ED' 110 444

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUT/ONG

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTE',AVAILABLE FROM

EDRS TRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT' RESUME

s 95 SP 009.437, .

Drumitond,William; And Others °

Performance-Based Teacher Education: A 1975Commentary. PETE Series No.19. -American Association of Colleges for Teacher.Education; Washingfbn,Office of Education1DHE0), Washington, °D.C.,Aug 7522g.order Department, American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education, One Dupont Circle0_!_eshington,p.c. ;0036 (6-50 cOies, $0.60 ea., 51-100 copies,

ea., 100 or more copies, $0.50 ea.) .

.MF-$0.76 HC-S1. 58,PLOS POSTAGEDecisidn Maki g; Educational Programs; Feedback;Governance; *t formance Based Education;*Performance lase Teacher Education ;' PerformaiceCrit4ria; Program E luation; ResearchNeedb; StaffImprovement; *Teacher ucation 9-

ABSTRACT b oz. P-. Th§ observation of the American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education Committee on performance Based Teacher _-EduCation APBTE) on the state of the art of PBTE in 1975'are.presented in this publication. The-Committee states that PBTE'may bedefined as a piocess for improving the preparation and development ofeducational personnel. This process includes the follbwing .

operations: (a) Ole basis for decision making about development andimplementation is clearry,defined, (b) outcomes for students andprog

F

ems are specifically and operationally defined, '(c) program

:Sde gn. is congrOnt with both student and program outcomes, (41st,dent and program outcomes are evaluated periodically, and (e)operations withinthe process are revised and/or specifications arechanged according to feed.back from the-evalultions. This report

.

discusies the following three areas in which slues a40 problems inPETE have been,clearly,enunciated; (a) the lack of an'adequateknowledge base for'designing,teacher education programs, (b) the lackof proceduregiand instrumentation required to evaluate the

. performance of practitioners, and (c) the lack of sharing in, decisionmaking in edncatiopal development. The Committee also voices concern

.in this repqit over (a) the way in which PBTE is currently beingviewed and im lemenied, (b) competencies, (c) instructional programs,(d)' assessmen and feedback (e) governance, (f) research, (g) programorganization, (h) staff development, (i) initiation of PBTE programs,and (j) narrow ess in the application of a performance based-approach. (MK)

Published by theTerican Association

o %Colleges for Teacher Educa'

RITE Senes: NO. 19US DEPARTMENT OF SIEALTI4.

EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY FZEPRE

a SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

PERFORMANCE-BASSO TEACHER'EDUCATION: A 1975 COMMENTARY

S

PERFORMANCE -BASED TEACHER EDUCATION:

A 1975 COMMENTARY

O

Report of a Task ForCe

Y.

William DrummondUniversity/of Flor4da

Lorrin Kennameraniver'Sity of Texas at Austin

Margaret LindseyTeachers College, Columbia University

Karl MassanariAmerican Associattip_of Colleges forTeacher Education

Gilbert ShearronUniversity of Georgia

For theCommittee on Performance-BasedTeacher EducationOf the

American Association of Collegesfor Teacher.Education

One Dupont CircleWashington, D.C. 20036

August, 1975

This paper was prepared pursuant to a contractwith the United States Office of Education,through the Texas Education Agency, Austin,Texas. The opinions expressed herein shouldnot be construed as representing the opinionsof the United States Government or the TexasEducation Agency,

.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:7Sr27370

ii

FpREWORD,

The American Association of Collegss forTeacher Education acknowledges withAppreci-17atibn the writ* of its Committee on Perfor-mance-Based Teacher Education and the We-porting staff. This 1975 commentary is thefourth official statement by the Committeeon thk state of the art of PBTE and, like itsearlier statements, reflects serious study ofthe performance-based approach to educationalpersonnel development.

Through the, work AO this CoMmittee, theAssociation has helped to develop a nationalawareness about the PBTE strategy for improv-ing educational personnel development, and tostimulate healthy dialogue about this approach- -its promise, its problem, and -the issues.Through leadership training institutes spon-sored by the Committee and through the publica-tieit has developed, AACTE has providedopportunities for colleges and universities.to study and explore a performance-basedapproach to teacher education. In addition.the Committee has stimulated interested Insti-tutions to experiment with MITE and providedassistance to those colleges and universitieswhich are alreadi operating KITE programs toraise the level 0 quality of their programs.At the suggestion of the Committee, AACTEhis established a number of significant articlesand monographs on the subject. Largely throughthe initiative of the Committee, the Associa-tion has taken (June 1973) a position oSingthe mandating of PBTE as the onl proach toteacher education. Through the Committee, the -Association has provided guidance to memberinstitutions regarding the utilization of aperformance-based approach to educationalpersonnel development.

It is our belief that this bief commentary isa useful summary of thb-state of the art ofPBTE in 1975 and that it will provide furtherAssistance to member institutions and to theeducation profession at large is exploring andexperimenting with this approach to teachereducation.

%

iii

Whereas the efforts of the Committee to date

have focused 4argely on the application of

PBTE to preservice preparation of teachers,dining 1975-1976 it i; expected that a xe-constityted Committee will give its major

attention fa the application of a performance-

based approach to in-service education and to

the preparation -of other types of professional

school personnel. It is our expec/ation that

the new Committee will continue to provide

effective leadership in this area of activity.

r

Edward C. PomeroyExecutive Director, AACTE

v

'CONTENTS

Foreword

page

iii

Preface 1

PBTE as Process

The Criticisms of PETE

The. Committee's Concerns RegardingHow PBTE Is Currently Being

Viewed and Implemented 10

Preface

Purpose.

In its earlier k in December 1971 1and February 1974, the AACTE Committee onPerformahce-gased Teacher Education sought toreport what was going on abound the countryunder the rubric of performance-based teachereducation (or, as some prefer, competency-based), and to give some direction to the PBTEmovement by further clarifying key coviceptiand terminology:, calling attention to signifi-cant potentialiti.e.S_and possible pitfalls ofthis approach, and suggesting some specificfrecommenfiations to maximize the attainment ofthe otentialities and avoid the pitfalls.

Now, in this publication, the Committee reportsits observations on the state of the art ofPBTE in 1975. This paper is not ,intended to bea comprehensive revision of either of the twopreceding publications. It makes no attempt totreat PBTE comprehensively: It .is a series of;observations -- a commentary.-- on the sate of"the art at present rather than a definitivetreatment of the subject.

Perspective of the eOmmittee.

'In ugordance with its original mandate'fromthe' AACTE Board of Directors, the Committee hasconsistently sought to serve as students ofPBTE and:the PBTE movement. Similarly, it has

--- sought to refrain from projecting an advocacystance with regard to encouraging rapid expan--..

Sion of the movement. While Committee membersdiffer with one another on many specific issuesregarding performance -based teacher education.by'and large they believe that the logic of thisapproach as they understand~ it holds consider-able promise as or approach to reform of educa-'tional personnel development.

/Stanley Elam, Performance-Based TeacherEducation: ghat Is the State of the Art?TWasKington, D.C.: The American Associa-tion of Colleges for Teacher Education,December, 1971).;

2The AACTE Committee on Performance-Based

Teacher Education, Achieving the Potentialof Performance-Based Teacher-Education:Recommendations. (Washington, D.C.:AACTE, February, 1974).

Motivated toward the improvement of schools,

convinced that PBTE faces serious problems but

offers substantial proMise, striving for ob-

jectivity -- such iS the stance from which the

AACTE Committee, speaks again at this time.

Audience

This publication, as was true of the two pre-

vious ones, is directed to those**(areien-gaged in, or directly responsible for educa-

tional personnel development. It is written

for "the profession" broadly defined to include

--elementary and secondary school teachers and

administrators, college and faculty administri-

torg, government officials responsible for the

operation dP schools, and professional associa-

tionsof educators. The Committee hopes that

it might be of interest also to laymen on boards

of education or in legislative bodies., It will

be of particular interest, however, to both

school-based and campus-based teacher educators.

Organization

In the first s n, the Committee sets forth

a context f viewing PBTE by describing it as

a process. ection two examines some of the

criticisms of this aperoacl to educational

personnel development. The third section pre-

sents the Committee's concerns regarding how

PBTE-is currently being viewed and implemented.

2

41

PBTE as Process

The AACTE Committee on Performance-Based TeacherEducation (PBTE) views PBTE as a promess forimproving the preparation and development ofeducationaligersonnel. Process is defined.as aseries of oftrailons leading towards (particular)ends. The process itself does not come from aparticularphilosophical or psychologicalframework} it can accommodate different and di-vergent positions on the training of educational'personnql.

The PBTE process includes five interrelatedoperations, Each operation is distinct but

'dependent on all the other ogprations if theprocess is to function successfully.

lc The basis fJr decisionemaking about\deve/opr7ent and iirplementation is

'clearly defined. The'decisions" to bemade, who is to make them, and'whenthey are to be made are determinedand agreed upon, Failure 0 plan for

,decision making can result in a break-ing down of interrelatednets of opoil-

ations in the process.

2c Outcomes for stspecificand-amOutcomes fpr stiafter determiniiformed and usuabe acquired, on

I mastered, and fbe fostered, S

so that they c

dents and progams areoperationally defined.dents are developedg the roles to be perly include knowledge tothe-job skills to beelings and attitudes toudent outcomes are statedbe evaluated.

Program outcomes areitually stated asprogram objeCtivc:. They reflectwhaethe program deiigners believe about suchquestions as how people learn, what en-vironmeas are mast conducive to learn-ing, how students should be organized,and the nature of professional roles.Program outcomes provide the basis forprogram evaluation,

?, dauign 1:3 congruent with both

student and Drogram outcomes.Instructional strategies focus onhelping students acquire the specifiedoutcomes. Atthe same time the in-structional strategies elect thespecified program otfje Ives,

I I

Student and program outcomeeare eval-uated periodically. There, is both stu-dent and program accountability in thePBTE process. Information is gatheredwhit provides data for decisions bout

her or not a student has acquirledpecific outcomes and how effective theprogram was in helping the student toacquire the specified outcomes.

' Operations .within the process dre re-vised and/or specifications are changedaccording to feeaaak,from the evalua-tions. This makes the PBTE processdynamic, in a continuous state of devel-opment and change. An anticipated re-sult of development and change is pro-.gram improvement,

The use of process in educational personneldevetOpment is related to general systemstheory, Systems theory ofers a way of look-ing at a total organization and all of its re-lated operations andla systematic way ofgathering information which provides the basisfor rational change,

Viewing professional preparation programs ineducation as process is not a nevi idea AsLindsey notes, "The idea that teacher education,.should prepare pertbns\to perform designatedroles and to demonstrate their coMpetente inperformance of those roes is.a theme running .7through the history of teachereducation."Mbre than forty years ago the Congress of theriited States authorized The National Surveyof Teacher Education. In the final volume o

e survey,. Summary and Interpretatilins, thecha

.:1

17an of the Survey Commission Evenden,

If the curriculum ferteachers could bebased upon a thorough acquaintance withthe work that teachers will be calledup* to do, and also the things whichthey should be able to do in order toimprove the existing conditions, then

3Margaret Lindsey., "Cumetency-BasedTeacher Education: Ifistorical, Current,and Future Perspectives," in Com tenc -Based Education - Theory, Practice, anEvaluation (Athens, Gegrgia, University-a- Georgia, 1975).

4 .

\T"

the prescriptions could be'made in terms

of providing best Oreparatiom. .

This concept !cohpetency' in the.if use as a basis for cons' -(

ing professio al curricula,for teachers,' can do much to correct the present limit-ing effect of the vested intefests-ofdepartments;which so often interferewith the larger purpose of preparingteachers.4

1414 of the essential elements of a performance=based approach today have thier roots in the -

accumulated wisddrn of the profession. There Is

within 'the PBTE process an opportunity toblend the conventional, wisdom of teacher educa-tion with an expanding research. base and a

number of new and promising ideas. The con-

/ vergence of thes elements into an overall \

strategy offers p ise to the improvement of

I\ preparation and ca eer development'progtams,fpr

educational personnel.

The AACTE/PBTE OoMbittee does not view PBTE asconsisting of uniformly defined substance:For example, PBTE does not define what the roleof-the erofessional should be. Ndr does PBTE/

establish i-plriloSophic frame of reference frcm'

which one' must operate. The Committee does

view PBTE'as a process through which substanceis generated as program developers_answer cer- Ytain questions. The process is transportable.and;can-beapplted in diverse situitionsl,the:substance emerges from its application in'specific settings.

Evenden,-National Survey of TeachertEducation, Volume VI, Summary and Inter-

\ "Fiiiiigs, Bulletin 1933, go. TO, 1J-\S.

Office of Education (Washington, D.C.:GoVernment Printing Office, 193), p.'129.

5

The Criticisms of PBTE

Serious criticism of any.idea, practice, or'movement in education is essential to itsmaking a lasting contribution to the improve-

' ment of educational practice", In keeping withits charge,,the Committee has sought to engagein critical examination of the PBTE movement,as have otherOroups and individuals with_varied specialtiei and with different degreesof contact with the movement.

1

The Committee believes that its own, criticisms,as well as those made by, other individuals and

groups, should meet acceptable standards of

For example, if,crticism is to beinfluential in stimulating reflection, further

investigation and research,,and/or, change, thecritic needs to snare with the listener orreader

'...the assumptions, predispositions,

biases -- e.g., the stance from which he(she) examines PBTE

..the target c4 criticism -- e.g., theory,ideas, proposals or practices, ,

...the criteria employed

...the evidence on which he (she)bases04 criticisms -- e.g., 'opinion, personalexperience, research..

During the past,three.years the Committee hasexamined the PBTE movement in its many mani-festations by means of varied techniques' andprbtedureS. Keeping in mind the above. re-quiremerits for criticism and using as evidencedata from a wide"range of sources, boththeoretical and practical, th4 Committee has'

-,mace some 'critical observations.

The most striking observation is that many ofthe criticisms ,of'PBTE today are not uniqueto this particular approach, They are ratheran accumulation of criticism related to inade-quacies of teacher' education generally.' Thepotential contributions of the movement to theimprovement of educational personnel oevelop-ment may not have a chance to reach maturitybecause of the burden of historical and con-

ventional criticisms of teacher educati'on.The unique attributes of the performance-basedapproach are'obscured by the continuing domi-nance cA dysfunctional rhetoric about the

6

.'

inadequacies of teacher education prbgrams*generally,

Even the best and most complete model of per-formance-based teacher education sill not pro-vide bncontestable resolutions to fundamentalissues nor foolproof solutions to difficultand persistent problems that have plaguedteacher eddtators for a long time.. However,the Committee believes that these iSSOS andproblems y ',re visible and are defined moresharp now the case through'a perform-

s ance-b oacn to designing, conducting,°evallat, g, and regenerating teacher education,Three areas in which issues and problems havealready been clearly enunciated are discussedbriefly here.

ade2i,te knowledge base for designing teachereducati -t-oro rams, The foundation of knowledgeuita-Jir decisions in teacher education isless than it ought to be; but this condition isflat unique to PBTE,, Performance-based teachereducation is a process that calls fqr programplanners to define and'validate the knowledge,skills, and attfludes essential to performing,specific roles. The very validation of compe-tencies necessitates constant investigations ofthe relationship between teacher competence andpupil learning.. Heece, as more investigatibnsof that nature take place the normal courseof program designing, it can be anticipatedthit the body-of predictive hypotheses will in-crease. Such predictive hypotheses, with re-peated testing and validation, make up the body,of knowledge needed in determining outcomes tobe achieved by prospective teachers and to be'object df continuing improvement by experiencedteachers.

PBTE requires continuous evaluation and feed-back into program modification. phis necessi-tates the specification of assumptions aboutrelationships between training activities andconsequences in teacher behavior. Again, whenthose assumptions are subjected to rigorousinquiry, as in any PBTE program they must be,the body of knowledge to be used as a source indesigning teacher education programs -- learn-ing activities for prospectiye or ',practicingteachers -- will be Increased substantially.

The Committee believes that the PBTE processprovides a strategy for-expanding the knowledgebase for teacher education provided that pro-gram operators carryout aWoperations.

7-

Procedures and instrumentation required toevaluate the _performance of practitioners not

available. The unavOlibility of such pro4cedures and instrumentation, however, is clear-ly not unique to PBTE programs. In fact, when

a performance-based approach is fully met, it

makes substantial inroads on this probl,. The

essential element of demonstrated performance

. as a basis for exit from programs (and as the

) basis for certification) cannot become opera-\tive without steady accumulation of means for,evaluation of performance. As indicated .6ove.;the validation of competencies calls for theIstudyinglof relationships between teacher be-

/ havior and conditions created )r pupil learn-

ing and /or between teacher behurior (knowledge,skills, and attitudes) and pupil outcomes.Scholarly efforts to establish such validationshould produce procedures and instruments equal-ly appropriate for evaluation of performance,

Time has commelor profesSiones to spend lesstime on talking'about lack of capability toassess teacher performance and to put appro-priate energies on increasing that capability.The performance-based approach holds promise

-ill this regard.

Decision making in educational deselofment notappropriately shared. Every group which has a

stake in teacher education has at one time oranother expressed dissatisfaction with the pre-sent distribution of poWer regarding the con-trol of educational personnel development prn-

grams. These expressions relate to teachereducation generally; again, they are not unique

to PBTE, It is true that the implementation_ -

of a performance-based approach makes the -pro.;

blem mere visible but PBTE has not created 0,0situation.from which the problem evolves. The

principle of shared decision making has beenespoused for a long time by representatives ofall groups which have a stake in teacher educa-

tion. Now, there is a growing realization onthe part of all these groups that educational "

personnel development must and should become a

cooperative undertaking, The Committee belieyei

that it is time for the profession as a whole --Iand in a united way -- to get on with the bus-iness of working out alternative collaborative

models, PBTE encourages the' development of

such models,

8

The Committee observes that many other criti-cisms (problems and issues) are applicable toboth traditional teacher education and-to aperformance-based-approach, e.g.:

e Programs lack individualization andpersonalization.

Programs include too little (or too much)theory with consequent lack of usefulnessor applicability in the real world,

Programs place too little (or too much)emphasis on the liberal arts.

e Programs include too many (or too few)school-based experiences,

Programs Place too much emphasis on thepresent, not enough on the future:

' Programs attempt to prepare candidates fora generic teacher role, rather than for avariety of roles.

' Program design is based on the assumption

that one can team) through an apprentice-ship approach.,

e

9

The Committee's Concerns Regarding How PBTEIs Currently Being Viewed and Implemented

As the Committee has observed colleges, schools,

and professional organizations becoming in-volved in establishing PBTE programs, it hasbecome increasingly concerned about the con-gruence of means and ends in teacher education.,Our concern is not new, nor is it exclusivelya PBTE issue; educational philosophers andcritics have been concerned about means/erdsrelationships for a long, long time., A PBTEapproach, however, highliglfts the issue in aspeciai way, Because a PBTE program is system-atic, it calls for negotiated agreements on,and the public expression of, specific programgoals for and by participants it the program,and the provision of relevant leariiing exper-iences by the agencies offering the program --experiences which are logically and empiri-cally consistent with the expressed goals.These characteristics call for a high degreeof congruence between means and ends. Wethink all programs of teacher education shouldevidence congruence between means and ends --::rPBTE program:3 cvn.jr:4ence should be anessential charael7ertstic.

Other concerns of the Committee are as follows:

COMPETENCIES

The Committee observes that there is a ten-dency to overlook the importance of deter-mining competencies on the basis or somedefinition of professional roles.

There also appears to be a tendency-tooverlook the importante of defining cpm-petencies in such a way that they makepossible the assessment of a student's be-havior with respect to each of the competen-cies specified for the program, .

Caution should be exercised to ensure thatcompetency identification and definition donot lead to program fragmentation, eitherthrough the incorporation of an assortment'of specified unrelated objectives, or throughthe omission of experiences in the programwhich would lead Candidates to synthesis,integration, and internalization of thespecified objectives.,

10

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee believes that the design ofirstructional programs may take variousforms and incorporate the best of past andcurrent programs, Whatever their design,

instructional programs need to provide forthe development and evaluation of the stu-dent's achievement of each of the specified

competencies..

While many PBTE programs may use instruction-al modules as the basis for organizing in-struction and learning, their use is notnecessarily essential to a performance-

based approach.

PBTE uses the field extensively, but it is notnecessarily tfue that any program using the

field is automatically performance- based.

' The importance of involving students in thedesigr of their individual programs should

not be overlooked:

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK

PBTE programs are effective only if assess-ment procedures used are objective and reli-able, and are valid measures of the compe-tencies they purport to measure. Assessmentprocedures currently inuse need to bestrengthened and developed such that students'achievement of competencies and programeffectiveness are known:

' Operators of PBTE programs need to use dataderived from assessment procedures to pro-vide feedback for improvement and validationof the program by establishing relationshipsbetween possessiog of the competencies devel-oped in the program and success as a practic-ing professional,

e In the Committee's judgment, the existenceof assessment problems does not suggest thatexperimentation with PBTE should cease, On

the contrary, such experimentation can leadto the development of more adequate proce-

dures and techniques,

GOVERNANCE

The Committee observes that when almost soleattention is given to the formation of govern-ing units (consortia) as a first step inbringing about educational personnel develop-

. Tent, program development occurs more slowly.

RESEARCH

The Committee now, places much greiter emphasisthan earlier on the significance of stating

and testing formal hypotheses in the de nof performance-based teacher educationprograms.

R1GRAM ORGANIZATION

The Committee observes that if all of tileoperations in a systems approach to PBTEiprogramming are not operative, e.g., ifevaluation does not lead to feedback andmodification, programs may become crystalslized and lose their regenerative power,

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

; The design and implementation of PBTE pro-

grams need to be accompanied with, and insome cases preceded by, well-planned staffdevelopment activities fOr both campus-based and school-based faculty members.

- Because,PBTE results in changing the nature '

of the roles of many campus-basedand school-

based teacher educators, it is crucial thatpresent faculty load assignment policiesand reward systems be reexamined and revisedto accommodate such role changes,

INITIATION OF PBTEPROGRAMS

The Committee believes that pressures tomake change -- the adoption of PBTE

;within specified narrow time frames and withinadequate resources make rational approachesto program development difficult, if not

,

impossible.

Because PBTE is a continuing process rather,

than a fixed set of products, educationalleaders desiring to stimulate changes in,the direction of performance-based approaches

should both define appropriate roles for them-selves in that,process, and model the valuesand. processes congruent with a performance-based approach.

12

NARROWNESS IN THE APPLICATIONOF A PERFORMANCE -BASED APPROACH

The CoMmittee believes that more experimen-tation is needed in the application of a

performange-based approachto other areasof educational personnel development:

- to other aspects of preparation programs

for classroom teachers, e.g., to generalstudies and specialization components;

- to preparation programs for other typesof educational personnel, e.g., to thepreparation of administrators, guidanceand counseling personnel, curriculumspecialists, and to the preparation ofcampus-based and school-based teachereducators; and

- to the in-service education of teachers

and other professional school personnel.

I

13

E.

PBTE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Lorin Xennarter; Chairman, College of Education,University of Texas at Austin, Austin,Texas 78712

Patricia Cabrera, Director, Teacher Corps .Project, School of Education, PhillipsHall of Education, Unjversity trfSouthern California, Los Angeles,California 90007 ,

Patrick L. Daly, Vice President of AFT andSocial Studies Teacher, Edsel FordHigh School, 20601 Rotunda Drive,

Dearborn, Michigan 48124 4

L. Harlan Ford, Deputy Commissioner for Pro-grams and Personnel Development, TeatEducationsAgency, Austin, Texas 78701

Tor-rzy Fu/ton,, President of Oklahoma EducationAssociation and Art Teacher, Jarman Jr.High School, Midwest City, Oklahoma 73110

LavY..d Kratkaohl, Dean, College of .Education,

Syracuse University, Syracuse, 'New

York 13210

A:argaret Lindsey, Professor of Education,Teachers College, Columbia University,Box 135, 525 W. 120th Street New York,

New York 1002/

Conald Medley, Chairman, Department of ResearchMethodology, School of Education, Univer-

sity of Virginia, Charlottesville,Virginia 22903

Gilbert Sheanron, Chairman, Department ofElementary Education and Early Child-

hood Education, 427 Aderhold Building,University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

30601

STAFF

EarZ Moxeanari, Assudate Director, AACTE;Director, PBTE Project

Shirley .orneviZle, Program Associate,PBTE Project

Narci ,aglard, Manager, PBTE Information.Center

dare Pero, Technical EditorSharon rAeVectame, Secretary

Mona Chace, Secretary

ORDERS

Billed orders for this publication will beaccepted only when made on official purchaseorders of institutions, agencies, or organ-izations. Shipping and handling chargeswill be added to billed orders. Paymentmust accompany all other orders.

To stimulate widespread 'study and use ofthis publication, special rates have beenestablished.

Minimum order - 5 copies $3.50

Quantity orders Per copy

6 - 50 60t

51 - 100,, 55t

Over R--- 50

Mail orders to:

Order DepartmentAmerican Association) f Colleges

for Teacher EducationOne Dupont CircleWashington, D.C. 20036