The history of schools of education is a history of remarkable mediocrity and resistance to change in the face of research on effective instruction (i.e., what new teachers really need to know), scholarly criticism of faddish "pedagogies," consumer dissatisfaction, low status in universities, and billions of dollars spent on reform "initiatives."  It is virtually certain that there will be no fundamental change in how education schools train new teachers unless a more direct and focused approach is used.  Such an approach would involve three components.

1. The highest offices in State government must make it perfectly clear to schools of education that they must and will implement fundamental reforms in the way they train new teachers.

2. The highest offices in State government must provide a model of exactly what a research-based and effective teacher training curriculum looks like.  This model should be: (1) derived from objectives in the State standard course of study; and (2) be the required core curriculum in schools of education.

3. The highest offices in State government must establish a system for making schools of education accountable for instituting the State model of rational and effective teacher training.  The accountability system should include: (1) a mechanism for assessing the progress of education schools implementing the model; (2) State tests (based on the State standard course of study) for certifying education students; and (3) consequences for properly implementing vs. failing to implement the model.

This section identifies the sorts of intransigence that make necessary a more direct and focused approach to education school reform.

        First, schools of education are intransigent in the face of scholarly critiques of education generally and schools of education in particular.  Examples include the work of Bestor (Education wastelands), Chall (The academic achievement challenge), Hirsch (The schools we need and why we don't have them), Johnson & Immerwahr (First things first), Kramer (Ed school follies), Mitchell (The graves of academe), Ravitch (Left back: A century of failed  school reform), Stone ("Teacher Training and Pedagogical Methods"), Sykes (Dumbing down our kids), and Stotsky (Losing our language).  The most common criticism is that education school curricula do not change in response to (and indeed are in conflict with) scientific research on effective curricula and methods of instruction, as found in the work of Adams, 1990; Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1998;  Brophy & Good, 1986; Catania, 1998; Ellis, Worthington, & Larkin, 1994; Rosenshine, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Snow, Burns, & Griffen, 1998.  [See also the documents at the following: (1) Direct Instruction  http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm/DI.html; (2) reading http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm/reading.html; and math  http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm/math.html]
         Second, schools of education are intransigent in the face of national and state data on student achievement—data showing that a large percentage of students are deficient in reading, writing, spelling, math, and reasoning.  Instead of regarding these data as signs that education schools are not properly preparing new teachers, the common response from education schools and their advocates is to: (1) ignore or reject the data (Biddle & Berliner, 1995); and/or (2) argue that student failure is caused by factors over which education schools have no control (e.g., class size, lack of parental involvement, or social disadvantage)—despite large-scale experimental research showing that student achievement and failure are most closely associated with the curricula and instructional methods used by teachers (which can be traced to education school training), and that the effects of poverty and disadvantage can be overridden by instruction that is teacher directed, follows a logical progression of tasks, and involves practice and application to the point of mastery (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Walberg, 1990).
        Third, schools of education are intransigent in the face of state level accountability systems that involve end-of-grade tests and expectations that public school students will achieve at higher percentages than in past years.  Instead of using current research (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000) to examine and change teacher training curricula (to better prepare new teachers), schools of education typically dismiss state tests as: (1) the effort of political conservatives to control education; (2) fostering poor teacher practices ("teaching to the test"); and/or (3) a political fad that will eventually disappear and allow education schools to return to a state of  comfortable self-satisfaction.
        Fourth, schools of education typically are dominated by professors who reject the best researched and most reliably effective curricula and forms of instruction.  The most effective curricula and forms of instruction involve (1) logically progressive sequences of tasks; (2) cumulative building of more complex skills; (3) explicit information from the teacher (e.g., demonstrations, stated rules); (4) systematic instruction on generalizing knowledge to new situations; (5) correction of errors; (6) immediate and cumulative assessment of student learning in the form of performance; and (7) distributed practice to the point of mastery.  In contrast, schools of education typically are dominated by professors who advocate (and train new teachers to use) so-called "progressive," "child-centered," "student-directed," "inquiry-based," "constructivist," "developmentally appropriate practices" (Grossen, 1998; Stone, 1996).  [See also "Constructivism: Sophistry for a New Age"; "Developmentalism: An Obscure But Pervasive Restriction on Educational Improvement"; and "Child-Directed Teaching Methods: A Discriminatory Practice of Western Education."]
        These professors often see themselves (and their "student-centered" curricula) as liberating students from "repressive" forms of authority and control; e.g., rules for right reasoning and "external" bodies of knowledge.  They take themselves to be "stewards" of America's children and (calling themselves "postmodernists" and "critical pedagogues") they see themselves as advocates of social justice—although the curricula that they espouse (e.g., whole language, "constructivist math") often do not work with disadvantaged children.
        "Progressive" education professors enjoy membership in groups of likeminded persons.  They enjoy the privilege of secure university positions.  They enjoy power to control faculty hiring, to shape the minds and skills of their students, and to influence the lives of public school children.  They enjoy money and prestige from speaking engagements (e.g., on "best practices"), conference presentations, and publications (e.g., new books on whole language—relabeled "balanced literacy").  It is highly unlikely that these professors (and therefore that schools of education dominated by "progressive" ideologies) will ever initiate reforms requiring fundamental change in what they think and in what they teach, because these changes would weaken their privileged positions.
        Fifth, schools of education are insulated from the consequences of flawed teacher training curricula.   When lawyers are judged incompetent or ethically irresponsible they are disbarred.  When physicians and hospitals harm patients they lose their licenses.  When farmers use ineffective methods they go broke.   When schools of education turn out teachers who do not know the difference between serious scientific research and professors' opinions; who do not know enough about learning and instructional design to identify the flaws in (for example) whole language "curricula" and constructivist mathematics; who do not understand that what is presented as "critical pedagogy" is little more than disguised neoMarxism; who do not know exactly how to teach reading, writing, spelling, math, and reasoning; and who therefore fail to foster satisfactory achievement in a substantial proportion of their students--nothing at all happens to the education schools that mistaught the teachers.  They are able to hide behind (and even to valorize themselves with) NCATE certification, the percentage of students who passed the PRAXIS,  the number of graduates who are Nationally Board Certified, or with end of year reports couched in such airy language—"reflective practitioners," "life-long learners," "professional development"—that university presidents and state boards of regents may be entirely taken in—mystified by the rhetoric.

        The history of education schools is a history of resistance to fundamental change in mission, accountability, and teacher training curricula, despite evidence that (and research identifying exactly what) fundamental changes are needed.  Schools of education sustain (and even celebrate) a century long round of largely ineffective faddish "innovations" that are relabeled versions of the same ill-researched flawed ideas and methods.  This resistance to influence suggests strongly that schools of education will not implement fundamental reforms in how they train new teachers unless the three conditions identified at the beginning of this paper are met.  Again, I believe these conditions are as follows.
        First, the highest offices in State government must make it perfectly clear to schools of education that they must and will implement fundamental reforms in the way they train new teachers.  What must be communicated is a sense of urgency, necessity, and most of all inevitability.
        Second, the highest offices in State government must provide a model of exactly what a research-based and effective teacher training curriculum looks like.   Clearly, education schools cannot or will not do so.  This model should be: (1) derived from objectives in the State standard course of study; and (2) be the required core curriculum in schools of education.  For example, a group commissioned by the State could create a panel of experts in instructional design, classroom management, reading, writing, math, science, history, and reasoning.  This panel (using the most current research) would examine the State standard course of study and suggest possible changes; e.g., to close gaps, to define certain objectives in terms of exactly what students will be able to do.  Most important, the panel should derive two things from the standard course of study: (1) general knowledge that teachers need to teach almost any subject (e.g., instructional design and delivery); and (2) specific skills for ensuring that students meet the objectives in reading, math, and other subjects.  The two sets of skills should form the core curriculum in education schools.  Following is an example.

Objective From Standard Course of Study
Third Grade Math
Basic arithmetic routines
Students can multiply three-digit numbers accurately and quickly.
They can generalize this skill to untaught examples.

      |
      V
Specific Skills Teachers Need
1.  The teacher can list the steps in the general cognitive strategy and operations for multiplying three digit numbers.
2.  The teacher can analyze the general strategy into its elemental concepts, rules, and physical operations.
3.  The teacher can list the types of errors students might make in multiplying three-digit numbers.
4.  The teacher can describe error correction formats for each type of error in multiplying three-digit numbers.
5.  The teacher can describe formats for re-teaching or pre-teaching elemental concepts, rules, and physical operations.
6.  The teacher can provide a sequence of examples of three-digit multiplication problems showing a logical progression.

A document (inventory) that lists all of the skills needed to teach all of the objectives in the State standard course of study is then used both to design and to evaluate the curriculum offered by schools of education.
        Third, the highest offices in State government must establish a system for making schools of education accountable for instituting the State model of rational and effective teacher training.  The accountability system should include: (1) a mechanism for assessing the progress of education schools implementing the model; (2) State tests (based on the State standard course of study) for certifying education students; and (3) consequences for properly implementing vs. failing to implement the model.  Some suggestions follow.
1. The State exam would be derived from the inventory of teaching skills noted above.
2. The State exam would no doubt be much harder than the PRAXIS, but would be a more valid way to measure whether schools of education have done their job—namely, prepare teachers to ensure that students master objectives on the standard course of study.
3. Education school syllabi and websites would provide useful information on the way education schools think and the extent to which they are adopting the state model.
4. Education schools would be rated each year.  The ratings would be used to determine future hiring, promotions, awards, and remedial activities mandated by the State.

Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996).  Research on Direct Instruction:  25 years beyond DISTAR.   Seattle, WA:             Educational Achievement Systems.

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A.  (1998).  Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education. Department of Psychology.  Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, PA 15213.  Online at
http://act.psy.cmu.edu/personal/ja/misapplied.html

Berliner, D.C., & Biddle, B.J. (1995).  The manufactured crisis : myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1986).  Teacher behavior and student achievement.  In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375).  New York:  McMillan.

Catania, A.C. (1998). Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ellis, E.S., Worthington, L.A., & Larkin, M.J.  (1994).  Executive summary of the research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for educators. University of Oregon:  National Center to Improve the Tools of
Educators.

Farkas, G., Johnson, J., and Duffett, A. (1997). Different Drummers: How Teachers of Teachers View Public Education.  New York, NY: Public Agenda.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneifer, C., and Mehta, P.  (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read:  Preventing reading failure in at-risk children.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Grossen, B. (1998).  Child-directed teaching methods: A discriminatory practice of Western education.  On-line at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/cdp.htm

Ingersoll, R. (1999).  The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools.  Educational Researcher, March.

Lyon, G.R. (1997).  Statement of G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D., before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Bethesda, MD:  National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

National Center for Education Statistics (1996). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1994. Reading report card for the nation and states (Report #96045). Washington, DC:  Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Teacher quality:  A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, January.

National Reading Panel (2000).  Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD:  National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

Rosenshine, B. (1986).  Synthesis of research on explicit teaching.  Educational Leadership, 43, 60-69.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986).  Teaching functions.  In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Third edition) (pp. 376-391).  New York:  McMillan.

Snow, C.E, Burns, M.S., & Griffen, P (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.  Washington, DC:  National Academy Press

Stone, J.E. (2000a). Teacher Training and Pedagogical Methods.  Hoover Institute/Pacific Research Institute Teacher Quality Conference,  Stanford University May 12.

Stone, J. E. (2000b).  Aligning teacher training with public policy.  The State Education Standard, 1(1), 35-38.

Stone, J.E. (1996).  Developmentalism:  An obscure but pervasive restriction on educational improvement.  Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4, 8, April.  On-line at http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html.

Walberg, H.J. (1990).  Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base.  Phi Delta Kappan, February, 470-478.