Stanford Report, January 24, 2001
BY LISA TREI
Deborah Stipek was invested as the School of Education's ninth dean in a ceremony on Monday in Cubberley Auditorium that included warm welcomes from President John Hennessy and education Professor Milbrey McLaughlin, who jointly chaired a national search committee that recruited the new dean. Stipek has spent the last 23 years at the University of California at Los Angeles and is one of the nation's most respected researchers in the areas of early childhood education, child development and motivation. For 10 years, she was director of UCLA's laboratory preschool and elementary school and the Urban Education Studies Center. She also has served on the National Academy of Sciences Board on Children, Youth and Families. Stipek earned her doctorate in developmental psychology from Yale University in 1977 and her bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of Washington in 1972. She is the first woman to lead Stanford's School of Education.
On Jan. 19, Stipek spoke to Stanford Report about her interests and goals as the school's new dean:
What are your priorities as dean?
We have learned a great deal about effective teaching, how schools work and what policies seem to promote effective education. But there's a big gap between what we know and what is actually practiced. I think we need to think seriously about the connections between research and practice so that we begin to close that gap.
In manufacturing and in the private sector, research and practice are often done by the same organization. But in education, practice is done in institutions that are quite independent of research. I think this School of Education has made some really extraordinary leaps in developing new models of institutional connections. Those are the kinds of things I'm interested in promoting and providing leadership in.
Some people here are pathbreakers regarding models of research that are very connected to practice. One is Milbrey McLaughlin, director of the new John Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities. The center is a good example of an approach that is more likely to close the gap between research and practice and, at the same time, promote the university's mission, which is to develop new knowledge and a new generation of researchers and community leaders. Through the center, Stanford will provide a community service that's related very directly to the research that our faculty and students do. This will allow us to develop new knowledge [regarding] the needs of youth in their communities, and be a place where undergraduate and graduate students can have training opportunities.
I want to be careful, though. Although my work at UCLA leads me personally to be involved with practitioners and working in schools, I think it's very important that the School of Education maintain its foundations and basic disciplines. Even though the notion of connecting research and practice directly is extremely important, I don't think everybody has to do it. I think it's important that we have philosophers who are asking the hard questions: Why do you think this is the right thing to do? What are the values that influence the kind of research you're doing? What are your basic assumptions? We need those deep thinkers to focus our attention on the basic issues guiding our work. And we need historians to remind us [of] what's gone before, so we can learn from those experiences.
President John Hennessy, left, speaks with Deborah Stipek, the School of Education's new dean, at a reception following her investiture on Monday. To the right of Hennessy is Stipek's brother Mike, Dean Stipek and Jenny Stadler, who will be the Associate Director of the MacArthur planning network on school reform at Stanford. Photo: L.A. Cicero
Is there conflict between the theoreticians and practitioners at the School of Education?
One thing that has impressed me [about Stanford] is that faculty cite each other a lot. My sense is that people seem to be familiar about one another's work and that they do enrich each other. But we could do it better. It will be a high priority for me that the people who are developing research models work in a more collaborative, ongoing way with practitioners and policymakers.
In addition, the people involved in international research are putting what we're doing in a broader perspective. This is very important because it gives us exposure to ideas that may be very different from what we've done here. We also have a responsibility to support people in other countries. We live in an affluent, powerful country and I think we have a responsibility to use that in supportive ways.
Popular surveys show that the public is concerned about education. In addition, the country has just elected a self-described "education president." What does this all mean? And is it going to help improve schools?
I think the concern is real. I think there's frustration among policymakers. They say they know what to do, but I don't know if deep down they're so confident. When you are in Washington, D.C., or Sacramento, you are so far from what happens in the classroom. I think the [policymakers] really care. I don't think they're saying that cynically because they want to be re-elected.
We have a lot of work to do regarding improvement of our education system and addressing inequity. I think our school can be very helpful in developing knowledge and conveying that to policymakers and educational leaders, to [help them] be more effective.
The School of Education is less well off than the other graduate schools on campus in terms of funding and alumni support. As dean, what are you planning to do about this?
I don't know the data on fundraising, but concerning data on research grants, we're probably one of the more productive schools on campus. Our faculty is extremely good at raising research funds.
However, voluntary giving is going to be a high priority for me. I think we can do better on that. There is a difference between the Law School and the Business School and the School of Education -- it's how much your alumni make. We're dealing with people who become teachers or researchers -- neither of whom are known for their high incomes. Our alumni don't have the capacity on average that the alumni of the business, law or medical schools have.
But I think there are people out there who do have the means and do have an interest in supporting education. We are based in Silicon Valley. One initiative I want to focus on [concerning this] is technology. As we become stronger in technology, I think we're going to attract people who have done well in this field and want to see technology used effectively in education. I hope we can position ourselves so we will be viewed as an organization that can make that happen.
What is your position regarding integrating technology and education?
In my view, technology has not yet had nearly the effect in the field of education that it has had in the private sector. It has certainly entered schools, but I don't think it has fundamentally changed the way schools are organized.
Do you think technology can change the way people learn?
Technology can be used as an incredibly effective tool in teaching and learning in the classroom. That is its potential. But it's not coming close to that because it's new and costly to provide the kind of hardware and personnel needed to run and maintain it.
What's happening in the fields of technology and education is that you have different organizations and institutions that are dealing with different pieces of this large picture. You've got people developing software who are not working in schools. And you've got teachers who are well informed about their curriculum needs and requirements, and the needs of their children. But the two are not necessarily interconnected.
What I see Stanford doing is creating a center that will focus on technology as a tool for learning. This will be integrated with our teaching credentialing program, school reform activities, teacher professional development activities and research on teaching and learning. I hope we can serve as a center where there will be synergism and connection among people doing these things.
We really see technology as a tool for learning, not as an end in itself. The computer should be an integral part of the school and the instructional program. But it won't be until you have people working together to design curricula, create state standards, develop assessments, train teachers and do professional development.
Was it difficult to leave UCLA after so many years?
It was a
great place, but 23 years is a long time. I was there
from graduate school onward, and I was ready for a new
challenge. An opportunity to work with such colleagues
and be part of this truly great university was something
I just couldn't pass up.
