Opinion: Challenging the Future of Education's Discourse

In December 2009 at Teachers College, Columbia University, Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke of the need for change in teacher education to an audience of preservice teachers, their professors, graduate students and others. Mr. Duncan's speech began with recognition of the meaningful contribution of Teacher's College to the field of teacher education before turning listeners and readers of his words toward the future needs of education. I am a graduate student with a stake in the present and future course of teacher education, and I approached Secretary Duncan's speech with interest and expectation. However, I found that this speech by the Secretary did not suffice in addressing the depth of his subject. Because of his unique experiences and training, the Secretary understands that education is a multifaceted field with numerous discourses; a broader audience does not. Therefore, his speech could be little more than a snapshot taken to grab the attention of a distracted public. Much like "themed" photographs that are the products of advantageous photographers, neither a speech delivered by the Secretary of Education nor a meaningfully conducted research paradigm suffice in addressing the totality of educational discourse. The Secretary's desires to resolve the challenges of preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom in the nation's 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education, made me aware of the field of education's numerous stakeholders and how effective resolutions for the problems of the educational endeavor must involve more than just the Secretary of Education or an esteemed institution like Teacher's College of Columbia University. As I read Duncan's address again, I realized that the future will only perpetuate the same problems and resolutions unless we look beyond historical precedents and the contexts familiar to educational institutions. Secretary Duncan's snapshot, taken from the perspective of an experienced veteran of the educational discourse, managed to capture major themes associated with education, lending impetus to future change. Because the Secretary's words had the potential of shaping policy and funding, I, as a researcher began interrogating the traditions that shape the questions I ask and the results I share. The personal challenge was indirect, yet I wondered if I as researcher and member of a larger community would seize upon the potential opportunity not just to reform education, but to also redefine my own thoughts about education. It was tempting to engage the field of education like an expedient, intrusive "paparazzi" photographer seeking to claim a piece of the prize - an eye-catching contribution to the discourse. I already had an understanding of how to think according to design, and now I needed to think differently. I wondered what it would mean to research if I and other researchers would honestly seek to think outside the institution's walls and prescribed objectives. While talk of education and its system provided mental stimulation, my training, past and present, threatened to override the mental challenge I pondered. Would I as a researcher and teacher educator continue along the road of the status quo with its familiar practices and acceptance of self-defined or systemic agendas? I nodded and accepted the role addressed by Secretary Duncan, problematizing and resolving current institutional practices, high stakes testing and standardized "achievement." However, I wanted to do more than recognize the familiar picture and nod in collusion. I wanted something new. I realized that research can become an unintended endorsement of the status quo and be further perpetuated by a desire to protect personal research interests. For the sake of the system and the reform that Secretary Duncan encouraged, I admit that this collusion cannot continue. …