Following the MCA symposium around the work of Seymour Sarason, I picked up
a few of his books, and even found time to begin reading some. In The
Predictable Failure of Educational Reform (1990, Jossey-Bass), he includes
a chapter called "For Whom do Schools Exist?" His premise is quite
different from Jay's. In Sarason's view, "The public school exists for
students. Period. The universits exists primarily for its faculty" (p.
137). His argument is that because public schools are centered on what
students are supposed to learn, there is little effort to promote teachers'
learning. University faculty, in contrast, are in an environment that is
structured to promote their growth. If I may extrapolate, I think that
Sarason would endorse the kinds of programs that Gordon has established in
Toronto based on the premise that student learning is in part a function of
teachers' continuing efforts to grow through reflective practice. I'd agree
with Sarason that teachers' professional development is, at best, an
afterthought in the investment decisions of most school districts. And so
I don't think it's quite so simple as to say that schools are designed for
teachers and not for students, when critical parts of teachers' lives are
neglected in most public education systems.