How the Politics of Domestication Sabotage Teachers’ Professional Growth and Students’ Learning

Abstract

According to Borko (2004), “each year, schools, districts, and the federal government spend millions, if not billions of dollars on inservice seminars and other forms of professional development that are fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do not take into account what we know about how teachers learn” (p. 3). To avoid this pitfall, many educators and researchers have proposed a variety of approaches for improvement. For example, Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles (1998) suggest seven principles for establishing what they call “effective professional experiences” designed to provide teachers with research-based opportunities for professional growth. Similarly, various commissions on teaching and teacher education have outlined a variety of factors that influence what teachers teach and how they teach, and the pervasive impact these factors ultimately have on the student achievement gap and participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These commissions have also proposed specific suggestions for improvement (Glenn Commission, 2000; Mendoza Commission, 2000; the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996).