SACRAMENTO, CA - Several weeks ago, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI)  released a report on teacher training at a sample of California State University (CSU) schools of education. The report focused on the issue of teacher-centered methods, where teachers transmit knowledge and information to students, versus student-centered methods, where teachers act as facilitators so that students can disco er knowledge for themselves. After reviewing quantitative research, the report concluded that teacher-centered methods are more effective in increasing student achievement, but that, based on official statements and required course readings, the CSU schools of education favor the less effective student-centered methods. CSU’s response to the PRI report proved quite revealing.

In a letter, CSU made several counter-arguments. First, CSU claimed that the PRI report set up a false dichotomy between learning basic knowledge/skills and so-called higher-order thinking, which involves more complicated problem-solving abilities, and implied that the PRI report supported the former at the expense of the latter: “While we agree that basic skill development is an important and necessary goal of education, we do not believe that it is sufficient in and of itself to prepare students to function effectively in tomorrow’s world.”

This implication is plainly wrong.

If CSU officials had read the report closely, they would have found that the report says that basic skills and knowledge are a prerequisite for better higher-order thinking: “Higher-order thinking/critical thinking is important. However, it is even more important to know how such thinking can best be achieved.” The report cites University of Virginia education professor E.D. Hirsch, who points out: “To oppose ‘critical thinking’ and ‘mere facts’ is a profound empirical mistake. Common sense and cognitive psychology alike support the Jeffersonian view that critical thinking always depends upon factual knowledge.”

CSU also claimed that the dichotomy between teacher-centered and student-centered instruction was incorrect: “We find as having no objective basis the classification of the teaching and learning process as either teacher or student-centered.” Really? Perhaps CSU officials should read some of the books in their own teacher-training curriculum.

CSU Dominguez Hills education professor Cynthia McDermott’s anthology Beyond the Silence, which is required in her class on classroom management, uses the teacher-centered/student-centered dichotomy. She condemns the “‘teacher-dominates’ banking model, where we teachers, the experts, deposit information, dole out directions and advice, and ask [students] to respond on our terms” as encouraging “passivity, resentment, and poor quality work.” She contrasts this teacher-centered model with a student-centered model where “all the participants --students, teachers, and paraprofessionals--have a voice in the decisions that are made.”

The CSU officials finally claim that because California has a diverse student population, “effective teaching requires a highly student-centered approach.” The PRI report cites elementary-school principal Nancy Ichinaga, Gov. Davis’s recent appointee to the state Board of Education, whose diverse and low-income students consistently score high on state tests because of her school’s emphasis on teacher-centered methods. The CSU officials disparage Ms. Ichinaga as having “limited perspective” (Gov. Davis, no doubt, will be interested to hear that), despite the fact that her teacher-centered methods are being adopted by increasing numbers of school districts.

The CSU trains the majority of California’s teachers. Until the system is willing to question the effectiveness of its own training program, students and teachers will continue to suffer.

- by Lance T. Izumi