supply and demand issues for teaching in those regions. Now, to plug that directly into the results of this conference: there are ideas, there are particular proposals, there are models that have been discussed that I want to take back, that we can insert into those regional discussions, and I think to a certain extent, some of them may be inserted in our overall plans for the State.

Mr. MacNeil:

Mr. Giamatti, what happens from here for you?

President Giamatti:

Well, I am going to stay the course. Mr. MacNeil. I'd be happy to help . . ..

Mr. MacNeil:

We have "let us continue" over here, "stay the course" over there. . .

President Giamatti:

I watch your program. You had a fellow on a couple of months ago who said "Stay the course, and I am going to stay the course . . . Frankly, I am going to continue, because I am a simple fellow, I am going to work at the local level. We are going to continue to do, in New Haven, with the New Haven Public Schools, what Yale has been doing and will continue to do. if that can be useful to New Haven if it is, from my point of view, not going to solve the country's problems. but it is going to help New Haven. To the extent to which one can help as an institution, as a person, other places, and other people, through this kind of forum or others, I will obviously be involved because I care very much about it. But you asked me practically what am I and Yale going to do? We are going to do what we have been doing for five years, and going to do it better.

Mr. MacNeil:

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute was one of the models discussed at the conference and outlined in the Carnegie Report, which the conference . . . which was released at the conference, which you can all look at, surveying all these various experime nts across the country. Are there any of them, coming out of this conference, that automatically leap to mind as models that can be copied throughout the country, or are they limited to their local circumstances and application. Are there any good models that other people could, just say, yes, transfer immediately. "Replicate," I think, is the word.

President Giamatti:

I'm told. I honestly don't think so. I think it is one of the virtues of the models that have been presented in the last two days that they are probably only applicable to where they are. Because I think the basic point is that for all the talk about local control, and so forth, this is at least addressing local control as if it existed. This is at least saying, in a school district, in a town, in a city, rural or urban, "If you have a college, and you have a need, try it." You can't say that what is going to work for Yale and New Haven is going to have anything to do with Seattle, Tucson, Tampa, Portland, Maine. But the fact is, that if it is not tried there in the terms and circumstances that make sense to the teachers in the schools there and the u niversity and college faculties there, but first to the teachers in the schools, then we will have failed. But to think that, on the other hand, there is a franchise that we could put out, I think would be wrong and I think it would be counter to the spirit of trying to make it come up from the bottom instead of simply down from the top of it. h4>Mr. MacNeil: Is there any feeling coming out of the conference that with all the models you've seen, discussed and reported on, that you have not yet found it? That there is some way of doing it that needs yet to be discovered? Or, is there enough material to really go out and make it work?

Superintendent Phillips:

Really the big model is the model of partnership, that it can be done. That is reflected in every one of the different ones. And I concur completely with what was just said, that the only model that has come out of this is the fact that if leadership at different levels of responsibility, can put it together, whatever form it is, something can happen with it. And that is the easiest model of all, and that has come out of this.

Commissioner Ambach:

I don't think there has been any attempt here for anyone to try to sell the rest of us on a single model or a single demonstration. On the other hand, I think there is a deep concern that unless there is a way to repeat what is being done, or somewhat r epeat what is being done, in one institution or another institution, then we would not bother to be here. It is a matter of trying to find out what has happened, perhaps what the mistakes have been in one institution, or one state, and then to see if in fact those could be used, at least the effective practices, could be followed some place else. There are certainly things we have not been dwelling on here, the whole question of just exactly what is the supply and demand circumstance for teachers in the latter part- of this decade has been an issue that has not been addressed that specifically. We know right now, crisis in mathematics and science. But just exactly what the numerical crisis is. What the circumstances will be in the other fields. Where w e will turn for personnel for teaching. Those kind of analytic issues have not been addressed that fully. I think that is part of the agenda to come. If we are going to be able to go to talented youngsters, secondary level or early collegiate level, and try to be persuasive that they should make a commitment to teaching, they have got to have some sense that there is a job at the end of their preparation. And during the course of this last decade, we have not been able to be persuasive because there have not been jobs available. In order to be able to make a persuasive case, it is essential to be able to say to them, "There is a likelihood that you will have a position, and it will have such and such benefits and incentives." That kind of statement, that kind of case, must be based on good solid analytic work, and I think that is a piece that is yet to be carried through.

Mr. MacNeil:

Anyone want to add to that? I wonder whether it wouldn't be a good idea to ask the audience if they would like to join in now.

Superintendent Phillips:

Could we add one more dimension before you do that? It has been sort of half-said or not at all said in a number of ways. You are talking about models. Talking about impact. The question of what is the national interest, what is going to be the reflecti on of a national concern out of the impact of this conference. There has been no direction and no way to have direction. But what voice will be heard in terms of the partnership of national leadership in making the kinds of things happen that have been talked about here? I guess we have all been sort of depressed in the sense of a lack of a national major concern about education. And although there is now evolving quickly the House resolutions, the 1310s, and the others dealing with Math and Science, I hope somewhere out of this will come some, at least articulation of what the national concern will be. That has not emerged. It has been touched on in a number of ways. But there is nobody here, in a sense, One can speak to that one, and I think that is one of the concerns we have.

Mr. MacNeil:

I picked up that somebody objected to being called an audience, and I apologize for calling you that. Could we involve your fellow conferees, attendees, in this? Let's just throw it open and get a dialogue established between you and any one of the peop le on the panel here. Yes, sir?

John E. Worthen:

I am John Worthen from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. My institution grew up as a teacher training institution, like many of the institutions that are represented here. And it seems to me that one of the things that the conference has done is to un derscore and reinforce the fact that quality in teaching and teacher training is very important. We have sort of moved away from that in many of our institutions across the country, and have said we are not teacher training institutions, we are comprehen sive universities. So, this sort of gives us encouragement, I think, to go back and emphasize what has really been our tradition, and where we are really strong. So, I think it has been very valuable.

Mr. MacNeil:

Does that mean that there would be literally, an interest in some institutions in reestablishing teacher training courses or Departments of Education that have been abandoned or allowed to wither?

President Worthen:

I think that most of the institutions have not abandoned those, but we would give additional attention to those areas.

Mr. MacNeil:

That would be quite a practical effect from something like this, wouldn't it? Did anybody want to comment on that?

President Francis:

Well, my comment, certainly I share that view very much. We've sent the wrong signals to young people, for a combination of reasons, why one should not be a teacher. Pay, prestige, concerns, and I think if this conference says anything else, it says in effect, "Look, teaching is not only a noble profession, but it is an important profession, probably one of the finest professions we have." And that hopefully, we will bring to bear all of the other things that we have done for other professions, again, pay and the like. And we are now going to give a priority to it, a concern to it that it rightly deserves. And we really have been passive about it in the past. ten years, and I think that that passivity has brought us to what Gordon has said. We now ha ve fewer than we need, and we need to build all of the support systems to bring back to the quality we believe and the prestige that it rightly deserves in this country.

Commissioner Ambach:

There are many institutions, particularly independent institutions. that in the latter part of the 1950s began programs which are at the Master's Degree level, Master of Arts and Teaching programs, which were designed to try to provide an opportunity fo r those who had a liberal arts preparation but not any pedagogical study at the undergraduate level, and then would move through the fifth year and into teaching. Most of those institutions then phased those programs out in the 6Os or in the '70s when th e circumstance changed by way of supply and demand. I do think that there is a potential now that more of those institutions may become committed to a return to at least having a presence on campus. That presence or that focal point indicating that teach ing is important, and if the undergraduate is interested in it, there is a place to go to get support and perhaps to move on into teaching. To me that becomes very important with the possibility of tapping a talented pool of our undergraduates ,who might otherwise not be interested at all or find the guidance or the way into teaching.

Mr. MacNeil:

Does anybody else want to comment on that point? Yes, sir?

John E. Sawyer:

John Sawyer of the Mellon Foundation. I would comment, and I hope I can reserve the right to question afterwards, but I think Mr. Ambach's point is extremely important: That the sense of these new linkages that have been talked about at this conference may be very important in bringing forward into the teaching stream young people in the Bachelor of Arts degrees across the country who have by discouragement of jobs or the image of the profession have been seeking other callings. I think there is a trem endous latent potential. We know that in the early '70s about 20% of the students coming into higher education thought of teaching. This last year the ACE survey showed it had dropped to 4.7%. And I think that the fact that jobs will pick up later in the '80S and '90s will offer opportunity to the kind of talent that this college- school interaction may help bring forward.

Mr. MacNeil:

Is there . . . If I may just interrupt for a moment . . . I wonder what you think and what other people think of the suggestion by Ernest Boyer that was made earlier in the conference, I gather, that colleges and universities offer bright students inten ding to become teachers the incentive of I think he mentioned the top 5% to 15%. in terms of talent the incentive of full-tuition scholarships. Would that be an idea that would be practical and would institutions. . .? Would anybody like to comment on th at?

President Giamatti:

I don't think so.

Mr. MacNeil:

You don't think so?

President Giamatti:

No.

Mr. MacNeil:

You wouldn't like to comment or don't think Its a practical idea?

President Giamatti:

Well. I . . .

Commissioner Ambach:

Anybody else?

President Giamatti:

Well, there are some reasons that I have . . .

Mr. MacNeil:

I know you have a question, sir, and we'll come back. . .

Stephen S. Kaagan:

My name is Steve Kaagan from the State of Vermont, and 1 would like to comment but in a somewhat oblique way and ask the panel if they could comment in turn. That is, on the suggestion that Ernie Boyer has made, I think it's. . .whether it's practical o r not, I'm not sure, but it's a desirable possibility. One of the things that . . . Well, first, I have been impressed with the kinds of projects presented here. But one of the things that disturbs me a little bit is that there haven't been enough examples proposed of ways in which universities and elementary and secondary schools can interact in a way in which their futures are truly intertwined. In such a way that the projects that are developed are not able to be jettisoned at a given point in time. Where a university tries something and decides, well, we will stop cooperating five years from now and neither the other institution will be hurt nor will we be hurt. I think what Ernie Boyer has suggested represents a possibility in some sense in which the future of the institutions is truly intertwined. I wonder if the panel could comment on the possibilities for those kind of efforts being undertaken.

Mr. MacNeil:

Anyone want to take that up?

President Francis:

Well, let me just start, in part. And I'll speak from the university standpoint, as you are from. Listen, we are in this because we know that unless we are part of the partnership to improve teaching, to improve the quality of what we get, we won't be a round too long to do what we do. So, that we are in this together. So, I want to establish that, that it's not all goody-goody," there's a vested interest, a mutual interest, and I think that's good. With respect to Ernie Boyer's proposal I know from my perspective and the young people that we serve, that would be very workable. One of the things that I brought from this conference­Gordon, you mentioned it&173;I see a pool of young people out there, particularly minority youngsters out there, who have under graduate degrees, who if given an opportunity to go on and get a Master of Arts in Teaching, and certified and the like, with the likelihood of having a professional opportunity and being paid for that in the ways that we bring bright youngsters in, we c an indeed increase that pool. And I think offering scholarships would be one way to do that. And I think that is. . . Now it won't work for everybody, and I think Bart has expressed that it may not work for . . .. What I see out there, that would be a ro ute that would be very important. And I think we would bring into the school system, particularly in the urban centers, bright youngsters, minority youngsters, both committed, making a contribution and that will help. There are a number of things that mu st be done. But if you started with that, the model, the concept, and the colleges and universities working with the elementary and secondary schools, providing us scholarships. I think we can start to make a dent.

President Giamatti:

I should say, because Ernie and I have never disagreed on anything before, that the reason that I have a limited but clear view is that I don't believe in athletic scholarships. I believe in financial aid from the institutions on the basis of need. I believe that other people can give people on whatever basis they wish to, other entities. But I would not philosophically want to think that if one were opposed to athletic scholarships, as I happen to be, that one could then all of a sudden make an exception precisely for something else, because then the principle begins to be somewhat eroded.

Mr. MacNeil:

Isn't that the point? Don't you have to make exceptions? Isn't that the point that you have to make exceptions if you want to draw attention and create incentives?

President Giamatti:

I think that's true if one believed that the only reason for being consistent was some simple-minded love of consistency. The fact is that it's a limited world, and the fact is that money for financial aid is so scarce, whether it's coming from the Federal Government, private institutions, or any place else, that it seems to me you finally have to choose on what grounds you want to give it. And I would never want to see a financial need, which is going to pick up everybody, eroded. Nor would I want to see, although Mr. Boyer didn't suggest this, I would hate to see people begin to tie financial aid either to positive things, of which this would be clearly one of, or things which other people would view as positive, but which I view as negative. I want to keep financial aid as clean as possible, that's all. It's not a desire not to encourage teachers.

Mr. MacNeil:

Does anyone else want to comment on this idea? Yes, Ma'am.

Floretta Dukes McKenzie:

Flo 'McKenzie, Superintendent of Washington, D.C. Ben Alexander and I agreed that the tuition situation could be handled probably in our jurisdiction. However, while we talk about the bright young students entering the profession, some of us have the real problem of very low turnover rates. In Washington we're down to about 2% with a teaching force of about 5000 to 5600 persons. What do we do to revitalize and recharge those people who are going to be with us, because the economic situation as it worsens, persons are staying in the profession much longer. And most of us know that too many teachers are teaching the way that they were taught, and we have not significantly changed our teaching methodologies over a hundred years while everything else around us has changed. And that poses for us in Washington a very significant problem that we must grapple with. And we must have the assistance of the colleges and universities to deal with that issue.

Mr. MacNeil:

I read in one of the addresses to the conference that, I think, on average, a great proportion of the teachers of the country had not in ten years taken any form of further education. . .would you like to comment?

Commissioner Ambach:

Let me start the comments, but then I think others should really chime in on this. We have at the same time the problem of trying to think about what the supply and demand is going to be on out eight or nine years, and after all when you think about a s econdary school youngster who might be attracted to teaching, you have about a five­year period before that person is ready to come into the classrooms. So you have got that part of the problem, and I think we have been concentrating on that more this mo rning. But, the observation is not only for the District of Columbia, but it is for our school systems across the country, particularly, I think, right now in the East. In the State of New York, the numbers of first-year teachers this year is less than 2% of the total of all the public school teachers in the State, and that same percentage has been true in the last five years, and the same percentage will probably be true in the next couple of years. That means a very, very slow turnover process which is underway, and it also means that where there has been an "excessing", to use the term that is used in the trade, of teachers because of financial cuts, they are on lists to come back into teaching, when in fact there is any opening. So, the matter of trying to adjust those who are currently in practice right now, is perhaps even more important than recruiting for the future. The possibilities of providing a direct relationship­and it is true in the Yale project, a direct relationship has been expressed in other projects-of having a real partnership there, not the "Big Brother" approach, and that was referred to earlier, but rather a co­ equal approach, where there are college and university faculty members and administrators, who are on a colleague basis, working one-to-one with those who are in the schools, it seems to me it has the most promise. Easier to say than it is to do, but I think if there is a model or a demonstration that can be applied, it's probably more directly that than it is other kinds of approaches. That takes money.

Mr. MacNeil:

Can I ask the question? Did you feel that the models you heard discussed at this conference did not address the point that you made well enough?

Superintendent McKenzie:

Unfortunately, I was a little late getting here. Operating Superintendents can't come out. I don't want to be . . .unkind, but so often our colleges and universities are pushing antiquated methods and teaching strategies.

President Giamatti:

We're not pushing . . . Are you talking about Schools of Education in colleges and universities?

Superintendent McKenzie:

Yes.

President Giamatti:

Oh, well, okay. I don't know anything about them.

Commissioner Ambach:

She wasn't here . . .

President Giamatti:

Some of the models that were presented, in fact, said, what is it that the teachers need to know, and how do the teachers want to use the resources of University faculty to go about developing the curricular unit, or something else, that the teachers want. So that whether or not antiquated strategies for teaching are taught, I don't know, but if this is going to work at all, it's got to work because the very hard working high school teacher says to the very hard working college teacher, "You can help me out with this. This is how I have to have it done."

Superintendent Phillips:

Go back to the massiveness again, this has not been touched heavily in this conference: the issue of what happens to those who are on the job today. And the primary task is really the one of the 16,000 employers out there, Boards of Education, like the D.C. Board. And they have employees for whom there is a need for a clear commitment for an ongoing on­the­job training program . . . whatever it is,. . .whatever General Motors says about its on­the­job training program or any other major enterprise . . . We have not put that in the context of this country of a full­time investment approach. Whatever percentage of those resources are, the institution of higher education becomes the source of that planning, but primarily that task has just got to be in the hands of those employers, who have a responsibility not only to look at work conditions and compensation and the rest, but what do they provide in the way of a continuous developmental program that improves the quality of performance. We have not touched on that one here. That is a different, I think a different process, that has a different point of initiation from the one that has been implied here with the initiation of entry into and initial training.

Mr. MacNeil:

But if the lady is correct, is a much bigger problem because the numbers are so much vaster.

Superintendent Phillips:

Oh sure. You take your multipliers with whatever a typical annual investment in the growth of an individual, whether he or she is a teacher, a counselor, or some other employee. If you just multiply. If it is a hundred dollar-a-year investment, which is nothing in a sense, that gets back to the massiveness we were talking about.

Mr. MacNeil:

And the further point would be that all those people who are teachers and are going to be teachers will continue to be role models for potential young teachers who are coming up through the school systems. I think this gentleman had the next question.

Theodore Lobman:

I am Ted Lobman from the Hewlett Foundation. One answer to the staff development problem is a link to a problem which is understood nationally, and that is R and D. There is no institution in American society that should live very long or can live for very long without R and D. And R and D in public education is a matter of staff development primarily. I do want to ask the panel a question about the limits of university assistance. Underlying problems of pay and power as well as preparation and prestige, is organizational development, the capacity of schools to help themselves. Where can we find the means to improve the quality of school board behavior, management, the quality of personnel relation, and the general managerial tone of schools in order to address the questions of teaching? Is this something beyond universities' capacity or are there leadership roles or consultation roles which universities and colleges can take?

Mr. MacNeil:

Since you wear both hats, that sounds like a good question for you.

Commissioner Ambach:

I think there are roles, but there also are limits. Perhaps one of the most important changes in the research and development area or in the several attempts at trying to make schools more effective has been the concentration lately on the school building. There was in the past, a system-wide, district-wide focus. But now much more, there is a concentration on each school building and the management of the instructional program in that building. What has come from that is the role of the principal as principal-teacher, which is what the term came from in the first instance. And I think that if you are talking about how to develop the managerial structure, the administrative arrangements which provide the support that is absolutely necessary for the teacher to perform effectively, we know much better now that we ought to be focusing on the individual buildings. There's a lot of activities that are underway now where colleges and universities and I'm not just talking about schools of education; I'm talking about business schools; I'm talking about those schools that are interested in administrative practice are zeroing in on assisting that part of the management process.

Donald J. Stedman:

Donald Stedman from the University of North Carolina. One of the things that this conference has done, I think, and which partnership development will continue to do, is to help in the retention of the best teachers who are currently in the public school system. We did a study in North Carolina which showed that the top quartile of NTE score teachers were first to drop out of the profession. To the extent that the NTE measures effectiveness or quality, then we're losing our best teachers earliest. Unfortunately, Phil Donahue got to that study before Robert MacNeil, so it got more of a hysterical than analytic coverage. But, basically, the emphasis on partnership development I think will serve to help retain the best teachers and involve them in the joint projects that we talked about yesterday, and we'll be talking about in the future.

Mr. MacNeil:

Yes, Ma'am.

Barbara W. Newell:

Barbara Newell, University System of Florida. Going back to Superintendent McKenzie's question, it does seem to me that there is one important aspect of in-service training that has been on our agenda, and that is the quickly changing subject matter of the entire education system. If you're adding so substantially to human knowledge, one of our real problems is how do we make sure that all within the education system share, and it seems to me to be one of the major parts of the New Haven projects one of the very real reasons for the partnership, is to try to make sure that all teachers in the system have an opportunity to know how fields are changing, what the expectations of students are. think the subject matter in- service training is perhaps the most significant part of the partnership. And as we put our emphasis on subject matter it also seems to me what we're saying is that the partnership has got to be far broader than Schools of Education. It has to cover the entire university community, because we're talking about changes in chemistry and physics, and other subject matter fields, and the full faculties have got to be involved and feel they have a stake in the primary and secondary schools, as well as the universities.

Mr. MacNeil:

Do other people in the conference feel . . . to respond to the­I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name . . .

Superintendent McKenzie:

McKenzie.

Mr. MacNeil:

Superintendent McKenzie's point that the models raised at this conference are substitutes for, or whatever you like, ways of providing in-service training or further training, or leave something to be desired there?

John B. Duff :

John Duff, Chancellor from Massachusetts. I was interested in what Superintendent McKenzie said, because she's right on the mark, that we have to deal with the teachers we have now. The statistic that was used yesterday was maybe 85 or 90% of them will still be teaching in the year 2000. So, we have to deal with the teachers who are in the system now. But it's my opinion, after listening in detail to the Yale project and the Michigan project and the Syracuse project, that all of them help the high schools. Mr. Maeroff comments in there that all those projects seem to give a better feeling to the high school teachers about themselves and their profession. So, this one person alone takes back from this conference the feeling that things can be done. I' d also make a brief comment on the money. The Board of Regents of Higher Education in Massachusetts spend 550 million dollars a year on our higher education system. The Yale program costs 200,000 dollars. It seems to me that people like myself should be able to find enough money to institute programs like that in Boston, in Fall River, in Springfield, in other cities of the Commonwealth.

Mr. MacNeil:

Yes, sir?

Michael J. McCarthy:

Mike McCarthy, St. Mary of the Plains College. listened for an hour to the panel telling me at least what I've heard over the few days, and they did a very good job of that. They really did. I didn't realize I had heard as much as I had heard after list ening to the panel. And then secondly we are hearing some discordant notes coming out. But I really think, without being political, or trying to be dissatisfied, that this has been very well- conceptualized conference. It did not try to bite off the total world as has been brought out by the panel. It's trying mainly to develop some relationships between school officers and college and university presidents to do something at the local level. And the paradigm examples of a few of these workshops or what have you are good. They are not going to solve the in-service problems of Boston, or Philadelphia, or Washington, D.C. or even Dodge City, Kansas, where my school is. So, I really applaud the management of the conference and the conceptualization and wh at have you. I think from the beginning it was a limited vision, purposefully, that was well handled.

Mr. MacNeil:

Yes, Sir?

Donald G. Gill:

I'm Don Gill from Illinois. And I'd like to Pick up on what appeared to be a nerve-striking comment by the Superintendent from Washington, D.C. as exemplified by President Giamatti's response. That we may be using some outmoded kinds of practices in teacher education. Well, the conference title is "Excellence in Teaching," and I want everybody to know that I know what that means. I think each one of you knows what that means. But even in this conference, we've allowed that concept to kind of lie in an amorphous state-maybe that's the safest way to do it. And then when something happens, look back, retrospectively, and say, "that's not it. That is not excellence." Somehow and some way, as we go back to our various states, we're going to have to be prepared to define what we mean for our purposes what excellence in teaching is so that we devise standards against which that concept can be measured. Unless we do that, I think our best efforts may simply result in putting together a new suit of clothing for the emperor.

Mr. MacNeil:

Anyone want to pick up?

Michael C. Cooke:

I'm Michael Cooke from Yale University. It causes me some slight concern that the expression "teacher training" should be arising in our discussion simply because that has taken on a fairly specific meaning in ordinary parlance. It tends to mean somebody up there who has knowledge imparts knowledge to somebody down there, and the process is over, analogous to driver training. It seems to me personally that even in driver training, all the license means is that you have reached the stage where you can go out in public and not do harm to yourself or your neighbor. The same thing is true with teachers. And the emphasis that I have heard throughout the conference, and that I have experienced in my participation in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, is very different from that. First of all, we do not contend that somebody up there has knowledge and somebody down there receives it. We contend for the secondary school teacher, as we practice in college teaching, that training never ends. We train ourselves continually: by reading, by writing, by teaching. And we say to the secondary school teacher, "we believe, we hope, we have something to contribute to what you're doing; we know that you have something to contribute to what we're doing." And so, there is a co-equal relationship, there is a partnership. This his been stressed, and I would like to keep that stress and avoid the idea of training. But also we're saying that this equal operation is continuing indefinitely, and I would also therefore be concerned if we tried to formulate a definition of excellence, because what we are talking about is an incessant pursuit thereof.

Mr. MacNeil:

Isn't one of the by-products of the Yale-New Haven experiment that some of the secondary school teachers can teach the University professors how to teach?

Mr. Cooke:

It's not a by-product. It's a central product. We do. We do have our teaching practices revised, reformed.

President Giamatti:

I think this is all marvelous. I really must say that one of the myths we live under is that college teachers don't know how to teach and don't care how to teach. That's nonsense. I just don't want to get too enthralled with the mythology on both sides. One of the nice things about this conference is that it didn't get too deep into the uncut street stuff of myth. And, just, you know. . . terrific.

President Francis:

That may be the frustration sometimes with a conference like this. You didn't promise more than you could deliver, and we sometimes are looking for more than can be done. And maybe that's the excitement about it all. We still have left some things to be done.

President Giamatti:

Oh, I'm sure of that.

Mr. MacNeil:

plead guilty as a member of the media,. . .to contributing to . . .

President Giamatti:

Never, sir. Never. Never. Never.

Stephen J. Trachtenberg:

Steve Trachtenberg, University of Hartford. One of the unspoken but I hope not unreflected upon agendas of a gathering like this is, I think, coalition building. And it seems to me that educators, to use that term writ large, need more and more to come together as a constituency in America for political purposes. Somebody disavowed political objectives earlier. I'm not sure we ought to do that. It seems to me that we have been as a group altogether too cavalier about these matters for the past 20 or 30 years, partly I think, because America took us as being good for America, without much effort on our part to demonstrate that that was, in fact, the case. Increasingly, as President Giamatti points out, we live in a world of finite resources. And there seem to me to be an increasing number of very articulate, alternative constituencies that are making the case for their piece of the American pie. I think of the welfare community, or the elderly community, or the infrastructure community the people who keep telling us how our roads are going to come apart any minute. And I think increasingly, as school people and university people can bring themselves to make their case together, they will have a far better impact, a far greater impact on public policy decisions in this country. And one of the ways that we can talk with a single voice towards third parties is going to come from being able to talk across the borders between our subsets of education writ large. And I'd like to think that one of the benefits, for example, in the Yale program is that people from Yale are now talking to people from New Haven, and people from New Haven are now talking to people from Yale about common issues, and towards common goals, that they perhaps didn't share as fully before. And that that model will continue statewide and, indeed, from coast to coast.

Mr. MacNeil:

Go ahead, first.

Commissioner Ambach:

I want to make a political plug. I guess it was earlier that I said it was not our intention in coming together to try to establish a Federal agenda, if you will, or a particular state agenda. But I do think it's important to follow your comment with a plug, and to connect it very directly with Superintendent McKenzie's comment on in-service training. There is right now before the Congress legislation that has to do with the improvement of teaching and learning in mathematics and science. it's been reported out of the House Education and Labor Committee. In fact, they received the administration's proposal, they've set it aside, and they've substituted their own proposal. There is one extraordinarily important aspect of what's happened in that House a ction which should concern us and which forms a point for political action. On the matter of the provision of in-service training, there is an explicit provision that that money goes only to colleges and universities, and absolutely no provision that there should be any participation by local school districts or states in the determination as to how the money should be used. Now this has been a typical pattern over the course of the last 25 to 30 years, by way of Federal funding, of the training whether it be pre service or in-service training of personnel who are going to be in the school systems. And I submit to you, and I say this most directly to colleagues who are college and university presidents, if there is a single political action move that m ight come from our assembly here, it is to say to those members of the Congress, and to the Senate, who are dealing with this legislation. that the idea of a partnership, that the idea that there must be a collaboration between the universities, colleges , and the school districts or state systems by way of making any progress in the in- service training shall come about if that statutory language includes a requirement for coordination, for cooperation in development of the project. So I follow your poi nt on political action with something which hasn't happened before, but is extremely important at this point, by way of a very immediate bill before the Congress.

Mr. MacNeil:

The gentleman in the back row.

John H. Lawson:

Jack Lawson from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. First, I'd like to thank Chancellor Duff from the Commonwealth for offering some of the Regents' budget. I have recorded the quote, John. As I have reflected on the theme "Excellence in Teaching," and I applaud the theme, I have some concern that those good teachers in public schools not perceive that we don't acknowledge the fact that there are many excellent public school teachers, day by day, doing a superb job. And I base that on having visited so me 35 high schools in the Commonwealth including most of our inner-city schools during the last year. Secondly, in asking these teachers what they think we ought to be doing to help them, almost without exception I got the same answer, "Let us decide. Gi ve us the budget, and give us the money. And let us decide how we can help ourselves to be better." They are very concerned that, when administrators either at the state level or the university level begin to develop programs that it is somehow going to have some effect on their futures, especially in states like Massachusetts where we just had to RIF 8000 teachers because of a tax cut. So I guess I'm just stressing the point which we have done in the Commonwealth through the Department of offering any group of teachers in the State money to develop their own professional development program, which usually gets into the universities. And on that basis, we think teachers are going to accept more readily and be happier about the outcome.

Superintendent McKenzie:

I just wanted to make a comment with respect to the new mathematics-science legislation. I was asked to testify on that legislation on behalf of the Great Cities Council. You know, we in Washington, we're cheap. So we can do things like that. We talked about targeting of the monies, but if you will note in the legislation there is another partnership looming. I think about twenty percent of the monies are reserved for partnerships between schools and businesses. That is. you know, I think looming as a very significant partnership that we as elementary-secondary and colleges and universities need to really take a lot of interest in. And the gentleman talked about organizational development, training for staff. Our organizational development training was handled by General Motors, and our teachers are going out in the summer working in businesses and corporations, like our local utilities companies, our hotels, and also going to the General Motors Institute. Education must become more reality based and results-oriented. We must move from process, which is the staff development, in-service, etceteras, to what outcomes or what will be the results of all of this. So, we will note that the Congress and a lot of states and local systems are moving to develop other partners, and I think this conference is timely because we need to get our partnership straight.

Mr. MacNeil:

Anyone want to follow up on that? We started a discussion a while ago by one suggestion that came from Mr. Boyer. Does anybody else have any practical suggestions that either have come up during your discussions or you would like to come up with now as to any aspect of how this could be furthered, whether it's incentives, whether it's ways for promoting more cooperation? Does anyone want to drop any practical suggestions onto the table?

Chancellor Duff:

Yes. I don't want to get embroiled in a controversy between Bart Giamatti and Ernie Boyer.

President Giamatti:

It hasn't achieved that level yet, John.

<Chancellor Duff:

But in Massachusetts we have instituted a program. $250,000 in next year's budget, we are going to make available $2,500 grants for students in either public or private colleges who agree to teach math or science in an elementary or secondary school upon graduation. Sort of an ROTC concept. And they can get up to three years and they would teach up to three years. Unbeknownst to me, Kentucky has done exactly the same thing in almost the same form, $2,500 for three years. I found out reading in Newsweek this week they have done exactly the same program. The point that should be made about it though I would differ somewhat from what Ernie Boyer said I think it has to be directed to where the jobs are because I have to say frankly I would not support giving millions of dollars to create more PhDs in history when there are 2,000 unemployed in the United States. That doesn't make a great deal of sense. Maybe I'll be charged with being too narrow and practical on that, but we are facing a very serious crisis of math and science teachers and I see that we can do some specific things to encourage people to get into the profession, and Kentucky and Massachusetts have done exactly that.

Mr. MacNeil:

Any other practical ideas?

Commissioner Ambach:

I will come back to one that I mentioned earlier. I spoke to it yesterday. And that is, most teachers in elementary and secondary schools concerned about salary levels have a very deep interest in what financial capacity they will have for their own children to attend college, and the suggestion that has been made is that we consider having a guaranteed scholarship to the offspring of those who enter elementary and secondary teaching and stay there some 10 to 15 years. One of the concerns about demonst rations and models is, as was expressed earlier, is that they can be jettisoned, or that they apply to only a few here and there. When you look around for any attempts to try to make more systemic some of the practices, then you have to find things that will last over time and will have a meaning to any individuals. If in fact you were to have a system in this country where the universities and colleges would participate to a certain extent, public funds to a certain extent, but make that guarantee, in my opinion it would have a significant impact on the incentive for persons to enter and to stay in teaching. It won't solve the full . . . <

I>President Giamatti:

What would the guarantee be, Gordon?

Commissioner Ambach:

The guarantee would be that whatever the college of admission for the child of the teacher in elementary and secondary school, after that person had been there say 10 or 15 years, that there would be a full scholarship provision for their offspring. It is not a novel idea in the sense that most colleges and universities provide this kind of thing for their own faculty members. Many independent schools provide it on an interchange basis for the children of their faculty members, but we have never had to my knowledge in this country any provision that teachers in the public school system might have a particular advantage of educational scholarships for their own offspring.

Mr. MacNeil:

You mean within the state university systems of the state in which the schools were, or how?

Commissioner Ambach:

I think that if you have such a provision you open it to both the independent and to the public sectors. You don't tailor it just to a particular institution, but you open it. We have Federal aid systems in this country now which do provide assistance no matter where you attend. And to build on that kind of special provision for the children of those who are in teaching, it seems to me is not a terribly complex thing to do but perhaps a very important incentive.

Worth David:

My name is Worth David. I'm the Dean of Admissions at Yale. I certainly applaud the intention which is to reward teaching as a profession. As someone who is involved, at least indirectly in the awarding of financial aid, however, I would be terribly concerned about that practice. Let me simply pose the problem of an equally deserving young man or young woman whose parents are criminals. I mean, it seems to me that the award of financial aid should be to the recipient.

President Francis:

I just want to say, Gordon, for some of us that would break the bank. We couldn't make it, and I suspect. I suspect . . .

Mr. MacNeil:

What, admitting the children of criminals you mean?

President Francis:

No, no. We've got all kinds of persons who want remission privileges and if you opened up that it would seriously affect many of the small schools. I could say that. You would have to do it. as you say, across the board. We couldn't do it. But let me say, I'd rather make sure we made a commitment to the system that exists today in financial aid so that it would guarantee more for those who qualify for it. What I worry about, as I sit in this chair right now, I see young people, black youngsters who have come through that K through 12, who have been admitted to our institutions, who want to be educated, but cannot put the packages together because they come from families, large families and the like, and that's a greater strain and a greater challenge to the country than anything else right now.

Mr. MacNeil:

I get the message from the two university presidents, two of the university presidents, on the panel that they are reluctant for practical reasons, or reasons of setting precedents in aid, to send a signal that teachers . . . that there could be some special incentive to attract teachers.

President Giamatti:

I would hate to tie the award of financial aid either to the parents' profession or to the student's intended profession when the critical scarce dollar ought to be tied to the individual person's financial need. If a bright, able young person wants to go into teaching and then decides to go out and become a corporate lawyer, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it isn't possible and legitimate. The Republic won't fall; Western civilization as we know it today won't come to an end. We'd like more first-rate people going into teaching. But to begin to think that the way to get them into it is to provide financial incentives to undergraduates based on either what their father or mother does or what they sign a piece of paper they're going to do for ten years out seems to me crazy, and also misses the principal point that financial aid ought to be awarded, at least in my opinion-I'm just one person on the basis of need, or you're going to miss precisely what Norman and I are talking about.

Mr. MacNeil:

Well, since it's your proposal, do you want to come back to that?

Commissioner Ambach:

I'm also a graduate of this institution.

President Giamatti:

A distinguished one, too, I might add. Right up to this moment.

Commissioner Ambach:

You're talking about two different, it seems to me, two different proposals there. One is the question of whether you have a scholarship for somebody prospectively to go into teaching and the other is the question of whether you provide some kind of an incentive for a person to be in teaching and reward back that to that person's offspring.

President Giamatti:

I appreciate that.

Commissioner Ambach:

I think the other thing that is very important is that the concept of student aid at this institution and at some other institutions is that you make no distinctions with respect to where somebody's from or where they're going and fortunately have the resources to be able to make a student aid policy on a purely need basis. The fact of the matter that isn't true, that isn't possible, in most of the institutions across this country. And that, in fact, there are targeted scholarship provisions.

President Giamatti:

Most of them for athletes.

Commissioner Ambach:

That is right. and you have to make that distinction. I think that's why Ernie was concerned about what to do on that end of it.

President Giamatti:

I understand that. I agree.

Commissioner Ambach:

I would just simply say not on that part providing an incentive to go into teaching but on the notion of trying to provide an incentive for somebody who is in teaching to stay in teaching, that the notion of some subsidy for the child of that teacher is something which is very well established in independent institutions. And I think for good reason. The bargaining table today we've talked about that before is not going to find on it a doubling of teacher salaries. It is not going to find on it a fifty percent increase of teachers' salaries. The smart bargaining that is going on right now for elementary and secondary school teachers is being put into packages that come back at a later time.

Mr. MacNeil:

Fringes.

Commissioner Ambach:

Of course it is.

Mr. MacNeil:

But why should the universities carry the burden of providing the fringe benefits for teachers in the secondary schools?

President Giamatti:

Nicely expressed, sir.

Commissioner Ambach:

I'm not suggesting that they provide it all. I'm suggesting that you have a shared arrangement. If we are going to talk about coming up with commitment on a long-term or systemic basis, then I say the colleges and universities ought to take a piece of that.

President Giamatti:

They do. They do.

Mr. MacNeil:

The gentleman back there has been waiting to comment.

Jack W. Peltason:

Jack Peltason, American Council on Education. I want to reinforce what my colleague President Giamatti has said. I'm all for compensating teachers, but I don't think it is analogous to talk about what some institutions do. They are the employer, as part of the compensation package to the employee makes that part of the compensation. We never have established the principle in this country that you get a fellowship because of what your father or mother is doing. It's on your merit and your need. I think it would be a rather dangerous principle to establish and would be difficult to sell publicly, to the general public, that everybody else's tuition goes up, and they must pay it and meet some test, but we'll take care of our own with some kind of public subsidy. It's much better to hit directly and make it part of the compensation of the faculty member.

Commissioner Ambach:

Come out the same place.

President Peltason:

Somebody pays for it.

President Giamatti:

Let's take this institution.

Commissioner Ambach:

Come out the same place.

President Giamatti:

Yale will give as a scholarship to any employee, professor of physics, master electrician, lab technician, grounds man, administrative assistant, anybody who works here it isn't just the faculty this year, for this academic year $3,500 towards a child's tuition in a four-year institution.

Commissioner Ambach:

You got it.

President Giamatti:

But that doesn't therefore simply target the faculty, and it doesn't say we are trying to keep people in as roofers. It says Yale believes in higher education. And Yale believes in you, and this is part of how Yale will help you. But it isn't targeted to the profession necessarily. It is our policy, and we should sustain it, and we shouldn't ask the State of Connecticut to do it for us. If we want to do it, we should do it.

President McCarthy:

I just wanted to say that there is one college president who agrees with my colleagues who disagree. In the State of Kansas we have six Catholic colleges, we have about 20 Catholic high schools we're looking right now at providing that benefit to parents of high school teachers, Catholic high school teachers in the State of Kansas, looking very hard at it.

Mr. MacNeil:

You mean the suggestion that's been made your putting into effect?

President McCarthy:

Exactly, exactly. And we consider it enlightened self-interest.

Benjamin H. Alexander:

Ben Alexander, President of the University of the District of Columbia. You heard Superintendent McKenzie state openly that I certainly concur with this. And maybe I'm wrong, but I think colleges have been doing this for a long time with their faculty. I happen to know that when I was teaching at a certain school, my daughter's son could go to another one at no cost. I think that we ought to know that those that are public. now I think that you mentioned there are two there. Yale is private, and Xavier is private, but we're public. and this would not be a great burden on us. But I think it is something good that we ought to look at and do. You know I said yesterday and I think the reason I can say this now is because Dr. McKenzie was not here. It is my strong feeling as Mr. Shanker has stated that an engineer starts really in the first and second grade. And I indicated strongly that it's the first, second, third, fourth up through the sixth where we ought to have our best teachers, and we ought to have males where we now have a predominance of females. So I think that to Superintendent McKenzie I will say you get more males into that area, if you don't have money to pay them, we will let them have free scholarships at the University of District of Columbia.

President Francis:

Let me make sure we clarify. Bart has tried. There is no question about the fact that for small schools we have remission policies just as Yale does for everybody working for us. That is a part of our fringe benefit package. But for me to be able to carry budget wise, the scholarship provisions or the remission provisions for the sons and daughters of the public school system would break the bank. So, if you limit it to state institutions, maybe that's worth it, but then you have got a problem there be cause you are not going to allow access and choice. You are into something else. I guess the point that I want to make is I agree that something has to be done. I'm not so sure that that is the practical solution if you look at my institution and others similarly situated.

Mr. MacNeil:

Dr. Newell

Chancellor Newell:

Might I go back to your question on practical examples of partnership? There are two partnerships that have taken place in Florida that I find inspirational as a matter of fact. One was a public school that had a terrible time with its testing, and they brought in the local university, the University of North Florida, and said "'Look at it. Let us work together and see what we can do about student testing." The university put its reputation on the line and over a two-year time span was able to take the ir testing scores from the bottom of the rank in Florida up into the top quartile. The university got out at that point and the school was doing very well, thank you. This same university was asked to come into the center of the City of Jacksonville and put together an academic preparatory high school. The high school teachers and the universities together sat and talked about curriculum and college needs and school needs and together they come forward with a new concept of a high school within the Cit y of Jacksonville. There has continued to be a kind of university partnership with those high school teachers. My sense is that this partnership has truly changed the educational level of Jacksonville. Because of the success of this model here in Jackson ville, we have asked that those individuals who have been involved in Jacksonville try to bring together all the resources; public and private within the university community in Florida, and try to set up the same kind of model across the State. We're hoping in the next year that we can take one of our rural communities and do within a rural community with a very high drop-out rate and very low college-bound student population, and do for that community what we were able to do in the City of Jacksonville. And I think these kinds of partnerships, where we try to fact up to a problem and problem solve together, aids and strengthens the university education structure at the same moment I think it truly strengthens the primary and secondary.

Earl Lazerson:

I think as one university president I'm going to be leaving this conference taking back the thought that with some measure of renewed vigor university presidents have a role in the community wherein they can bring to bear their weight, their prestige in making common cause with their colleagues in the common schools in terms of convincing the leadership of communities to support the kinds of programs that we have been talking about here at this conference. I think that it is extremely important that we focus in on the achievement of students and the integrity of all in the teaching profession.

Mr. MacNeil:

Yes, sir.

President Trachtenberg:

I am a little confused. I wonder if I could get a point of clarification. I understand that Yale's policy is to give scholarships only where there is need, except for people who work for Yale where they give $3,500 across the board. With a needs test? Without a needs test?

President Giamatti:

No, no, it is part of the fringe benefits package.

President Trachtenberg:

So, it is a compensation. It's a compensation.

President Giamatti:

No, don't call it compensation, its not taxable.

President Trachtenberg:

Okay.

President Giamatti:

Don't play lawyer with me, Trachtenberg. The fact is it is part of the fringe benefits. And it is called a scholarship so that it is not part of the taxable compensation.

President Trachtenberg:

When I was a lawyer,. . .

President Giamatti:

I know who I am talking to. President Trachtenberg: I was approached by a faculty member then at MIT-I think he is still there who said that he had no children and he was distressed by the fact that MIT had benefits similar to the ones we have been discussing.

President Giamatti:

Right.

President Trachtenberg:

And that he didn't get anything out of it.

President Giamatti:

Right.

President Trachtenberg:

His friends at Harvard, where they had no such benefit arrangements and where all those funds went into compensation which he saw in his paycheck.

President Giamatti:

Right.

President Trachtenberg:

It seemed to him a better model since he had no children.

President Giamatti:

He should have gone across the river and taught.

President Trachtenberg:

He said, though, he understood social policy in which parents were helping . . .

President Giamatti:

Steve, there is a built-in inequity.

President Trachtenberg:

In supporting their children. He said however that he did have an elderly mother.

President Giamatti:

Did she want to go to college?

President Trachtenberg:

He wanted help in keeping her in a nursing home.

President Giamatti:

Wonderful to see you socially, Steve.

Commissioner Kaagan:

The last couple of minutes have confirmed for me that we have a two-fold task. One is that, growing out of this conference, one part of the task is to identify the traditional areas of our cooperation. One of which is student aid. It seems unfortunately it's a trough into which we could all fall. But there are other areas of traditional cooperation. In-service training has been mentioned and preparation of teachers. Some of the things that have also been talked about call for really charting some new areas of cooperation. At some point I would like an opportunity to come back together with a group of people in elementary, secondary, and higher education to sharpen our thinking about what, how we can improve our traditional areas of cooperation, as well as chart some new areas and be systematic about it so we do not fall into any pits in the process.

Mr. MacNeil:

That is suitably sober and sensible note on which to end this up. I would like to thank you all for your attention and useful contributions. And in addition to thank all the members of the panel. And may I say to President Giamatti in closing, thanking him for his hospitality, that there are many people who believe that if many people did decide to go into law it would mean the end of Western Civilization.