![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
As noted earlier, money was critical in the initial stages of the partnerships’ development. Money was important to support a small staff to coordinate the partnerships’ activities, and to buy time for professional development. Time for continuous learning is essential to the profession. In the short run, temporary funds to provide learning opportunities for educators have made a tremendous difference in both Maine and West Virginia. In addition, some relatively low-cost professional development activities, such as educator discussion groups and teacher networks, have proved to be powerful learning experiences. These networks provide "critical friends" to examine and reflect on teaching, and opportunities to share experiences associated with efforts to develop new practices or structures. Moreover, these networks provide a supportive structure within which teachers are socialized into new norms and practices of critical reflection and ongoing assessment. While these learning experiences appear to be cost effective, there are still costs for these activities that are "over and above" teachers’ regular job responsibilities.
In Southern Maine, the two site-based teacher education programs studied have required significant investments on the part of both the university and the school districts to sustain the collaborative effort. Although the state maintains responsibility for licensing teachers and programs, the state is not held accountable for ensuring high-quality preparation programs. It will require changing funding formulas at the state level to redesign the work of university faculty to allow them to commit the time required to effectively support teacher education. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) advocate for making professional development schools (one model of school-university partnerships) part of the infrastructure of a strong education system by providing funding through basic aid allocations, just as teaching hospitals receive funding to acknowledge the special mission they perform.
In addition to monetary support, the investment of human resources is substantial, perhaps unreasonable. In every successful school observed, the level of commitment on the part of teachers was extraordinary, often described as "overachievers" and "workaholics," who gave up summers, weekends, and evenings to support renewal efforts in their school. The question must be raised whether this the level of commitment is required to bring about systemic reform? And if so, is it reasonable to expect this level of commitment from everyone in the profession. Or perhaps if the average level of commitment from all educators was higher, significant improvements could be obtained from reasonable levels of investment. These ambitious attempts to redesign teacher education programs, which would inculcate the skills of change agentry and a deep moral commitment to making a difference in the lives of students, is a step in the right direction for the future. At the current rate of development, however, this approach alone will be insufficient.
As Darling-Hammond suggests (1994), the working conditions of teachers do not support or encourage teacher investment in educational renewal. Almost everything a teacher does outside of in-class instruction is considered "released time" or "homework."
Time for preparation, planning, working with other colleagues, meeting individually with students or parents, or working on the development of curriculum or assessment measures is rarely available and considered not part of the teacher’s main job.
She goes on,
Despite a shorter school year, U.S. teachers [and Canadian too] work an average of 185 days per year — no other nation requires teachers to teach more hours per week than the U.S. Japanese, Chinese, and most European teachers have substantial time for preparation, curriculum development, and one-on-one work with students, parents, or colleagues, generally teaching large groups of students only about 15 to 20 hours out of a 40 to 45 hour work week. These nations assume that teachers must continually learn and consult with each other to make instructional decisions. . . (p.16)
[Implications for Policy and Practice]