Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction program addresses twelve standards. My learning of standard 12, professional citizenship, asks that participants willingly engage in dialogue that transcends the individual classroom, taking informed, coherent positions on important matters of educational policy and practice.

Prior to the course American Education: Past & Present, I understood the basic origin of education. Colonial schools were a small part of a child’s education. Education was expected from family, church, community, and apprenticeship (Fraser, 2010, p. 1). I now understand how education has evolved since the late 17th century. Massachusetts established legislation requiring that the head of every household be responsible for every child within their household learning to read (Fraser, 2010, p. 3). Literacy was required so the community members all understood “the principles of religion and the capital laws of the country,” (Fraser, p. 3). Children were not required to attend school but there were schools established to act as contributors to a child’s education, if school was the right fit for the child (Fraser, p. 4) Even in the late 17th century, education needed community support. Contributions toward educating all children were needed from communities (Fraser, p. 7). Communities wanted their children educated so they may be contributing citizens. Higher government officials wanted communities uneducated and easier to rule (Fraser, p. 8).

The Republican Era brought concerns about maintaining a new democracy. Jefferson believed that a legitimate government was governed by an informed people (Fritzberg, 2010). Jefferson, Rush, and Webster believed in a public education system for most of the population. Thomas Jefferson outlined a plan for implementing an educational system in order “to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large,” (Fraser, 2010, p. 17) as a way of maintaining a democratic system. Creating a system of varying levels of schooling based upon ability to pay and student achievement was within Jefferson’s plan (Fraser, p. 21-22). The first three years of schooling were to be free for all “free children, male and female,” (Fraser, p. 21).

Although the aforementioned three men put forth foundational ideas toward a public education system, funding was an issue. The caveat of the common school, a school where every child of the community could attend, was lack of funding (Fraser, p. 49 & p. 54). During the Common School Movement, Horace Mann, the first Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education from 1837 to 1848, (Fraser, 2010, p. 44) believed an educated child would benefit society as an educated employee (Fritzberg; Urban & Wagoner, 2009, p. 121) and community based taxes used toward common school support would prevent children of all classes from leading unproductive lives due to ignorance (Fraser, p. 54).

Mann’s view of the common school’s benefit toward all children and greater society was not supported by all. Reasons for lack of support were lack of control of schools at the local level, well qualified teachers who did not need prompting in professionalism, parents who did not want to be told how to educate their children in the ways of politics, morality, and religion, and concern that one model of teaching would eliminate individual school’s motivation to continually improve (Fraser, 2010, p. 63, 64, & 67 respectively). Concerns around equity continued throughout the Progressive Era and the Civil Rights Era.

Concerns are similar today (see Current Era and NCLB posts) as Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are undergoing implementation. Some see CCSS as a method of funneling taxes toward education and assessment producers (Ujifusa & Molnar, 2013). Community members believe local standards are more rigorous than CCSS (Ujifusa & Molnar).

My beliefs lie toward support of CCSS. Our educational system is not equitable due to local levies providing more support to some districts while other districts do not win or do not propose levies to increase financial support at the local level. CCSS provide consistent documentable criteria to which teachers must teach and students must attain. Documentable success creates accountability to tax payers and may increase financial support. CCSS are a baseline upon which educators can choose to provide more rigor to students who need the challenge. In disagreement with Zimmermann in Ujifusa & Molnar, CCSS are standards, not curriculum. Standards do drive assessments, but I do not believe that assessments have to drive curriculum. One can take several journeys to reach the same destination. When considering standards my students need to reach, I need to plan creatively to meet students where they are at. The standards and assessments are destinations on a map, but I can still be creative. Considering the diversity among students, canned curriculums would defeat the purpose of all students ready for career or college. Every student will need something slightly different to achieve future autonomy and productivity toward our ever changing society.

Standard 12 Resources

Module 9: No Child Left Behind

Fraser’s chapter 13, The Era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2001-2009, discusses the many points of view surrounding the implementation of NCLB.

The intent of NCLB, an executive based legislation, was to narrow the achievement gap between white, middle-class students and students of minority of low socioeconomic status (SES) (Fraser, 2010, p. 371). The achievement gap was meant to be closed via expanded standardized tests and an accountability system for schools (Fraser, p. 371). NCLB was the reauthorization of the existing Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) begun by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 (Executive Summary of No Child Left Behind of 2001, p. 373).

Districts of schools not meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) were required to provide Title I funds and transportation to schools families chose to send their children to rather than have their children continue attending a school not meeting AYP (Executive Summary of No Child Left Behind of 2001, p. 374). NCLB provided states flexibility in how federal funding was used. States are now able to use 50% of funding aimed at Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, or Title I and funnel funds to any one of these five programs (Executive Summary of No Child Left Behind of 2001, p. 374).  Flexibility of fund distribution is crucial for student and teacher success. Do states have the flexibility to provide the same options at the district level?

Hess and Finn review the purpose of NCLB and recommend timely federal reviews of progress made by states. Timely review could protect education systems and taxpayers from policies proceeding poorly, causing revisions for improvement prior to policies becoming habit (Hess & Finn, 2004, p. 378).

Of concern is the perception of choice and actual choice families experience when schools do not make AYP in order to boost student achievement. NCLB provides options to families whose student attend schools not making AYP; choose to attend another school or receive 30 hours of tutoring annually per student. Kohn mentions independent tutorial businesses as recipients of NCLB supplemental services funds (2004, p. 381). Tutorial businesses benefit from NCLB when students require supplemental services; districts pay for these services to comply with NCLB requirements.

Schools and/or districts often contract with supplemental providers first, then provide families with a list of providers from which to choose (Hess & Finn, 2004, p. 379), appearing to provide families with choices. However, the choices are already limited by districts. Hess & Finn would like the public to consider if public choice of school or supplemental services is improving student achievement. If student achievement is not improving, then other methods should be considered (2004, p. 380).

There are different perspectives on NCLB to consider. Alfie Kohn opposes NCLB for a number of reasons. Kohn feels NCLB removes local control, reduces teacher quality through focus on testing rather than teaching, and creates a punitive environment for struggling and successful schools (Kohn, 2004, p. 381).

Having earned my certificate in 2007, NCLB has always been in the background of my teaching. As I read Kohn, there were points I had not previously considered. Allowing students to transfer from failing schools reduces the failing schools population, resulting in lower federal and state dollars. I had not considered the schools receiving the incoming students. Kohn says these schools do not want the transfer students; the influx of struggling students will cause the successful schools to fail, too (2004, p. 382). This may be true, but an increase in student population could bring an increase in staff population, maintaining the teacher to student ratio and potentially leading to continued success.

Both of these factors, negatively impacting struggling and successful schools and supporting tutoring businesses, do make NCLB seem an attempt to privatize public schools. But can ALL children be educated through large scale businesses or small boutique businesses? How much will this type of education cost, who will pay for it, and would students receive an equitable and quality education?

Linda Darling-Hammond discusses why NCLB mislead many supporters of its initial passing. NCLB does not account for inequity of local funding. To add to the discrepancy, NCLB lacks funding, yet places high testing goals onto lower achieving schools. Higher achieving schools receive high testing goals also; the only way to demonstrate growth is for these schools to not test low achieving students (Darling-Hammond, 2004, p. 385 & p. 388).

NCLB utilizes standardized tests in assessing student academic growth (Darling-Hammond, 2004, p. 386). Standardized test utilize a percentile ranking above and below a mean of 50%. If most of the students achieve high scores, the mean is set at the high score level, but it is still considered the 50^th percentile, squeezing the above 50^th percentile scorers into a very small tail toward the right end of the curve.

To offset this imbalance, lower performing schools are required to demonstrate greater growth in each subgroup area. Lower performing schools typically have larger groups of student who struggle academically due to needs such as low SES and ELL (Darling-Hammond, 2004, p. 386). Lower performing schools typically receive less local funding to support programs to aid lower performing students.

Inequity of funding and use of standardized test scores seem to be the biggest hindrances toward NCLB’s perceived success. How can local level teachers and community offset these hindrances? We can pass levies to increase local funding if the voting public approves and has the supporting income for an increased tax base. I am not sure how to counteract standardized test scores.

Terry Moe believes the educational system is under control of educational unions who harbor teachers who do not perform nor want to be held accountable for student learning (Moe, 2003, p. 389-390). In some ways, he is correct, but I see the division generationally and this assumption cannot be generalized. We do have a problem with non-performing teachers who are protected by their continuing contracts. As a teacher who worked for several years to earn a continuing contract, it is frustrating to see peers on coast. With the Danielson model becoming a state wide evaluation system requiring teacher set annual goals, the state should consider placing teachers on probation after a non performing year, allowing a year to demonstrate professional growth. We expect student accountability; we should expect the same from teachers.

Moe believes choice schools put pressure on unions and schools to increase teacher accountability and reward success with pay (Moe, 2003, p. 391). This appears logical, but I can think of some issues….

1.      Teacher success is based upon student success. Student success is currently based upon test scores. I see good teachers loaded with academically and behaviorally challenging students. These student don’t test as well as higher achieving peers, thus their teachers would not be assessed in a positive light.

2.      Choice schools drain academically successful students from the public school system, leaving struggling students and a lower success rate. Who holds charter schools and private schools accountable for student growth and teacher success? Are teachers employed by choice schools and private schools expected to teach to state standards? Do their students participate in the same standardized tests as public school students?

3.      Teachers improve student success when working collaboratively. It is difficult to work collaboratively when some teachers may perceive peers as competition. Competition among collaborators happens in the private sector unless leadership clearly states success of a business as a whole is based upon collaboration amongst all. Teachers would need strong leadership at the building, district, and board level for this to happen.

4.      Disbanding teacher unions leaves teacher without legal protection from student accusations. Businesses have insurance to protect business assets, one of which is employee base, from legal prosecution. The public school system would still require this legal support.

National Education Association’s (NEA) Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization in 2006 lists many recommendations. I see the main themes as adequate funding, accountability for teachers, students, and community, and professional development (National Education Association, 2006, p. 393-396). Professional development of all teachers is needed for continual improvement. Community accountability lets communities experience the collaboration of raising and teaching contributing members of society. Adequate funding is needed for both of the above and to provide adequate resources to the learning environment. I was happy to see the NEA pushing for smaller class size (p. 394). Small class size lets teachers know students, addressing their academic and personal needs to increase student learning.

Resources

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From “Separate but not equal” to “No child left behind”:The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.) The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.), (pp. 384-388). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Fraser, J. W. (2010). The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Hess, F. M., & Finn, C. E. (2004). Leaving no child behind? In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.) The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.), (pp. 376-380). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Kohn, A. (2004). NCLB and the effort to privatize public education. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.) The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.), (pp. 380-384). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Moe, T. M. (2003). Politics, control, and the future of school accountability. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.) The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.), (pp. 388-391). New York, NY: Rutledge.

National Education Association (2006). ESEA: It’s time for a change! NEA’s positive agenda for the ESEA reauthorization. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.) The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.), (pp. 392-396). New York, NY: Rutledge.

United States Department of Education (2001). Executive summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.) The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2^nd ed.), (pp. 372-376). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Module 8: Current Era

This week we were to compare education articles covering the current era of education. I chose to compare and contrast A Nation at Risk and The Manufactured Crisis, addressing the academic and egalitarian purposed for schools, with related assumptions about what’s “in crisis”.

“Our nation is at risk,” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 343). A rather inflammatory statement speaks to me, warning of imminent propaganda. The commission cedes that too many demands are placed upon schools, causing schools to focus on far more than education. Focusing upon personal, social, and political problems may be the cause of mediocre educational systems. Multifaceted risks are stated. America is challenged by other countries’ increased manufacturing abilities. America lacks development of “intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths,” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 344).

Currently, average citizens are better educated than in the past. The average graduate is not as well educated as in the past (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 346). Predominately jobs require a high school diploma or college degree, whereas in the past, completing high school was not required. However, many high schools no longer teach problem solving required classes – shop, cooking, or sewing that apply to everyday life basic needs (Grandin, 2013). This may be where the decrease in education occurs. Fulfilling basic needs is engaging work. Are students truly engaged in arts, humanities, math, and science?

Teachers are not blamed for lack of work or college readiness. Society’s tendency toward mediocrity may be at fault (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 347). To counteract “diminishing personal expectations” an effort should be placed on the “need to improve teaching and learning in fields such as English, history, geography, economics and foreign languages,” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 347). Although teachers are not to blame, the solution is placed squarely upon education. Is this because education can be regulated, while parenting and family stability cannot?

Continuing on the path to excellence, the paper asks that excellence be asked of individual learners, schools, and parents. Excellence should be pursued yet equity not sacrificed; the two, quality and equity, should stand together (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 347). Individuals, schools, families, and community need to know learning is a lifelong experience (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 348). I believe if one stops learning, one is dead.

Within the opposing article, Berliner and Biddle believe government is slandering public education in order to change how the public views the public education system (1995, p. 365). I wonder if slander originates at the government level or from the media who report confusing headlines purported as from US demographics when in actuality headlines are from Japan (Berliner & Biddle, p. 366). Berliner & Biddle make the point that many criticisms of the US public education system lack credible citations (p. 368). Unfortunately, our media presents information sensationally and the public believes it.

We educate our students to think about the credibility their information sources. Our students need to educate their parents on the same topic. Berliner & Biddle ask the public to look into the reported downfalls of education in an attempt the public perceive the crisis is one of manufacture (p. 369). Berliner & Biddle ask Americans to consider the distribution of financial support within an education system not equitably financed (p. 369). Many in society fail to realize the challenge diversity poses when striving for equity in education. Each classroom is made up of unique individuals who contribute different perspectives to the learning environment. Teachers who know and understand their students can anticipate student contributions to learning. However, each classroom will not be identical in learning as each student’s lens differs in perception on the content presented and processed. Differences can be addressed through formative assessments and teacher feedback. Is the uniqueness of each class a crisis or an opportunity for growth? Learning is a lifelong endeavor to continually improve. I don’t believe this is a crisis but more a form of evolution.

Resources

Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.), The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2nd ed.), (pp. 365-369). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Grandin, T. (20 May, 2013). The Autistic Brain. Podcast retrieved from http://www.king5.com/news/editors-pick/Author-Temple-Grandin-on-the-Autistic-Brain-208133421.html.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.), The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2nd ed.), (pp. 342-350). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Module 7: Review of Education Week Article

Skimming the most recent issue of Education Week, I chose to read an article titled Diversity at Issue in Teacher Selection. The article begins with a review of teacher academic success. Although research inconsistently supports the idea that academically stronger teacher candidates and teachers raise student achievement, in an effort to raise student achievement, states would like to recruit teachers who have demonstrated stronger academic backgrounds. However, candidates with stronger academic backgrounds lack cultural diversity (Sawchuck, 2013, p. 1).

Overall, teacher program candidates have lower “academic credentials than other college graduates,” (Sawchuck, p. 20). Unfortunately, minority teacher candidates tend to have standardized test scores up to 1 standard deviation lower than non-minority candidates (Sawchuck, p. 20). According to this article, raising academic entrance requirements for teachers will further reduce minority teachers within the teaching pool. Percentages of minority students are presently higher than those of minority teachers. If the above statistics are true, raising academic standards for teaching candidates will increase this percentage difference between student and teacher minority populations, directly opposing research that shows minority student academic performance may increase when students are placed in classrooms with teachers of the same race (Sawchuck, 2013, p. 20). Some teacher candidate programs are concerned about maintaining a higher percentage of minority teacher applicants. Realizing these applicants may not have had an equitable high school education, these institutions mean to fulfill that gap.

Some states have raised the academic standards for teacher recruits. In an effort to maintain recruiting numbers, alternative methods being considered for entrance into teaching programs are 1) allowing lower scoring candidates to enter provisionally if some parts of entrance exams are passed or 2) requiring a minimum GPA for the cohort rather than the individual.

As this course has progressed, we have discussed the reasons for instituting a public education system and equity in education. As I consider the implications of teacher inequity academically or culturally, I believe that both inequities need to be addressed. Do we guide academically successful minorities into the field of education? Do we require increased academic standards for program entrance? Or do we increase program length and rigor to fill the gap and establish equity?

Resources

Sawchuck, S. (2013). Diversity at issue in teacher selection. Education Week, 32(30), 1-20, 2p.

Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction program addresses twelve standards. My learning of standard 11, inquiry/research, demonstrates my ability to competently consume and produce where necessary empirical data to guide educational practice. Content to address this standard was covered over the course of two quarters. Educational Research I required creation of a research proposal outline and literature search for supporting or negating past research. Educational Research II required analysis and interpretation of data provided from past research.

Previous to these two courses, I had utilized research in quantitative methods of analysis in conjunction with microbiological research. During my undergraduate studies, I was required to take a course in quantitative analysis. Educational research differs greatly from microbiological research. Educational research requires the researcher to put further consideration into threats to internal validity that may affect the independent variable. Conducting research using educational participants as subjects creates studies that are difficult to conduct and analyze results when compared to research whose internal validity is less threatened due to the nature of the independent variable.

Due to the learning in the Educational Research I course, I was able to formulate a hypothesis and create a research outline based upon this hypothesis. A literature review is included within this outline. Primary and secondary resources demonstrated my objective, the rate at which children are exposed to letter names and sounds via song, was supported through articles covering: 1) order of letter introduction and 2) reading success is dependent upon alphabetic principle knowledge. The literature review did not reveal a similar body of research at the time of the review.

I was able to find primary and secondary resources through the use of ERIC and PsychINFO databases accessed through Seattle Pacific University’s library website. Use of the term “alphabetic principle”, selecting peer reviewed journals, student age, and recent literature narrowed the search to a list of resources whose abstracts I was able to skim in order to locate resources applicable to my hypothesis. EBSCO Host (McMillan, 2012, 16%) provides the ability to create a user specific folder within which articles can be saved. Use of this folder saves personal hard drive space. See examples of articles saved for Educational Research I on my hard drive versus articles saved for other courses in my EBSCO Host folder. Occasionally, I would find an informative resource abstract not available in full text at the library. In these instances, I would search online for the specific resource. At times these resources were available at no cost in a PDF format. Reading of online resources and checking authorship and the citation list for accuracy and valid citations allowed determination of reliability of the online resource.

Analysis of other studies guided my choice of design for this study. I chose a non-equivalent groups, pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental design. Since I was using students in my present class with the independent variable and students from my past classes with the dependent variable, the sample population was not randomly assigned. Therefore the sample population would be considered a nonequivalent group (Nagy, 2011, p. 68). The study would be considered a pretest-posttest design since the students’ ability to name letters and their sounds would be measured before and after the treatment (Huck & McLean, 1975, p. 511). As this study compares data of student results, it would be considered a quantitative study. Qualitative studies use descriptions rather than numbers to compare subjects (Nagy, 2011, p. 29).

Whether the study is quantitative or qualitative, one must consider whether the study is valid. McMillan says of validity, “…used to judge overall quality and appropriateness – validity,” (2012, 30%). Is the instrument of measure appropriate for the inferences or decisions made based upon the measurement (McMillan, 30%)? Decisions based upon validity utilize professional judgment of researchers and readers of research (McMillan, 31%; Sprinthall, 2012, p. 524).

Internal validity considers factors that can affect the cause and effect relationship between the independent variable and the subjects. This judgment is subjective dependent upon the user of the data. Some threats to internal validity may not be applicable to some consumers of the research. External validity considers whether the measurement of the cause and effect relationship can be generalized to other populations of subjects (Nagy, 2011, p. 79-80).

Reliability is the result of consistent measurement within a test (Sprinthall, 2012, p. 505). As a teacher, I realize errors are made. Within a study, error of measurement occurs. How much error and how often determine the reliability of reported scores. Estimates of reliability are communicated as correlation coefficients with values from 0.0 to 1.0. Correlation coefficients closer to the value of 1.0 indicate more consistent measurements within a test. Correlation coefficients with values less than 0.60 indicate less consistent measurements within a test (McMillan, 2012, 32%; Sprinthall, p. 505).

Significance of measurement indicates if the difference obtained between measurements from different variables is statistically and practically significant. Levels of significance are reported as probability, indicating the probability of the measurement occurring by chance or due to the cause and effect relationship from the independent variable (McMillan, 2012, 54%).

Educational Research II focused upon calculating probability, reliability, and statistical significance of research data. I had the opportunity to apply my learning from the Educational Research II course through analysis of data provided to the class. The resulting report, Potential Correlation of SAT Scores with Expenditure per Pupil, SES, and IDEA, can be found here.

Standard 11 Resources

Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction program addresses twelve standards. My learning of standard 10, technology, encompasses my ability to integrate current technology into instruction and professional communication/collaboration activities where appropriate.

We began this course by taking the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE, 2012) National Education Technology Survey (NETS) for teachers and students.  The survey has shown I am better at using technology to communicate and interact with students and parents than I am at providing opportunities for my students to use technology as a research tool in furthering their knowledge based upon their learning goals and ability to monitor their own progress.

Most students in kindergarten focus upon learning to read and write. Students could utilize technology to research letter identification, letter names, and letter sounds. An excellent resource for reading can be found at www.readwritethink.org (International Reading Association, 2013). Podcasts could be created with correct pronunciation of letter sounds. These podcasts could be placed upon a class site for student access while at school or at home.

Podcasts can be used to documents student progress in reading fluency over the course of the year.  As students progress in their reading skills, they also progress in their writing skills (Ray & Glover, 2008, p. 13). Recording students reading their written pieces provides a method of publishing this work for the class to access, much like an audio book listened to as the reader “reads” the book. Students are not the only recordable individuals. I could record mini lessons to provide reminders to students of a skill process or lesson objective.

In a nutshell, use of technology in the classroom can be beneficial to students and teachers when used well.  Teachers can use technology to organize student records, to manage students during student group rotations, to present information to the whole class, and involve the whole class in creating a presentation or to communicate with others.

Students use technology to seek out information, to create presentations that display their learning, and to communicate with the world.  I look at technology as a tool to build learning in the same way as a hammer is a tool used in building a house.  A hammer is used in the process of building the house, but the house is the end product, not using the hammer.  Students, teachers, and others use technology to build knowledge, but learning is the end product, not using technology.

The difficult part of technology is that it is always changing; to keep up as technology changes is time consuming.  Collaborating with others in regards to how technology is used in other classrooms helps to keep up with technology changes and how those changes can be applied to educational settings.

My artifacts include an annotated bibliography on use of technology as a teaching assistant (Hamilton, 2009), student reading achievement linked to reading e-books online (Segal-Drori, Korat, Shamir, Klein, 2010), and the influence of free choice learning on use of an educational computer game (Barendregt & Bekker, 2011) and a summary on my overall use of technology within the classroom.

Standard 10 Resources

Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction program addresses twelve standards. My learning of standard 9, cultural sensitivity, encompasses my ability to establish a culturally inclusive learning climate that facilitates academic engagement and success for all students.

Prior to this course, I considered students’ cultural backgrounds when planning instruction. My interpretation of culturally responsive teaching consisted of incorporating traditions and foods as subjects for writing or focusing on these items if they contained letter sounds to learn.

As this course progressed I have learned knowledge is constructed based upon experience and a person’s interpretation of the experience (Banks, 1996, p. 64). Perspective is influenced by a person’s position within society (Banks, p. 65). As teachers, we need to understand the source and from whose perspective the knowledge we are teaching has come (Banks, p. 65).

Definitions of race and racism and the reasons for defining racism are not immune to perspective based knowledge. For example, slavery required an ideology upon which Christian Europeans could justify colonization of people and lands beyond national borders (Banks, 1996, p. 67). Nazism and its white supremacist endeavors required social scientist to redefine race, attempting to gain democratic societies (Banks, p. 75).

Race and racism have created divides in educational opportunities between White and African American people. Banks states, “Race is a human invention constructed by groups to differentiate themselves from other groups, to create ideas about the “Other,” to formulate their identities, and to defend the disproportionate distribution of rewards and opportunities within society,” (1996, p. 80). As people, we look for someone who we can be “better than.” Due to historical events in our country and elsewhere in the world, racism and races have shaken into the hierarchy we deal with on a daily basis.

Teachers have the ability to create for peers, students, and community, an environment of reflection upon racial hierarchy. We can interact with students and families on a personal basis, learning from one another, helping each of us gain the stages of internalization or autonomy as described in Helm’s Stage Theory and Black racial identity studies (Mvududu, 2012, Personalizing Cultural Diversity, slide 5). These two stages allow individuals to live in an understanding of how their own cultural identities interact with others’ in an attempt to live in harmony and acceptance of one another.

Democracy within our society depends upon equitable and multicultural points of view within all areas of education (Roche, 1996, p. 109). It has been found that teachers are reluctant to take on the task of multicultural teaching due to the lack of their own knowledge of varying cultures histories and points of view (Roche, p. 108). Reluctance to take on new material isn’t limited to multiculturalism. Today we still see reluctance to teach certain topics due to lack of knowledge, lack of resources, and/or lack of time to locate resources. Many educators teach to a textbook; the material is available. Can we as educators put multicultural education into the hands of our students? We reveal the contents of the textbook and ask if there are other points of view to be heard, setting the students to work researching different sides of the story. How would this look for younger grades?

Equitable education amongst all students is needed. It is believed that the lack of education within a minority population produces students unable to contribute to the greater society economically. The counter point to consider – when a minority population lacks education, the greater society misses the opportunity to gain from the minority segment’s cultural contributions (Murillo, p. 136). When a society lacks cultural contributions from all segments, the democratic process is jeopardized. Currently the goal of multicultural education is to unite a nation through democratic processes of participation and negotiation (Banks, 1996, p. 41).

Multicultural education focuses on content integration, prejudice reduction, the process of knowledge construction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture and social structure (Banks,1996, p. 271). Multicultural educators recognize that although there are similarities between different cultures, the differences between cultures do not go away (Banks, p. 272). The differences are what create a group’s identity. Groups want to hold onto their identities. Multicultural educators promote students creating knowledge bases of similarities and differences in order to grasp and help problem solve inequities (Banks, p. 272).

Reflecting upon the tendency of educators to focus on group similarities among different cultures, hoping to create bonds based upon commonalities and diminish cultural differences, I realized that in part that is often how I feel – I accept others’ differences, but realize that we are all people with the same basic needs, so let’s work together to address the problems of inequity. But these are my values. Other groups will view my values as from the land of privileged (all basic needs met, and then some) and not so easily accept differences. Banks further elucidates that dividing differences are not usually cultural, but economic and educational (1996, p. 272). Social values create volatile discussions, much like religion and politics. Banks states, “Functional conflict cannot and should not be avoided in multicultural education,” (p. 273).

Howard states that as our population grows in diversity so must educators grow in our knowledge of diversity (2007, p. 8). Through self examination of professional practices and personal biases school staffs can proceed through a transformative process that includes: building trust, engaging personal culture, confronting issues of social dominance and social justice, transforming instructional practice, and engage the school community as a whole (Howard, p. 8).

In order to acknowledge that racial, cultural, and economic diversity exists, staff needs to recognize the need for the journey of personal and professional self reflection (Howard, 2007, p. 9). Through this self reflection, staff will build a trusting relationship that allows discussion of biases (Howard, p. 9). A starting point for these discussions: 1) Acknowledge inequities within a school are usually not due to intentional discrimination, 2) All racial and cultural groups of educators need to journey through the process of self and professional reflection to gain new insight, and 3) The majority teacher population (in our case, white) have legitimate perspectives contributing to the school’s diversity (Howard, p. 9).

Diversity can affect student academic performance. Aronson and Steele in Howard found three factors affect student motivation and performance: feelings of belonging, trust in people in the school community, and their perception of whether a staff member believes they are academically capable (2007, p. 9). Teachers need to develop cultural competence, which is the ability to create authentic and effective relationships across differences (Howard, p. 9).

Cultural competence amongst a staff allows educators to discuss diversity issues such as race, class gender, sexual orientations that lead to inequities (Howard, 2007, p. 10). According to David Koyama, staff should recognize “the moral imperative that inspires teachers to work toward justice, not mere compliance” (Howard, p. 10) of academic achievement in a school’s student population.

Howard believes that any productive reform must address power, privilege, and social dominance dynamics within a school (2007, p. 10). Teachers recognize they must change themselves – what and how they are teaching and the relationships they develop with students to determine school success for students (Howard, p. 11). To become culturally responsive teachers, teachers need to develop relationships with all students, honor students through curriculum that recognizes students’ cultural heritages, use instructional strategies that meet the diverse learning needs of all students, demonstrate respect for students and their knowledge and academic potential, and have high expectations for all learners (Howard, p. 10).

The following link represents an instructional strategy artifact to address the diverse needs of young learners.

http://prezi.com/uijguse6jv18/integration-and-action-exercise/

Standard 9 Resources

Module 6: Civil Rights Era

Daisy Bates describes the initial days of desegregation at Little Rock Arkansas’s Central High School in her book the Long Shadow of Little Rock. School authorities had selected nine African American students to attend Central High School at the beginning of the academic year 1957. Daisy Bates was an editor of a Little Rock, AR paper for the African American community within the city. The night before school began, the Arkansas governor spoke to the community via radio, stating the students would be confronted with groups of white supremacists in the morning. Therefore, he had called the National Guard to surround the school (Bates, 1962, p. 300-301). Governor Faubus stated, “Blood will run in the streets if Negro pupils should attempt to enter Central High School,” (Bates, p. 301).

Daisy Bates was informed of the events and contacted all student families but one, who did not have a phone, creating a meeting location away from the school so that students could approach the school as a group. Bates arranged for a police car to be present at the meet site and for ministers to meet and process with the group of students (Bates, 1962, p. 301).

Elizabeth Eckford was not aware of the new meeting location and attempted to enter Central High School alone. Elizabeth was rerouted twice by the National Guard rather than let pass through their human barricade. The rerouting left Elizabeth exposed to the pro-segregation crowd that had gathered. As frightened as Elizabeth was, she maintained her composure as she was insulted by the crowd. When Elizabeth finally did reach the main entrance walkway to the school, the National Guard would not let her pass, leaving her fate to the mob. Elizabeth was kept calm and placed on a bus by two white people, one of whom rode the bus with her until she reached her mother’s place of employment (Bates, 1962, p. 303-304).

As I read this excerpt from Daisy Bates’s book, I was appalled at the behavior of the National Guard, who acted indifferently, leaving me to wonder of the Governor and the National Guard were the white supremacists of whom the governor had spoken the evening before Elizabeth’s walk. I also wonder where the school board members were who selected these nine African American students to attend the high school. Nine is a small number for a high school. Rather than promote desegregation, I perceive this as a tactic of intimidation. If the students were terrorized enough and returned to their high school, the scenario would potentially provide the school board with “evidence” that African Americans cannot succeed in a mixed high school.

My heart goes out to the parents of these students. The parents were advised not to accompany their students to school as the students would be more easily protected if the parents were not around (Bates, 1962, p. 301). I cannot imagine living in such fear, being torn by the thought, “Will my child be safer without me or is this an excuse to prevent me from protecting my child?” Where were the teachers? I would hope that today, if I saw students barred from school due to some form of discrimination, I would have the courage to cross the blockade and tell students they are welcome in school. I pray that we do not encounter discrimination in such a blatant, potentially violent form again.

Resources

Bates, D. (1962) School desegregation in the South: Little Rock, 1957. In Fraser, J. W. (Ed.), The School in the United States: A Documentary History (2nd Ed.; pp. 300-305). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction program addresses twelve standards. My learning of standard 8, exceptionality, encompasses my ability to address the unique learning and behavioral needs of all children, collaborating with other educators and professionals where necessary.

Students with disabilities may experience difficulties of inequity, lack of social acceptance, poor language development, learned helplessness, or lack of clear and systematic instruction in learning situations.  Teachers can promote equity and social acceptance in their classrooms by demonstrating acceptance of all students, providing learning expectations for all students, promoting social skills among classmates, and communicating with all specialists that spend time with a classroom teacher’s students (Lewis & Doorlag, p. 132).  Teachers who set a positive example through equity and social acceptance of all students model appropriate behavior for their students.

I believe that teachers need to set expectations of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors toward others.  Some students have not been taught appropriate social behavior.  Teaching social skills to individuals or small groups prior to joining a class or during a class would help students transition to new environments (Lewis & Doorlag, p. 135, Preciado, Module 3). Emphasis on similarities rather than differences promotes social acceptance within a classroom (Lewis & Doorlag, p. 143).  Students who see that other students have families, pets, favorite colors, or favorite foods are more likely to relate to another student in a more positive manner than remembering a student for a poor behavior or special need.  Taking the time to get to know one another is a fun activity at the beginning of the year or when a new student joins a classroom or school community.  Welcoming one another to a community is a positive interaction that promotes a warm environment.  Positive interactions are a proactive way of decreasing negative behaviors among all students, (Preciado, 2012).

Learning environments can be modified to facilitate appropriate behaviors and learning for students with diverse learning characteristics. As a general education classroom teacher, I have seen and experienced the effects of using positive behavior support versus use of negative verbal discipline to students. Teaching young children appropriate behaviors and classroom expectations, giving them time to practice these skills, and rewarding them with positive comments immediately after an appropriate behavior/skill is observed, creates an environment where students feel safe to experience the challenges they face when learning. Lewis and Doorlag (2011) state, “Class rules and procedures make students aware of the expectations for behavior,” and, “Preventing behavior problems involves careful monitoring of students, reinforcement of appropriate behaviors, and use of negative teacher attention for potentially disruptive behavior,” (p. 129). It is tempting to jump right into the curriculum without taking the time to teach class routines and behavior expectations; however, my few short years of teaching have shown me that if time is not taken at the beginning of the year to establish routines and expectations and reward students that behave appropriately with positive comments and smiles, students are distracted by inappropriate behaviors, feel unsafe, and have a difficult time learning.

Learning environments and routines are particularly important when considering children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Children with ASD are hard-wired differently and therefore, process differently (Notbohm, 2006).  Due to different processing, if a child with ASD can be provided with a visual schedule of what will take place during the course of the day, the child has a predictable schedule, promoting the routine that will help him process the day (Preciado, 2012, Module 5).   A Photo Exchange Communication System (PECS) (Preciado, 2012) is helpful to students with ASD.  A PECS system consists of pictures students learn represent items, actions, and emotions. I have used PECS schedules in my classroom as a support for a student with ASD. One schedule was placed on the student’s desk and one on the board to which the whole class could refer.  Daily, the student with ASD referred to the schedule on his desk, touching each item, followed by unpacking his backpack.  Meanwhile, the whole class referred to the schedule on the board.  Two years later, I continue to post the daily schedule on the board. Students read the schedule and give thumbs up if there are no questions. Many things that students with ASD need, iconic schedules, visual or tactile learning materials, an environment that provides areas for breaks, are things that benefit the general education student as well.

All students need consistency and structure (Preciado, 2012, Module 5).  When students are provided with consistency and structure within the classroom, positive behaviors are promoted and a supportive environment results.  Students that receive support from a specialist such as a Speech and Language Pathologist (SLP) are pulled from the classroom for short periods of time.  In order to support the student and SLP, the general education teacher should provide time within the classroom to support the student receiving specialist services (Lewis & Doorlag, 2011; Preciado, Module 7).  This support can be provided through modeling services taught, providing opportunities for practice through strategic seating amongst peers, and allowing time for conversation and idea exchange (Donahue, Szymanski, & Flores, 1999; Lewis & Doorlag; Preciado).  Lewis & Doorlag also mention that “teachers should monitor their rate of speech, the length and complexity of sentences, and the number of directions given” (p.257).  This is true to support students receiving academic and SLP services; monitoring these traits will also support ELL students.

Vocabulary development supports students receiving academic and SLP services (Lewis & Doorlag, 2011; Preciado, 2012, Module 7) as well as ELL students.  Uses of word walls or labeling objects within the classroom are two of many ways to support vocabulary development, creating a positive environment for students to learn and communicate what they learn. As Prof. Preciado states in his podcast, there are many more ELL students in the school population now than there were in 1990 and the ELL population will not go away; it will continue to be a presence in our classrooms (Preciado, 2012, Module 8).  Lewis and Doorlag (2011) state that native English speaking children come to kindergarten with an average vocabulary of 5,000 words and ELL students come to kindergarten with about the same number of words in their native vocabulary but few English words in their vocabulary.

Improving outcomes for ELL students within the classroom, students acquiring the classroom’s native language need processing time to “hear, say, and write new words,” (Lewis & Doorlag, 2011).  Students should also be given time to just listen and not be required to respond in order to provide them time to learn basic language needed to function within the classroom (Lewis & Doorlag).  I see this situation every year in kindergarten.  Students come to school excited to be there, yet overwhelmed by the language barrier.  In order to give these students time to listen and feel comfortable within the classroom, we sing songs that help us learn each others’ names and basic phrases such as “I see…” and “I hear…”  Within small group instruction, students are grouped by reading ability based upon phonics and phonemic awareness.  Groups with lower reading skills due to exceptionalities spend more time on vocabulary, writing, phonemic awareness, and reading comprehension than fluency (Goldenberg, 2008).  Reading fluency develops as the year progresses and vocabularies grow.

I perceive assembling and managing small reading groups based upon academic, behavioral, and social needs as an informal method of Response to Intervention (RTI).  RTI provides students with support prior to students being referred to special education support (Lewis & Doorlag, 2011).  Even though special education currently is mandated by law to provide support in a least restrictive environment, in order to qualify for services, a student must be diagnosed with a disability and the evaluation of the student shows that the disability interferes with the student’s academic abilities, (Lewis & Doorlag). Special education requires referral, assessment, and an individual education plan or 504C plan.  Both of these plans are typically reviewed once a year (Lewis & Doorlag).  A change in services for the student requires a change in the student’s IEP.  RTI seems like a much more fluid method of addressing student needs.  RTI is a way to address student needs without placing the student within the special education program. RTI addresses student strengths and needs as the student evolves. Several interventions can be used to generate positive outcomes for students with learning disabilities:  scaffolding, explicit instruction, review/preview of instruction, and checking for mastery before going further with content (Preciado, 2012, Module 2).  Many of the above are good instructional techniques for all students and are recognized as proactive teaching for tier 1 RTI support.

RTI is based upon three tiers of intervention.  Most students are served by tier 1; students move up to tiers 2 and 3 based upon their need of support.  RTI uses interventions and assessments in an ongoing attempt to monitor student placement within the RTI tiers, (Lewis & Doorlag, 2011).  RTI is a way to address student needs without placing the student within the special education program.

Addressing individual student needs is the primary job of the general education classroom teacher. Seeking support from specialists, families, and the students to define specific needs can aid in creating a least restrictive environment for all learners (Kummerer, 2010, p. 192). The following artifacts represent HOPE. HOPE is the acronym for:

• Honor student access to content material
• Offer an organized curriculum aligned to standards and outcomes
• Practice the integration of appropriate technology
• Practice standards-based assessments
• Exemplify collaboration within a school

These artifacts represent my efforts to address needs of all students, whatever their needs.

Standard 8 Resources

Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction graduate program addresses twelve standards. My learning of standards 6 and 7, communication and collaboration, encompasses my ability to communicate regularly and effectively with colleagues, parents, and students through a variety of mediums and my ability to cooperate with other professionals to bridge gaps between schools and community and between departments/disciplines within schools.

My original assumptions on teacher leadership recognized the purpose as that of student learning. Initially, my thoughts regarding who may provide me with honest reflections of my strengths and areas for growth were teacher leaders. Although I still see the purpose of teacher leadership as student learning, I now see that student learning should be data driven. Data should be reviewed within the community of educators responsible for the data derived student population.

My previous experience consists of creating a portfolio as evidence of student learning; however, the portfolio review lacked action based upon reflection. According to Zepeda, action plan research provides data that is reviewed and acted upon. More data is collected, reviewed, and acted upon again. This cyclical research communicates intentions and result to others (2012). Contemplating action plan research and portfolios, I believe using portfolios to drive action plan research allows educators to cooperate with one another within and between grade levels and content areas within a school, district, or further. Action plan research provides educators with a tool of accountability to themselves and to the public for educating students to state and federal standards.

This course has demonstrated the value of collaboration between teacher leaders, administrators, and colleagues to increase student learning. School administrators and teachers all want the same outcome – improved student learning. Improved student learning occurs with improved adult learning. As professional educators, we look for learning in our students in the forms of a change in how they think, problem solve, and generalize their learning to other situations. We should also look for change in ourselves to reflect our learning. We need to recognize these traits of change:

1. Change is a process
2. Change is accomplished by an individual
3. Change is a personal experience
4. Change is understood from one’s own point of view
5. Change takes place because of the people who implement change, not because of the tools they used (Zepeda, 2012, p.25).

In order to effect change in our students or ourselves, we need to embrace learning with other educators and administrators while performing our professional duties as teachers.  Zepeda states that this type of learning, job embedded learning, fosters reflection, collegiality, makes learning relevant, increases transfer of new skills, and combats isolation among teachers (2012, p. 126). Job embedded learning also takes responsibility for a teacher’s professional growth from the administrator and places it into the hands of those doing the learning – the teachers. The exhibits and artifacts linked to this meta-blog illustrate communication and collaboration among our grade level team. Our collaborative efforts led to increased student learning in literacy and math. Our collaborative efforts increased our learning in the use of technology tools that enabled us to combine our teacher created resources. Exhibit A and B, Exhibit C and D, Artifact 1, Artifact 2, Artifact 3

I do see the value of job embedded learning among colleagues and administrators to improve teacher learning and student learning. In order to achieve job embedded learning, a staff needs teacher leaders and administrative support of teacher leaders. This support comes through well defined teacher leader roles and responsibilities, along with a systematic introduction of the role with its supporting professional to colleagues. This methodical introduction creates positive relationships rather than negative perceptions (Johnson & Donaldson, 2011). Teacher leaders and administrators can foster relationships among staff through sharing in the task of defining the issue to be addressed and seeking volunteers to fill different, well-defined roles within the collegial community.

Leadership flows up and down the hierarchy of a group formed to address specific goals, (Smylie, Conley, & Marks, 2011). I find this concept of multidirectional leadership a confirmation of what I have experienced in the past in education and in research. The back and forth exchange of ideas and actions solves problems. However, solutions tend to occur when there is an individual who has the power to make decisions when opinions diverge; decisions lead to productive action. Indecision leads to chaos. My previous ideas are supported by Smylie et al., which states, “Teams with designated leaders generally functioned better than leaderless teams,” (p.276).

“Teacher leadership is not about ‘teacher power’. Rather, it is about mobilizing the still largely untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance at ground level and working toward real collaboration, a locally tailored kind of shared leadership, in the daily life of the school,” (Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., p. 88).

Teachers who pursue professional development to deepen their knowledge of content and pedagogy will impress upon others that they are professional educators (Zepeda, p. 13). Teacher leaders can help colleagues realize that through participation in a collaborative study of student learning, teachers are pursuing their own professional development through job embedded learning.

A personal passion is teaching others to use technology tools as an aid in their learning. One of my professional goals is to provide professional development in technology to colleagues. The course focus on collaborative leadership has helped to clarify the responsibilities, potential pitfalls, and the need for administrative support when in a teacher leadership role. Teacher leadership fosters relationships among colleagues through professional development or action research directed at improvement or problem solving of student learning. I have believed one must give up power to gain power. This course has helped me to learn that it isn’t power that is gained; it is the collaborative power of a community who communicates to solve problems or increased student learning that is gained.

Standards 6 and 7 Resources

Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum & Instruction assessment standard states the teacher will assess student’s mastery of curriculum and modify instruction to maximize learning. Previous to this course, my strengths in areas of assessment lay in the areas of clear purpose, clear targets, and effective communication based upon the initial course inventory. However strength is a relative term. In the inventory these areas scored predominantly 3’s and 4’s – partially and completely done in the classroom. The inventory indicated a greater need for growth in the areas of sound design and student involvement. All facets of these two categories scored 2’s – beginning. Due to this rating, I wanted to work on these specific areas, improving my ability to select or design and implement assessments and improve my students involvement in knowing on what targets they will be assessed and how to self assess. See Assessment Practices Inventory.

In the past I have been clear in communicating learning targets to my students and have attempted quick formative assessments at the end of a lesson or work session. These formative assessments have consisted of thumbs up/down/sideways of verbal response exit tickets. However, my students have not always been able to describe what the learning target means nor do they know how they will be assessed. I have learned that planning the assessment first, based upon clear learning targets that are state or district derived (O’Connor, 2009, p. 46) helps teachers become more focused on a path for student learning. This focus allows us to create rubrics that describe to students criteria at standard, exceeds, approaching, or not at standard levels of achievement. Rubrics help educators foresee necessary extensions or support for students. Preparation for differentiated teaching further delineates targets, lessons, rubrics, and assessments until we have one content strand that receives standards based assessment for one learning target (O’Connor, p. 53). Clarity in rubrics and assessments has led to my growth in working with students as they preview content, set their own goals, take ownership of their goals, and work towards these defined accomplishments (Diamond & Hopson, 2008, p. 87). Clear rubrics and assessments allow for effective communication about learning with families (Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012, p. 246). When learning targets, rubrics, and assessment are clear to students and families, earned scores or grades are an effective form of communication for learning (Chappuis, et al., p. 337). These three points, targets, rubrics, and assessments, when utilized in tandem create sound design and involve students in their learning. Previous to this course, I have utilized the three facets separately. With the learning of this course I see learning targets, rubrics, and assessments as the three legs on a stool upon which sits student learning.

My grading practices have changed since this course began. In the past I have included formative assessments toward the summative grade. Understanding the formative assessments are for learning, a student who did not perform well on a formative assessment was provided with support but his increased learning did not result in a change in the grade book; this created a downward pull on the summative grade and misrepresented the most current learning (Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012, pp. 337). Tracking formative assessments and allowing these assessments to influence the summative grade was not done as a “gotch ‘ya” toward the student; my inaction was due to lack of understanding that it is OK to change a grade in order to reflect the most current learning and formative assessments should be kept separately from summative assessment in the grade book (Chappuis et al., p. 299). I have learned to indicate the formative assessments are “No Counts” toward the summative grade when entered in the electronic grade book.

When students do not perform well on a formative or summative assessment, they are offered feedback to increase their learning (O’Connor, 2009, p. 116). If a formative assessment indicated this action was needed, the student is offered the opportunity to revisit this assessment and demonstrate an increased in learning. The score within the grade book will reflect the most current learning, even if the event is not counted toward the summative grade. This allows me to review trends in learning for each student. If a summative assessment indicates the student is not at standard after the student has received feedback and re-teaching as indicated by formative assessments, the student receives more re-teaching. After re-teaching, a parallel assessment is provided to check for increased learning. If the parallel assessment does not indicate an increase in understanding, root causes (Chappuis et al., p. 337) for student lack of understanding are sought by me and other school staff (Chappuis et al., p. 398).

With the above mentioned revisions in practice along with the learning that took place as I created assessment artifacts, I improved my inventory scores in the areas of sound design, effective communication, and student involvement to predominantly 5’s – completely. I do this regularly , or this happens on an ongoing/as needed basis in my classroom. Please see my Portfolio for assessment practices.

Standard 5 Resources

This course, Survey of Instructional Strategies, addresses Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction Master’s program standard 4, pedagogy: Engages students in learning experiences that are meaningful, stimulating, and empirically proven to promote intellectual growth. Throughout the course, different instructional strategies were studied and discussed in regards to how these strategies would affect student learning. Several of these instructional strategies are not as familiar to me as they should be. I look forward to trying these methods of instruction within my class.

One of the strategies discussed by Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone (2012, p.3) is the setting of objectives and providing feedback. As an educator of half day kindergarten, I am always seeking efficient means of helping students set and monitor grade level appropriate goals; time with my students rushes by every day. It is difficult to find the balance between teaching, student exploration, reflection, and providing adequate feedback. Dean et al. supports students having personal learning objectives or goals and states that “students build intrinsic motivation” through goals, (2012, p.3). Recognition of effort teaches students the correlation between effort and success on an activity or in gaining knowledge (Dean et al., p.21). Dean et al. discusses the link between student tracking both their effort and self assessment on learning goals (p. 26). Students that participate in both of these activities become more aware of the relationship between effort and achievement.

Direct instruction is a strategy I often use in kindergarten. This strategy utilizes a hook, generating student interest through an activity or previous knowledge (Dell’ Olio & Donk, 2007, p. 78). The objective and rationale for learning are stated in kid friendly language, explaining how learning this content will help them in their lives (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 79). The content material is presented and modeled, breaking down the process into individual tasks (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 79). I create an iconic list of tasks to help students recall the process needed to achieve the learning goal. Linking the content to student interest helps students with recall (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 81). Using think alouds during modeling of the process helps students understand the breakdown of the tasks (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 80). Checking for understanding is best done by asking specific questions related to the process (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 81), for example, “What will you do first, cut or color?” followed by, “Why?” Demonstration is followed by practice, both guided and independent. Guided practice allows checks for understanding and reteaching to those students who have misconceptions (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 85). It is important that students understand concepts and processes prior to releasing them to independent practice. It is more difficult to clear up misconceptions once these misunderstandings are put in a student’s knowledge base through independent practice (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 85).

Practice sessions provide time for students to develop knowledge and skills related to specific concepts (Dell’ Olio & Donk, 2007, pp. 111-112). Feedback during practice sessions allows students to understand how they are progressing in their ability to meet expected outcomes and allows for differentiated instruction (Newman & Bizzarri, 2011, p. 277). Feedback should provide students with clear communication about their understandings and misconceptions (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 114). Within the classroom, practice and feedback take place during writing sessions. Students have choices of writing materials with which to practice sequencing of events, telling a story through drawing and labeling of pictures, and standard conventions of writing. Feedback takes place through small groups meeting with the teacher or through collaborative learning with peers. Working together in pairs provides for collaborative, constructivist academic success for these students (Dewey, 1897). Please see Strategy 1 and Implementation 1: Providing Practice Followed by Feedback on Student Results for an example of accommodation of materials for unique learners.

Inductive strategies involve students in creating their knowledge though their observations, questions and subsequent activities (Dell Olio & Donk, 2007, p. 146). Inductive strategies work well with social studies, humanities, and science content. This content can be represented by images from which student could examine as a study print (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p.154). Students create a list based upon what is seen in the study print. The list is organized based upon the commonalities students see between items (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p.156). Brainstorming, grouping, and students’ rationale for groupings (Dell’ Oiio & Donk, p. 156) help students develop concepts, advance their understanding of previously learned concepts, and link related concepts with one another, creating a big picture within which to demonstrate their learning or stretch beyond their current understanding (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 154). Please see Strategy 3 and Implementation 3: Inductive Model for use of this strategy with science concepts.

Students attain knowledge about a concept through analysis of exemplars and non-exemplars that represent a concept attribute. Once an attribute is defined, concept attainment allows students to improve their meta-cognition by generating more exemplars and non-exemplars applicable to the concept hypothesis followed by an explanation of the reasoning supporting the new exemplars. An activity of this type supports all students within the class in developing alternative methods of thinking strategies and problem solving techniques (Dell’ Olio & Donk, 2007, p. 125, 134 and Bruner in Shulman & Keislar, 1966). Please see Strategy 2 and Implementation 2: Concept Attainment model used in learning attributes for different shapes and solid figures.

Advance organizers provide a relational context within which students can organize their learning; this organization lets students establish relationships between new material and previous knowledge, which helps instill this learning into a student’s long term memory (Dell’ Olio & Donk, 2007, p. 402, Asubel, 1978). Advance organizers provide students a method of seeing the essential understanding (EU) of a unit or lesson in relation to the more specifically taught ideas and concepts that fall under the EU’s hierarchical framework (Dell’ Olio & Donk, 2007, p. 395, Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012, p. 51). Dell’ Olio & Donk reference two types of advanced organizers: expository and comparative (2007, p. 394). Expository advanced organizers should be used when the material is new and/or unfamiliar to students (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 394). Comparative advanced organizers should be used when students are familiar with concepts addressed in the organizer (Dell’ Olio & Donk, p. 394). Please see the advanced organizer used as a method of students understanding the essential understanding why it is important to learn to count.

All of the above strategies are methods of involving students in their own learning. When students are involved in their own learning, they are more likely to see how their new knowledge can make life better for themselves. According to Dewey, public education should be a democratic education to prepare students for work, citizenship duties, and to make the most of themselves (Adler, 1984). Adler wrote The Paideia Proposal as an alternative education proposal, proposing that everyone receive the same quality of education rather than the same quantity (1984). Adler recognized that not all students would progress to the same level of mastery of any content taught. However, learning the same content allows students to have the same resource framework upon which to base thoughts about today’s issues of citizenship, political policies, and economic issues. The ability to think about and articulate these thoughts allows students to participate in real life. Real life situations in a diverse, democratic, and free society require one to have intra personal awareness and interpersonal skills, two of eight multiple intelligences that we can plan curriculum around in an effort to create learning situations that interest students and sends the message that they are individuals (Gardner, 1993). Carl Rogers indicates that when students are treated as individuals they achieve more academically and behaviorally than students treated otherwise (1983).

It is always good to have the reminder that students are individuals. They learn differently. They have individual needs. I need to remember these points as I plan instruction based upon knowledge about my students, where they are and where they need to go.  The goal of education is to create lifelong learners. I see this as part of Dewey’s point of education – the ability to make the most of one self. As one of my friends is fond of saying, “It is a thinking man’s world.”

Standard 4 Resources

Module 5: Cold War Era

John Holt felt schools and teachers were not honest with students about what teachers know, the purpose of school, nor whether students were liked by teachers (Fraser, 2010, p. 273-274). Holt felt educators’ inability to be honest with students and to listen to students honest feelings about school create students who are angry and resentful about school (Fraser, p. 274). I do agree, that if we are not honest in our relationships with our students, we reap what we sow. In other words, if we want our students to learn and demonstrate honesty, integrity and respect, we should model these characteristics in our actions toward our students.

As I read Holt’s essay, I was under the impression he was anti-Progressivism. However, Holt states, “Schools should be a place where children learn what they most want to know, instead of what we think they want to know,” (Fraser, 2010, p. 275). This statement seems very pro Progressive, not per Dewey, but later Progressivism, focusing on the happy child. Holt does elaborate with the statement, “…knowledge itself changes,” (Fraser, p. 275) furthering his explanation of our not knowing what students will need to know later, nor do we know what students want to learn at any point in time (Fraser, p. 276).

This too is true; we do not know what careers for which we are preparing students today; Holt states this, “We don’t and can’t agree on what knowledge is essential,” (Fraser, p. 275). We do not know individually what students want to know unless we ask them. We can allow students to pursue their own interests and yet follow standards in how students demonstrate their knowledge in writing, orally communicating, reading research, presenting learning through technological tools, serving Holt’s statement, “Learning is not everything, and certainly one piece of learning is as good as another,” (Fraser, p. 275). This approach seems to serve Dewey’s theory of pedagogy – pass on disciplines via project based learning (Fritzberg).

Holt doesn’t support public schooling as it was in 1964. I wonder if he would perceive improvement with Common Core State Standards and teacher selected curriculum, which is at times student selected. Would Holt consider home schooling in 2013 the answer to education with many more dual income families and fewer families with a parent at home?

Resources

Fraser, J. W. (2010). The School in the United States: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Fritzberg, G. (Producer). (2010, August 2). Contextualizing remarks-Cold war era [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.screencast.com/t/NTM4N2I3N.

SPU’s Curriculum and Instruction program standard three, curriculum, asks that teachers provide knowledge and skills that bring academic subjects to life and are aligned with state content standards. When teaching state content standards, one must consider pre-purchased curriculum, and district sequencing guides advising what should be taught when. Standards can provide or act as a catalyst for enduring understandings and essential questions, helping bring academic subjects to life for students. Sequencing guides give an overall picture of the academic year. This aerial view may provide avenues of integration between topics. Integration frees up class time; this gives students time for exploration and discovery, which leads to students controlling their own learning.

In the past I have collected a portfolio of student artifacts upon which I base a student’s grades. However, these assessments do not always demonstrate a student’s ability to transfer his or her knowledge of understanding to different scenarios. Another factor for which I need to consider, assessments should “vary in terms of scope” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 152).  Assessments provide valuable information for teachers and students in the perform-feedback-revise-perform cycle of learning (Wiggins & McTighe, p. 154 & 192). Without varying forms of assessment, we do not know where student understanding and misunderstanding of concepts lay based upon rubrics designed for concept mastery (Wigging & McTighe, p. 169). As I go forward with planning, I need to develop or borrow assessments where students’ are able to demonstrate transferability of concepts. Many assessments that I use are of district or curriculum origin. I feel if I become better at documenting observations used as formative assessments, portfolios of student artifacts will be more complete with assessments of varying scope. These formative types of assessments are unobtrusive, flexible and spur of the moment, depending upon different student abilities (Marzano, 2010, p. 24). Documenting student knowledge with a photo or video may be an easy way to create a collection of assessment pieces. I do agree with Wiggins’s and McTighe’s comment that grades and/or scores earned by students are easily justified to students and families when a portfolio of student work used as assessment pieces is available for reference (pp.151-152).

Curriculum from a backwards design approach places assessment of student learning based upon content standards as the driving force of a unit or lesson (Parkay, Hass, & Anctil, 2010, p. 255, Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 309). Content standards allow for equity in education between classrooms, schools, districts, and state (Parkay et al., p. 253). If the same content standards are used between the above mentioned entities, consistent scoring rubrics can be generated for student self assessment promoting educational equity (Marshall, 2010, p. 286). Equitable standards and assessment equip students with the knowledge of what they are to learn and how they are to demonstrate their learning.

Hass states that “the student is the major untapped resource in curriculum planning” (Parkay, Hass, & Anctil, 2010, p. 258). When students have a learning goal and are aware of how they will be assessed, they will develop their own curricular goals (Parkay, et al., p. 258). Once student learning goals, content assessments, and scoring rubrics are established, the activities to achieve student understanding can be planned. In order to engage students in learning, educators need to know students, what knowledge they bring, and where their interests lie, so that student learning and student curriculum goals head in the same direction as the teachers’ curriculum goals (Parkay, et al., p. 258, Hass in Parkay, et al., 2010, pp. 276-277).

The six facets of understanding address students’ abilities to explain, interpret, apply, see from others’ perspectives, empathize, and reflect upon a concept (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 162).  In kindergarten, I have used backward design and assessments to plan a unit; however, I have not used the six facets of understanding when pondering student artifacts to represent assessment pieces. I have used student self assessment based upon student friendly rubrics for some performance based skills, such as drawing a picture depicting a worm’s habitat. Students are more motivated to produce at standard work when provided with a rubric and samples against which they can self assess (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 180, Brookhart, Andolina, Zuza, & Furman, 2004, p. 225).

For this reason, I have taken existing math curriculum and broken lesson sequencing guides into a progression which considers kindergartners’ developmental abilities and needs in number recognition and understanding of one to one correspondence when counting. Please see the attached artifacts of Numbers 0 to 10 Math Unit and number journal pages whose links are listed below. Creating this progression gives students the opportunity to practice skills needed as they gain an ability to recognize and write numbers and count with one to one correspondence groups of up to ten objects from a larger group. Students are encouraged to self assess against teacher constructed samples or to collaborate with peers during counting practice and number writing.

Standard 3 Resources

Number Journal – 0
Number Journal – 1
Number Journal – 2
Number Journal – 3
Number Journal – 4
Number Journal – 5
Number Journal – 6
Number Journal – 7
Number Journal – 8
Number Journal – 9
Number Journal – 10

Standard 2 of SPU’s C&I program asks that teachers create and maintain school-wide and classroom environments that are safe, stable, and empowering. Prior to this course, I looked at my classroom environment from the perspective of equity. Is the classroom environment equitable for all students? Do students have the same resources and tools available at school and at home? Is there a way I can help to make at home resources more equitable? Have all of my students had breakfast? These are not bad questions to ask, but they are not all of the questions to ask.
Currently in our society, we are dependent upon digital tools for communication. Digital tools are available to those able to afford them and have a comfort level on how to use these tools (Lane, p. 4). The division created by cost and digital literacy “disempowers” individuals who perceive themselves as unable to afford or use digital tools (Lane, p. 4). In an attempt to alleviate the effects of this division, I seek out and provide information on resources from our county library system on computer access for families without computers at home. Families also have access to minimal cost internet; information on how to access this resource is provided during my curriculum night. Our school librarian has provided technology lessons to families in the evening on several occasions throughout the year.

Families and school staff working together model teaching and learning between one another. Students learn behaviors through observation. Research has shown an early childhood educator’s actions and dispositions are observed by students and due to mirror neuron networks, are mirrored back to the educator by the students (Rushton, Juola-Rushton, & Larkin, 2010, p. 355). Due to mirror neurons, Rushton et al., state educators should model positive traits, such as empathy and cooperation, in order to create positive mirror neuron networks within their students (p. 355). While I do strive to model these positive attributes to my students in an effort to create a caring classroom community, I do wonder if the positive behavior response I receive is due to mirror neurons. Student response may be due to students processing my behavior in conjunction with my positive responses to classmates who exhibit attributes that contribute to a caring community. Either way, one purpose of education is to create citizens with character attributes that contribute positively to society. When we model the “golden rule”, we demonstrate positive attributes to students, some of whom may have only those at school to act as their positive role model.

Communicating in a positive manner models attributes I want to see in my students. The article, Linguistic Acts Teachers Use in the Classroom: Verbal Stimuli states, “Individuals shape their conscience and knowledge in the realm of their language,” (Karadüz, 2010, p. 696). This article presented students’ perceptions based upon the communication they experienced from their teachers within their classrooms. Students feel valued when verbal stimuli from teachers is sincere, upbeat, and personally addressed to a student (Karadüz, pp. 699-700). Students lose respect for their teacher or the speaker when the verbal stimuli are punishing, disrespectful, or impersonal, (Karadüz, pp. 700-701). Within my class, effort is made to engage students in conversation with each other and with me. I model using positive comments to a student who is on task while observing or guiding a student who needs to be more on task. Students who correct their behavior are thanked for their specific revision. Language used within the classroom creates the culture of the classroom (Karadüz, 2010, p. 697).

Vygotsky theorized that language is a tool humans use to change the thinking process (Gredler, 2009, p. 3: Crain, 2011, p. 237). I see this in kindergarten, as children learn to solve problems for themselves. Students, who could not zip a zipper, learn the process from a friend, parent, or me; this is a social skill and requires visual aids and verbal instruction (Gredler, 2009, p. 7). After learning this skill, students realize self-efficacy, although they still talk themselves through the process, utilizing the tool of language to increase their skill. These children quickly become the helpers to other students that cannot yet zip a coat, experiencing further verbal processing of this skill.

Children may learn to self regulate their actions based upon their social interactions and external auxiliary stimuli (Gredler, 2009, 5-8) or their observational learning (Crain, 2011, 206-208). School encompasses both auxiliary stimuli and/or models of positive and negative behavior. We need to teach children positive reactions to these stimuli and behavior models because children need reinforcement for their positive actions (thus their positive cognition) when the positive actions occur. Negative actions need immediate feedback as well. This allows students to begin the cognitive process of inhibiting the learned behavior (Crain, p. 210) or self regulation learned through social interactions (Gredler, p. 9). Public schools were created in part to instill consistent moral character to the citizens of our nation (McClellan, 1999, p. 27); this isn’t beyond the scope of our jobs, rather one of the incentives for a public school system. When we teach students to treat others as we would like to be treated, we create a safe environment within which our students can learn. Children need to process their learning. This processing could be through Bandura’s practice and self regulation (Crain, p. 212-213) or Vygotsky’s four steps of self mastery (Gredler, p. 10), but cognitive processing will only happen when a child feels safe.

Piaget believed cognitive processing occurred through constructivism. Piaget’s theory of cognitive constructivism is based upon students bringing in new information, assimilation, and incorporating the new information into their current knowledge, accommodation. Piaget believed that it was necessary to discuss with students their misunderstandings in order to provide a constructionist support toward understanding (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 243). Vygotsky theorized that social interaction is an integral part of learning (Powell & Kalina, p. 243). Vygostsky’s theorized that children learn best when their learning begins with what they know, scaffolds with adult or peer help to the next level of the concept (Powell & Kalina, p. 244). This theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) utilized the discrepancy between a child’s mental age and the level that child could attain through scaffolding support (Powell & Kalina, p. 247).

There are many theories of how children develop and gain new knowledge. Piaget believed that learning was an individual process guided by a teacher or facilitator and social interaction may occur. Vygotsky believed that learning was a cultural interaction within a classroom where students are able to choose activities that support their interest and push their ZPD. Erikson theorized that developing relationships with others helps children learn through emotional interactions, developing morals and skill of regulating moods, emotions and behaviors (Brazelton & Greenspan, 2006, p. 14-15). Development of abstract thinking and problem solving skills occurs as children learn to regulate their emotions (Brazelton & Greenspan, p. 16). Erikson proposed eight stages of development in children. Developmental stage completion is not required prior to children progressing to the next stage brought on by crisis; however, complete emotional development for a previous stage aids in progression through the next stage. Educators should be aware of the progression of stages in development in children in order to provide avenues for problem solving childhood crisis. The attached artifact outlines developmental outcomes of service opportunities experienced during childhood and adulthood.

As well as being aware of a child’s stages of development, I think that as educators we need to seek a balance between the two constructivists. Since I do teach students that are in late pre-operational thought and early concrete operations (Crain, 2011, p. 127), I need to be aware of the developmental differences between these students. Please see my Educational and Developmental Theory; my personal statement of how my learning of childhood development will affect my skills as an educator. Educators also need to consider the developmental appropriateness of curriculum. Analysis of Developmental Appropriateness discusses writing development in young children and how educators may accommodate the differing cognitive developmental stages to support learning of writing skills.

Standard 2 Resources

During the past five years, I have taught half day kindergarten. Over this period of time, kindergarten has become much more academic and less focused on social skills. Academic success is the focus of standard one for Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum and Instruction masters program. Standard one, instructional planning, requires participants Design and monitor long and short-term plans for students’ academic success.

While earning my teaching certificate, I learned about backwards design, studying Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe. Throughout my teaching I have attempted to keep the academic goals in mind while planning. This has been difficult for two reasons: 1) when planning alone, backwards design quickly becomes overwhelming due to time constraints and 2) when planning with others who do not embrace a backwards design approach, it is a bit like a salmon swimming upstream; one gets caught up with the energy of planning with a team and realizes later, the learning activities are not always linked to the academic goal in a manner that allows students to generalize their learning to new situations. If using backwards design, one begins planning based upon the big ideas to be learned. Teaching to big ideas allows students to ask and seek answers to all of the “why” questions they can ask (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 15),

As educators we are asked to teach to specific state standards. These standards provide the big ideas upon which we can design units and lessons. I have always believed that teaching to standards is a benefit to our students as it means our students are receiving a consistent education no matter where they attend within the state. One aspect that teaching to standards overcomes I had not previously considered is that of educational bias based upon preconceived ideas of students’ capabilities or lack thereof.  According to Marshall, addressing standards is slowly overcoming preconceived ideas that specific populations of students are more capable of learning than others (2010, p. 282).

Teaching to standards implies that we assess students based upon these standards. Backward design has educators use concepts to drive creation of assessments, allowing students to demonstrate their understanding. Once during this past academic year, my team met prior to teaching a unit to review the state standards and the district based assessment for a specific math unit. During our meeting we were able to look at the concepts driving the assessment and review the unit for critical areas that addressed the concept. This is a beginning to backward design; however, we had only one assessment. Although it takes time, it is better to have varying forms of assessment that allow us to discern understandings and misunderstandings of concepts based upon rubrics designed for concept mastery (Wiggings & McTighe, 2005, p. 169). We are provided with a rubric designed for concept mastery. Although this rubric is for the district assessment, it can apply to other forms of assessment. In the future I need to move beyond using only district and curriculum based assessments and create a portfolio of formative assessments to demonstrate students’ abilities to generalize knowledge. Currently, I think photos of student work will be the easiest method of portfolio construction. Please see photos of student growth in writing below. The photo on the left is from the middle of the year. The photo on the right is from the end of the year.

Rubrics provided to students allow students to see what is expected of them. When students know what is expected through rubrics and examples of at standard or exceeds standard work, they are more motivated to produce high quality work. They can then self-assess against the provided examples and know how to improve in the future. (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 180; Brookhart, Andolina, Zuza, & Furman, 2004, p. 225). Providing samples that exceeds standards work sets high expectations for all students. See photo below for examples of at standard and above standard work against which students can self assess. Anctil writes that all students should be expected to meet high expectations based upon individual needs and capabilities (2010, p. 85).

Meeting individual student needs and capabilities when specialists are involved can produce a frustrating schedule for all involved, support specialist, general education teacher, and most importantly, the student. When students are removed from the classroom to receive support, they are removed from an activity in progress. This is frustrating because the student is unable to complete the learning process with peers. When the student returns, another activity has usually begun. Now the student is faced with a previously unfinished task and new unfamiliar learning in progress. Students would be better served if support came to the classroom, supporting them in their general education tasks (Anctil, 2010, p. 82). To change this familiar technique of support for students will take teachers and administrators willing to risk having other professionals in the same classroom, working together, meaning one teacher plans the lesson completely or teachers plan together. Either way, collaboration between teachers has to take place to improve student learning. Danielson states that students will benefit from teachers and administrators that create an environment for and are willing to take risks and pursue or provide professional development opportunities (2010, p. 342-342). I would like to invite support specialists into my room at least one day a week in an attempt to create the collaborative process of working together to support student needs. I would also like to attend the specialist time with my students in order to better support in the general education classroom what the students’ learn when with the specialist.

As we approached the beginning of a new academic year, two pieces of research changed my view on a procedure and an activity done within my classroom. Hass states that the student is the “major untapped resource in curriculum planning” (Parkay, Hass, & Anctil, 2010, p. 258). At the beginning of the year, as a class we establish operating norms/class rules. I begin this conversation with the question, “Why do you come to school?” The conversation leads to how we act so we can learn. I view the above as the essential question for the enduring understanding of standards of conduct. When viewed in this manner, I can utilize the district rubrics for life skills to create examples that demonstrate how students can act to enhance the learning environment for everyone.  Students who exercise good judgment tend to perform better academically than students who do not (Benninga, Kuehn, & Smith, 2010, p. 9). In the past, we have established class rules/norms as a way to live, talking about good choices and infractions as we proceed throughout the year. Creating examples based upon a rubric allows me to more easily assess students and provide families with a snapshot of student behavior and choices; more importantly, the rubric allows me to show students how to achieve their own definitions on how to act in order to learn.

The second piece of research that has changed my view on a class activity is that of James Banks. Banks states that student attitudes regarding interracial relationships can improve when students work together in a non-competitive setting, with equal status, and a common goal (2010, p. 96). As a filler activity, I have placed sight words on the board and pulled a student’s name to read the word. If the student can read the word, a point is earned for their table. If the student is unable to read the word, we review the sounds, blend the sounds, and read the word as a class with no table points earned. After reading Banks’ statement, I realized this method does create competition and an unequal status among students. This year I have placed the word on the board, have students proceed to think and pair, then pull a stick for one student to share. No points are accumulated; students are rewarded through their own success.

Within every class, students learn better when they feel safe and their needs are met. Robinson and Curry write that classrooms can become communities where altruism is modeled, taught through literature, and through caring for one another (2010, p. 422). Kindergarten can still be a place to learn social skills. I need to build learning social skills into the curriculum. Students need to be aware of what social skills they are learning and how this learning applies to their lives.

standard 1 resources

Module 4: Progressive Era and George Counts

Progressive education means many things, depending upon the reader’s point of view. Fraser believes the term progressive education has come to mean nothing due to its ubiquitous use (2010, p. 215). Within Fraser’s book, chapter eight focuses upon James Jackson Storrow, Margaret Haley, Ella Flagg Young, Grace C. Strachan, Cora Bigelow, John Dewey, Lewis M. Terman, and George Counts. George Counts’s article, Dare the School Build a New Social Order drew my attention as we currently discuss Common Core State Standards and their effect on education and student learning.

George Counts felt Progressive Education was focused upon child-centered education, but in a negative light. Child-centered educators failed to take into account society’s and culture’s influence upon a child before his arrival in the classroom (Fraser, 2010, p. 248). Counts’ statement, “Until school and society are bound together by common purposes, the program of education will lack both meaning and vitality,” (Fraser, p. 249) places emphasis on the need of teachers, administrators and school boards to consider all of society when planning standards, curriculum, and facilities. Counts believed school boards experienced social class bias and served higher income level students than public schools were designed to serve (Urban & Wagoner, 2009, p. 231).

I can understand Counts’s frustration and taking his plea to the teachers in this text. He believed education should be tailored to society. How was this to be, if society had no control over education? Counts wanted teachers to recognize their responsibility in creating democratic decision makers needed in a successful democratic society. His concern lay in the child centered educators’ reluctance to influence a child’s morals. This reluctance leads to “moral bankruptcy,” society’s ability to view harmful or disastrous events with objectivity rather than passionately pursue solutions or preventions (Fraser, p. 250). Schools were not the only educational venue for students in that era. Counts believed that public schools should strive to educate children in societal causes, being aware of and taking responsibility for what is taught. In doing so, rather than adapting to values based upon societal whims, individuals would have the educational base to remain constant to their personal values. Society would grow with a purpose rather than individuals gaining political and financial power through lack of ethics (Fraser, p. 251).

Counts and Dewey were both believers of children becoming worthwhile citizens of society, allowing society to perpetuate itself. Dewey believed valuable citizens grew from child centered learning based upon children’s own needs (Fraser, p. 240). Children should experience “social significance” of skills; skills needed by a community’s members in order for the community to survive (Fraser, p. 236). I believe Counts and Dewey both have valuable theories on creating productive society. We want our students to understand the importance of pursuing a passionate cause. We also want our students to understand why they believe what is right and wrong morally. When children learn morals through experiences, they understand why right is right and wrong is wrong for them. In doing so, values may be more consistently held over a lifetime.

Resources

Fraser, J. W. (2010). The School in the United States: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Fritzberg, G. (Producer). (2010, July 26). Contextualizing remarks-Progressive era [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.screencast.com/t/ODkzYWJmM.

Urban, W. J., & Wagoner, J. L. (2009). American education: A history. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Module 3: Horace Mann and the Common School Era

During the Common School Era, Horace Mann was the first Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education from 1837 to 1848 (Fraser, 2010, p. 44). Throughout his term, Mann wrote annual reports communicating the positive influence of education through the common school to the laymen and elite classes of the time (Fritzberg, 2010). Mann believed an educated child would benefit society as an educated employee able to positively produce (Fritzberg; Urban & Wagoner, 2009, p. 121). The caveat of the common school, a school where every child of the community could attend, was lack of funding (Fraser, p. 49 & p. 54). Within his annual report of 1846, Mann claimed property owners were gifted property by God; therefore, the treasures gained from property ownership should be shared with the community (Fraser, p. 49-50; Urban & Wagoner, p. 122). Community based taxes used toward common school support prevented children of all classes leading unproductive lives due to ignorance (Fraser, p. 54). To the laymen, Mann stated their educated children would not experience the divisions between workers and business owners (Urban & Wagoner, p. 123).

Mann’s view of the common school’s benefit toward all children and greater society was not supported by all. Reasons for lack of support were lack of control of schools at the local level, well qualified teachers who did not need prompting in professionalism, parents who did not want to be told how to educate their children in the ways of politics, morality, and religion, and concern that one model of teaching would eliminate individual school’s motivation to continually improve (Fraser, 2010, p. 63, 64, & 67 respectively).

Concerns are similar today as common core state standards (CCSS) are undergoing implementation. Some see CCSS as a method of funneling taxes toward education and assessment producers (Ujifusa & Molnar, 2013). Community members believe local standards are more rigorous than CCSS (Ujifusa & Molnar).

My beliefs lie toward support of CCSS. Our educational system is not equitable due to local levies providing more support to some districts while other districts do not win or do not propose levies to increase financial support at the local level. CCSS provide consistent documentable criteria to which teachers must teach and students must attain. Documentable success creates accountability to tax payers and may increase financial support. CCSS are a baseline upon which educators can choose to provide more rigor to students who need the challenge. In disagreement with Zimmermann in Ujifusa & Molnar, CCSS are standards, not curriculum. Standards do drive assessments, but I do not believe that assessments have to drive curriculum. One can take several journeys to reach the same destination. When considering standards my students need to reach, I need to plan creatively to meet students where they are at. The standards and assessments are maps, but I can still be creative. Considering the diversity among students, canned curriculums would defeat the purpose of all students ready for career or college. Every student will need something slightly different to achieve future autonomy and productivity toward our ever changing society.

Resources

Fraser, J. W. (2010). The School in the United States: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Fritzberg, G. (Producer). (2010, July 19). Contextualizing remarks-Common school era [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.screencast.com/t/YjRmZjYxNj

Ujifusa, A., & Molnar, M. (2013). Standards draw heat in states. Education Week, 32(20), 1-26,2.

Module 2: Republican Era

During the Republican Era, Jefferson, Rush, and Webster believed in a public education system for most of the population. Jefferson believed that a legitimate government was governed by an informed people (Fritzberg, 2010). Creating a system of varying levels of schooling based upon ability to pay and student achievement was within Jefferson’s plan (Fraser, 2010, p. 21-22). The first three years of schooling were to be free for all “free children, male and female,” (Fraser, p. 21). According to Jefferson, students were to learn reading, writing, math, Grecian, Roman, English, and American history. Study of the Bible came at an age when student were able to better discern the implications of good judgment learned through Bible study (Fraser, p. 24).

Benjamin Rush believed that girls should be educated in a slightly different manner than boys. Girls’ education should be succinct and focused as their purpose is to discharge duties needed to maintain husband’s property rights and handle parental responsibilities, including instructing sons in property management and maintenance in a father’s absence (Fraser, 2010, p. 26-28).

Much like Jefferson, Webster believed, “A good system of education should be the first article in the code of political regulations, for it is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system for preserving morals than to correct y penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system,” (Fraser, 2010 p. 33). At this point, Webster departs from Jefferson and puts down his own beliefs and supporting reasons. Webster believed students should not study abroad during impressionable teen years, but should travel within America so as to develop patriotism (Fraser, p. 37). Webster believed girls should be educated in what is useful for the “duties of her station,” (Fraser, p. 35).

Although Webster believed education provided a base of moral character, he did not believe the bible should be used as a text; as familiarity leads to indifference (Fraser, 2010, p. 31). Webster proposed use of books focusing upon geography and history of the United States (Fraser, p. 33). Books should be in consistent English, established through Webster’s The American Spelling Book. Webster wanted lay people to be able to focus on concepts rather than learning the concepts while deciphering a second language (Fraser, p. 30).

Although the aforementioned three men put forth foundational ideas toward a public education system, funding was an issue. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 mandated public support for school (Fraser, 2010, p. 41). The ordinance mandated Native Americans’ property rights be respected, “unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress,” (Fraser, p. 42). This statement gave me pause. Where were educated citizens to keep government in check when decision making of wars with Native Americans took place?

Resources

Fraser, J. W. (2010). The School in the United States: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Fritzberg, G. (Producer). (2010, July 11). Contextualizing remarks-Republican era [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.screencast.com/t/YmE0YjBmYTM.

Module 1: Colonial Era

Colonial schools were a small part of a child’s education. Education was expected from family, church, community, and apprenticeship (Fraser, 2010, p. 1). English education clashed with educational traditions of Native American and African American slave cultures (Fraser, p. 2). The English culture had power in the form of weaponry over the Native and African American cultures and was able to exert that power toward educating and attempting to override the educational traditions of the other cultures (Fraser, p. 2). Not all English wanted minority cultures educated. Some feared that literate slaves would be eligible for freedom (Fraser, p. 2). Others believed learning would lead to civil disorder (Fraser, p. 3).

Massachusetts established legislation requiring that the head of every household be responsible for every child within their household learning to read (Fraser, 2010, p. 3). Literacy was required so the community members all understood “the principles of religion and the capital laws of the country,” (Fraser, p. 3). Children were not required to attend school but there were schools established to act as contributors to a child’s education, if school was the right fit for the child (Fraser, p. 4).

In 1636 the Virginia Council of London instructed the Virginia governor to provide education to Native Americans for the purpose of conversion to Christianity (Fraser, 2010, p. 4). 1656 brought a mandate from the Virginia legislature that those with Native American children within their households must educate these children in “Christianity, civility, and the knowledge of necessary trades,” (Fraser, p. 5). 1711 brought relief to slave owners concerned about slaves’ eligibility for freedom when able to read (Fraser, p. 5). Even with the South Carolina statute on conversion of slaves to Christianity, education of any children was difficult due to distance to schools (Fraser, p. 5). Contributions toward educating all children were needed from communities (Fraser, p. 7). Communities wanted their children educated so they may be contributing citizens. Higher government officials wanted communities uneducated and easier to rule (Fraser, p. 8).

Resources

Fraser, J. W. (2010). The School in the United States: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.